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.

The Prosperity Gospel Debunked

One of the staples of religious television is the prosperity gospel preacher. He or she may come in different guises, but there are two things, at least, in common with all of them. They all flaunt a conspicuous consumerism - expensive clothes and jewelry drip from them - and they all proclaim that God is just waiting to shower you with the same. From my perspective, they all are just hoping that ypou and I will buy into their message and send them money so that they can continue in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

From a story in the Mobile Press-Register written by Roy Hoffman comes a debunking of such belief. Karen Spears Zacharias has written a book entitled, Will Jesus Buy Me a Double-Wide?

Ms. Zacharias is a woman of "deep faith and strong conviction" according to the article. But, she has little good to say about these purveyors of the "get rich now from God" philosophy. Quoting from the article:

"The folksy Osteen," she writes in her book, "comes across as harmless but the gospel he's selling isn't. The wounded in this world are dying and despairing by the thousands while prosperity preachers are offering up home-brewed remedies of Entitlement theology. These charlatans are selling salve to the sick when salvation is what people really need to fix what's ailing them."

She also takes issue with interpretations of Bruce Wilkinson's monumental bestseller, "The Prayer of Jabez," that prayer being, in part: "Oh, that you would bless me, indeed, and enlarge my territory."

The "increase in territory," Zacharias says, is about the spiritual presence in one's heart, not financial domain.

These preachers tap into the same human need and hope that those who write about the laws of attraction in the universe by which a person can alter reality in order to attain wealth. Instead of praying, these other folks suggest that all one need is the power of positive thinking, which, come to think of it, is like most folks prayers.

I, obviously, disagree with the theological approach of these prosperity peddlers. I would not bother disagreeing with them were it not for the folks who jeopardize their families and themselves by sending them money or by acting on the promises made. There are some who suggest that a portion of the mortagage crisis was created by people acting on the belief that God wanted them to have a bigger house than they could afford. I would wish that these ministers who have made a great living from the contributions of folks who could ill afford to give would give away their fortunes and provide real help to the poor and struggling.

What do you think?

If you meet the Messiah on the Road . . .

There is a Buddhist proverb that goes, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." This harsh statement points out the truth that one who really is the Buddha would not make such claims for himself. There is not a comparable statement that I know of in any other religion, but I am certain the sentiment held by adherents in other religions would be similar. No true Messiah would so announce herself or himself to the world.

But, what do you do if you are not making that claim for yourself, but others are saying it about you? Such is the fate for a man named Raj Patel. In a February 5 story in the NY Times, Scott James tells the strange tale of what Mr. Patel's life has become. Writes Mr. Scott, "A native of London now living on Potrero Hill in San Francisco, Mr. Patel suddenly finds himself an unlikely object of worship, proclaimed the messiah Maitreya by followers of the New Age religious sect Share International."

It seems that Benjamin Creme, the leader of Share International prophesied on January 14 that the Maitreya had come. Mr. Creme did not name a name, but gave clues such as: born in India in 1972, travelled to London in 1977, dark-skinned, and a stutterer. All of this hit as Mr. Patel was making the rounds of the media outlets publicising his new book. With the details of his life available to anyone with a computer and the ability to use google, the faithful followers of Share International soon found that Mr. Patel fit all of the criteria defined by Mr. Creme.

The flood of e-mails from the faithful asking "Are you the One?" soon caused Mr. Patel to try to keep his personal contact information private. Unfortunately that has not deterred the true believers. Even Mr. Patel's denials that he is the Maitreya have worked against him, for, of course, the real Maitreya will not confirm that he is the real Maitreya.

Mr. Scott's story ends with this observation: “It’s incredibly flattering, just for an instant,” Mr. Patel said of his unwanted status. “And then you realize what it means. People are looking for better times. Almost anything now will qualify as a portent of different times.”

How would you respond to such claims made about you? What do you think this phenomenon says about the world?