Understanding other religions is a smart approach

Q: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is recommending that the U.S. government develop a strategy to make religion 'integral' to American foreign policy. Should U.S. foreign policy get religion?

The short answer is yes, if the question refers to whether or not U.S. foreign policy makers should have an understanding of the religious cultures of the people and countries with which they deal and interact. In the U.S. and in Europe, there has been an attempt to remove outward religious influences on the government. In varying degrees, this effort has been successful. For most of the rest of the world, the secularization process has not occurred as much, and the religious beliefs and practices of many people in the world remain important and integral in their lives and in their governments. We cannot pretend this situation does not exist, nor can we wish it away with our claims to the superiority of secularism.

This being the case, it would obviously be a positive move for our foreign policy makers to gain a deeper understanding of other belief traditions in the world. Awareness of and sensitivity to basic religious tenets should be integral to American diplomacy. Ever since 9/11, there has been an increased sensitivity on the part of our government, and of many people within the country, toward Muslims and their beliefs. Nowadays when female representatives of our government visit Muslim dominated lands, they typically dress in ways that take into consideration cultural norms and religious restrictions. Is this wrong? Not necessarily. It is simply being respectful of the cultures of those countries. This does not mean, nor should it, that our government officials need to adopt those country's values and ways, but only that we can be respectful of them when in those lands.

Unfortunately, in the specific case of Islam, this apparent respect has often been done out of fear that violence will result from any offense. At the same time, our government has tended to ignore the religious and cultural values of those who are not seen as threatening. We should try to better understand and respect everyone, not out of fear, but out of a desire to be respectful. We cannot expect respect if we are not ready to give it. In Hawai'i, for example, it is traditional and still quite common that you take off your shoes before entering someone's home, especially if you see a shoe rack at their front door. This is simply done out of respect for the cultural and, in some cases, religious norms of the people you are visiting.

As for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, it may have good intentions, but it and its report fall far short of the mark in truly expanding our awareness of religion in the world. The Council sees itself as diverse, yet that diversity omits representatives of any religion but the three Western traditions. While it is clear that Islam and Judaism are at the center of much of the foreign policy problems that the U.S. faces, does this mean the other traditions should be ignored? India is the world's largest democracy and the birthplace of the religions most known for spreading messages of peace and non-violence. Our government is so focused on and supportive of Pakistan that the latter's attacks on its India, as well as on the Hindus and Sikhs within its own borders, are almost ignored in the process.

A similar bias is obvious in the Council's report as well. For example, the only religion for which the term "violent" is used as an adjective is Hinduism. Although, the word is also found in reference to some elements in Islam, such as al-Qaeda, there is an accompanying disclaimer assuring readers that most Muslims are peace loving. In discussing Hindus, no such disclaimer is included. Throughout the entire piece, one is lead to the impression that Muslim violence is a perversion of the tradition, while Hindu violence is a part of the tradition. Is such an inverted depiction another result of fear or simply the religious prejudices of the Council members?

If our foreign policy makers follow the myopic approach of the Council, they will do little to improve our understanding of the world's religious traditions. More likely, they will simply seek to placate fundamentalist Muslims. The result of such an approach is to maximize the power of the more radical elements in Islam while the voices of moderation within the tradition are barely heard or heeded. American diplomacy needs a deeper understanding and respect for people's beliefs, but this should apply to all religions, so that a common ground can be found from which to communicate with each other. When one actually studies the religions of the world, it becomes obvious that fundamentalism and/or narrow mindedness can be found in every religious tradition, but so can worthwhile values and beliefs. The more American policy makers seek to use the latter as focal points for their diplomatic efforts, the more truly successful they will be.

By Ramdas Lamb  |  February 25, 2010; 4:45 AM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Why no Hindu or Buddhist representation? | Next: U.S. foreign policy: mission, message, means

Posted by: paarsurrey | March 3, 2010 9:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: reformuscirf | February 26, 2010 9:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: eremite | February 26, 2010 3:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: tarle_subba | February 25, 2010 7:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Navin1 | February 25, 2010 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.