US Foreign Policy and Religion

In a story from the Washington Post [link at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022605309_pf.html] comes a report from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that recommends President Obama and the National Security Council should make religion "an integral part of our foreign policy."

The reasons for the recommendation are:
-- The influence of religious groups -- some with long-established and others with newly won voices -- is growing in many areas of the world and affects all sectors of society, from politics and culture to business and science.
-- Changing patterns of religious identification in the world are having significant political implications.
-- Religion has benefited from and been transformed by globalization, but it also has become a primary means of organizing opposition to it.
-- Religion is playing an important public role where governments lack capacity and legitimacy in periods of economic and political stress.
-- Religion is often used by extremists as a catalyst for conflict and a means of escalating tensions with other religious communities.
-- The growing prominence of religion today is deepening the political significance of religious freedom as a universal human right and a source of social and political stability.

In a point-counterpoint- counter-counterpoint approach, an advocate for implementing the recommendation writes that: Only by reaching people at their core religious values can diplomacy build coalitions that will produce a sustained peace. Any agreement must be built from the ground up by engaging religious organizations to provide a broad base of support and to promote reconciliation.

An advocate for not implementing the policy writes: When any country's foreign policy gets religion, disaster usually follows. What U.S. foreign policy should get is secular. This involves learning more about the religious and cultural beliefs of people in countries where we are engaged so we can more effectively communicate with them, determining what changes are both beneficial and doable and at what cost, and developing rational strategies to accomplish a mission.

Finally, an advocate for proceeding cautiously writes: Recognizing the power of religion in the world is the better part of wisdom for anyone working on international concerns. Thinking that any government, especially ours, can and/or should use religion as a foreign affairs strategy is a prelude to disaster. The foundational principle of religious liberty merits our government's strong support abroad as well as at home even if other governments fail to appreciate or duplicate a similar commitment.

Let me encourage you to read the full article and think about what position you would take. Then, consider sharing that in a comment here and with an e-mail to the White House.