Should U.S. Foreign Policy Get Religion

Should U.S. Foreign Policy Get Religion

www.thecubenews.com

WASHINGTON — A God gap impedes U.S. foreign policy.
Religion has benefited from and been transformed by globalization, but it also has become a primary means of organizing opposition to it.

But we believe that if the highest ethics of religion are mixed with politics rooted in justice, the combination can be positively powerful and extremely effective.

Ignoring religion will doom peace initiatives
the recommendation of this report that the U.S. government incorporate people with a deep k

(visit the link for the full news article)

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

Wow, never thought of it like that
God is our side is somethign I used to just laugh at
But I never thought that it insiunated that the devil is on the other side.
Interesting!!!

If we satisfy powerful religious leaders or factions, then we may ignore human rights

Very good point, I completely agree!

All in all, I'm kind of on the fence with this one!
I very strongly believe that politics and religion shouldn't mix, hell I even think that religion and reality shouldn't mix, but we are in a different political/religious climate and perhaps it's needed!
OR, doing so will just worsen the tense political/religious climate.

Thoughts ATS?

www.thecubenews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Interesting read. Actually, let me correct that. A very interesting read.

The biggest problem I saw was the focus on placating religions instead of focusing on the commonalities of what people want.

Do I believe our foreign diplomats should meet with religious leaders of major factions? Heck ya. I think this can go a long way towards helping establish peace. Do I think 1 religion is better then another? Not in the slightest. They all have equal weight.

The problem definitely comes down to bias. If bias is perceived, then no resolution would every be fully satisfying to the people involved.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I believe that to discount religion in our dealings with others is a great error. Many countries hold their religion as a great value and use their religious principals to set policy.

The US govt needs to at least understand other countries religious beliefs in order to better communicate with them and understand where they are coming from.

I have great problems with this statement in the article:

American exceptionalism makes us a role model for the world, and we can judge other countries and cultures on the extent to which they adopt our values.

It reeks of a dogmatism that the American way is the ONLY way and shows American intolerance for diversity of ideas. It sets up Americanism as a religion of the state.

I am not on the fence on this, and here is why. The entire so called "war on terror" is at it's heart a religious war (yes, oil, conquest, etc) but to Bush he was God's chosen and there was even a republican add during the election which stated that Bush had heard God's command to destroy Hussein and thus he did. Some of the most dangerous (to human kind) people in the Middle East are the fundamentalists and I believe the exact same thing can be said here as well. Religion does NOT give you morals, in fact religion is one of the few things that can make a "good" person do absolutely despicable things to their fellow man.

From Glen Greenwald's discussion on this very topic in "A Tragic Legacy":
" . . the idea of being a Manichean comes from this third century BC philosophy that – or religion really, that basically understood the world, [as] a never-ending battle between the forces of pure good and the forces of pure evil. And all human events could be understood . . . through that prism.

[Manichaeism is] a very simplistic idea that even early Christianity rejected as not appreciating the complexities of how the world actually is and the ambiguities, the moral ambiguities that characterize who most of us are in most situations. George Bush views the world and his followers viewed the world through this lens of pure good versus pure evil.

And it’s not me saying that. He said that in virtually all of his speeches. And when you see the world that way what it means is that if you’re on the side of pure good, as he asserted that he was and we are, it means that anything that you do, no matter how limitless, no matter how brutal and immoral, is inherently justifiable because it’s being enlisted for service of the good.

And by contrast, anything that you do to those on the other side is inherently justified as well because they’re pure evil. And from the war in Iraq to the torture camps and secret prisons that we set up all of the things that have done so much damage, I think that’s the mentality that lies at the heart of it."
wallwritings.wordpress.com...

Religion supports clan thinking, outdated morality, and a very simplistic world view that does nothing to aid in the understanding of the complexity of international relations. One can so easily say "God is on my side" (when if he not?) and thus what I am doing is right, no matter what it is. This is a very dangerous path, and one I believe could literally destroy civilization in a nuclear world. Morality and ethics are certainly necessary in foreign relations as they are in all things, religion? Not so much...

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

Wow, never thought of it like that
God is our side is something I used to just laugh at
But I never thought that it insinuated that the devil is on the other side.
Interesting!!!

You must be kidding!? You never thought about this? Its so blatant obvious into America foreign policy for looooooong time. Ask anyone from any another country if they knew about that "America : we are good, you are evil mentality"

reply to post by FortAnthem


Just wanted to point this out in case you missed it.

The part of the article that you referenced is under this heading

"We should start first by looking at what hasn't worked, and then don't repeat it. This includes, but is not limited to, the following assumptions:"

(Bold mine)



The person who wrote that opinion agrees with you, that we shouldn't be thinking that way.