Avoiding Religious Temptations in the Global Neighborhood
by Robert F. Smylie
When fundamental religions and political realities are distorted, the impact in the public arena is profound.
The United Nations, created in 1945, following the most devastating war in history, was an international effort to deal with seemingly insoluble world problems too frequently leading to war. The problems often reflected religious interests and values. In the Preamble to the UN Charter, "We, the peoples" identified four mandates for the world community, as valid in the twenty-first century as when first adopted. These included ending the scourge of war and the use of violence to solve political problems; protecting and honoring the human rights and dignity of all peoples; building the international rule of law; and promoting social progress for all. The Preamble promised a commitment for these ends "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors." The UN Charter gave universal significance to a profoundly simple question asked of Jesus centuries ago, "Who is my neighbor?" In the twenty-first century, amid ethnic wars and clashes of civilizations, that question still remains, as do the temptations and problems that prevent the actualization of the good neighborhood.
The Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, called for values for "transforming a global neighborhood . . . into a universal moral community in which people are bound together by more than proximity, interest, or identity." The values "all derive in one way or another from the principle, which is in accord with religious teachings around the world that people should treat others as they would themselves wish to be treated." They are "respect for life, liberty, justice and equality, mutual respect, caring, and integrity."
In most countries identity is a blend of religious, political, and ethnic factors. Responsibility and accountability have been bounded by that mix. In the twenty-first century can we transcend those limits and discover a global neighborhood world of incredible multicultural diversity? Can we move beyond our particular nationalisms and discover the meaning and requirements of dual citizenship? Do our particular religious traditions prevent us from being part of that global neighborhood? Can we share a common security, affirm in common the dignity and worth of individuals, promote the universal rule of law and order, advance the common good, and preserve the common environment--requirements for the new global neighborhood?
We need to recognize that religion and world affairs are constantly interacting. Almost every world problem or conflict involves religious, ethical, and moral dynamics. On one level note the conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in South Asia; Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Israel/Palestine; Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq; and Protestant and Catholic Christians in Northern Ireland. Note the alacrity with which governments claim religious sanction for their policies, including the use of violence. Witness also how sectarian religious values are injected into international discussions on population matters, women's and children's rights, stem-cell research, and even methods to prevent HIV/AIDS.
We need further to acknowledge that the lines between religious traditions and institutions and civil and political institutions are often blurred: witness the phenomenon of both "state religions" and "civil religions." Political leaders co-opt religious language and symbolism, develop "rituals" with patriotic meaning, and claim or distort values for political ends. Civil religion almost inevitably denigrates the integrity of authentic religious traditions. At the same time, religious individuals, groups, or coalitions are often aggressive in seeking governmental support for specific religious agendas and special privilege.
Today, as well as throughout world history, major religions fall into temptations distorting fundamental religious and political realities, resulting in profound impact in the public arena. Historically, they had descriptions rarely used by the public: manicheanism, antinomianism, apocalypticism, messianism, and Machiavellianism. These deviations or temptations appear in many different guises. Three of these concepts will be explored as "temptations," showing how religious constructs make the achievement of a global neighborhood difficult.
1. The first temptation for a religious tradition, citing its own origins, is to claim that it is exceptional, called to a special destiny or "messianic" role, and thus to have special power, status, and privilege.
Obviously every living religion lays claim to unique insight or spiritual wisdom. Each has contributed to a richly pluralistic world. Problems arise when religious traditions claiming exclusive access to the truth seek to impose their dogma on others, expect special privileges or status, and rely on the power of the state or empire to enforce their practices and offer protection. The early Hebrew scriptures portrayed the Hebrew people as the chosen people of God through whom all would be blessed. The Hebrews faced competing claims in Rome, Greece, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylonia. The Hebrew scriptures reveal a profound debate--whether the Hebrews were chosen by Yahweh because of their inherent merit, or whether they were chosen for a divine purpose despite their unworthiness. When it appeared they had lost their claims on Yahweh, some argued that the new Christian sect replaced the Hebrew people as those chosen for a "messianic" destiny.
Fifteen centuries later, Christians arrived in the Americas. Newly transplanted from Europe, those in the northern colonies concluded they were a chosen people in a chosen land with a special destiny. In the early nineteenth century, the United States asserted its "Manifest Destiny," a term originally expressing dominance over its southern neighbors. It justified expansion across the continent and beyond, often with little consideration for others affected by that expansion: the indigenous peoples, the Spanish descendants in the Southwest, the Inuits (Alaskans), and the Hawaiians.
While there are numerous variations on the theme of people with chosen or special destiny, some traditions share a "messianic" expectation that "some person or people" will appear to rescue the world and inaugurate a reign of peace, an ideal state. The British Empire, the most extensive of the European competitors, claimed a civilizing mission. Japanese lore holding that the Japanese were descended from the "Sun Goddess" helped inspire the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The "Third Reich" was a Nazi idea that the German superrace-religion was destined to have a thousand-year reign. Islam claimed it embodied the "realm of peace" (Dar al-Islam) and that its mission was to expand that realm and create a great civilization. Now it is resurgent. China, long having an ethnocentric view as the "Central Kingdom," is seeking to reclaim a central place in world history. At least one scholar has China as a major contender in the future clash of civilizations.
The assumptions, claims, and temptations make it clear that "chosenness" is a risky business, particularly when it is combined to justify the foreign policy of a given country. The twentieth century was marked by its tragic results! The victims of religious exceptionalism (cultural imperialism) are strewn throughout history. And the beginning of the twenty-first century is not reassuring.
The concept of exceptionalism has several corollaries. First, exceptionalists claim that all other people will be blessed by the fulfillment of their destiny. Leaders assert it; zealots justify it, manipulating the twins of patriotism and fear; true believers get a passionate thrill from it. Currently, the United States claims all will be blessed by the adoption of its systems and interpretations of "freedom, democracy, and market." Those who do not accept such self-evident truths risk economic, political, and even military consequences.
Second, exceptionalists further claim that nothing should be allowed to prevent the fulfillment of that destiny: Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy, and the Soviet Union made such claims in the twentieth century. Again, currently, the United States is the leading claimant. For two decades its stated military policy has been to prevent any country or coalition of countries from ever being able to challenge its superior power.
Third, exceptionalists, when in a position of great military and economic power, follow the Machiavellian argument that power should be maximized and used. Power becomes the primary reality, the source of greatness and meaning, the new object of idolatry. Therefore, power is sought as the end that then justifies the means. It is even argued that justifiable ends can require immoral means for the greater good. The "good achieved" confers its own justification. When "civil religions" or religious leaders truly convinced of the exclusive possession of truth confer religious blessings, "holy war" becomes an option. "Untruth" has no right to exist. Conflict resolution is thus more difficult.
Fourth, exceptionalists also often assume that they are above the law, reflecting the ancient religious concept of "antinomianism." While law and order are necessary for domestic and international stability and security, the "chosen" may claim to be above the law because of their righteousness and destiny. They may also assert that it is their responsibility to make and enforce the law for others but that they need not be bound by it. In the current "war against terrorism," some argue that they are not bound by international law because terrorists do not respect it. Such assertions today make it difficult for the UN to build the international rule of law: witness the resistance of some powerful countries to the International Criminal Court.
2. The second temptation is to assume the possession of the truth about the nature of "good and evil," thus assuming self-identification with the good.
Each religious tradition has grappled with the question of the nature, existence, and causes of suffering and evil. The dualistic thought of the Zoroastrians in the second millennium B.C.E. influenced the religions of Asia and Asia Minor. Oversimplified, dualism suggested that the polarities of good and evil, light and darkness, right and wrong are forces in a constant struggle with each other, with suffering as a consequence. This dualistic concept was picked up in the second century C.E. by Mani, a Babylonian-born religious leader responsible for "Manichaeism," a heretical Christian movement. Mani's complicated dualistic mythology drew from and influenced many traditions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and Zoroastrianism. The Manichaeism temptation often complements the concept of chosenness. The chosen, believing themselves to embody the good, attribute evil to the "other," "the enemy." Evil's destruction becomes the goal.
Good and evil have been described in many ways. One way argues that humanity is imperfect, inherently evil, fallen, or corrupted, and that suffering and evil are natural accompaniments. Sometimes suffering is seen as punishment coming from a god, gods, dharma, or the forces of the universe. This approach has led to elaborate rituals of expiation, purification, sacrifice, and rigid disciplines. Another way suggests that individuals possess both good and evil attributes that are involved in a constant struggle. Yet another method posits a cosmic struggle of the contending forces with human beings as the luckless pawns. Great material for mythology!
But these ways all avoid the havoc caused by the self-serving temptation to attribute all problems involving suffering and evil to others. (Currently, this may be called ethical "outsourcing.") "They," the evil scapegoats, are responsible! They are the obstacles to peace, security, stability, and justice. The scapegoats may be selected from within a society, or they may be outsiders. Sometimes their selection is based on social constructions of caste, class, ethnicity, race, religion, or ideology. Divisions are manifest in numerous ways: stereotypes, discriminations, persecution, intolerance, legislative barriers, exclusion; or "cleansing." In notable instances, actual walls mark the divisions. The "good" are presumptuous of their own worth, righteousness, and destiny. The more fanatically the others are identified as evil, the easier it becomes to conclude that they must be opposed, contained, or eliminated. When this is "justified" in religious terms, tragedy seems an inevitable result.
Modern dualism provides for simple approaches to complex realities. Shades of gray are unthinkable. By defining a conflict in absolute terms, a careful analysis of the multifaceted dynamics of any issue is precluded. Self-examination is avoided. Self-righteousness is safeguarded.
In recent times, World War II was seen in these terms, the result ending in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The post- World War II division shifted the dynamic to a life-death struggle between the so-called free, democratic world, and the unfree totalitarian world. Each side mirrored the other as the source of all evil. Destruction was preferable to defeat. "Better dead than Red" became a slogan in the West. The religious rhetoric justifying the West's response to the Soviets was simple. Communism was seldom analyzed merely as a competitive form of political and economic organization. It was usually defined with prejudicial adjectives, "atheistic, godless communism." It was called "the evil empire." The religious effort in the West was to assure that God (whoever or whatever) was on "our side." This approach fueled the costly nuclear arms race that still threatens all humanity. When the Soviet Union collapsed, other polarities emerged, and the "clash of civilizations" was offered in place of the "cold war."
The post-9/11 declaration of "the war to end evil" is a malignant manifestation of manicheanism. While "evil" is ill-defined, immediate targets were identified as the "axis of evil." Real war ensued with devastating results. Religious language has been exploited. The "battleground" is indeterminate, therefore indiscriminate. The opponent is dehumanized. Enemy death is simply "collateral damage." In the process of dehumanizing the other, one dehumanizes the self. The rules of engagement with the enemy are set in win/ lose terms, as they were in World War II, calling, if not for total destruction, at least, for total surrender. Terrorism is to be destroyed, though it means different things to different people. Paradoxically, violence is the method of choice.
Dualistic ideology tempts people to "play God," particularly those emboldened with messianic complexes. Who is to be saved? What is to be destroyed in order to save? Again, when we believe that some group is so irredeemably evil that it can and must be destroyed, then we have the formula for holy war. No formula exists for ending such wars. The result is an arrogation of the right to make ultimate decisions about life itself, forgetting that while we have the capacity to destroy life, we do not have the capacity to restore it.
3. A third temptation is to transform this focus on good and evil and on temporal enemies into action directed toward the end of time, or the end of history. In the drama of history, the zealot says: "If the promise of the end of history is the destruction of evil and the inauguration of the golden age, why not hasten the process?"
While not necessarily the focal point of every religious tradition or interpretation of the meaning of life, the meaning of history is important in the political realm. Some dualistic traditions suggest a linear view of history that will end in a final battle between the cosmic forces of good and evil. Some coupled this with the messianic hope of an ideal kingdom. Believers (the chosen and the good) in such a process, convinced they will be on the side of victory, are thus tempted to hasten the process. For some, the climatic end is "Apocalyptic" and the war is "Armageddon." The intersection of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam provides the center focus for this thinking, but it is not without variations elsewhere--witness the zealotry and violence of Aum Shinrikyo in Tokyo. The most heralded version focuses on a final battle to begin in the Middle East, coupling the return of the Jews to restore Israel with the expected return of Jesus to bring in the "Kingdom." When one adds to the mix a conflict of civilizations, the zealotry of fanatics, the fearful faithful prepared even for the end of the world, and the profit-making that thrives on such conditions, the stakes are raised. The possibility of a nuclear holocaust brings the catastrophic into the realm of a possibility. Armageddon has moved from religious futurology to imminent consideration. Unfortunately, the outcome can only be a matter of tragic speculation. To non-Judeo-Christian stream religions, this may seem bizarre and irrational and could be dismissed, but for the fact that such a worldview, driven by zealotry and converted into public policy, has consequences for the whole world and people of every religious tradition. Driven thus, it would be the temptation to end all temptations. A nuclear Armageddon is realizable. To argue that it is "God's will" is to assume a horrific understanding of God. To assume that a "good God" would not allow it to happen is to deny human accountability. The flip side of "fulfillment" may well be fatalism. Six decades into the nuclear age, religious people as well as secularists are still advocating that the possession of weapons of mass destruction is theirs by religious right. For religious peoples, the anticipation of the battle of Armageddon as the fulfillment of some religiously inspired destiny is an abdication of human responsibility or accountability.
If it is commonplace to claim that all religions are for peace, why is peace so elusive? Is it because we are still bound by the practices, traditions, presumptions, and temptations of our pasts?
In our commitment to a global neighborhood, can we give up the prerogatives of our exceptionalism? Can we avoid the arbitrary divides of people that assume goodness is ours, that the other is evil? Can we champion the values of peace, justice, and mercy, so that fanatics and fatalists are not able to determine the future of history?
A global neighborhood will be possible only when there is security from war; when human rights and dignity are guaranteed for all; when the international rule of law is secured by effective instruments of government; and when all the world's inhabitants benefit from increasing standards of life. May this neighborhood be our vision!
Robert F. Smylie served from 1975 to 2002 as the Presbyterian Church's representative to the United Nations. Following his retirement, he worked as the director of the Disarmament Program of the World Conference of Religions for Peace. He has been a visiting professor at the Ecumenical Institute in Geneva, Switzerland, and a faculty fellow at New College, Edinburgh, Scotland.
This article was originally published in the April-June 2007 issue of Dharma World.
Home
Copyright (C) 1997-2008 by Kosei Publishing
Co.
All rights reserved.
Privacy
Policy
