Please, no religion in foreign policy formation

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?

Should United States foreign policy get religion? Short answer: No. I can think of nothing more potentially damaging than allowing religion to be a part of shaping foreign policy. We are already strained and divided by political ideology, so much so that precious little work on behalf of the people is getting done.

If we add religious ideology to the mix, there is no limit to the chaos that would result.

It is important to be respectful of the importance of religion in the cultures with which we work. To not respect the religion of others is to disrespect others. In that sense, recognizing religion and its role in the lives of others is common sense; to not recognize it is disrespectful and could be a barrier to the open communication needed for effective relationships, so needed for effective and productive foreign policy.

One of the most common ways we in this country disrespect the religion of others can be seen every time, or almost every time a Christian offers an invocation or benediction at some public event.

In spite of the fact that in the audience there are Jews and Hindi and Muslims and others, many Christian clerics insist upon praying "in the name of Jesus."

It is blatant disrespect and disregard of the fact that everybody is not Christian.

But if I am understanding the question correctly, "getting religion" means more than mere respect of another's culture and beliefs. It means allowing religion to help shape foreign policy, to let clerics lead the way, in some instances, and that, to me, would be catastrophic.

I am unsophisticated in matters of foreign policy, but it seems that religion, and the clashing of religious beliefs and ideology, is at the heart of the trouble in the Middle East. Religion also seems to be at the heart of the conflict in Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan.

The clerics seem to be the behind the scenes puppeteers, and are instrumental in shaping those countries' domestic policies. Because the clerics on both sides feel their positions are sanctioned by God, there is little room for compromise, which is an absolute "must" in shaping foreign policy.

In our own country, religious types helped advise our fledgling government on the rightness of slavery. When one is told by one supposedly touched and led by God, one is more likely to be stubborn and unyielding when it comes to shaping a new policy.

Once religion is in the mix of shaping foreign policy, in other words, a situation which is already stymied by political ideologues who refuse to budge is now buttressed by yet another layer of ideology, this one religious. The government becomes a pawn of religious leaders trying to prove that God is on their side.

America has been guilty of being arrogant and disregarding that other cultures not only exist but have validity. We have as a nation kind of imposed our Western beliefs on everyone with whom we have worked.

But as globalization continues, and as we come face to face with nations which are not willing to be ignored, our arrogance has to take a back seat and respect has to move front and center.

Respect each other we must do; get to know each other so that the respect can be genuine, we must do. But bring religion into foreign policy decisions?

Please, no

By Susan K. Smith  |  February 24, 2010; 4:36 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: God the punisher of children? | Next: Why no Hindu or Buddhist representation?

Posted by: reformuscirf | February 26, 2010 9:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.