Recent interfaith history, and the persistence of religion and faith

Interfaith as an ideal and as an activity now abounds. Very few in the world will admit they do not affirm peaceful and collaborative relations among religions and believers from different traditions. This current expanse of interfaith consciousness has been evolving and maturing for approximately 40 years since the 1970's. The elder statesmen of the interfaith pantheon coincided with the spirit of peace that gave rise to the United Nations. These include the Temple of Understanding, World Conference on Religion and Peace, and the Congress of Faiths. Also quite old and established is the International Council of Christians and Jews, a bilateral interfaith group. These early organizations paved the way for contemporary interfaith. from the 1950's onwards. They were in a way parallel to the United Nations dream only from a religious instead of a political framework.

In the 1970's UN limitations began to harden in the diminished hopes of the global community, as did any radical hope for evident change that might have been harbored for the work of these early interfaith groups. In both cases all recognized the positive value of ongoing work in both areas, but hope for real change transformed itself into recognizing peace work as something worthwhile in its own right. Sort of a "the poor you will always have with you" approach to doing good.

These organizations continued to represent what would become "the establishment" in the interfaith panoply, and many of its seasoned leaders served as mentors for the new turns and developments of interfaith work in later years. In the late 1970's another major spurt of interfaith arose that persisted in an unbroken line of development from that time until the present day.

This period of interreligious relations from the late 1970's until the present, has traversed a number of different phases based on global and international developments and contexts for their relations. During the cold war, interfaith was beneath the surface and did not concern the average person on the street, or the average religious believer. The world at the time was distracted by communist aggression and the proxy wars sponsored by the East and West blocs. Though the problem of communism should have been recognized as a religious problem, people tended to see matters as economic, or based in political theory. In all of life in this period, religion took a back stage. The same was the case obviously, perhaps more so with interreligious activity. People presumed that such conversations were simply for the few who happened to take interest in tht sort of thing, much in the same way one was a movie goer, or a classical music afficionado.

Good interfaith progress occurred during the cold war, but it was not recognized as pressing in world affairs. It was beneath the surface or in the background, so far as most people were concerned. Bbut among religious professionals and people naturally insightful about the central importance of religion in human affairs, important strides were realized in the hard and challenging work required to advance positive interreligious relations. Greater knowledge, wisdom, and facitlity in positive interreligious relations were developed, as was greater complexity and breadth. These developments and progress during this phase of obscurity remain the treasure and legacy of interfaith opportunity as seen at present.

In 1989 when communist states (particularly the Soviet Union) imploded, instead of the appearance of the era of peace expected by some, there erupted onto the horrified surface of human, and interanational relations full blown, old fashion, medeival, kill-the-infidel style religious war! The tinderbox of course was the Balkans ("former Yugoslavia') - (which by the way erupts now once more, with the declaration of Kosovo independence.) This war (and subsequent global instability) all revealed a persistent reality of religion taken with deadly seriousness in human affairs.

The path to secular enlightenment - (that finally realized itself in full blown, State-enforced atheism, proved to have made nary a dent in religious devotion and religious passions. The only thing that happened post-enlightenment was the rise of a new religiously-held passion, namely religious-ignorantism in the forms of post-enlightenment rationalism and secularism. These emerged to bcome one of the smaller "religious" communities in the scheme of things.

With the surprise evidence that old fashioned religious hatred had gone nowhere at all, the major secularist and materialist powers found themselves asleep at the wheel of world affairs. Even to this very moment, North Atlantic power centers (especially media, as well as the "management theory movement") stubbornly resist the wisdom of recognizing the enormous influence of religion (for good and for bad) in the unfolding of contemporary world affairs.

Though the interfaith movement struggles to be effective in the face of massive outbreak of conflict that involves and includes religious dimensions, it should be noted that the interfaith movement did not suddenly arise with the post-Soviet-era "discovery" that religious passions still inform human life. As noted above, these already attempted to instill themselves alongside UN dreaminess, and then arose again due to other factors in the late 70's and throughout the 1980's.

The cold war distracted many from the truth about religion and the importance of interfaith for most of the 20th century, but despite the immediate eruption of Balkan type interreligious hatreds in the wake of communist decline, the elite still imagined a non-religiously influenced world also throughout the 1990's. This "second slumber" was characterized by the dog dream that at last everyone in the world would want to be just like the United States. The rude awakening from this modernist delusion was perhaps even more stark than the religio-political clashes that shredded the Balkans. The infamous 9-11 attacks once again labored hard to remind the secular elite that religion seems to matter to some, and matter quite a lot!

Hopefully this ostrich-like attitude of the secular elite is changing, as might be indicated in phenomena such as we find in uncharacteristic New York Times quote of February 25, 2008:

Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University, echoed that view. “Religion is the single most important factor that drives American belief attitudes and behaviors,” said Mr. Lindsay, who had read the Pew report. “It is a powerful indicator of where America will end up on politics, culture, family life. If you want to understand America, you have to understand religion in America.”

Events since 9-11 evoke religion (however bastardized) are so persistent and relentless, that even those who find belief bothersome in its tenacity, seem to recognize (if reluctantly) that efforts and experts on how religions might better get along are now seen not only as not "quaint" but perhaps even welcome.

Once again we should be thankful that interfaith activists did not spring to life on September 12, 2001 green, and clueless. Rather, as I have postited in these few words, current interfaith reflection, scholarship, and activity represent an unbroken period of approximately 40 years of development, sophistication, and increasing inexperience and complexity.

There remain key and vital elements missing in the repertoire of interfaith professionals, that still leave the industry insufficient to influence radical chang and success in the face of severe, world threatening conflict. Addressing these inadequacies is one of the responsibilities of concerened, enlightened leaders with intuition into the spiritual. In the mean time steady education and information from scholars in the field of religion and peace, and interfaith relations are vital to our current situation.

The appeal of "radical Islam"

An important article appears today in The Times of India entitled "Young Muslims in UK attracted to radical Islam." The unfortunate reality is described plainly in the headline, but the article fails to unpack the implications of two key elements concealed in the very words of the writer himself.

The first clue appears in paragraph one:

Young Muslims in Britain are increasingly getting inclined towards radical Islam as it presents a more "comprehensive and coherent" ideology than the one advocated by local mosques, a report has suggested.

And the second in paragraph two:

"The growth of monocultural ghettos has led to the radicalisation of young Muslims who see extremism as the only theology available to them," the report, by British home office in 2005 said.

The essence of my commentary is twofold. The first is a call to world, Muslim leadership, especially its theologians, scholars and educators to recognize the implications of this observation. The second is a call to all concerned citizens worldwide to recognize the enduring fact that non-religious elements contribute to this harmful and self-destructive identification with deviant and aberrant "religious" interpretations.

When first reading this Times of India headline, I felt saddened. On balance I tend to admire the UK for its efforts to intuit and implement the all important ideal of religious freedom (as opposed to so many mainland European nations, which or some odd reason are lowbrow in this arena). Thus, why in the UK of all places (as one of the better places to be Muslim) should there be an increase in the trend toward what is called "radical Islam" (a misnomer in my opinion)?

The reasons for this shone through the writer's casual observations. I was not at all surprised to discover that both halves of the equation had little to do with religion per se. Yet even so, the implications for religious leaders and practitioners are great.

The two elements identified in the article as responsible for the rise of "radical Islam" among Muslim youth in the UK are: 1. Monocultural ghettos, and 2. The comprehensiveness and coherence of these evil teachings.

The fact of monocultural ghettoes is a political, economic, cultural, and historical reality, far more than a religious one (if at all). While not a religious reality, it is nevertheless a religious problem, namely something religions (and surely not just Islam) should address and fix. Monocultural ghettos are a problem. These have the potential to lead to anger and violence whether packaged in an ideology or not (for example plain old drug and gang violence), and whether the ideology happens to be the perversion of religious teachings or not (for example Marxism, a religion denying ideology is extremely violent).

The second element that completes the circle in this sad and destructive mix is that the appeal described for "radical Islam" is that it is comprehensive and coherent! Not that it is true, edifying, uplifting, consistent with tradition and historical interpretation, or responsible in anyway to genuinely religious purposes. As with the ghetto problem, comprehensiveness coherence in a thought system are not related necessarily to religion. Any thought system can be comprehensive and coherent, even one claiming to represent a religion despite violating the most important of its basic tenets.

And here with this issue of coherence, (just as it was with the issue of monocultural ghettoes), it is not a matter necessarily related to religious thought, but again it is a religious problem. If Muslim leaders, educators, and parents cannot present a comprehensive and coherent account of the Islam of peace, human equality, social cohesion, and respect for life they leave their precious children vulnerable to villains who can construct a comprehensive and coherent call, even if it is one that defiles all virtue and life itself.

It is not sufficient merely to proof-text and reiterate ad nauseum the incessant declaration that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Islam means peace. It is necessary to compete with the appeal, devotion, and ideological ardor invested in the thought systems generated by militant and violent preachers and recruiters.

The realities sadly happen to be, 1. intolerable and enraging life in monocultural ghettos, combined with 2. selfless (if perverse) devotion and intellectual striving of hateful, violent ideologues. These are the challenges that must be faced and resolved by Muslim intellectuals, leaders and educators. Wherein lies a comprehensive and coherent account of Islam's true beauty that can speak in the midst of this tragedy, this current world of offense, separation, and inequality experienced in Europe's ghettos? This is the most pressing challenge of our time. The lives of a generation of beautiful young men and women depend on our success.

Danish Foreign Ministry Errs

The ten members of the Danish parliament's Foreign Policy Committee, including Denmark's former foreign minister Mogens Lykketoft, erred when they canceled a trip to Iran two days prior to scheduled meetings. The purpose of the trip was to meet with members of the Iranian Parliament as well as to look into such issues as the country's human rights and uranium enrichment.

During this same time period Danish police arrested two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent on Tuesday, accusing them of planning to kill a cartoonist who drew a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that was then published in Danish newspapers 2 years ago.

One presumes that Denmark upholds due process, and that in Denmark arrests are not equated with guilt, but remarkably fifteen Danish newspapers reprinted this very same cartoon on Wednesday in protest against the alleged plot. The alleged plot.

Even if these papers had waited for a guilty verdict following due process, it would remain the case that an infantile provocation of this magnitude is beyond reproach. Considering the vast difficulties worldwide that derived from the initial printing of these cartoons, there are simply no words to describe the decision of not one or two deranged editors, but a coordinated effort among 15 newspapers in what is generally regarded as a modern nation. Publication of the cartoons two years ago led to protests and rioting in Muslim countries around the world. At least 50 people were killed and three Danish embassies attacked.

As explained in the Feb. 16 Reuters article:

"The Iranian parliament had demanded an apology of the Danish parliamentary delegation, which they of course cannot accommodate," Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller said in a statement....

Moller said the committee could not apologize for the fact that Danish media carried out its obligation to inform as it could not apologize for freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the Danish constitution.

Here is where Moller commits a flatuous, and indeed a gross and arrant mistake. Why "of course"? No one asked Moller to apologize for freedom of expression, or to apologize that Danish papers have a duty to inform their readers. It would be more than simple enough for Moller or a designated spokesperson to express a mature, and reasoned apology, even seizing the opportunity to elaborate on whatever particular social virtues are so sacrosanct in Moller's mind.

Here is what Moller could better have said:

"Respected citizens of Iran, indeed respected world citizens who seek to live as true Muslims in elevated and peaceful ways, we of the Danish parliament who will soon be guests in Iran, wish to express profound apologies for any offense that happens in our country to that which you hold sacred. We hope you will understand our traditions in which freedom of expression must be guaranteed, and though it pains us to see abuse of these freedoms, the Danish government will never seek to encroach on what we believe to be a vital pillar of any free society. As Danes we are sorry that Islam has been offended in our country. Likewise we pray in earnest that all who call themselves Muslims will follow Islam as it advises us all to embrace its highest virtues of tolerance and harmony seen in the Hadith "You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness." (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

While we cannot undermine the all important democratic principle that guarantees freedom of expression, we can apologize for Danes who abuse this freedom to offend. As we try to elevate the mentality and public discourse in Denmark, we hope likewise that if newspapers or government policy in Iran espouses views that offend or incite Muslim believers against Christian and Western democratic sensibilities, that this too can change.

We hope that our upcoming visit to Iran will help us grow in our mutual understanding of one another, and lead to more harmonious relations among our peoples."

For a government to stand behind actions that are so patently reprehensible as a unified media decision to offend religious believers around the world, and then to poison international relations by canceling a high level diplomatic mission is a near perfect error, a disgrace to the West, an offense, and a missed opportunity.

Bush Middle East Tour: No sadly, not a joke

The founder and board chairman of one of America's largest restaurant chains sitting beside me on a NY bound jet was fascinated to learn of my work for religion and peace on the international level. "What do you think of Bush's trip to the Middle East? I mean I voted for the guy, but it's a joke isn't it?" "Don't expect progress from this tour," was my answer. The first and main reason to abstain from hope from this tour is related to the powerlessness of the players posing in the pictures.

President Bush hovers at the lowest approval ratings of any US President in recent memory, recently presided over the unqualified repudiation of his policies through the midterm electoral loss of both houses, and now struggles to manage massive indicators of economic downturn (including China and Abu Dabi in deals for Citibank's $18 bn shortfall, Merril Lynch's $ 8 bn fourth quarter loss, the Morgan Stanely $5.6 bn 4th quarter loss, and much else). President Abbas lost control of Gaza to Hamas in democratic elections, and whose Fatah party are in shootouts and violent confrontations with Hamas in Gaza, and Olmert gasps for air in the thin and unforgiving political atmosphere following the Lebanon attack-and-military-debacle, as well as investigations related to personal, corruption scandal.

One might imagine Abbas to be the most courageous of these three considering the extreme risk any Muslim figure - especially one from the region - takes when engaged in real or imagined collaboration with US and/or Israel. But apart from the possible courage of Mr. Abbas, and whatever good might be ascribed to Messrs Bush and Olmert, the fact is that none exercises sufficient sovereignty, enjoys sufficient positive good will, or commands a sufficient, domestic majority to implement anything they might agree upon with one another. None (save perhaps Mr. Abbas) are even in any way remotely identified with peace. All three currently suffer under the persistent weight of military misadventures (Lebanon for Olmert, Iraq for Bush, and Gaza skirmishes for Abbas).

Poor Abbas was humiliated and Olmert mocked by Egypt's willingness to transport 2,000 Gazan Hajjis directly into the strip contra the Abbas-Olmert plan for their return to Gaza from Mecca. Thus the political, economic, and military insufficiency of these dialogue partners preclude the possible expectation of peace or progress from these conversations.

The second reason the Bush, Middle East tour bodes no hope for peace, is due to the addled and unfocused agenda for the journey. It was called a peace mission though a major purpose what to foment enmity and belligerence toward a major country in the region (Iran). Bush was overt and unashamed in his effort to rally Gulf Arabs into an anti-Iran bloc. He was bent on further isolating Tehran diplomatically and economically, without giving up the option of a military attack on Iran. This bellicose, anti-Iran quality of the tour, defines the word peace out of proper analysis of the tour. And even this met with no success. "The Arabs are afraid of Iran, especially the Saudis and the emirs who rule the small oil-rich states situated just across the Gulf from the Persian giant," writes Scott McLeod out of Cairo for Time, but while "they are inclined to agree with Bush's worries about Iran's nuclear intentions. But they are even more concerned about another U.S. war in the Gulf. Arabs would never want Washington to get too cozy with Tehran. But they've had enough Texas gunslinging."

The second contaminant to "peace seeking," was the cap-in-hand supplication for more and cheaper oil from Saudi King Abdullah. Bush's plea drew little sympathy from oil-rich Saudi Arabia, which said production levels appear normal, despite Bush's odd declaration that he thinks "thinks Abdullah understands the pain Americans are suffering at the pump," Are we talking about the same Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah who gave the Bush family $127,600 in jewelry and other presents last year, including a diamond-and-sapphire jewelry set for first lady Laura Bush that was valued at $95,500. This is the man Mr. Bush is sure understands the pain Americans are suffering at the pump?

The third and most egregious part of the tour that offends the notion of peace is the fact that, far more than behaving like a genuine peace ambassador, Mr. Bush instead resembled most closely an arms merchant. Presently a nuclear nation, Pakistan and US ally Musharaf teeter on the brink of implosion and falling into the hands of radical, militant clergy. Data from Fiscal Year Series report of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) of the Department of Defense explains that the United States signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5 billion. The late Dr. Bhutto could not see through US efforts and Condi's request to help transition Pakistan from military rule. Now in the name of "peace" president Bush offers Israel a $30 billion arms deal, and Saudi Arabia (the home origin of all 9-11 "bombers") a 20 billion dollar arms deal. In essence the Bush notion of being on a mission for peace is to have the United States arm to the teeth, and intensify internecine "Muslim" hatreds, in the worst tinderbox and most unstable theatre of incurable hatred our race has ever known.

At the end of his negotiations with Abbas and Olmert, his efforts to foment tensions in the region, his supplication for more and cheaper oil, and his efforts to broker 50 billion dollars in US arms sales to the most strife ridden and unstable area in the world, and despite the fact that neither Israel nor its Arab neighbors assured Bush that they will do what the United States asks on issues ranging from democratic reform and unauthorized Israeli housing expansion to high gas prices, Bush nevertheless seemed tickled at the end of his tour. "I'm feeling quite feisty here," Bush said Tuesday, pronouncing himself to be in "a great mood" as the closely watched trip drew to a close. A day earlier he had collected enormous gold medallions in Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia, accepting the Saudi medal with a slight bow of the head and a double kiss for his host the king.

Feisty perhaps. A joke? No sadly, not a joke.

Turkey should lift head scarf ban

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is pushing to lift Turkey's "headscarf ban" that forbids the wearing of Muslim head scarves in universities and public offices.

This is not merely and purely an issue of religious freedom. It is also the wedge and icon of the decades long power battle between "the generals" and elected governments in Turkey.

In addition to plain fights over power, there is a genuine ideological dimension as well. The secular establishment (including the military) sees attempts to lift the ban as threatening Turkey's "secular principles." In the past, Turkey's generals have even staged coups in the name of wanting to "protect the nation's secular traditions"!

One cannot look at this just cynically though. The legitimate points of concern from the side of the secular elite is the express fear that lifting the headscarf ban could put pressure on women to wear ever more conservative attire, and open new avenues for the government to impose strict versions of Sharia law on public and private life. These are highly sensitive issues that often dominate the national agenda.

Still on principle alone it is necessary to side with Erdogan who insists that lifting the ban is nothing more than a question of individual liberty.

This claim to simplicity is not true in the context of Turkish power politics, and highly charged questions involving culture, religion, and even Turkey's own directions on policy and international relations. Still, even in such complex and complicated issues of politics and policy, it remains necessary to uphold the ideal of personal liberty, especially in the arena of religious freedom. We cannot be comfortable when governments impose on the free expression of personal faith. We do not want Turkish Muslims barred from their sacred obligations any more than we would hope to see such constraints and impositions on Muslims citizens in Holland, Germany, or France.

Frank Kaufmann

Watching New Hampshire

New Hampshire, the granite state, is the first on the calendar of the United States to hold party primaries. NY Senator Hillary Clinton edged over Illinois Senator Barack Obama by 3 percentage points 39 - 36. Former North Carolina Senator Edwards came a distant 3rd with 17% of his party's vote. On the Republican side it was McCain 37%, Romney 32, and Huckabee 11. Both Republican and Democrat votes differed from Iowa results (i.e., Obama, Edwards, Clinton (D), and Huckabee, Romney, Thompson (R).

Last night I took note of how the candidates handled the outcome and how they addressed their supporters once the results became clear.

Such on-the-ground politics is a thrilling part of the American political process. Candidates are close among volunteers and the voters, very personal, yet carry out this work under massive national and media attention. This blend of intimate, person to person politics, in high intensity, high-stakes, impassioned activity is a formula for the arising of fervid emotion and can provide a very helpful lens through which to take in candidates.

As numbers became clear each candidate came out to address his or her supporters, responding to victory, something less than victory, or simply defeat. These speeches are at once thanks and good-bye to genuine, loving supporters, but also speeches to the nation. With emotions so high and the personal so close, these make for good speeches to watch closely.

John McAin should have had the most thrilling night of all, since he was the runaway victor in his party after having been left for dead just weeks ago. For some, sad reason McCain acceded to deliver a travesty of a speech prepared by some hack. He stumbled through a poorly written screed so riddled with grammatical negatives that McCain himself ended up confused. Even its compulsory "end-with-a-show-stopper" clattered about, entangled in its 3-parts, the crowd erupting part way through, while McCain had to quiet them down only to get through a deflated, closing zinger, a most unfortunate energy to announce one's resurrection.




Ron Paul, the Ross Perot of 2008 with wildly devoted followers, ended up in his concession speech excitedly reiterating his plan to dissolve the Federal Reserve, excitedly reporting that his supporters are burning up dollar bills. Not exactly the stuff of political gravitas.




New Mexico Governor Richardson (whom I tend to like as a personality) was unprepared, and said as close to nothing as possible.









Of these, the most important two speeches to watch were those of Senators Clinton and Obama.

New Hampshire results pulled Senator Clinton from the jaws of death. Iowa had shown her vulnerability, and Hillary haters and the vapid commentariat raced to write her obituary though not a single American vote had been cast in a single primary (Iowa being a caucus).

Senator Clinton showed an important strength and important weaknesses in her speech to thank and congratulate her supporters. On the positive side, without a prepared speech, she stayed on message. In essence in what should be an extremely emotional moment, Senator Clinton simply continued to campaign. Her degree of focus and purposefulness in an emotional moment of political rescue emits the political maturity of a candidate that must be taken seriously. (Regardless of whether one ascribes this focus to a "healthy" or problematic place).


Obama did the same. He too stayed highely focused while fully engaging and embracing his New Hampshire supporters.

Senator Clinton paused to acknowledge her Democrat competitors, as did Senator Obama, but this act, just as the speeches themselves proved to reveal the colossal difference between these two candidates.

Barack Obama took the stage before a deafening crowd, and after strenuous effort to gain sufficient calm to be able to speak, the very first words from his mouth were unqualified congratulations for Senator Clinton. He demanded of his purely partisan supporters, "give her a hand," and paused with a silent insistence that this crowd summon up that unexpected and unwanted ability. The applause for Senator Clinton at Obama's request gradually swelled almost as though Obama willed it from his people. Only then did Obama turn to yet another example of his superior oratory. What a burden it must be to run against that. But true oratory is not a glued on skill. That only goes so far. The true question is not how hard it is to run against his oratory, but how hard it is to run against him.

Senator Clinton on the other hand, in the fading exhale end of her remarks acknowledged her Democrat opponents beginning her list with even those who'd already withdrawn from the race! At the end of this long list, the END (!), she included mention of Senator Obama, a silly disjunct from reality, as though the Illinois Senator what just another in an insignificant list of primary hopefuls.

It is this difference (namely the manner in which each of these candidates publicly acknowledged the other) that showed in such high relief also in the speeches themselves. Hillary's speech extended her campaign strategies, whereas Obama's speech reprised his vision.

Senator Clinton very clearly continued to shade and shave the campaign strategy and message chiseled by her architects, whereas Obama seemed to need only to draw upon that which sits within. It leads one to feel, or at least to suggest that in Senator Clinton's remarkable discipline to stay on point we experience a menacing political discipline and calculation, whereas with Senator Obama one feels ease, and the relative absence of calculation. Being on point is being himself. The political discipline seems to spray forth in the wake of a harmonizing vision.

If it is true that Obama represents an impassioned presence, and Clinton represents the ultimate political machine and mastery, then we truly have a momentous race to behold, one about which no one should be neutral.

Excerpts from Mitt Romney's 'Faith in America' Speech

Mitt Romney's speech does NOT work on a number of important fronts.

Follows is a point by point response to excerpts from the Romney "Religion speech" earlier this week:

clipped from pewforum.org "Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today." Very good! A person's religion (or non-religion) is a very important part of who they are. The notion that such a matter is irrelevant to how a person will govern a nation is perfect folly! "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith." Yes this too is perfectly true. A person should NOT be voted for or not voted for because of his or her faith. BUT Neither should the person bracket this matter. The insistence on bifurcating doings and who and what a person is, has proven enormously errant and costly in all ways. "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin." Two problems with this passage: In the first sentence, the speech writer offers and Romney agrees to deliver this phrase: "or of any other church for that matter" The problem with this phrase primarily has to do with seriousness of just what the candidate has agreed to attempt. OF COURSE no other church will attempt to influence Romney in any way that a voter would consider problematic. Romney's a Mormon, the only church a voter concerns him or herself over vis a vis Mitt Romney is the Mormon church, So why add the pharse "any other church for that matter"? It is there to say, "Why are you worried in particular about MY church? Many candidates are members of churches. In fact the guy that just beat me in Iowa was actually a pastor! Why do you demand to know only whether or not MY church will exert undue influence over me? Why don't you want to know about the church of, say perhaps my former pastor competitor who just whipped my butt while spending 1/10th of what I spent. Why don't you want to know whether or not HIS church will influence HIM!? What is this religious discrimination?" Here is the big problem with this tiny phrase "or any other church for that matter": This particular text is about the candidate's religion. Such a text must be perfectly and completely sincere. It can NOT enjoin cleverness, and political-ness. This is the one speech where the candidate must simply say what he or she means. Does he want to talk about his opponent's faith? Then do so. Does he want to address religious bigotry in America? Then do so. If you choose to speak about religion, then do so. It is a good and legitimate topic (especially after this current administration). But be simple and be straight. This is the one speech where political speech writers must be given the weekend off. The problem with the "or any other church" line is that is mismatches the occasion in which a person must be sincere. If you choose to speak about religion, it is the time suffer NO cleverness. Speak straight. Secondly and as importantly, why does a person of faith presume that it is so easy to identify a clear line of demarcation between "the province of the church" and the "affairs of the nation." Is it possible that any church on earth addresses its adherents in such a way that everything taught is utterly irrelevant to social and political life? Is it really correct that spiritual and religious teachings are so irrelevant to life that it utterly withdraws and has zero to say "where the affairs of the nation begin"? Why belong to such a church? Why would anyone want to vote for someone who is completely uninfluenced by one of the most important parts of anyone's life, namely what they BELIEVE. If Romney's a Mormon, and that fact has NOTHING to do with how he governs, I am not interested in a leader like that. If one's religion has nothing to do with who one does as pertains the most important things in one's life (like being PRESIDENT for example!) the I am not interested in a person as sorely rent as that. "As (Massachusetts) governor ... I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution -- and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law." Again, why would someone both belong to a religion AND hold public office if his or her religion were at odds "with the obligations of [an] office and of the Constitution? I am not interested to know that a candidate is proudly not confused about what constitutes religion and what constitutes "the sovereign authority of the law," what I want to know is this, if your religion is at odds with the sovereign authority of the law, then I would like to know that you will NOT hold any elected office, OR if you want to hold elected office, then you will not belong to such a religion. I don't want to know that you fancy yourself for some odd reason as capable of keeping contrary convictions separate. We already had a president who tried to separate himself as a person from his ability to govern. This great compartmentalizing capacity, did our country and society no good at all. We don't need another such self-separating leader. They cause serious and enduring problems. "If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States." Good. That's good. That is a good point of juncture and overlap between religion and political governance. And it is good to explain this to prospective voters. "Some ... would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers -- I will be true to them and to my beliefs. " Again very good. That is positive. It is good to know that you will live by your faith and not distance yourself from it. But if you will live by your faith, how on earth is it possible that it will not influence your governance? "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it." Good again. "There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind." OK - So what. That is a question Romney should NOT bother to answer. Unless of course he offers an example of some policy or legislation that he would support on the basis of that belief, and would reject on the other hand if he happened not to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. No one is asking any other candidates about their Christology? This is a silly concern. If voters don't know what Mormon's believe and their curious, let them look it up, or go chat with a missionary. Is it really possible that a voter who is so religiously narrow that she will vote for you if you believe Jesus is the Son of God, but would vote against you if you do not, would now decide that you're Christologically kosher? Of course she won't, no Mormon is going to appeal to that kind of religiously narrow person, anyway. It is smarter to keep your dignity, and not play into the hands of this corrosive part of American politics. "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths." Yet in giving this speech at all, you tread these very waters "You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." Romney's decision to deliver this speech comes from the calculations of his campaign strategists. This is fine. If he wants to give it fine, if he doesn't fine. This is simple strategy, coming from these little sharks and bean counters sucking the blood out of political campaigns. They strategize right, they strategize wrong, that's their business. It doesn't matter as pertains to the extremely important matter of the relationship between religious belief and governance. The problem with the speech is not that it was given. The problem is that so little was correct in the speech. Virtually ONLY his express commitment to universal religious freedom - (which by the way is unrelated to being a Mormon. You could hold any faith and be committed to religious freedom, and you could hold any faith and not be.) The one thing he gets right in his big speech about his religion, turns out to be unrelated necessarily to his explanations about his religion anyway! The rest, as described above introduces a good many points for serious pause. The content of the speech is the problem. Not that he chose to give it.

Commentary on Leaves

Dear Friends

Recent demands have interfered with my steady production of editorial length commentary.

Presently my reportage and commentary is to be found on

Leaves











and

The web presence of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace











Please visit these sites frequently.

Thank you as always for your constant support and encouragement

Frank K

A deal for North Korean denuclearization
by Frank Kaufmann

Resolving differences and removing tension and conflict is always good. It must be genuine of course, and cannot be sought for or declared carelessly or naively, for each breach of trust in the pursuit of harmony makes the next try fraught with all the more struggles. At times the seeming breach of agreement can come from misunderstanding, or different understanding of viewing the same terms of agreement. A seeming "violation" of an agreement, is not always from deceptive and underhanded intentions.

This morning's announcement from the spokespeople for the 6 party talks, that a deal was reached for North Korean denuclearization is wonderful news, potentially lifting a horrible spectre of destabilization from a key global region, (and by implication the whole world). Time Magazine does raise some important questions in its argument that the tentative agreement, is less a comprehensive solution than it is a starting point, such as But what is the trigger, in terms of aid delivered to the North, for the regime to actually begin tearing down the reactor? and other very important elements left vague, like, what of the six to 10 nuclear bombs that the North already has in its arsenal, according to U.S. intelligence analysts? Does anyone believe Kim Jong Il will give those up? Or does he believe they are the ultimate guarantor to the survival of his regime?

These are important questions, but should not serve to diminish the importance of the agreement as far it has come, nor the achievements of the negotiators.

What are the implications of this "first harvest" for the current challenges presented by Iran's frightening nuclearization? (The Financial Times writes Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.)

The applicability of the hard-won Korea agreement to Iran is not readily seen, especially when looking at the external elements in the compromise. Until now international affairs continue to be engaged politically, a system of trades and compromises grounded in self-interest. This is a mossback approach to relations that soon will pass from the coming world. If one remains bound in perspective to narrowly political approaches to the resolution of differences, then there is very little to draw from the Korea progress to apply to Iran. North Korea essentially was purchased (possibly temporarily) with approximately 1 billion dollars worth of oil. It is obvious that this cannot apply to the Iranian situation.

It is possible however that a close study of the "heart," mentality, attitudes, structures, and dynamics of the extremely high-level conversations in the 6 party talks, might reveal something that CAN be applied to the Iran question. For example, the US (even directly from Mr. Bush himself) acknowledged actual dependence on China to help make success happen. If there are people from within the 6 party talks who can account for the internal pathways that led to this first small harvest, (and not just the external political conditions of the "deal") there may well be valuable lessons to be learned from Western powers who are concerned over how to dampen Iran's frightening nuclear ambitions and activity.

Frank Kaufmann is the director of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace. These opinions are his own

powered by performancing firefox

Planning Ahead

by Frank Kaufmann

16 Asian nations just signed the Cebu Declaration on Energy Security, (in the Philippines). Signatories to the Cebu Declaration on Energy Security pledged their support on ensuring the security of energy supplies in the Asian region and to work together to find alternatives to fossil fuels.

On December 1 in the New York Times and wildly reprinted everywhere, Thomas L. Friedman published "The Energy Wall," arguing that curing Western energy dependence on the Middle East will allow Western powers to continue to engage honestly with the most progressive Arabs and Muslims on a reform agenda, without being hostage to the most malevolent."

Presently there are a number of hybrid cars on the US market including the Honda Civic, Honda Accord, Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry, Ford Escape SUV, Lexus 400h SUV, Toyota Highlander SUV and the Mercury Mariner. Some of these are SUV's, and some are luxury automobiles.

I have written repeatedly that the invasion of Iraq was retrograde from every basis for analysis from spiritual to military. In addition to its falseness based on backward and anachronistic starting points, it was also unintelligent from all measures including geo-politicial foreign policy analysis, to the technical use of the term "intelligence." Perhaps the only benefit from this war is that its results are SO bad that it calls otherwise distant or even hostile groups to work together in search of a solution and a way past the current horrors. We must all work together to move forward toward a better world. People exploiting this cosmic misstep simply to attack Mr. Bush and his collaborators, or to pursue domestic or international political advantage, including through hearings to pin blame, are doing everyone a disservice, and all should keep track of who these people are. Electing or empowering such people will not make matters better. We must move past swinging this way or that in the vain imagination that one "side" or other can be correct in isolation.

What is noteworthy about the Cebu declaration and the front-running Western intellectuals and activists advocating and developing future oriented energy sources is the impact these developments will have on the fountainhead of Islamist militancy (and its Latin American friends).

Inexorable progress toward the development of alternative energy sources will bring with it proportional independence of major world economies from the Middle East and other politically and economically backward oil rich areas. Energy like all else in the world will be decentralized (imagine open source wiki like energy production), and human potential will finally be released from backward and moronic political habits dominating international relations even at this moment.

Beyond the general, global impact of trends toward release from bondage and enslavement based on energy greed and need, there is a special impact these developments will have on the Middle East. Progressive and enlightened Muslims should pay extreme attention to these developments and the coming of this re-alignment.

From my limited perspective this is how I see Islam in the world today. It is a tradition closely bound to the ideals of truth and justice. As such interpretation is crucial and tends to come with passion. Truth and justice are not the virtues and ideals that commonly emanate environments of soft pluralism (though they surely can in the right hands). The ideologues (not the thugs) among militant Islamists are committed to rigorous standards of Muslim interpretation. Thus in this world, it is truly the case that ONLY committed Muslims (and a small few others) can intuit and decipher the viability of militant Islamist ideologies. As such committed Muslims (of the progressive and enlightened stripe) are the ones who should passionately lead the mission to recover the ascendancy of the traditions of enlightened Islam.

There are important religious reasons for this, but the pending emergence of political and economic disengagement from the Middle East (and other backward oil rich areas) creates a new urgency. As soon as the worlds major economic engines lose interest in the Middle East, if there is not in place secure foundations for the emergence of stable political society, and fecund economies, that region will sink into a black whole of dark unceasing violence and destruction with no one left to care. I could even imagine even the most virulent Zionists, calmly moving elsewhere (once again) waiting to return and rebuild (Jews seems fairly good at waiting to return. The last wait was a long one).

Energy independence and the realignment of a future world of political and economic cooperation is not THAT close. It is coming soon, but there is still time for the same types of Muslims who helped Europe through the "dark ages," to help militant Islamists through theirs. It will take courage and urgency. But much is at stake.

Frank Kaufmann is the director of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace. The opinions here are his own

Digg it del.icio.us reddit

How Congress may block a troop 'surge' | csmonitor.com

Changing course in Iraq

by Frank Kaufmann

December 19, 2006

The Bush campaign in Iraq was defeated on November 7, 2006. At the end of the day 17% per cent of Americans stand with the president in pursuit of an imaginary "victory in Iraq" (see whitehouse.gov). On November 7, 2006 Republicans garnered not one Senate, House or gubernatorial seat from Democrats. Not even one, suffering massive, nationwide losses despite the fact that Republicans broke all of their fund raising and voter contact records this year. Analyses of these election results range in imagination and defensiveness, but the obvious problem Republicans faced was being registered in the same political party as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and William Kristol.

Odd things happened during and since the election. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was fired on November 8 (I don't think anyone has been able to make sense of that), the 10 wise (and bipartisan) men (and lady) descended from on high with the Iraq Study Group, ... er ... uh, I mean the Hamilton-Baker report. Iraq president Talibani beat president Bush to rejecting it, while Iran nosed in at 3rd accepting it. Newsweek's poll has 68% of Americans in agreement at least with the the report's now best known line: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating."

The need for a course change in Iraq is obvious, but the president depressingly seems to have re-emerged with old rhetoric ("we'll succeed unless we quit"), a new Iraq review group of his own, and Rumsfeld still whispers from the shadows. The odd optimism on which politicians and their chroniclers forever sup now directs a dreamy gaze at a next friend of Dad, Robert Gates, who if anyone was listening said point blank, "There are no new ideas on Iraq." The partisan character of American political society (including the 4th estate) has burdened us all with maddening and scurrilous semantic folly, - 50 ways to not say "stay the course," (stay on the bus Gus, keep he same plan Stan), nor "civil war" ... er ... uh I mean sectarian strife.

The only hope for genuine progress away from the Iraq debacle requires reflection at two points so far not addressed by major figures in political and media industrial complex. The search for a course change has not been conducted at deep enough levels. Two things must change before we will see better analysis and sound new policy direction. We must be willing to examine at the most basic and foundational levels the following:

1. The thinking that allowed invading Iraq to seem reasonable to some.

And related to that,

2. Our present goals in Iraq

What made invading Iraq seem reasonable to some?

In short it is the obsolete and antediluvian notion that one can, in this day and age "defeat an enemy" militarily.

There are countless ways to come to the conclusion that sanity and good old fashioned military campaigns parted ways quite some time ago. Spiritual people know that political, social, economic instruments designed for the systematic and substantial dissolution of resentment, and the resulting curative of reconciliation is the only path to lasting peace and genuine freedom. But thankfully even military-minded people (who somehow retain operative categories that include things like "defeating" other human beings) have equal access to the fact that an army cannot "defeat" a global network of ideologically driven opponents who do not value their own lives nor those of civilians. By the grace of God both the tree-hugger and the weapons procurement specialist can easily come to the same conclusion that should be obvious to all. Sending in an army to "defeat enemies" in the 21st century is like rubbing two wet sticks together to bring the dawn.

What do we want now?

The second area that must be reformed fundamentally before we can have hope to move past our current tragedy in Iraq requires a deeper examination of our present response, our present goal.

Current rhetoric revolves around the question, "how soon can US troops withdraw from Iraq" without creating an unacceptable level of regional destabilization.

This is the wrong question and wrong set of goals. The current debate over increasing or decreasing troop strength in the short term occurs in this invalid context of seeking a way out of Iraq.

The real question should be "How can we bring about the good we meant for Iraq that in part contributed to our harebrained and calamitous decision to invade Iraq?"

All the reasons we erred as we did are still in place. We still should want a wonderful and bounteous life for all Iraqis and all people in the region. Americans properly are not on anybody's side in particular, that's the whole original point of America.

For this reason, the only cure or repair for the horrible missteps and imbroglio over which we now stew as a nation, is NOT how to we get out of Iraq, but how do we STAY IN IRAQ.

We know only too well that militarily is surely NOT the way to stay in Iraq. Hopefully we know or will soon know soon that the freedoms we enjoy in an American and Western style way must surely be possible in other cultural types of ways as well. And we should know that the blessedness of America must carry some obligations as a nation and a people to help create opportunity for others far and wide.

Just how to stay in Iraq is the right starting point and starting question to find the path America and the whole world is looking for in these days. As soon as we embrace a positive response and a truly American purpose at the ground of reflecting on our current difficulties, answers and visionary policy will begin to flow.

Frank Kaufmann is the executive director of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace. The opinions here are his own.

Digg it del.icio.us reddit

How to Win this Election

By Frank Kaufmann

Americans are coming up to an extremely important election for many reasons.

No matter what anyone says, this election is about three things, in this order:

1. The Iraq War
2. Political power in the entrenched 2 party system in the US
3. Long term spoils and domestic national direction, especially as it affects the judiciary.

In a great many ways, America's two parties have become indistinguishable
(so much so that having two parties is now expensive and detrimental to
our nation's well-being). Republicans no longer represent limited and
non-intrusive government nor lower government spending, and Democrats
no longer represent concern for the working class, and seek in all ways
to be identified with strong national defense.

Thus the strong winners and losers in the upcoming elections will have far less to do with who comes into office, than it will in how candidates run and how
their campaigns are conducted.

The catastrophic Iraq imbroglio is not "Republican" by nature, other than for the coincidence that the small group of folk who deemed the adventure reasonable happen to be Republicans. Apart from that, there is nothing in conservative thinking per se that results inexorably in the notion that one can or
should impose one culture upon another. Republicans running for office
should consider themselves perfectly free in principle to disassociate
themselves from that notion and that commitment. Their bondage to Iraq
derives entirely from the dynamic of power politics, not from rigorously applied conservativism. Smart Republicans in this season should establish their independence from this particular folly in advance of getting elected. This is one way the two parties can begin to recover their genuine and distinctive differences.

Secondly, those running and those voting should flat out reject dirty politics.

Even though we will never successfully hatch a mature democracy in present
day Iraq (like dropping a compressed sponge toy in a glass of water), it is very important that OUR elections at least appear to make democracy look attractive and honorable. This election should show us at our best.

Both U.S. power, and U.S. moral stature is at an all time low under the present administration , and not just in the Muslim world. The very last thing we need at this juncture is for our own democracy to show a vile face to the world. And this danger is far too possible given the very high stakes in this present election.

Professional political leeches lack the depth or breadth of vision to think in such
terms. This depraved industry simply behaves the only way it knows how,
namely in cynical, win-at-any-cost degeneracy. This is the dregs of power-seeking, and there is simply too much money in the game.

The only hope for the future of our country in the short term lies in the
hands of the voters. We must look for and reward character, humanity,
and dignity in our candidates, and punish candidates who allow base and
shameful tactics to obtain in their campaigns and in their name.

Our nation desperately needs a moment of dignity and beauty in the eyes of
the world and an opportunity to display the fine principles and virtuous roots that underly an honorable democracy.

It is in how we run, and how we vote that we can begin to recover a place in world leadership that is America's obligation and responsibility. Currently
that role has suffered via a panicked and chaotic reaction to 9/11. It has been scatter-shot through misfiring artillery, and has been imprisoned in facilities that compromise those truths we hold to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Let us run and let us vote in ways that recover our true power and our true, irresistible beauty.

Frank Kaufmann is the director of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace. These opinions are his own.

Tags: United+States, Elections, Politics

Digg it del.icio.us reddit

What to do with the Amish schoolhouse?

by Frank Kaufmann

Jeff Gammange and his colleagues in The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote fairly in the article "Tragedy scene: What to do? Some Amish would burn the school. It's a familiar issue."

The ways of the Amish are perhaps the only shining light in the phenomenally horrid spate of news of the moment, nuclear tests, poisoning of Iraqi police at Iftar, Foley's tragic immorality, and more.

What is known to most by intuition but often forgotten is that all horror is attended by probably equal measure of human goodness and sacrifice. The stories of the Amish in response to the acted out torment of Charles Carl Roberts, from its leaders right to the young innocents murdered at point blank range are towering light in our time. Among those who were shot, the oldest came forward to die first to protect the younger girls, the Amish community attending the services of Roberts, and countless other not acts but ways of life seen during these tragic days!

We are moved and grateful beyond words for the glowing manifestation of these Amish traditions and virtues.

As the Amish, presently acting as our moral leaders and brothers and sisters ponder what to do with the West Nickel Mines Amish School, may I offer my thoughts and recommendations.

After the full implementation of all actions called for by Amish traditions, please consider erecting a humble but dignified shrine to the glory of those who have blessed the world with such exemplary courage and virtue, calling us aspire to such character. The glory of God, as seen in the humility and strength of his faithful, and the prayers that will gather there are the surest means to cleanse the scene of the evil that paused there.

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