Religion in Foreign Policy

On October 15th, CSPAN aired a "thought provoking discussion of religion and US foreign policy," by the Brookings Institution and PEW Forum.

The scholarly panel discussed their newest book, Liberty and Power: A Dialogue on Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy in an Unjust World, which is a compilation of essays by E. J. Dionne and Shibley Telhami, of the Brookings Institution; Rev. Byran Hehir, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government; Louise Richardson, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies; and Walter Russell Mead, Council on Foreign Relations. Two essayists were not in attendance: Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, and Michael Walzer, Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies.

The overall sense of the panel was revealed by Rev. Hehir, during his remarks, when he quoted from Walzer's essay, for Walzer claims "a faith based foreign policy is a bad idea."

Since the transcript is not available yet, meaningful Notionalism is not possible -- and I have no intention of buying their book, which will soon be on the discount or throwaway table if it's not already there, but I shall look for it.

Although, I have nothing to prove my assertion, my sense is this august panel of scholars religiously believes that religion in foreign affairs is a "no-no."

My guess is: Dionne, Hehir, Telhami, Richardson, and Walzer summarily reject religion in all things domestic and foreign; whereas, Krauthammer and Mead will affirm its importance and appropriateness.

Note: my Mead hunch is based on a belief that for the appearance of divergent views, Pew and Brookings thought it would be improper to have 6 scholars against religion, with only 1 favoring it, so they opted for a 5-2 split. Thus, later when other scholars quote their scholarly work, they'll be able to say:

"71% are opposed to religion being allowed to intrude into the formation of America's foreign policy."

The essayist are an interesting cross-section of our Chattering Class. Dionne is a devout Socialist, although he seems to prefer the term "communitarian," to more fully obscure his political leanings.

Krauthammer has been labeled among the "neo-conservative" movement that is supposedly undermining our national interests in the service of his Israeli masters. Krauthammer the 2004 American Enterprise Institute Irving Kristol Award winner gave a wonderful acception speech, Democratic Realism, which is truly worth reading.

Shibley Telhami and Louise Richardson were unknown to me and shall remain so, for I heard nothing novel in their statements that merits further consideration. However, Rev. Byran Hehir and Michael Walzer, although they were equally unknown, their position in academia requires their views to be studied.

It was clear to me these scholars believe fervently that religious intrusion must be thwarted or curtailed, for they fear Huntington's "clash of civilization." This group seemed to be ardent pacifists, for they could only support, or acknowledge the legitimacy, of "just wars." The consensus of the panel was Realism in foreign affairs is the prudent course.

From Plato, Aristotle, Livy, Cicero, Augustine, Locke, Hume, Burke, Gibbon, de Tocqueville, Acton, and May have all told us how important religion is in shaping a civil and just society.

In 1905, Professor Jacob Burckhardt, Judgment on History and Historians, a compilation of his lectures, discussed the primacy of the State, Culture, and Religion. Burckhardt concluded the question could not be answered, so he accepted that all three had an equally important role in deciding how society should be structured.

Thus it defies common sense to believe that religion would not be equally important in shaping our foreign affairs.

Once more information is available, we will return to this topic, for this is a worthy debate.