The Pew Forum held on July 10, 2003 to discuss God and Foreign Policy offered a number of useful insights into a significant divide not only between shapers of American foreign policy and their European counterparts, but, perhaps more significantly, into possible opportunities for rapprochement between American policy initiatives and the views of much of the non-Eurocentric world now dominating international news. Though the forum was extremely helpful in clarifying why Europeans might respond in radically different ways to current events than Americans do, the make-up of the panel was obviously comprised of members sharing Eurocentric heritage and therefore, wittingly or unwittingly, at risk of overlooking factors that might point helpfully to a means of more constructive engagement with the non-European majority of the world's population and the community of nations. Nevertheless, the dialogue was very productive.

Most helpfully the statistical analysis of religious opinion by Andrew Kohut's team showed that, though America differs widely from Europe in the importance each ascribes to the role of religion in public life, the U.S. is actually far more akin to Latin America, Africa, South Asia and the Middle East than is Europe in this regard. This may, to some extent, be the result of both our particular religious history and the demographic influence of the steadily increasing percentage of non-European immigrants becoming U.S. citizens and thereby altering the previous predominance of Eurocentric bias in our national identity. In any case, that fact should signal to American policy-makers an area of potential convergence and cooperation that could have a massively constructive impact on peace efforts in areas of social unrest around the world- if the lessons of such possible common ground are well understood and effectively applied.

A great deal of that potential for peace-making depends on our ability to not only recognize a common thread but articulate it in ways that are mutually comprehensible. Therein lies much of our difficulty. Forum Panelist Justin Vaisse adroitly pointed out that France and the U.S. both ardently insist on the importance of the Separation of Church and State- yet they have diametrically opposed understandings of why that separation is key in an effective democracy, due to the differences in their respective religious histories. America was founded by those insisting upon freedom of religion because of their experience of the damage done to faith by State domination. The French felt the oppressive influence of the Catholic Church's attempts to dominate the State and sought to prevent any such recurrence upon the destruction of the monarchy. So though the term "Separation of Church and State" is mutually familiar, a certain national narcissism that presumes our definition (whichever it may be) is automatically shared and the standard by which all others should necessarily be judged, is clearly an erroneous assumption. It is also at the root of much mutual misunderstanding. As in any healthy relationship even among individuals, narcissism unrecognized and undealt with can cripple or destroy the relationship and prevent any meaningful communication that might heal whatever differences afflict it. And, as is the case in any marriage or other close relationship, the responsibility for identifying and overcoming the defensiveness inherent in such narcissism is never unilateral.

Part of the difficulty of identifying and redressing our respective narcissisms (at least in America) is that this doctrinal line of demarcation between secular and religious priorities may well be a false dichotomy. It has certainly lead to a very dangerous flaw in our educational system that exacerbates the establishment of mutual understanding. Paradoxically, though the most religious of wealthy nations and the most prone to biblical rhetoric being pressed into service in political dialogue, so fearful are we of the litigious cost of institutional commingling of matters of Church and State that we have avoided the subject of God and religion in our schools like the plague. (Witness the law suits ironically spending many devout taxpayers' dollars in an attempt to "secularize" even our most nationalistic Pledge of Allegiance, or attempting to prevent any prayer in public schools, despite the profession of our collective affirmation that "In God we Trust" printed on the very money being spent to prosecute such cases! Despite all this, prayers are silently if not publicly uttered every time there is a test of national resolve or of academic ability). The result of this is a society imbued with biblical references whose original context is unrecognized and misunderstood, and whose paraphrasing in other cultures and religious histories is ignored or altogether unknown. Unbiased and accurate, sympathetic treatment of the rich array of religious belief and practice around the world is considered at most an elective in the curricula of our nation's colleges, (and often one rather underfunded as a lesser priority than the competitively important fields of math, sciences and even other humanities at that). Moreover, there are only a handful of universities in the entire country that offer graduate studies in Comparative Religion. Yet virtually every political hot spot on the planet is fueled by the misappropriation of religious texts and sympathies by charismatic leaders intent on using the deep seated emotional programming of their respective religions to justify all manner of abuses of power for their own political ends. Can we afford not to better understand the history, evolution and application of faith and religion in such a shrinking world today?

If we seek a credible and effective solution to this seemingly intransigent dilemma, both Europeans and Americans owe it to themselves and to the world which they still economically dominate to examine more thoughtfully alternative models that prevail outside the geographical center of Eurocentric cultural hegemony. To hear Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld make categorical statements about the U.S. preventing a theocratic government in the "New Iraq" for the sake of assuring the triumph of democracy sends shudders of revulsion and contempt through many of even the most liberal and democratic Muslims. Like the Franco-American mutual misreading of the Separation of Church and State, Rumsfeld's comments presume an agreed upon definition of theocracy between America and the Muslim nations, and an assumption that it is inherently incompatible with democratic principles, that is not, in fact, a shared definition.

Religion is a matter of extreme importance to a higher percentage of the Muslim world than any other social or national group. A Muslim takes very seriously the notion that Allah is, in fact, in charge, and that human government is at Allah's pleasure and by Allah's grace alone. Yet both the Qur'an and subsequent Muslim tradition insist upon participation of both the Ummah (community) and the Ulema (the learned men) in the process of government- hardly an anti-democratic mandate. This same ardent faith in our reliance upon Divine Providence was characteristic even of our deist founding fathers in America, yet we now find such a belief in others either anachronistic, frightening, or fanatical without batting an eye at our own national tendency to couch our allegedly superior secular policies in the rhetoric of Biblical Righteousness. (It is interesting to note that the phenomenon of internationally common terms having differing local definitions applies to the Muslim world as well, where the "Great Satan" does not imply the Ultimate Incarnation of Evil assumed by the Christian West, but in fact, a rather more pathetic and bumbling dissembler mucking up the works. Given the many failures of American foreign policy in the Middle East, such an epithet may have some validity, however uncomfortable that may be for Americans to admit.). The U.S. tendency to arrogantly assume our definition is the normative if not universally shared one is a disastrously frequent characteristic in our foreign policy. The prevalence with which we draw absolutist (and often simplistic) "either/or" lines in the sands of foreign relations ignores what several forum panelists identified as a more "nuanced" approach- which not only prevails in Europe, but in the complexities of the non-Eurocentric worlds of Asia, Africa and much of Latin America as well.

In a recent article in The American Muslim entitled, "Don't Separate Mosque and State," George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni makes a useful distinction between a religious society and a religious state. A religious society is posited as a culture usefully guided by moral principles that in fact serve the common good and the cause of peace, whereas a religious state can in it's dogmatic rigidity, resort to an immoral oppression to achieve its alleged doctrinal goals. Etzioni rightly observes, "A religious society, as opposed to a religious state, can tolerate non-believers." America is perhaps proof of this (at least within our own boundaries), for such tolerance is fundamental to our national ethos and the principles we claim to promote throughout the world. But what far too many Americans and Europeans fail to recognize is that Islam has both a scriptural mandate for such tolerance and a significant history of practicing it (especially in regards to its spiritual elder siblings of Christianity and Judaism, whose practitioners enjoy explicit protection under Qur'anic law).

Far too much ink is wasted on attempts to prove the rightness of particular positions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of specific segments of the world's population in the search for peace, without effecting any constructive change on a practical, experiential level. The rhetoric becomes especially heated where matters of religious belief or affiliation are involved. This is true both in the overtly political debate and the religious debate that is often its subtext. Debating the existence or definition of God is largely an intellectual exercise for talking heads (whether lay or clerical) that does nothing to address the real life issues of human suffering. The more experientially useful question for both individuals and nations to ask is, if it is true that there is a Supreme Being (by whatever name), in what way is it true? How can we make constructive use of this fact to improve the quality of life for ourselves, our families or our communities? It is important to acknowledge that there is a distinction between belief in God and religious affiliation- for even in relatively devout American society there are far more people who profess belief in God than there are active practitioners of institutional faith. Yet the same question and principal can be extended to the role of religion in public life: If religion is a constructive force in human society (as the vast majority of recorded history would indicate, despite its acknowledged shortcomings), in what way is it constructive? And , if this is a universal principal, in what way does this apply to all societies and nations? Therein we should find keys to open the doors to a meaningful and effective peace.

Viewed through the long lens of recorded history both the post "Enlightenment" European tendency to dismiss religion's significance and American attempts to restrict it to the private sector seem distinctly naive and unenlightened (and perhaps even a historical anomaly). Echoing Mark Twain's observation that when he was a teenager, his father was one of the stupidest people he knew, but by the time he was in his twenties he was amazed at how much his father had learned and grown, it is time we grow up and put our instinct for freedom of choice and our dependence on cooperation with forces much larger than ourselves in proper perspective. Despite its many abuses by the ego and greed of individual leaders and groups, both the institution of religion and its underlying source in the experience of faith have been perhaps the single most effective inspiration and promoter of human creativity. The arts, sciences, medicine, linguistics, social structure, legal codes and principles of social behavior and commerce in every society all owe the bulk of their evolution to the guidance and patronage of human spirituality and the institutional forms it has taken. This is a lesson from history that should never be overlooked. Why it is so needs to be more deeply understood if we are to find enduring solutions to our global conflicts or achieve any meaningful and lasting peace beyond the temporary cessation of overt violence in the hot spots around the world. To draw a parallel from Darwinian notions of the evolutionary importance of natural selection and survival of the fittest, those behaviors and beliefs that have been most enduring are arguably effective components of our survival as a species. Belief in the existence and the necessity of cooperation with a higher power for our well being is discernible in the earliest traces of homo sapiens and throughout recorded history. Isn't it time we stopped being like arrogant teenagers and exercised some non-competitive humility in acknowledging our interdependence on and need for a higher wisdom when making decisions that affect the lives of everyone?

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

Copyright © 2003 by Faith In Diversity Institute