The Holy Father Should Apologize. Muslims Should Refrain from Protest

By Frank Kaufmann

The problem arising from Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg speech is deeply serious, perhaps far more than people grasp on the face of what we know through the news.

The present situation is this:

1. The academic address of The Holy Father Benedict XVI to the faculty at his alma mater in Regensburg is tragic beyond measure. It represents an unconscionable provocation of religious tensions in a world already blistering under the scourge of religious division.
1. Muslim rage against this speech is intuitive, technically misdirected, and self-defeating.
   
2. The non-apology of the Holy Father is ill-advised and makes matters worse.
   

While begging for calm in all quarters of the Muslim world, this writer stands firmly on the side of those who condemn the remarks of the Pontiff, and with even greater ire decry the folly behind deciding to issue a condescending non-apology ("''The Holy Father is extremely sorry that certain passages of his speech appeared offensive to Muslim believers and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond in any way to his intentions''." An apology goes like this: “I am sorry for what I said. I should not have done that and I will not do that again.” An apology is NOT “I am sorry that you do not know how to read.”).

A Misunderstanding?

The Vatican itself, as well as a number of careful readers, most notably Melanie McDonagh of the London Daily Telegraph recommend that Muslims have misinterpreted the remarks of HH Benedict XVI. The non-apology of His Holiness also implies that he has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, his remarks taken out of context. This is true but irrelevant.

Why irrelevant?

1. In the current world environment there is absolutely NO valid reason for ''any'' public person to introduce so repulsive a quote about ''any'' world religion, other than to use the quote as an example of something abhorrent and unconscionable as a point of view. His Holiness does no such thing. There is nothing in the Regensburg speech that causes us to disdain Emperor Paleologus. If anything the Emperor is shaded toward admirable by references to his intellectual acuity and even scriptural knowledge of a tradition not his own. His Holiness fails perfectly to distance himself from the speaker of so horrible a viewpoint. Why on earth would the Holy Father allow these sentences even fall from his lips other than to express utter disdain for every word in such an utterance?
2. The Holy Father is utterly without excuse for many reasons
1. This is a prepared text, and further one written in German, delivered in German, by a German in Germany.
2. He is the single most authoritative religious figure in human history. NO other tradition is unified under a so rock-hard heirarchy concluding with a single soul at its pinnacle. To give you an idea of what it means to be the Pope this is his job description: ''The Pope exercises supreme legislative, executive, and judicial power over the Holy See and the State of the Vatican City.''
3. No tradition in history has an operative concept of infallibility adhering to a single priestly representative.
4. The RCC tradition preserved as it is through the most rigorous semantics in history (namely Canon Law) is a tradition of perfect care for the precise meaning of every word ever uttered. Not a sentence is uttered that is not tended by any one or more of 9 congregations, 3 tribunals, 11 Pontifical Councils, 12 Offices, or 4 Pontifical commissions. No one, let alone the most authoritative voice in the religious world (AND a Head of State!), with resources of this magnitude at his disposal can excuse Himself marking an oversight, mistake, or misunderstanding.

Is the Speech Offensive?

The speech offends in a number of ways.

1. The Paleologus quote could not be more perfectly offensive to Muslim sensibilities.
1. The Holy Father failed to sufficiently distance himself from this egregous quote.
2. The speech of the Holy Father subjects Muslim traditons to historical critical analysis in ways not embraced by Islam. He notes that different Surat derive from different parts of the Prophet's (PBUH) personal biography. This is irrelevant to how the Qu'ran is embraced by the vast majority of Muslims.
   
1. How can such a mistake be made by a man who has an entire Congregation for Muslim relations at his disposal?
2. This horrible descent into matters of a religion not his own DOES in fact paint Islam in a negative light. He concludes ''with'' Khoury and even with the insulting voice of Paleologus in noting that Muslim theology has a God (Allah) that is excessively transcendent and eludes the need for immanence by which reason might be made divine (the main thrust of his speech). He further quotes Muslims to describe a God "not bound even by his own Word."
   

Why So Horrendous a Section if it is Not Central to the Thrust of the Speech?

There are two reasons: Hubris, parochialism, and politicization of faith.

Hubris and unthinking miscalculation: One reason for this ill-advised foray into unwelcome territory in unwelcome ways is the notion that one can, with a brief aside presume and guide and lecture and entire world faith. This assumption is arrogant. No one puts up with these sorts of barbs from the sidelines. In all cases this style of presuming to lecture others is rejected and resented.

1. Parochial politicization. No one who reads the newspapers can be blind to the fact that Benedict XVI is committing the horrible sin of re-introducing the efforts of the Vatican to insert its influence over efforts toward European Union. Here again, Muslim offense is NOT based on misunderstanding or misinterpretation. The decision of the Holy Father to include such passages in his speech is clearly wrong-headed triumphalism dropped in the heart of Europe. This is nothing other than divisive.

What Now?

1. Muslim leaders PLEASE call off demonstrations, and calm the family of believers. The speech of the Holy Father has served to create sympathy worldwide toward Muslims who suffer from prejudice, and from the misdeeds of Islamist militants. If Muslim protests become violent and disruptive, this sympathy toward Islam will dissipate and give fuel and comfort to the detractors of Islam.
2. The Holy Father and Enlightened Catholics should apologize and continue in all loving ways to heal this horrible misstep by the Holy Father Benedict XVI.

Frank Kaufmann is the Director of the Interreligious Federation for World Peace. The opinions in this article are his own.

Religions as Conscience: The Interfaith Imperative

by Frank Kaufmann

This essay was delivered at the

The Convergence of Science and Spirituality Conference
Great Hall, Iliff School of Theology - September 09, 2006

Abstract

The evolution of interfaith consciousness in the modern period is rapid and promising. Progress notwithstanding, pioneers in the field have yet to intuit an endgame sufficient to bring world traditions to full and enduring harmony. At present even the best interfaith relations remain bound as lateral wanting for a transcendent, unifying principle. This brief presentation offers for consideration a telos-based analogy, comparing harmonized world religions to the conscience of a saintly and wholesome person.

(A slide show of this paper is available upon request from the author)

Preface

This paper proceeds on the assumption that a correct or insightful grasp of the essential elements and dynamics of conflict is:
1. Necessary
2. Applicable

This, despite the insistence by many that real-world conflict is too complex and nuanced to admit of or benefit from attempts to generate applicable meta-phors.

This paper treats 1 concept but (due to the brevity of the speaking assignment) only cursorily.

The concept is:
The human being as a model provides an ideal and a purpose for interreligious relations.

Introduction

Every era or occasion of positive interreligious relations is different. Human existence as we know it has evolved from extremely few people (some say 2) to 6.7 billion earth inhabitants at present. Even though in earlier eras social and political patterns would hold for far greater lengths of time, there still has not been (to the best of my knowledge) two distinct and separate occasions of interreligious collaboration inside of a single pattern of human social and political evolution. I point this out to say that the history of interfaith in the modern period is distinct and different from all prior occasions in which one can find fleeting semblance of interreligious collaboration or cooperation. Students of peace note times such as 12th century Spain, or the occasional 16th or 17th century Mughal who allowed a time of Hindu flourishing. Hopefully these occasions have lessons or insights for us, but our time is different both in religion and in the social and political context in which religion functions. Population and technology have a great deal to do with this difference.

It can be argued that religious behavior and evolution of religious consciousness parallels political, international, and inter-cultural consciousness. Said otherwise, it can be argued that human beings simply evolve in the sweep of our growing species-wide enlightenment and potential regardless of any one person’s or group’s particular bent or vocation.

The widespread notion that religions either can or should get along, or at least live and let live is very new and very young (about 110 years old). It occupies a tiny percentage of the time in which people have lived religiously. Additionally part of the impulse to soften or temper religion’s inclination toward imperialism derives from the post-enlightenment impulse to dismiss religion as primitive superstition, and anachronistic. Death of God theology rightly identified this, what is called “functional atheism.”

The Emerging Recognition of Cooperation as a Positive and Mutually Beneficial Value, and the Unique Aspect of Religion

Insight into the fact that cooperation yields personal gain has always existed to a greater or lesser degree at various times in history, but only to a limited degree, and almost always in the service of its contrary impulse, namely gain at the expense of the other. Primitive, utilitarian forms of cooperation function in the pursuit of alliances. Alliances are formed to attain the necessary strength and power to pursue gain for self at the expense of the other. The impulse to form alliances even for non-noble purposes, nevertheless has the positive outcome of incrementally enlightening even the scheming actor. “We” comes to describes ever broader realms diversity.

Religion in this scheme of things ideally should be the star student in this path toward increasing enlightenment derived from cooperation. The irony however is that in across religions there is no incentive to form alliances. To the extent that religions are expansionist and acquisitive they believe that their power resides in the unalloyed force of their respective ideologies, metaphysics, and lifestyle systems. Religion manifests the human propensity to dominate in exactly the opposite manner than the material and secular insights. Religious imperialists if they form alliances with anyone, they do so with secular power in pursuit of their expansionist designs. And this is always done to their peril. Spirituality flees, and ugly institutions arise bearing the name of this religion or that.

The ONLY thing that can lead religions in the direction of cooperation is their best side.

This fact is at once the very thing that makes the modern interfaith movement such a rare thing of beauty on the one hand, and so excruciatingly slow, so wheel-spinning, and often superficial to the point of near disingenuous on the other.

Harmony Comes in 3’s, and the Unique Aspect of Religion

Conflict arises when neither partner is able to acknowledge the inherent or insuperable “superiority” of its “partner,” and when the “superior” “partner” does not use his or her advantage for the welfare and upliftment of the one less blessed. If the more blessed lives to uplift the lesser no conflict will arise, even if superior strength of one or the other is not cut and dried, namely even if there is near parity.

When relations degenerate into conflict there is no way out for the involved partners save exhaustion or the intervention of a “3rd.” Exhaustion is always only temporary anyway. The “3rd” by definition is “transcendent,” it transcends the parochial concerns of both embattled parties, seeking the welfare of something greater than the benefit or interests of only one side or the other. Peacemakers should proudly own participation in transcendence.

The 3rd can be embodied in a person or an institution (like George Mitchell, or the United Nations), it can be something that both sides recognize as a “higher power,” or it can be an ideal or a purpose recognized by both as worthy. This 3rd must, by whatever art and science find the way to move the players to embrace something other than an obsession with their own cause or designs.

Again, as with the previous section, Religion is least well suited to benefit from the harmonizing influence of the 3rd (for at least 2 reasons):
1. Each religion already regards itself to be singularly preeminent vis a vis anything to do with the transcendent, and
2. As systems traditionally and predominantly hierarchical, it is nearly impossible for someone outside that system to have sufficient authority to mediate or guide.

Religions are built around the very stuff that they would need to surrender to in order to be led away from conflict and strife and toward harmony. It might be compared to the alcoholic who is ever more intelligent and knowledgeable than the best therapist hoping to help.

Religion and Global Conflict

The nature of global conflict and the relationship of religion’s to war anc conflict has changed radically and dramatically inside of most of our lifetimes. Prior to 1989, even though religions did not work harmoniously together to any significant degree, no one thought of war and global instability as lying in anyway at the feet of religion’s primitive habit of seeing other religions as foes or inferior. In the 20th Century (until 1989) the good guys and bad guys were understood in the context of what was dubbed “the cold war.” The dominant military players were Russia, the United States, and China to a lesser degree. The belief systems that fueled enmity were rendered in economic and political differences, terms such as “Democracy,” and “Communism.” The interfaith efforts that transpired in those years were rarely characterized as central to the pursuit of a peaceful world. (The notable exception was Ireland, and to a lesser degree Israel and Palestine.)

This changed radically with the fall of the Soviet Union. The first frightening and horrifying sign of the power of religion to animate genuine hostilities indeed war, was seen in wake of the fall of what was called Yugoslavia. The complex cauldron of conflict transpired along battle lines that took on the eerie hue of religiously identity for the first time in centuries, Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim. From the war in the Balkans to this day things have never been the same.

Now in the mind of most people in the world, almost all war, conflict, and global instability is directly related to religion in some way or another. This creates a huge demand on interfaith activity, but the enterprise has found itself flat footed in the ability to change quickly enough to bring its wisdom, benefits, and insights from a different age of dialogue, one with different habits and different assumptions.

Religions as Conscience: The Interfaith Imperative

The role of religion has always been to function as the origin of a peaceful world. The three qualities of found uniquely in religion that make this so (namely, repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation) are presented and developed in an earlier paper from me. But in a world in which war was not felt nor defined primarily in religious terms, most people did not know this. Now everyone knows religion can not be overlooked. 9/11 and beyond happened to leaders and to a world in a stupor, not about terrorism or Islam, but about religion and religious belief per se.

Every human individual has good impulses and bad impulses (good both for the self and the other, and/or bad both for the self and for the other). Consequently all human institutions including political ones such as states and nations are characterized by this pair of impulses. Just as a human being can behave well or poorly, so can a block association, so can a corporation, and so can a nation.

In the case of an individual, that faculty that seeks to keep him or her on a path that is good, wholesome, healthy, even loving, is the conscience. As infinitely complex as being human is, and human behavior is, the entire (and all important matter) of behaving well or behaving poorly rests entire in relation to the conscience. The conscience is quiet, non-aggressive, yet relentless and long-suffering. It tries until our last breath to guide us in the direction of goodness.

On larger scales, religion is meant to function in the same way, but now that the world is irreversibly sewn together as one, the fractured condition of world religious relations obstructs the capacity of religion to function in the way of its proper role in human affairs.

This mission to be the wellspring of goodness, and keep the organism of our human family healthy, wholesome and whole, is the mission of all world religions in a world that is now one. This shared mission is the “transcendent 3rd” that can finally shatter the lateral relations in which religions are locked.

The Deficiency of UNSC Resolution 1701

People of conscience, good will, and humane sensibilities stood aghast to see our race drawn into full scale war lasting over a month in July and August of this year! The excruciatingly slow to write and pass UNSC Resolution 1701 is insular in its premise, cosmetic in its intention, and fragile in its design. It is built on self-interest, namely the very cause of conflict now adorned in the raiment of peace. This deceit notwithstanding, we still desperately hope that its provisions succeed at least to hold back any further outbreak of hostilities at such unthinkable levels of destruction and death. We are grateful to sincere peace seekers in the UN and elsewhere who gave their days and nights desperately searching for ways to end military aggression.

The United Nations remains an indispensable institution at present as it is the only established forum for conversation at a formal level among representatives of nations. Nevertheless UNSC Resolution 1701 is deficient in two important aspects. The resolution is myopic and shortsighted as a document primarily in that it that fails to incorporate the spiritual aspects of human life on equal status and footing with our physical, social, and political aspects. Further it lacks applicability in rigorous ways as it treats human life as transpiring only within the institutions of the individual and the state while fully overlooking key and dominant units of social organization, most especially the family, and also the tribe. Finally the document, like all UN work at present is anachronistic insofar as it fails to rise to the present reality in which human existence functions as a transnational social reality, not the clunky, militarized nation states of the 19th century.

The outbreak of war between Israel and Hezbollah derives from spiritual, religious, historical, cultural, social, political, economic, and military causes. The negative condition that results in the outbreak of war is enmity, not water, not religion, not blue lines nor green lines. It is enmity. Enmity has distinct manifestations in each of the causal factors just listed. From among these causal factors listed above those that most naturally disesteem enmity are the spiritual, the religious, and the economic; the spiritual more purely, the religious more tentatively, and the economic more cynically. The spiritual intuits unequivocally that true freedom is possible only in the absence of enmity. The religious has explicit admonitions against indulging in actions that extend enmity, but also as political institutions fully employ enmity when parochial avarice overtakes its representatives. The economic preference for positive conditions for trade is offset by those whose profits derive from war. Thus profit as a motive for cooperation is always for sale.

The 33 days war through which we have just been dragged sadly has been done, at least in part under the banner of so-called “religion.” Thus a facile call for the intervention and investment of religious leaders in the peacemaking effort is not easily digested by serious minded parties, observers, and by war victims. The religious world itself must be analyzed and its peace elements identified, strengthened, and supported. This is the unequivocal starting point for even a remote possibility for enduring peace. Until some international body takes this understanding deadly seriously, shunning all seduction for symbolism, cheap fixes, and gimmicks no peace is on our horizon. A serious, repentant, skilled, community of leaders willing to truly commit to a long term investment of personnel and resources in a program that recognizes the lifeline between the spiritual and the religious as the starting point for Godly human relations on all levels of social organization is the only chance we have for peace. Without that, let us simply rebuild our roads, replenish our hospital supplies, and keep our fingers crossed that nobody’s uncle is getting too too rich in so doing.

Frank Kaufmann is the Executive Director of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace

Israel, Lebanon, and the Middle East: Problem of Intelligence

Frank Kaufmann, July 30, 2006

The situation in the Middle East has spun out of control. Analysts and so –called experts cannot see a way beyond the ever intensifying horrors. William Kristol, our generation’s most eloquent and greatest lover of war, said this morning “Iran and Hezbollah have won this battle…” Lost and morose, Kristol despairingly allowed, “It has been a bad two months [for the “good guys].”



When it looks as though things cannot get worse (The United Nations has said that its top officials in New York and its officers on the ground in Lebanon made numerous calls to the Israeli mission and the Israeli military to protest repeated firing on its outpost in Lebanon where four unarmed observers later ended up being killed – IHT), they do (An Israeli official said the bomb that killed 54 refugees in Qana, Lebanon, including 37 children, early Sunday hit the wrong building - reuters).

The US in 5 short years has forfeited its once elegant and glorious role as a peacemaker (only the US and the UK stood out against an immediate ceasefire at the recent Rome summit - reuters). Sunday morning news analysts even on the perfectly pro-Administration, Fox News referred to Rice’s time at the Middle East crisis summit in Rome “a flame-out,” not just once, but as the term of record throughout the Chris Wallace hour. (The Rome talks broke up after failing to reach agreement, according to CNN television. – Bloomberg) (Ms. Rice lost the public relations war. Reports of the Rome meeting uniformly painted her as isolated in one corner- NYT).

In the midst of it all President Bush was caught on an open mike in front of the world’s most powerful leaders, with a mouth full of shrimp swearing about Syria, and complaining about Kofi Annan. Bad enough? A week later President Bush was forced to apologize publicly for not notifying Tony Blair that the US was transporting bunker busters through Scotland to Israel (Israel's Justice Minister Haim Ramon said Israel was given a green light to continue attacks after the United States convinced Arab and European ministers not to call for an immediate truce at a Rome - reuters ) The news of US bomb shipments to Israel broke on the same day four UN peacekeepers were killed in Israeli air strikes on Lebanon.

Bad enough? After 17 days of Israeli sorties over southern Lebanon, Hezbollah rather than being decimated showed up by complete surprise firing Khalibar 1’s into Israel (Israel said the newer rockets have four times the range of the Katyushas, possibly putting northern Tel Aviv in range. – CBC.CA)

The magnitude, implications, and irresolvable conundrums of this ever escalating Israel-Hezbollah conflict have kept from the front pages and from proper analysis matters of enormous significance regarding the region. The July 29 deaths of 3 Marines brings the number of US military war deaths in Iraq to 2573 since the US led invasion of 2003. The day before that, 3,700 troops about to go home were stopped and held back (3,700 troops who had been planning to return home over the next two weeks probably will remain for at least the next six weeks and possibly as long as four months, this time in the most violent area of the country – Washington Post). Just weeks earlier, every public figure including President Bush spoke enthusiastically about beginning the process of troop withdrawal from Iraq. This rhetoric met a sudden and complete about face as the U.S. Central Command said that 5,000 additional troops in armored vehicles will patrol Baghdad streets, where nearly 100 civilians die each day, many of them victims of reprisal killings by death squads. In Iraq nearly 100 civilians die EVERY DAY!

The most significant matter about this horrific Israel-Hezbollah war has yet to
dominate the attention of analysts. It has to do with intelligence. Here are three invaluable observations from Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post:

1. Israel has been forced to improvise furiously on the battlefield after discovering how much it did not know about the forces Hezbollah had amassed in southern Lebanon… Israelis take intelligence deadly seriously. For them, it is a tool of survival.

2. The intelligence failures by the Israelis in Lebanon and by the Americans in Iraq are related.

3. American intelligence has done no better at predicting the course or strength of Iraq’s insurgency and the sectarian warfare that the insurgents have deliberately fanned between Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis. Months of Bush administration happy talk about a government of national unity based on Sunni inclusion did not lead to the reduction of violence that was predicted, but to a sharp spike in Iraqi deaths and destruction instead.

Intelligence (like everything) has two dimensions, an interior impulse and an exterior manifestation. The public and political figures tend to focus on the exterior aspects of intelligence gathering even though they are of lesser importance. The exterior aspects of intelligence, (what information you gather, how, and how accurately) are only valuable if guided well by insightfulness. In fact the term “intelligence” in common parlance does NOT refer to how much you know or how accurate your information, rather to how well you think.

The fact that two of the finest militaries in history (and the nations attached to them) find themselves up to their elbows in tar babies with no end in sight, after days for one and years for the other, and countless billions poured into shocking and awe-ing, is not for the lack “a big right hand,” but for not thinking straight.

A person or state with the following views might be considered intelligent (and thier "intelligence gathering" could proceed more fruitfully):

1. Iran, Syria, and over 50 major, independent and state sponsored Islamist, and anti-Israel/US militias and “terrorist” organizations do not like the United States and do not like Israel. Bombing them will not make them change their minds.

2. The term “democracy” is not regarded as representing a virtuous social order to the intelligentsia, leaders, and rank and file of these states and these groups. Bombing them will not make them change their minds.

3. These states and groups do not uphold Christian and European conventions on how properly and “justly” to conduct war. Bombing them will not make them change their minds.

4. There are too many of them to bomb until they are all gone. Many argue that attacks on them strengthen them politically and strengthen their recruitment efforts.

It would be pleasant if we could bomb people into seeing things our way, and failing that bomb the recalcitrant ones until they are all gone. But we cannot. Good and effective strategies cannot arise from foolish and anachronistic starting points. That is bad intelligence.

Strong and effective intelligence gathering should be based in clear understanding. Better understanding as the ground of “intelligence” would help to avert occasions in which powerful and economically and militarily advanced countries make big and costly mistakes with dire and enduring repercussions.

Frank Kaufmann is the Executive Director of the Interreligious Federation for World Peace

ISRAEL, LEBANON: The Escalation of Conflict in a New World

Frank Kaufmann
July 19, 2006

Israel bombing Lebanon is serious. (Many argue Israel was left with no choice.) Incursion into Gaza and the West Bank is a sovereignty-oddity that withstands the ascription international war. Bombing Lebanon does not.



Military engagement in both Gaza and Lebanon purportedly stemmed from the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by (technically) non-State actors. In keeping with the art and core designs of asymmetric warfare, Hamas and Hezbollah can be seen as realizing strategic purposes remarkably well! The capture of just three young men has succeeded in drawing Israel into large scale military commitment on three fronts (two points of fighting in Gaza And one so far in Lebanon). Israel will not give numbers, but most counts have at least 10 Israeli soldiers dead in combat. Israel’s finance minister reports the cost to Israel for its Lebanon campaign alone at 1.1 billion dollars. By all accounts this can be regarded as expensive and stretched. The work of eleven men with box cutters, using other people’s hardware, drew the United States into over $300 billion worth of war on two fronts. Again, by most accounts expensive and stretched. Bombing a single building bankrupted US economic surpluses replacing it with debt now totaling $8.3 trillion, a level that could force Congress this week to raise the debt ceiling for the fourth time in George W. Bush's presidency. National debt has continued to increase an average of $1.63 billion per day since September 30, 2005).

How pleasant it must be to conduct hostilities against countries like this, especially so for “martyrdom”-affirming groups for whom getting killed is just fine if not actually good.

From the days of the militant and militarized left analysts always knew that an important goal and function of asymmetric warfare now commonly (errantly) called terrorism, is to intensify the militancy and “oppression” by the State that reacts and seeks to maintain control and curb disorder. The theory is that the State in its effort to curb dissidents reaches levels of totalitarianism that suffice to trigger revolution among the marginalized, the disenfranchised, and the poor. Traditionally these doctrines were established and designed during the era of the Nation State. What is now called terrorism was designed in part to destabilize “capitalist” States through the intensification of state “oppression.”

Though Nation States persist they do so anachronistically. Two phases of territorialism have evolved since the European invention of the Nation-State. These include the period of “blocs,” which reached its zenith in the Cold War, and the emerging era of “globalization.” Though neither Nation-States, nor “blocs” have utterly dissolved during the emerging “global reality,” it would do well for leaders to extend and apply traditional analysis of asymmetric warfare to the present more creatively than seems to have been done so far.

Lebanon’s finance minister said on Tuesday, Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon had caused up to $2bn in infrastructure damage so far. Israel’s response to the kidnapping of its young boys is not unlike the initial campaign of the 3-years-and-counting US military involvement in Iraq. These results can be seen as the realization of asymmetric warfare design, originally conceived to destabilize States, applied on a global level.

The real problem that leads us to this insane-by-any-standards state of the world today is the persistence of the primitive concept “conquest” as an operative category. Of course a greater power despoils the lesser power during periods of aggression. The lunacy however lies in the belief that “winning” is a possibility therefrom. “Winning” lasts only as long as the aggression lasts. Israel and Hezbollah are both bombing one another. Israel is simply better, better at bombing people and things. The US was also better at battering the pathetic Iraqi army as it took control of Baghdad between March 27 and April 9, 2003. (But Baghdad Bob (Comical Ali) would have a far less buffoonish a job if he remained to report events day by day since the May 1, 2003 speech of President Bush on the USS Lincoln.)
Sticking to the metaphor of communist-era asymmetric warfare design, the military superiority of the US or Israeli armies can be compared to the fact that police with horses and clubs are better equipped to batter and imprison protestors in shorts and sandals, than protesters are to trouble the police. The problem is that getting battered and imprisoned was precisely the response desired by the organizers and agitators working behind the scenes during the era of leftist protests.

The fact is that “vanquishing” is a chimera, a delusion, and like all deceptions a costly one. The twinned mission of diplomacy and aggression when dealing with those who would harm you must be waged in the arena of ideology, not military might. The latter is wasteful, tragic, primitive, and futile.

Frank Kaufmann
July 19, 2006

Beyond Gilad Shalit

Frank Kaufmann
July 5, 2006

The abduction of Gilad Shalit has as much to do with Palestinian rivalries as it does to do with the Palestinian struggle against Israel. The Hamas – Fatah clash is linked in ways to the thankless marriage of Abbas with a Hamas Cabinet. Added to that is the fact that substantial disunity exists within both Fatah and Hamas in Gaza (each embracing spectra that range from militant to diplomatic).



In addition to this Hamas in Gaza has the added complication of being related to a Syrian counterpart. It is known that the Syrian figures in Hamas naturally lean toward greater militancy due to the fact of their distance from the day to day realities and needs of the good and simple people of Gaza who want nothing more than peace and a hopeful environment in which to raise their families

There is no doubt that Israel is guided in its actions first and foremost by concerns for the safety and welfare Israeli citizens and Israeli families. Beyond this however it is inevitable domestic and international politics arise around such incidents, and decisions and actions take on political calculation. The intensity of Israeli actions, while genuinely designed around seeking safety for Shalit, may well also reflect calculations that seek to drive a wedge between the more militant Syrian Hamas leaders, and the Hamas cabinet elected in Gaza.

Two other important facts should be noted in this fragile situation. The first is obvious. Both sides have painted themselves into a corner, a corner constructed of pride, perhaps hatred, and ideological rigidity. The second important fact to know is that each side operates out of cultural, religious, and ideological foundations that so differ, that true communication toward resolution is gravely hampered. Ironically, where the two communities are similar culturally, religiously, and ideologically, is precisely in those ways that also hurt good communications and negotiations… that glistening line between stoically persevering and childishly stubborn.

Fortunately there is a good deal of quiet diplomacy going on surrounding this issue. We sincerely pray for God’s blessings on those involved in these private and quiet negotiations. Furthermore, the major powers are behaving quite well this time. These include Russia, China and India. These and others have much they can do to help. We pray for the leaders of these powers as well, most importantly that their calculations not be too heavily tainted by short-sighted national self interest. In addition to the public pronouncements coming from some of these important powers, one can only hope that these major powers continue to work behind the scenes in quiet conversation encouraging both sides to seek a positive resolution of this tense and fragile confrontation, and not to break down further.

Players in the region have allowed this horrible incident to escalate to the point at which only great suffering awaits both sides barring some resolution. They have postured and committed to the extent that yield or compromise necessary for resolution is no longer possible. A very good thing would be if Shalit “escaped.” A dramatic, miraculous escape, the stuff story books and spy stories are made of. NOT a rescue, not a release. An escape. The Israelis could walk away from military overkill (fuel on the fires of rage), Gaza Hamas can protect themselves from the unforgiving, militant vultures shrieking over softening, or “impurity” of Gaza Hamas’ commitment to the resistance.

Israel could draw back away from the border, Shalit can be restored to his family and his nation, both sides can resume inching at their glacier-like pace toward peace, and simple home-makers and citizens in the region can breathe out.

Frank Kaufmann
Director
Inter Religious Federation for World Peace

Karzai Must Take a Stand
by
Frank Kaufmann

President Karzai is in a terrible situation. He has no easy way out of the looming beheading of Christian convert Abdul Rahman. Karzai's decision will affect not just Afghanistan and his own political future. It also will have huge impact on the exorbitant foreign policy gamble perpetrated by the Bush administration.



Our 200 Billion dollar effort at militarily exporting democracy has given us Hamas and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leading even the devout to wonder. In such a climate the possibility of formally putting a Christian to death in Afghanistan is the last thing we need.

Unthinkable cartoon wars, Iraq's death count ringing like winning slot machine, and France burning down from the inside out might all be less harmful to relations between Islam and “the West,” than what now will happen to this otherwise quite insignificant 40 year old who turned to Christ at the young age of 24. Why? Because the fate of this solitary fellow lies not in the hands of the mob, but in the hands of a modern Bush built democracy and a US favored elected representative.

It is good and proper that the international community do everything in its power to stay the execution of Rahman. It is good that places like Germany and France stumble on to the right side of religious freedom for a change. It is also good that people in the West begin to learn about Islam, and its schools of interpretation. So what if it took us 3 years of war and 200 billion dollars trying to build irresistible democratic utopias to discover that Islam has apostasy laws. But these are not the important point.

The most important thing is that now is the time to help and support President Karzai. He is in a horrible dilemma and he needs support from the whole world including Muslims everywhere.

This is the situation:

1. Karzai is damned if he does damned if he doesn't

2. The dilemma is created by the tension between the modern concept of the State, and the social reality of clan and tribal norms and conventions

3. The insufficiently debated Muslim doctrines on apostasy must be settled in favor of the humane and visionary side of Islamic interpretation

Why is Karzai's situation so difficult?

1. It is almost impossible to rule a Muslim society when at odds with the Mullahs (who are behind the pro-execution stand on Rahman). Karzai's domestic political base and power are tied to these Mullahs. If Karzai acts to protect Rahman he will be seen to controvert Islam and he will lose his power to govern, lose his political base, and very possibly even become an assassination target by extremists.

2. On the other hand, If he fails to protect Rahman he will be seen to uphold a version of Islam deemed unacceptable to the “West,” and he will stand in violation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The chasm over which Karzai dangles stretches from Afghanistan's modern, constitutionally guaranteed, human rights on the one hand, and the traditional practices of the tribal society over which he attempts to govern on the other.

He has NO political out. He canNOT win. WhatEVER he decides, he fails absolutely by the measure of one side or another. Thus is the first thing Karzai must do is come to grips with the fact that there is no political solution. The only thing that remains is conscience. Karzai finds himself on the stage in which the bizarre situation sparked by the conversion of a 24 year old, in another country long ago has become the single point at which Huntington gets to write his epilogue.

The sooner Karzai recognizes he has no solution, the freer and truer he can be. The Beatles accurately described it as a magic feeling, “nowhere to go.” Only at such a point can Karzai finally make his choice. Such moments create statesmen and women and historical figures. When history checkmates us, only conscience remains. This is why greatness always lies in personal decision.

Now is not the time to pressure Karzai. Now is the time to help him. We already know what he as a person believes about the situation. OF COURSE he is not of the opinion that a human being should be beheaded for looking at Jesus a touch differently from his fellows. The problem for Karzai is that acting on his beliefs threatens everything in his life, including the possibility of losing his very life itself. The US and the world, including all Muslims must give Karzai every possible chance to make his quiet inner, personal decision, that final, greatest act of courage when a man or woman decide with their conscience at the risk of their life.

What must Muslims do to help? Current (widespread) apostasy laws throughout the Muslim world are built on shady and tenuous interpretation and faltering standards for the establishment of Hadith. Any Muslim who can read knows Suratan Nisa', Ayah 48 (there is no compulsion in religion). Every Muslim who can read knows Surah An-Nisa', 4:137 that warns against multiple apostasies (how can the Qu'ran speak of multiple apostasies if even one is punishable by death?). There is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances (!) of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an (S.A. Rahman). The Hadith upon which these apostasy laws are built is weak (This hadith was only transmitted by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person, and lacking such corroboration should not be sufficient to contradict law grounded in the Qu'ran itself.)

What President Karzai must do is give Rahman safe passage out of Afghanistan. If Rahman remains in Afghanistan he will probably be killed anyway. If Rahman insists on remaining in Afghanistan to pursue the child custody case that caused his troubles in the first place, then his life or death is his own business. Nobody blames Bush or Christian jurisprudence because people get shot on the streets of Los Angeles.

President Karzai did not ask to be put in this terrible situation. He does not need a bunch of hot headed ranting from the so-called “civilized” world. He needs the support of Muslims who want to show the beauty of Islam, and he needs the support of his friends in Europe and America with whom he has labored mightily to try to build up his nation, under horrible and adverse circumstances.

Frank Kaufmann
March 24, 2006

Iraq's election result: a divided nation

By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 21 December 2005
Reprinted from The Independant

Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show the country is dividing between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions.

Religious fundamentalists now have the upper hand. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.

The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. The Sunni Arab parties who openly or covertly support armed resistance to the US are likely to win large majorities in Sunni provinces. The Kurds have already achieved quasi-independence and their voting reflected that.

The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-Western secular democracy in a united Iraq.

Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."

The success of the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shia religious parties, has been far greater than expected according to preliminary results. It won 58 per cent of the vote in Baghdad, while Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister strongly supported by Tony Blair, got only 14 per cent of the vote. In Basra, Iraq's second city, 77 per cent of voters supported the Alliance and only 11 per cent Mr Allawi.

The election was portrayed by President George Bush as a sign of success for US policies in Iraq but, in fact, means the triumph of America's enemies inside and outside the country.

Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties which it has supported, have become the strongest political force.

Ironically, Mr Bush is increasingly dependent within Iraq on the co-operation and restraint of the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has repeatedly called for the eradication of Israel. It is the allies of the Iranian theocracy who are growing in influence by the day and have triumphed in the election. The US will fear that development greatly as it constantly reminds the world of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran may be happier with a weakened Iraq in which it is a predominant influence rather than see the country entirely break up.

Another victor in the election is the fiery nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia fought fierce battles with US troops last year. The US military said at the time it intended "to kill or capture him".



Mr Bush cited the recapture of the holy city of Najaf from the Mehdi Army in August 2004 as an important success for the US Army. Mr Sadr will now be one of the most influential leaders within the coalition.

All the parties which did well in the election have strength only within their own community. The Shia coalition succeeded because the Shia make up 60 per cent of Iraqis but won almost no votes among the Kurds or Sunni, each of whom is about 20 per cent of the population. The Sunni and the Kurdish parties won no support outside their own communities.

The US ambassador in Baghdad, Zilmay Khalilzad, sounded almost despairing yesterday as he reviewed the results of the election. "It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities," he said. "But for Iraq to succeed there has to be cross-ethnic and cross-sectarian co-operation."

The election also means a decisive switch from a secular Iraq to a country in which, outside Kurdistan, religious law will be paramount. Mr Allawi, who ran a well-financed campaign, was the main secular hope but that did not translate into votes. The other main non-religious candidate, Ahmed Chalabi, won less than 1 per cent of the vote in Baghdad and will be lucky to win a single seat in the new 275-member Council of Representatives.

"People underestimate how religious Iraq has become," said one Iraqi observer. "Iran is really a secular society with a religious leadership, but Iraq will be a religious society with a religious leadership." Already most girls leaving schools in Baghdad wear headscarves. Women's rights in cases of divorce and inheritance are being eroded.

Sunni Arab leaders were aghast at the electoral triumph of the Shia, claiming fraud. Adnan al-Dulaimi, the head of the Sunni Arab alliance, the Iraqi Accordance Front, said that if the electoral commission did not respond to their complaints they would "demand the elections be held again in Baghdad".

Mr Allawi's Iraqi National List also protested. Ibrahim al-Janabi, a party official, said: "The elections commission is not independent. It is influenced by political parties and by the government." But while there was probably some fraud and intimidation, the results of the election mirror the way in which the Shia majority in Iraq is systematically taking over the levers of power. Shia already control the ministry of the interior with 110,000 police and paramilitary units and most of the troops in the 80,000-strong army being trained by the US are Shia.

Mr Khalilzad said yesterday: "You can't have someone who is regarded as sectarian, for example, as Minister of the Interior." This is a not so-veiled criticism of the present minister, Bayan Jabr, a leading member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the largest Shia party. He is accused of running death squads and torture centres whose victims are Sunni Arabs.

It is unlikely that the Shia religious parties and militias will tolerate any rollback in their power. "They feel their day has come," said Mr Attiyah.

For six months the Shia have ruled Iraq in alliance with the Kurds. Kurdish leaders are not happy with the way this government has worked. The Kurds, supported by the US, will now try to dilute Shia control of government by bringing in Sunni ministers and Mr Allawi. But one Kurdish leader said: "We have a strategic alliance with the Shia religious parties we would be unwise to break."

The elections are also unlikely to see a diminution in armed resistance to the US by the Sunni community. Insurgent groups have made clear that they see winning seats in parliament as the opening of another front.

The break-up of Iraq has been brought closer by the election. The great majority of people who went to the polls voted as Shia, Sunni or Kurds - and not as Iraqis. The forces pulling Iraq apart are stronger than those holding it together. The election, billed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair as the birth of a new Iraqi state may in fact prove to be its funeral.

American debacle
By Zbigniew Brzezinski

LA TIMES October 9, 2005

Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for George W. Bush's place in history and - much more important - ominously for America's future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.

Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush's speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.

That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.

Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York City. Yet, in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.

There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in its deepening military intervention in the Middle East. Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be the brutal denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.

America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of a nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons. Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the U.S. look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.

Compounding such political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity. Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (a.k.a. torture) were publicly disgraced, prosecuted or forced to resign. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court now seems quite self-serving.

Finally, complicating this sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends. The budgets for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security are now larger than the total budget of any nation, and they are likely to continue escalating as budget and trade deficits transform America into the world's No. 1 debtor nation. At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of its early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.

It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of U.S. policy. As a result, large swathes of the world - including nations in East Asia, Europe and Latin America - have been quietly exploring ways of shaping regional associations tied less to the notions of transpacific, or transatlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.

That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers and future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China - Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.

In a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle. Because America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, for a while longer, a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process, America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.

But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation. In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out - perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.

With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider Middle East policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.

Dialogue and Alliance 19-1

This is the first half of the introduction to the forthcoming Dialogue and Alliance. I left out the article summaries that naturally fill out an issue introduction.

Dialogue and Alliance 19-1














Introduction



The past 50 years or so can be described as the modern period of interreligious dialogue. During this time, interfaith activity matured into a world of ever-greater complexity and sophistication. Distinct aspects and elements of interfaith embedded and nascent in undifferentiated forms in earlier efforts became distinct.



The other shocking, indeed horrifying thing to note about this same time period of interfaith maturation is that this development coincides with our descent into the single worst state of interreligious relations in human history.



If we are honest we will acknowledge that we teeter on the brink of global nuclear holocaust on matters pertaining unequivocally to interreligious and conflict. Shiite Iran simultaneously supports martyrdom schools (a purely religious concept) and races down the path to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. Neo-Christian United States (already a nuclear power) similarly trains volunteers to be willing sacrifices to expand US culture and values, and finally Israel is a known nuclear power.



Leaving Muslim Pakistan, and Hindu India aside (both of which are nuclear powers), this is the current state of interreligious relations after 50 or 60 years of the most rapid, highly funded advance of interreligious activities, institutions, and consciousness in human history.



Why is this juxtaposition not more widely considered, especially among the bumper crop of interfaith organizations blossoming forth by the dozens and hundreds?



I do not exempt my own organizations and institutions in expressing concern over why the ever maturing and expanding interfaith movement has carried on its work under the shadow of such unthinkable and apocalyptic developments?



Dr.Moon, founder of organizations associated with this journal repeatedly called for the establishment of an enlightened body of religious leaders, leaders who transcend historical parochialism, leaders who laboring an environment of committed and unmitigated collaboration with each other first, and then with one accord with leaders of secular institutions (including governments). There is a good record of the many occasions in which this call was made publicly, beginning with his August 25, 2000 speech in the United Nations.



The interreligious dread that surrounds us today is directly related to insufficient efforts to implement these inspired insights. No organization with a keen and devoted interreligious mission in their brief should imagine themselves to be without responsibility for the current state of global affairs.



It is thus with a heart of repentance and renewed dedication that I move on now to introduce this valuable collection of articles and essays.



This issue of Dialogue and Alliance is an excellent guidebook to what interreligious dialogue has become, how is has diversified and become evermore complex in it threads and manifestations. The once undifferentiated fledging world of interfaith now flows through threads and streams that have taken on trajectories of their own.

Frank Kaufmann

This is Fukuyama's Analysis of the Bush War

This first appeared in the New York Times

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 31, 2005
Invasion of the Isolationists
By FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
Washington

AS we mark four years since Sept. 11, 2001, one way to organize a review of what has happened in American foreign policy since that terrible day is with a question: To what extent has that policy flowed from the wellspring of American politics and culture, and to what extent has it flowed from the particularities of this president and this administration?

It is tempting to see continuity with the American character and foreign policy tradition in the Bush administration's response to 9/11, and many have done so. We have tended toward the forcefully unilateral when we have felt ourselves under duress; and we have spoken in highly idealistic cadences in such times, as well. Nevertheless, neither American political culture nor any underlying domestic pressures or constraints have determined the key decisions in American foreign policy since Sept. 11.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have allowed President Bush to lead them in any of several directions, and the nation was prepared to accept substantial risks and sacrifices. The Bush administration asked for no sacrifices from the average American, but after the quick fall of the Taliban it rolled the dice in a big way by moving to solve a longstanding problem only tangentially related to the threat from Al Qaeda - Iraq. In the process, it squandered the overwhelming public mandate it had received after Sept. 11. At the same time, it alienated most of its close allies, many of whom have since engaged in "soft balancing" against American influence, and stirred up anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

The Bush administration could instead have chosen to create a true alliance of democracies to fight the illiberal currents coming out of the Middle East. It could also have tightened economic sanctions and secured the return of arms inspectors to Iraq without going to war. It could have made a go at a new international regime to battle proliferation. All of these paths would have been in keeping with American foreign policy traditions. But Mr. Bush and his administration freely chose to do otherwise.

The administration's policy choices have not been restrained by domestic political concerns any more than by American foreign policy culture. Much has been made of the emergence of "red state" America, which supposedly constitutes the political base for President Bush's unilateralist foreign policy, and of the increased number of conservative Christians who supposedly shape the president's international agenda. But the extent and significance of these phenomena have been much exaggerated.

So much attention has been paid to these false determinants of administration policy that a different political dynamic has been underappreciated. Within the Republican Party, the Bush administration got support for the Iraq war from the neoconservatives (who lack a political base of their own but who provide considerable intellectual firepower) and from what Walter Russell Mead calls "Jacksonian America" - American nationalists whose instincts lead them toward a pugnacious isolationism.

Happenstance then magnified this unlikely alliance. Failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the inability to prove relevant connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda left the president, by the time of his second inaugural address, justifying the war exclusively in neoconservative terms: that is, as part of an idealistic policy of political transformation of the broader Middle East. The president's Jacksonian base, which provides the bulk of the troops serving and dying in Iraq, has no natural affinity for such a policy but would not abandon the commander in chief in the middle of a war, particularly if there is clear hope of success.

This war coalition is fragile, however, and vulnerable to mishap. If Jacksonians begin to perceive the war as unwinnable or a failure, there will be little future support for an expansive foreign policy that focuses on promoting democracy. That in turn could drive the 2008 Republican presidential primaries in ways likely to affect the future of American foreign policy as a whole.

Are we failing in Iraq? That's still unclear. The United States can control the situation militarily as long as it chooses to remain there in force, but our willingness to maintain the personnel levels necessary to stay the course is limited. The all-volunteer Army was never intended to fight a prolonged insurgency, and both the Army and Marine Corps face manpower and morale problems. While public support for staying in Iraq remains stable, powerful operational reasons are likely to drive the administration to lower force levels within the next year.

With the failure to secure Sunni support for the constitution and splits within the Shiite community, it seems increasingly unlikely that a strong and cohesive Iraqi government will be in place anytime soon. Indeed, the problem now will be to prevent Iraq's constituent groups from looking to their own militias rather than to the government for protection. If the United States withdraws prematurely, Iraq will slide into greater chaos. That would set off a chain of unfortunate events that will further damage American credibility around the world and ensure that the United States remains preoccupied with the Middle East to the detriment of other important regions - Asia, for example - for years to come.

We do not know what outcome we will face in Iraq. We do know that four years after 9/11, our whole foreign policy seems destined to rise or fall on the outcome of a war only marginally related to the source of what befell us on that day. There was nothing inevitable about this. There is everything to be regretted about it.

Francis Fukuyama, a professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is editorial board chairman of a new magazine, The American Interest.



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top

The Future of Religion

Richard Rorty
Gianni Vattimo
Edited by Santiago Zabala
New York: Columbia University Press, 2005

91 pages

Reviewed by Frank Kaufmann

The Future of Religion is an outstanding and important work. The editor, Santiago Zabala studied under Gianni Vattimo, and is now a researcher at the Pontifical Lateran University. His published work has tended to revolve around his teacher, having published a “dialogue” with Vattimo ‘Weak Thought’ and the reduction of violence, in 2001, edited Vattimo’s Nihilism and emancipation, Ethics, Politics, and Law in 2003, The Future of Religion in 2005, and presently he is preparing a Festschrift for Vattimo comprising a towering line-up of contemporary philosophers and theologians.

Richard Rorty is a meteoric American philosopher of our time, burning his way through philosophies and universities leaving us with an exciting and significant intellectual biography. Those who know him at all know him for walking away from his home turf of analytic philosophy, finally calling it “nothing more than the last gasp of representationalism.” Rorty is professor of comparative religion and philosophy at Stanford University.

Gianni Vattimo, once a student of Gadamer and and Karl Loweth at Heidelberg, followed those roots to advance the “Gadamerian culture of dialogue.” Vattimo now teaches at his alma mater, Turin as professor of philosophy.

The slim volume has four sections, namely Santiago’s introduction entitled, “Religion without Theists or Atheists,” Rorty’s essay, “Anticlericalism and Atheism,” Vattimo’s “Age of Interpretation,” and finally a three way conversation (or perhaps a moderated two way conversation) entitled, “What is Religion’s Future after Metaphysics.”

The Future of Religion is not easy to read or understand. It requires that the reader have strong familiarity with 20th Century Western (Continental and American) philosophy, especially with what is called the “post-metaphysical” period. Even highly educated people lacking this specific narrow philosophical, theological, and linguistic training cannot easily follow the book’s content. Imagine reading a debate among computer programmers debating the competencies of Perl and Linux languages. As much as one might find the first few sentences of such a conversation fascinating, most would tend to lose the thread once terms such as C, sh, csh, grep, sed, awk, Fortran, COBOL, PL/I, BASIC-PLUS, SNOBOL, Lisp, Ada, C++, and Python, were treated as common parlance, needing no explanation.

As such The Future of Religion should be seen as a “trade” book, by philosophers for philosophers (and a very narrow band of philosophers at that!) Most even highly educated people would have NO IDEA what these three people are talking about. Add to that a starting point for the conversation that takes the “death of God” for granted, and a strong temptation arises to dismiss The Future of Religion along with a blast of related scattershot decrying “everything that’s wrong with this world.” To succumb to such a temptation, however, would be to err. Leaving the extreme “in group” quality of the discourse aside, The Future of Religion represents a genuinely valuable and intellectually important encounter. Jean Grondin from the University of Montreal calls Rorty and Vattimo “the two most preeminent figures of postmodernism.” Nancy Frankenberry of Dartmouth College calls them “two of the world’s leading philosophers.” Radical progress requires on occasion that peers be free to pursue the horizons of their expertise unfettered by having constantly to translate themselves.

The premise of The Future of Religion is well conceived and works well. In fact, as we shall see, it embodies the very philosophical commitments of the thinkers involved. Rorty and Vattimo stand at the edges of anti-foundationallsm or anti-essentialism. They think hard at the edges of the postmodernism and bring from this elite precipice some of of Western philosophy’s strongest challenges. In response the “death of God, and the deconstruction of metaphysics,” Rorty and Vattimo wandered off in different directions, Rorty through Dewey’s door of pragmatism, and Vattimo through Gadamer’s hermeneutics. Zabala thought these men should talk. The result of all agreeing to do so is The Future of Religion.

Terms and thinkers which inform this conversation and are requisite for readers to understand this volume include Nietzche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Gadamer, Dewey, Benedetto Croce, Derrida, nihilism, historicism, postmodernism, hermeneuticism, and neo-pragmatism.


The Death of God

The term “Death of God,” was probably coined to provoke and anger theists,. If so it surely succeeded, and along with this childish penchant among the precociously bright, proponents probably enjoyed the teen-style lament “you just don’t understand.” The milder term for the same philosophical collection is “radical theology.”

S.N Gundry rightfully notes that the “death of God” movement of the mid-60’s never coalesced around a single center or definition for the notion. Presently these philosophical innovations have both social and linguistic implications and influences:

The social or historical element has its late (1960’s) roots in Gabriel Vahanian’s book, God is Dead, in which he analyzed the historical elements that contributed to “the masses accepting atheism not so much as a theory but as a way of life” [Gundry: m-bsoft.com/believe]. The linguistic side of the problem derives from “premise [that arose] among empirical analytic philosophers that real knowledge and meaning can be conveyed only by language that is empirically verifiable” [Gundry].

Together these sparked a fluid (and likely North Atlantic-centric) sense that “God” no longer functioned as a dominant or efficient category in modern society (giving birth to “this-worldly”, and secular theologies), and linguistically that the term “God” could no longer function as a verifiable or reliable referent. Thus “the death of God.”


The Rejection of Metaphysics

The “death of God,” is an unfortunate, provocative (albeit catchy and journalistically enticing) description of genuine and substantial philosophical challenges. Philosophy stumbled across three great difficulties regarding existence and experience. 1. Human existence is always “in history,” 2. Experience is always structured in the “linguistic a priori,” and finally 3. The devastating synthesis, namely the historicity of language itself!

These observations compel the rigorous philosopher to engage in the “deconstruction of metaphysics,” a task which results in “the end of logocentrism, the end of the privilege accorded by metaphysical thought to presence and voice incarnations of the Logos, capable of rendering Being available to a finite subject.” [Zabala: 6]

Rorty, Vatimmo and others thus reject any “authority that, in the guise of a scientific or ecclesiastical community, imposes something as objective truth.” (Zabala: 8] They insist rather in the “historicity of all knowledge,” believing that recognizing such allows for the dissolution of the modernistic dispute between religion and science (in which modernity gave science the upper hand). They speak of “the weight of objective structures,” and the “violence of dogmatism.” In its extreme, even “method,” and “grammar,” are looked upon with suspicion.

The vertigo and resulting sense of freefall coming from these positions is so intense that many react angrily and combatively to these philosophers and philosophical impulses. It is better, however, that such challenges be embraced, digested, considered and resolved, than merely opposed with a vigilante spirit. If people like Rorty and Vattimo have the stomach to stare these philosophical developments in the eye, we should pray diligently for their safe return from the Mount of disFiguration.


Rorty’s Hope

Rorty rejects the notion that philosophy can be done “a historically.” This means that philosophers believe our era is ready to grasp the relative nature of all beliefs, a theory that echoes Isaiah Berlin’s idea that there is “no Archimedian point” outside ourselves, our history, our language, or our concepts where we can stand we can stand to achieve and objective viewpoint toward all that we claim to know or believe." Postmodernists like Rorty are not blind to the implications of “a-ntology” (my neologism combining “a” as in apolitical, and “ntology” from the philosophical field “ontology.”).

He does not shy away from the implications of anti-foundationalism for moral and ethical concerns. Later in his essay he writes, “nor is there any need to attempt to reach an ahistorical, God’s-eye view of the relations between all human practices." [Rorty: 32]

How can Rorty (and later as we shall see the devout Catholic, Vattimo) remain so sanguine as the pillars of certitude crumble around them like the fall of the Roman Empire.

There is on the one side an admirable courage and integrity to these men who face the howling winds and philosophize on the edge. In another way they are simply dutiful, like the 9/11 firefighters, or the quartet as portrayed by Cameron in The Titanic. You deal with what is, and the near ritualistic execution of one’s vocation is the best way to meet crises.

Finally one can feel a touch of the rebellious teen in this community, the teen who enjoys the luxury of rebellion while enjoying the benefits of the father’s toil and sweat to pay the rent and feed the family.

It must be accredited to Rorty (and Vattimo) that they view these developments positively, and draw constructive conclusions. Rorty wisely abandoned the self-ascription “atheist,” and changed it to softer, more palatable ascriptions like “anti-clerical,” and “religiously un-musical.”

Ultimately Rorty extends Dewey’s pragmatism toward the philosophical ground of a utopian democracy, citing “what contemporary American philosopher Robert Brandom calls “the game of giving and asking for reasons.” [Rorty: 37]. Rorty plays fair in that he is not unwilling to confess his faith (while “sav(ing) religion from Onto-theology”).

My sense of the holy, insofar as I have one, is bound up with the hope that someday, any millennium now, my remote descendents will live in a global civilization in which love is pretty much the only law. In such a society, communication would be domination free, class and caste would be unknown, hierarchy would be a matter of temporary pragmatic convenience, and power would be entirely at the disposal and the free agreement of a literate and well educated electorate. [Rorty: 40]



Vattimo’s Hope

Gianni Vattimo stands on the same ground, or perhaps sinks in the same quicksand as Richard Rorty. There is no difference between the two men insofar as their respective assessment of the possibility of metaphysics. Lest anyone accidently suggest something might actually be the case, early on in his essay Vattimo wants us to be sure that we know that when “Nietzche writes, “there are no facts, there are only interpretations” [that he is not making] an objective, metaphysical proposition.” [Vattimo: 44]. Okay, relative enough? We need not reiterate the anti-metaphysical efforts of postmodernists to provide tight enough security to protect us from the horror that something might inadvertently be recommend as true.


The difference between Rorty and Vattimo does not lie in how they read our condition, it lies rather in two things peculiar to their personal histories: 1. Rorty thinks of himself as “religiously unmusical,” and Vattimo considers himself a devout Catholic. 2. Rorty advances his philophical horizons more in the tradition of American philosophers, and Vattimo more in that of the “continental” philosophers. They pass through very different doors, but arrive at remarkable similar locations. This is the great beauty of this book.


Vattimo credits Christianity with the incipient impulses of Nietzche’s nihilism, and Heidegger’s end of metaphysics. For Vattimo (as we saw with Rorty) this is a positive direction. Vattimo explains, “Christianity introduces into the world the principle of interiority, on the basis of which “objective” reality gradually loses its preponderant weight.” [Vattimo: 46-7] … hermeneutics as a radically “nihilist” ontology … I believe we must” insists Vattimo, “[argue] that postmodern nihilism constitutes the actual truth of Christianity.” [Vattimo: 47] These examples abound, “Christianity as a message of salvation consists above all in dissolving the peremptory claims of ‘reality,’ Paul’s sentence, ‘Oh death where is thy victory?’ can rightfully be read as an extreme denial of the ‘reality principle.’ [Vatimmo: 49 – 50], … [and] Wittgenstein’s phrase that philosophy (for us, this would be the postmetaphysical philosophy made possible by Christ) can only free us from idols.” [Vattimo:50]


The anti-authoritarianism of this impulse that we saw in Rorty’s explanations obtain with Vattimo as well, “All claims by historical authorities to command in the name of truth have been revealed as deceptions that absolutely cannot be tolerated in a democracy.” [Vattimo:54]


So where does Vattimo’s “Christianity,” and roots in continental philosophy take one to find solace from the queasy feeling of ever shifting sands? Interestingly Vattimo also arrives at “democracy.” Not the social democracy of a “domination free” society in which “love is the only law,” taken by extension from Dewey and the traditions of American philosophy, but rather as it expresses itself in “the philosophy of communicative action of Habermas… No experience of truth can exist without some kind of participation in community… [with] Gadamer hermeneutics, truth comes about as the ongoing construction of communities that coincide in a fusion of horizons… Truth consists above all in their being shared by a community.” [Vattimo: 51]


It is easy to see that the “redemption of nihilism” (my phrase) lies in fraternite. Whether it be the “pragmatic” unfolding of a democracy through shared practice (charity), or the unfolding of “what is true for all of us” (my phrase) through participating in the interpretation of our historicized moment in a “fusion of horizons.”



Rescuing the Orphans

There are a number of significant flaws in postmodernist philosophies, the most noteworthy being that unless one thinks really carefully, and really hard, and really faithfully it is simply not how we think. It is not how we feel. I think it requires that one be able to make a living out of thinking this way, before it starts to feel natural.

It is this innate or “gut” sense that postmodernist views are only really practical for the pampered elite that engenders some of the visceral reactions to postmodern philosophical propositions. The “I don’t know what they’re sayin’ but I know I don’t like it,” feeling, or “There are no facts? How about you’re on fire? Is that factual enough for ya, mister?”

This incongruence with lived experience, I believe, accounts for some of the strong, even emotional opposition toward anti-foundationalists, and hermeneutic nihilists. Since social and legal conventions require that we try to express ourselves philosophically without setting our dialogue partners on fire, let us see if we can identify elements in the human experience which challenge the analyses and conclusions of even the most superior postmodernists such as Rorty and Vattimo.


I Owe this All to …

The first thing to note in postmodernism is its extreme anti-authoritarian geneses. Hierarchy, power, authority, and any related elements in the human experience are presumed laden with oppression, exploitation, and other inevitable effects, all ultimately harming the welfare and impeding the eventual liberation and emergence of innate human goodness.

The problem with this view, its sybaritic appeal notwithstanding, is that it simply is not our experience with authority a vast percentage of the time. The negatives presumed by postmodernists describe only occasional experiences, and only with some authority. What is presumed to be “true” about hierarchy and authority in fact only describes the misuse, abuse, and exploitation of authority. But what of the 1,000’s of occasions in which authority is benign, if not downright pleasant? My children’s primary school crossing guard. An absolute authority. From the littlest one in Buster Brown’s to the bone-crushing driver of the 16-wheeler, obeyed this small lady absolutely! Always fun, often with a lollipop on hand, or scolding Junior for his ever-untucked shirt. My 18-year-old kids still visit her, still standing in the same intersection, and still getting a lollipop whenever they can.

I have never seen Blues performed when the artist did not pay homage to a teacher or an old great. It is an honor they LOVE to confer, humility, surrender, and glorification of an authority they gratefully embrace.

Examples abound. The point is that in this world, and in being human it is just a “fact” that there are those who “know” more. They are older and we not only permit, but keep doors wide open and in fact cherish any time these benevolent “higher ups” tell us what to do. What I describe here might be called the “vertical” dimension of the human macrocosm (if we consider the utopian fraternite of the postmodernists, the “horizontal” dimension). Both are sweet. They round out life. The flat utopias of Rorty and Vattimo are too flat. They do not match reality, and they omit a sweet and known part of human existence. Give me B.B. King, give me Yogi Berra, give me my 7th grade Latin teacher. And above all, if you are lucky (and many of us are) give me my mom and dad. Herein lies an axis of meaning and even “truth,” missing in the horizontal, two-dimensional utopias of Rorty and Vattimo.


Lord of the Flies

The second thing we “know” (somehow) that rejects even the most elegant siren-call of such enchanting postmodernists as Rorty and Vattimo, is that we do not order ourselves better when simply left alone. History and subjective experience of self speaks unequivocally of the existence of profound evil in human affairs. Again, even without the philosophical sophistication to challenge these brilliant thinkers, people of average intelligence know that communitarian constructs sprouting in the Petri dish of radical nihilism disremember the “truth” of evil in our experience, in our immediate and subjective “knowing.” We “know” that when things get really evil, you just cannot just talk them away. There are some “horizons” with which we know in our gut we are not meant to “fuse.” History and our present world are rife with evidence that part of the human condition and the resulting horrors of dehumanization are “true,” and they not reformed simply by talking long enough. Thus the second missing or errant element in the postmodern project is the naiveté that inadvertently inheres ironically within its sophistication. Even those without philosophical training “know” fraternite neglects to integrate this particular universal in the human experience.


Epistemology
The final critique of anti-essentialism, nihilism, and hermeneuticism I offer here takes up the epistemological shortfall in these postmodern systems. What Rorty, Vattimo and their contemporaries fail to incorporate in their analyses is the role of “doing” in “knowing.”

Until now, epistemology has concerned itself with the apprehension and affirmation of propositions.

The breakdown in that relationship, and the insistence that we have lost our ability to claim that one can “know” something as “true” plays a strong and major part in the legitimate challenges forged by postmodernists. Rorty was perfectly right as a celebrity pioneer to rent himself from the warp and woof of positivism, and the analytic tradition, that last gasp in which truth was sought by reducing language to mathematics. This could not fend off the horror as the referent similarly tore itself free from language.

It is accurate then that “truth seeking” in the realm of language-sodden propositions is a lost cause. The postmodern project, in my opinion is most intuitive in its rigorous refusal to permit reckless and sloppy truth claims singing blindly in the chasm between le mot and l’objet. In this I have no problem.

I have a problem with the solutions they propose, that they remain in the cave and offer irrational solutions that stay in the shadows.

Just as the forfeit of the “vertical” and of “authority” lacked sufficient imagination to take up life’s reality honestly, similarly the surrender to the end of metaphysics fails to find an imaginative solution to the legitimate epistemological challenge rightly put forth in postmodern observations.

It is in moving beyond the disembodied intellect and its relationship to proposition that the postmodern challenge can be met with solutions that match human experience and the fact that we all know it is possible to “know” something. The postmodern, epistemological challenge should not be met playfully, it should be met in a way that conforms to a full and honest gaze at life in the world.

The better solution is achieved by approaching “knowing” in a more wholesome, more well rounded, and more integrated way, one that considers the human being with greater nuance and through more aspects than merely its intellectual relationship to metaphysical proposition.

The development of an integrated epistemology is far-reaching and complex ultimately requiring the full involvement of mind-brain theory. It is impossible to fully develop this solution in this short space, but the necessary elements can be introduced.

The key to re-opening the possibility of knowing after postmodernism lies in affirming and recognizing the relationship between two key elements. These are: 1. Human beings are a microcosm of the universe in which we act. (i.e., we – including our brains – are made out of the same stuff we apprehend and manipulate), and 2. (The integrally related reality) action affects cognition.

Once philosophy approaches the reality of human knowing in this more full and integrated embrace, recognizing that proposition is transformed into knowledge through experience and action, (i.e. how we in fact live in the world), we can become free to benefit from the valuable observations of the postmodernists. Courageous and aesthetically pleasing thinkers like Rorty and Vattimo deserve their rightful place as contributors in the pull toward the peaceful world they envision.



For the old order of things has passed away

Rorty, Vattimo and the postmodern philosophical movement needs to restore and integrate “the vertical,” the sweet matrix of “authority” into a richer and fuller account of human life. Secondly they need a more intuitive and sophisticated grasp of the reality of evil. And finally they need to recognize and develop an epistemology that understands the relationship between action and cognition.

If these are taken up in earnest, they can develop radically new foundations (even as watchdogs to keep the old foundations away) for the next era of human spirituality, new and effective agents to pursue an ideal world. We could not have fresh ground awaiting new foundations were it not for great thinkers like Rorty and Vattimo who are willing to think so hard, facing the icy winds at the edges.

Thank Allah for Tony Blair

If Mr. Blair can stay the course he set in response to the deplorable London bombings, and if the people whom he calls as partners can rise to meet the challenge, what is called Muslim terrorism will end.

Mr. Blair offers the first intelligent response from a major Western leader to what is called Muslim terrorism. Mr. Blair’s clear and balanced 4 point plan introduced in Parliament promises to reverse our plummet into the blind and primitive militarism that nourishes escalating guerilla attacks on innocents.

Mr. Blair’s 4 point plan boasts simplicity rather than simple-mindedness. He calls for:

o New laws as planned against incitement and instigation of terrorism
o New measures to keep people inciting hatred out of the UK, or making it more easily to deport them
o Help for the Muslim community to counter the "evil" interpretation of their faith
o International effort to mobilize the "moderate and true voice of Islam"

He shifts focus from acts of terrorism to incitement and instigation of terrorism. “The laws,” reports BBC, “would focus on measures the police and security services believed necessary to combat the incitement and the instigation of terrorism as well as the acts of terrorism themselves." Additionally he includes a pledge “help for the Muslim community to counter the "evil" interpretation of their faith”, and to launch “an international effort to mobilize the "moderate and true voice of Islam"

The analysis and the plan are finely integrated. The deportation aspect flirts with the unimaginative, wholly ineffective impulse to “get rid of people.” But it is nevertheless reasonable and proper as it deals with the laws of his own sovereign state, and his responsibility to protect its citizens.

Otherwise here’s how “getting rid of people” works:

In July 2004, US Vice President Cheney stated "many of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed. Those still at large are on the run, and we are going to hunt them down--one by one." In September, US President GW Bush stated “More than three quarters of Al Qaeda’s key members and associates have been detained or killed.” In the mean time the US government reports of 2004 stated, “The number of "significant" [terrorist] attacks grew to about 655, up from the record of around 175 in 2003.” “Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total.”

Mr. Blair instead correctly identifies the source of the problem as an ideology. He offers a clear and effective program in response by identifying the right allies, and promising resources to that community.

We do not find in Mr. Blair’s rhetoric references to a disembodied, non-defined bogey-man (terrorism) on which we “wage war.” He points out instead, “we are dealing with “an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam.”

With Blair, the perpetrators of inhuman horror among us are no longer a science-fiction like, mercurial web of high-tech, inhuman demons lurking among us (maybe that 87 year old lady from Iowa getting her shoes scanned at JFK airport is one of them.) They are teachers, ideologues. They teach, they incite, they instigate, and they effectively recruit and promote “an evil interpretation of the Muslim faith.” They are not best identified by having a pair of finger nail clippers in their carry-on luggage.

Who do they teach? Muslims. What do they teach? “A misinterpretation of Islam.” Who best might be able to identify these evil-doers? Blair immediately met with Muslim members of parliament, and will host a summit of UK Muslim leaders. This is the correct read. In the same speech he warned that Britain's Muslim community should be protected from reprisals or suspicion following the bombings -- insisting that any attempts by the far right to use the attacks to stir up racism would be "particularly revolting".

Perhaps Mr. Blair is lucky he doesn’t have his country’s leading Christian shouting across the dinner table, “Islam is “wicked, violent and not of the same god.” (Asked by NBC News to clarify his statement, Franklin Graham stood his ground.)

Mr Blair while meeting with Muslim MPs on Wednesday said "this evil [is] within the Muslim community… In the end, this can be taken on and defeated only by the community itself."

Now that Mr. Blair has identified and pledged to support the international “moderate and true voice of Islam,” to combat perpetrators of “a poisonous and perverted misinterpretation of the religion of Islam,” maybe we can relieve corn-fed, Christian boys and girls from Arkansas of that duty.

In August of 2000, immediately prior to the bi-centennial General Assembly, (and well before 9/11) Dr. Sun Myung Moon delivered in the United Nations the speech, Renewing the United Nations and Building A Culture of Peace. After admonishing religious leaders, “Religious people have not been good examples in the practice of love and living for the sake of others … religious leaders [should] stand against the injustices and evils of the world... we [must] go beyond interests of particular religions, and put our love and ideals into practice for the sake of the world,” he then made the radical proposal, “World peace can be fully accomplished only when the world's religious leaders work cooperatively and respectfully with national leaders who have much practical wisdom and worldly experience about the external reality… Serious consideration should be given to forming a religious assembly, or council of religious representatives within the structure of the United Nations.”

This clarion call was all but ignored, horror replaced hope, and the “new millennium” became a time of war.

Since the UN is a membership organization, the establishment of the council called for by Dr. Moon should have been pursued member nation by member nation. That model could then have been mirrored in corresponding new structures for the world body itself.

In the throes of sadness, Mr. Blair rose to perfectly fulfill that vision in his 4 point response to 7/7. Now it is up to the ones he calls as partners, the ones whom Mr. Blair optimistically calls the "moderate and true voice of Islam, the ones to whom he has promised support at home and abroad.

In this he has done more than the politician’s job, and he has done so with a religion not his own! This is path breaking statesmanship in the face of a devastating crisis.

It is now up to Muslim leaders, not only in Britain, but world-wide to meet the this trust and optimism offered at the “West’s” highest levels. Muslim leaders must put aside all petty conflict and division, and rise to this call. Leaders of the “moderate and true voice of Islam,” have been offered respectful support from a mighty Western power, to effectively counter the “evil interpretation of their faith,” and remove the poison from their midst. This is a great challenge, but a precious opportunity for “Islam” to bring genuine benefit to all people of all faiths and all cultures.

Frank Kaufmann
July 17, 2005

Frank Kaufmann is the Director of the Office of International Relations of the IIFWP

This writing represents the personal opinion of the writer, not the position of the IIFWP