Foreign policy + religion = recipe for disaster

As a sophomore undergraduate student in Physics, your homework in Probability and Statistics class may include figuring out when the second coming would be required, assuming that the bible was 100% true in the year zero. That is, when would the bible be down to 50% true? The popular and professors' answer in 1965 was the year 500. The true answer: A friend of mine was born and raised in Budapest, Hungary. As an adult, he came here and stayed. After 25 years, he visited his home town of Budapest. He was unable to communicate with his high school classmates because the Hungarian language had changed so much. The correct answer is less than 25 years. The first gospel was not written down until 50 years after the alleged events and then in a different language. The people who told the story were at about the same level of civilization as "wild Indians", I mean Native Americans before Columbus got here. We have all played or seen played the game called "Telephone" in which a story is passed down a line of re-tellers. By the Sixth re-telling, the story has no resemblance to the original. The gospel story had to have been re-told at least 6 times before it was mis-translated the first time. [Note that whoever wrote it down the first time was free to write whatever he wanted to. The storytellers were illiterate and unable to check his written text by reading it. Besides that, he wrote in Greek rather than Aramaic.] Conclusion: There is no truth anywhere in the bible, and there never was. There is no way to know what "jesus" or "mohammed" or any other such character actually said or did.

ALL of the jurisdictions that were formerly in the jurisdiction of religion have been taken over by Science. There is no longer a need to debate the issue. Religion is an unfortunate side effect of having evolved from a chimpanzee-like animal in a very brief 6 or 7 million years. "God" will not save us from the consequences of global warming or an asteroid impact or a tornado because there is no such critter as "god.". Ethics and morality are instinctive, not derived from religion. Female instinct has greater force in morality than male instinct because the female is in command of the sexual encounter. Look up "Sociobiology". The origin of the Universe is the subject of Cosmology which is part of astronomy which is part of the science of physics.
Religion is a SCAM. ANY religion, there are 10,000 to choose from at any one time. People keep inventing new religions [for the benefit of the "prophet," of course] and forgetting other religions. ALL preachers, priests, imams, rabbis, iatolas, etc. belong in jail for "grand theft, bunko type".

RL Holloway,

compchiro wrote:

"Are you putting forth the notion that secularism is not a religion?"

Secularism is not a religion.

"Secularism would still be a religion yet with "man" at the top instead of God. "

Secularism is not the notion of man at top. Secularism is the notion that religion or deity has no standing in the running of a country or its laws. There are many secularists who personally belive in religions and deities.

"A purely secular state will never exist from your view of religion because a secular state would replace religion, therefore in itself become the religion."

That is not true. A truly secular state does exist (at least many try to exist, inclusing the USA) because they recognize that although their ciitzens may adhere to various religions, the state itself does not. A truly secular state does not require that its citizens effectively worship the state and its leader (as the USSR and China did, and how North Korea still does to this day, as they were never secular states.)

"Removing religion from diplomacy will not make it easier. I believe it will only make it harder because the true worldviews of each country/person will be masked by a veil of secularism.
Their underlying worldview will still be there with their presuppositions about religions now it is not even being put into the open for discussion. Without true and open communication how can effective diplomacy ever take place?

As I stated, a recognition of how (and even , if possible, why) religion effects and is interwined in a nation's culture and (if applicable its government) IS necessary, and I never said that it is not. And respecting those religions is essential. But having religion as a guiding or foundational part of US diplomacy is a clear and absolute violation of the Establishment clause as well as being inappropriate and horribly destructive. It is one thing to understand religion. It is quite another (and ill-advised thing) to base one's diplomacy on it.

"Whether you would like to accept it or not, Christ did die for everyone and that includes you?"

That is religious belief not fact. I do not accept it because it is false. No body NEEDS him. They may WANT him but he is not needed or universal.

compchiro wrote:

"Actually both the USSR and China only CLAIMED to be secular. Since they demanded effective worship of the state and its leaders (Stalin and Mao had almost supernatural powers attributed to them) they created new religions. What they removed were the OLD established religions. Big difference. The notion that they were truly secular states is false. The reason the millions were murdered was because their old religious beliefs interfered with the USSR and China's NEW religion."

Are you putting forth the notion that secularism is not a religion? Secularism would still be a religion yet with "man" at the top instead of God. A purely secular state will never exist from your view of religion because a secular state would replace religion, therefore in itself become the religion.

"Jesus is not universally NEEDED or useful, just as the notion of salvation (or even the notion of deities) is not a universal need. "

Whether you would like to accept it or not, Christ did die for everyone and that includes you? He is universally needed by every person that has ever lived or will live, yet He is not universally accepted. That is a personal decision that you alone can make.

Removing religion from diplomacy will not make it easier. I believe it will only make it harder because the true worldviews of each country/person will be masked by a veil of secularism. Their underlying worldview will still be there with their presuppositions about religions now it is not even being put into the open for discussion. Without true and open communication how can effective diplomacy ever take place?

Reposted, both combined and with typos fixed.

"We can see how successful governments are when they remove all vestiges of religion by looking at what happened in the USSR and even China. Millions were killed in the name of the secular state because they were deemed dangerous because of their religion."

Actually both the USSR and China only CLAIMED to be secular. Since they demanded effective worship of the state and its leaders (Stalin and Mao had almost supernatural powers attributed to them) they created new religions. What they removed were the OLD established religions. Big difference. The notion that they were truly secular states is false. The reason the millions were murdered was because their old religious beliefs interfered with the USSR and China's NEW religion.

In your other post you stated:

"The statement that all religions are good are words that are very deceptive."

Actually what Silverman was saying was that when religion interferes with diplomacy and governing that the exact opposite always happens (that things get messed up and horrors ensue).

"Religion will never save anyone, only a relationship with Christ."

That is your opinion. I would argue that for some people a perceived or imagined relationship with Jesus (since he never did anything to deserve the TITLE of Christ) may help them IF they feel a need for salvation, but that that is purely in the person's mind (meaning that it may have meaning for THEM alone.)

Jesus is not universally NEEDED or useful, just as the notion of salvation (or even the notion of deities) is not a universal need.

But more to the point, YOUR comment actually supports Silverman's valid assertion that invariably religious or theological belief entails this mistaken notion that one person's god/deity/savior is more valid than those of others (when in fact they are only valid or important to those who choose to believe in them.)

On a more direct note, I would argue (and I think that Silverman agrees with this) that an UNDERSTANDING of the regional religions and their influence on both the local/national population and government is essential to effective diplomacy.

That is not to say that our policies or governance should ever be based on religion (which they should not be based on), but that understanding the fact that religion holds great sway over many people, and that their believing in whatever religion they choose to follow (or are forced to follow) will effect how they behave.

The simple fact is that ALL relgions/deities are equally valid/invalid, important/unimportant, useful/useless, depending on the viewpoint of the person being talked to.

It is recognising that ALL religions inspire both beneficial and detrimental things in their adherents, and how to work with those people that is critical.

On a more direct note, I would aruge (and I think that Silverman agrees with this) that an UNDERSTANDING of the regional religions and their influence on both the local/national population and goverment is essential to effective diplomacy.

That is not to say that our policies or governance should ever be based on religion (which is shold not), but that understanding the fact that relgion holds great sway over many people, and that their believing in whatever religion they choose/are forced to follow will effect how they behave.

The simple fact is that ALL relgions/deities are equally valid/invalid, important/unimportant, useful/useless, depending on the viewpoint of the person being talked to.

It is recognising that ALL religions inspire both beneficial and detrimental things in their adherents, and how to work with those people that is critical.

"We can see how successful governments are when they remove all vestiges of religion by looking at what happened in the USSR and even China. Millions were killed in the name of the secular state because they were deemed dangerous because of their religion."

Actually both the USSR and China opnly CLAIMED to be secular. Since they demanded effective worship fo the stae and its leaders (Stalin and Mao had almost supernatural powers attributed to them) they created new religions. What they removed were the OLD established religions. Big difference. The notion that the were truly secular states is false. The reason the millions were murdered was because their old religious beliefs interfered with the USSR and China's NEW religion.

In your other post you stated:

"The statement that all religions are good are words that are very deceptive."

Actually what Silverman was saying was that when religion interferes with diplomacy and governing that the exact opposite always happens.

"Religion will never save anyone, only a relationship with Christ."

That is your opinion. I would argue that a relationship with Jesus (since he never did anything to deserve the TITLE of Christ) may help someone who feels a need for salvation but that that is purely in the person's mind. Jesus is not universally NEEDED or useful, just as the notionof salvation is not a uinversal need. But more to the point, YOUR comment actually supports Silverman's valid assertion that invariably religious or theological belief entails this mistaken nottion that one person's god/deity/savior is more valid than those of others (when in fact they are only valid or important to those who choose to believe in them.)

he current Federal policy of involving religion in foreign policy is guided by IRFA 1998 law and USCIRF report. It is fraught with conflict of interest and many other problems.

There is a quite a difference between theory (i.e. IRFA 1998 law) and practice (i.e. USCIRF).

In theory, All USCIRF report must comply with IRFA 1998 but reality is some what different.

In theory, Religion in foreign policy would serve national interest. However, In practice, What would stop it from serving religious interest and harming national interest?

Both "chicago council" and USCIRF are misrepresenting and painting negative portrait of Hinduity.

Visit: www.uscirf.blogspot.com for details.

This is Orwellian. It is incomprehensible.

The Seiples of IGE "were concerned that religious freedom was something everyone talked about but no one really knew how to operationalize, and that Christians were too often part of the problem."

Their journal, The Review of Faith and International Affairs has the following articles posted on the front page of their website:
"Cashing in on Religion’s Currency?: Ethical Challenges for a Post-secular Military"
"Ready … or Not?: Equipping the U.S. Military Chaplain for Inter-Religious Liaison"
"Agents of Peace in Theaters of War: Rethinking the Role of Military Chaplains"
"An Overview of the U.S. Military Chaplaincy: A Ministry of Presence and Practice"

Wonderful, a Cristian-military think-tank.

"The truth is the academy has been run by secular fundamentalists for a long time, people who believe religion is not a legitimate component of realpolitik."

So the military academies are not only taking over realpolitik but integrating religion into it.

"The Chicago Council's task force was led by R. Scott Appleby of the University of Notre Dame and Richard Cizik of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. "Religion," the task force says, "is pivotal to the fate" of such nations as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and Yemen, all vital to U.S. national and global security."

There are those nations again.

"To end the "episodic and uncoordinated nature of U.S. engagement of religion in the world," the task force recommended:

Address and clarify the role of religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy. Cizik said some parts of the world -- the Middle East, China, Russia and India, for example -- are particularly sensitive to the U.S. government's emphasis on religious freedom and see it as a form of imperialism."

And this bit of newspeak means that those peoples opposed to America's "religious freedom" because they know that it's really pushing Christianity or Empire will be further propagandized but also that the American public will be told that foreign Christian outreach is the promotion of religious freedom.

This is the militarization of religion.

European history is the story of brutal and horrible religious strife and conflict.

Why go down that road again?

Although I generally like HS posts, this one is disappointing. Governance is about doing. Not doing is law and second guessing. We do need to lie, we do need to kill, ...

It is far too easy to say what won't work, far harder to say what will.

hariaum

Prettydragonfly wrote:

No, RLHolloway, you've missed the whole point. Mr. Silverman is listing the things we should NOT be doing. He is saying that NO gods should be a part of the conversation between governments in any way shape or form! You're self-righteous attitude is precisely what will cause continued conflict with our fellow humans.

I do understand what he wrote. We just fundamentally disagree. If you remove religion for the conversation you are not truthfully speaking. Religion is an important part of many peoples lives. We can see how successful governments are when they remove all vestiges of religion by looking at what happened in the USSR and even China. Millions were killed in the name of the secular state because they were deemed dangerous because of their religion. Removing religion from the conversation does not make it go away. I also find it comical that you would place a label of "self-righteous" on me. I do not have any "self-righteousness" because I am a mere human full of mistakes and errs. By the grace of God through the Lord Jesus Christ my sins have been forgiven. There was nothing I could have done to earn it and I do not merit it either. I am sorry if looking to God for strength and salvation makes me a "self-righteous" person in your eyes that is not my intented.

There is breaking news from the Washington Post’s ‘On Faith’ section. Religious people think we need more religion in our foreign policy. This week they ask: Should U.S. foreign policy “get” religion?

There is little doubt that we live in a world ravaged by religious mythologies. Almost ever part of the globe features a religious conflict of some sort in which two or more religions are either on the brink of war or in open conflict with each other. Then there are the moral concerns within particular religions such as the Muslim oppression of women, the Hindu cast system, and the Catholic war on contraception. The list goes on quite a bit.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m2d24-Should-religion-have-a-role-be-in-US-foreign-affairs

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

From the Chicago Council on Global Affairs IRS Form 990:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2008/362/181/2008-362181969-04c66f22-9.pdf

Investment holdings in publicly-traded securities, 2007-2008 tax period, $6, 145, 612. Dividends and interest from these investment for the same period, $705,970. Again, non-profit organizations pay no federal taxes on dividends, interest or capital gains. With such large investment holdings, are many non-profits simply a way to beat the system by the directors of these groups?

Director Josephine Heindel’s salary, (in round figures) is $184,000 including savings plans. VP of Finance, Robert Cordes’ salary is $159,000 to include savings plans. Three other directors each make in the range of $140,000/year.

By the way, Michelle Obama was previously a director of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Council_on_Global_Affairs

The Form 990 does not list what the task force members of the CCOGA are paid. Maybe Eboo Patel and/or Katherine Marshall, task force members for the topic document and On Faith panel members will tell us?

Foreign Policy ... is there not a proposed Domestic Policy that is anathema to those who cherish freedom from an intrusive government: an obligatory sonogram and prescribed waiting period for those that decide to end a pregnancy? Mr. Holloway has declared that only recognizing Christ as the Messiah will save the 6.8 billion people that are strutting and fretting their hours upon this planet with a surface area of 510 million square kilometers. Perhaps he needs a spiritual songram with accompanying medications to help him extirpate his and his legions of Armageddonists of their delusional false hopes? Should we drop evangelical tracts from drones over the palaces and redoubts of all the tyrants as part of our enlightened FOREIGN to be read as strangeness Policy? Pray-tell!

Herb, I thought for sure you would mention the evangelical Christian Americans getting involved in African nations' anti-homosexual policies. In particular, there is a bill pending in Uganda that states if you are caught engaging in a consensual adult but homosexual act you can legally be imprisoned or put to death. Shouldn't the world human rights groups be more outraged? Might this be what some American right-wing conservative Christians really want but can't fully express here in their home country? How frightening. Thanks for alerting us to this potential disaster - once again, a reminder of the importance of separating religion and politics.

No, RLHolloway, you've missed the whole point. Mr. Silverman is listing the things we should NOT be doing. He is saying that NO gods should be a part of the conversation between governments in any way shape or form! You're self-righteous attitude is precisely what will cause continued conflict with our fellow humans.

Right on Mr. Silverman. Keep the church in church and out of our military and government functions. What a horrible thought that we would introduce the divisiveness, hate, intolerance into our military mission that we have witnessed in so many failed militaries throughout the world. Let them emulate us for our success in the past as a secular nation with religious freedom. As religious organizations in our nation have advanced their agendas our nation has decreased it's ability to progress and maintain our liberties.

That a person or group would propose making religion integral to any country's foriegn policy scares me. Until all governments separate church and state, there will always be wars, and personal freedom will be at jeopardy.

A 1796 treaty between the United States and the Barbary pirates of Algeria stated, “The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. It has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (aka, Muslims).”

Good policy then; good policy now.

Mr. Silverman makes a comment that I thinks misses the whole point "1. God is on our side, which means Satan is on the other side. This turns the engagement into a binary and simplistic battle between good and evil, with no room for compromise or negotiation."

Is God on our side? The better way to look at it would be are we on God's side. If there is a battle between good and evil any compromise with evil will only enable it to advance further. Evil should never be compromised with. Religion is a vital aspect of many people's lives in the US and around the world. To ignore this will not accomplish the goals set forth of establishing solid relationships with other countries.

The statement that all religions are good are words that are very deceptive. Religion will never save anyone, only a relationship with Christ. A foreign policy that believes that all religions are good will only cause us to empower horrible leaders from other countries that use religion to control the citizens.

The worst thing that we could possibly do in foreign policy is to attach any type of discussion of religion to it and I will be keeping my eyes on the Chicago Council on Global Affairs!

Professor Silverman's Top 10 Foreign Policy Don'ts should be on the wall of every Dept. of State office.

Foreign policy based on religion is a recipe for disaster. Religion is divisive, and can do little good in constructing a sound foreign policy, which by definition means dealing with diverse cultures.