As I write this, it is Easter Sunday in the Christian calendar. I was intrigued to read the ideas of Marshall Breger, professor of law at the Catholic University of America, reprinted in Utne Reader from Moment, an independent magazine of Jewish politics, culture, and religion, on statecraft, diplomacy and religion.
First I must cop to my own religious status. I would call myself an omnireligionist despite being an ordained minister with a doctorate in divinity. Translation: I don't really care what you believe, I care that you believe. I believe that belief is a deeply personal matter and that it's up to each soul to discover what works for her or him.
That said, Professor Breger's ideas about diplomacy and religion delighted me. His basic premise is that diplomacy, as practiced by the United States, takes our own ideas about separation of church and state into its own statecraft policies way too much. Just because our government rests on a foundation of the separation of church and state doesn't mean that the governments of other nations do. Nor does it mean they have to.
In the short form, U. S. diplomatic policy leaves religion out of the picture. Professor Breger posits that if the U. S. were to include religion, our diplomatic relations would have a far more vital effect on relationships with nations that treat religion inclusively along with their governance.
Shall we consider Iraq? I am far from expert on the facts of the war but even I have heard that the Iraqi people are split into differing religious factions. Shall we consider the recent riots in Tibet? The suppression of Tibetan "culture" by the Chinese has a certain religious bent to it. Tibet is the keeper of Tibetan Buddhist practice.
Why don't we include religion as a consideration in diplomacy? I think it's because we're afraid of it. I distinctly remember my mother telling me that religion was "just one of those topics that is not discussed in polite company." It was considered a taboo subject. So, of course, I have spent much of my fifty years discussing religion with everyone I can find!
The actual word religion comes from Latin roots which mean to re-link. See our English word root for ligament in there? Ligaments link muscle to bone, the ability to move with our own foundational structure. That's what religion is supposed to do. Relink us. With our understanding of Deity, and with one another.
To the U. S. Diplomatic Corp., I issue this challenging suggestion: Consider the uses of religion as a re-linking factor, and add it into the diplomatic mix! Use religion for the purposes of peace, Ambassadors and Ambassadresses, and let peace link us all back together.
First I must cop to my own religious status. I would call myself an omnireligionist despite being an ordained minister with a doctorate in divinity. Translation: I don't really care what you believe, I care that you believe. I believe that belief is a deeply personal matter and that it's up to each soul to discover what works for her or him.
That said, Professor Breger's ideas about diplomacy and religion delighted me. His basic premise is that diplomacy, as practiced by the United States, takes our own ideas about separation of church and state into its own statecraft policies way too much. Just because our government rests on a foundation of the separation of church and state doesn't mean that the governments of other nations do. Nor does it mean they have to.
In the short form, U. S. diplomatic policy leaves religion out of the picture. Professor Breger posits that if the U. S. were to include religion, our diplomatic relations would have a far more vital effect on relationships with nations that treat religion inclusively along with their governance.
Shall we consider Iraq? I am far from expert on the facts of the war but even I have heard that the Iraqi people are split into differing religious factions. Shall we consider the recent riots in Tibet? The suppression of Tibetan "culture" by the Chinese has a certain religious bent to it. Tibet is the keeper of Tibetan Buddhist practice.
Why don't we include religion as a consideration in diplomacy? I think it's because we're afraid of it. I distinctly remember my mother telling me that religion was "just one of those topics that is not discussed in polite company." It was considered a taboo subject. So, of course, I have spent much of my fifty years discussing religion with everyone I can find!
The actual word religion comes from Latin roots which mean to re-link. See our English word root for ligament in there? Ligaments link muscle to bone, the ability to move with our own foundational structure. That's what religion is supposed to do. Relink us. With our understanding of Deity, and with one another.
To the U. S. Diplomatic Corp., I issue this challenging suggestion: Consider the uses of religion as a re-linking factor, and add it into the diplomatic mix! Use religion for the purposes of peace, Ambassadors and Ambassadresses, and let peace link us all back together.