The greatest threat to national security may prove to be the rhetoric of the religious right. Witness the end game of dueling fundamentalisms being played out by Christian and Muslim fanatics. Texts whose overarching message is a roadmap to peace, mutual respect and well-being are quoted selectively to justify the policies and practices of marginalized and fanatical groups seeking dominance. Violence is thereby being done not only to the listening public, but to the very essence of the spiritual experience and wisdom of the religious founders and scribes who passed their knowledge down to us in the form of sacred texts in the first place.

Charismatic leaders are adept at playing on deeply programmed sympathies and using spiritual catch phrases as litmus tests to elicit convincing confessions of faith and solidarity among their own kind. A Jerry Falwell stating that Mohammed was a terrorist is as incendiary to a faithful Muslim (of any sect or persuasion) as pouring gasoline on a bonfire. It is also likely to inspire the Christian fundamentalist to paroxysms of fear masked by pious and ardent self-righteousness. Just as incendiary is an Osama Bin Laden labeling America the Great Satan and all its people with it, with the same passionate effect. Sadly, fear, not love, then becomes the motive force.

Taken out of context, it is not hard to pull verses from the text of any scripture that could give the appearance of promoting violence and hatred toward its believers or their adversaries. It is offensive enough when Muslim extremists do this to the Qur'an, but there is something truly perverse and inherently offensive about self-righteous Christians deliberately doing this selective Qur'anic editing to condemn Islam. It is experientially different from self-criticism, and so the response it elicits is substantially more volatile and toxic. Given that it is as easy to distort Biblical texts as Qur'anic ones, so-called Christians resorting to this anti-Christian tactic should be advised the blade of selective reading and text twisting cuts both ways, and it is wisdom not to cross those swords in the first place. The Christian Coalition's disinformation is all the more shameful, since Jesus preached a caste, color and gender-blind message of inclusion, compassion and forgiveness.

It could be said with absolute accuracy and equally absolute irresponsibility that the Bible says, "there is no God." The full sentence, of course, reads "Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1) We need to take a more serious and careful look at the issue of Biblical statements about the nature of the Divine, the demands of our allegiance to God, and the appropriate circumstances (if any) that might justify violence toward nonbelievers- since these issues (and especially the last one) are at the core of the Christian Coalition's grievance against supposed Islamic belief.

Seeing current events in the light of a theocentric world view clearly has a venerable and mythic history. Too often in doing so we fail to recognize a possible distinction between God's message and the intention or limited understanding of those attempting to interpret that message. Those who are wed to a social and institutional understanding of religion will naturally seek to promote the agenda of the institution or social group. But to what extent is success or failure in achieving agreement a threat to well-being or a viable measure of the Divine will? The danger of mistaking cultural triumphalism for spiritual superiority is a recurring issue in history. But is such political triumphalism of Jewish, Christian or Islamic conquests in the Name of God the real message of scripture, or merely an example of it being coopted for human profit?

If we approach these texts with shallow intellect and cultural ignorance our reading will inevitably be skewed and miss the point. Should we, for example, conclude from the bronze age tales of struggle and conquest in the Old Testament that the underlying message of the Hebrew Scriptures is one of justifiable carnage, genocidal political strategies and disregard for human suffering so long as it is being endured by "the enemy?" Anyone who has begun to plumb the depths of this body of literature will immediately respond, "Certainly not!" So why do we presume to do as much with texts with which most of have absolutely no familiarity or even secondhand cultural exposure, and think we are getting an accurate read? What credibility does the Christian Coalition have as a responsible critic of Islam?

Peace and truth, morality and integrity are not cultural monopolies owned and administered by a particular religion or tradition. The fundamental issue for believers of every tradition boils down to, "What does it mean to be in right relationship with the Divine, and what does it require of us?" Surely there is a practice and experience upon which belief must be predicated? It should, perhaps, be a source of comfort to realize that an infinite and ever-present, all-knowing Deity is, by definition, capable of working in and through our finite, often absent-minded and unknowing humanity toward a higher purpose. That, however, is no excuse for us to be deliberately irresponsible or cavalier in presuming that our cultural narcissism is the standard by which all others are to be judged, no matter which faith we confidently confess. Nor is it a mandate to merely parrot a party platform without doing the practices and experiencing the underlying purpose that endow such belief with credibility. To claim belief in a religion whose message is one of peace and love while vilifying others is hypocrisy. Such arrogance, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, clerical or lay, presidential or proletarian, could literally be the death of us all. God forbid!


Robert H. Stucky is the Executive Director of Faith In Diversity Institute.

Copyright © 2003 by Faith In Diversity Institute