The work of twentieth-century intellectual Reinhold Niebuhr drew attention to the unintended consequences of U.S. power in the world. He called for greater restraint and humility in U.S. foreign policy, and while he preferred diplomacy and economic support as primary tools of statecraft, Niebuhr was not averse to the use of military power. This is why I find his work noteworthy today. We live in times where armed conflict and the economic and political justifications and support theretofore is the norm, not only in the United States, but in almost every corner of the world.
In his book, The Irony of American History, Niebuhr writes that:
We cannot expect even the wisest of nations to escape every peril of moral and spiritual complacency; for nations have always been constitutionally self-righteous… The God before whom "the nations are as a drop in the bucket and are counted as small dust in the balances" is known by faith and not by reason. The realm of mystery and meaning which encloses and finally makes sense out of the baffling configurations of history is not identical with any scheme of rational intelligibility. The faith which appropriates the meaning in the mystery inevitably involves an experience of repentance for the false meanings which the pride of nations and cultures introduces into the pattern. Such repentance is the true source of charity; and we are more desperately in need of genuine charity than of more technocratic skills.
We live in times where members and close associates of the executive office of the United States of America deride the judicial branch and its orders. Where there is talk of impeachment of judges and official spokespersons openly question the right of any member of the judicial branch to overrule the executive.
We are witnessing a country that is already deeply polarized—socially, economically, and politically—living, effectively, by executive fiat. The remaining pillars of a nation—its educational institutions, its human rights, its mechanisms of ethical and democratic accountability, and even its language—are being unraveled by one executive order after another.
And yet the same executive orders are (re)creating specialized offices to deal with (Christian) religious minorities and the Christian right to freedom of belief and matters of faith more generally. Indeed, according to the Associated Press and Religion News Service, approximately 80% of white evangelical Protestants and around 60% of white Catholics voted for President Donald Trump. Some of these same data sources tell us that 60% of Mormon voters, 30% of Jewish voters, 33% of Muslim voters, and 15% of Black Protestants voted for him as well. This administration was brought to power with significant support from certain sizable religious communities with a specific racial demographic. It is also an administration that will use executive power to pander to the pride of certain religious beliefs, races, and communities.
The question is (and should be): what are the faith-based organizations, leaders, and groups that do not belong to those now-privileged groups who elected this administration doing? Are we seeing the re-emergence of one of the most energizing and illuminating aspects of U.S. history—the Civil Rights Movement—where a group of religious leaders and their institutions, with a tradition of speaking and fighting against all the interconnected forms of oppression and subordination lock arms (figuratively and actually) with activists for justice from across the board to work together for justice? If we are not—and I would contend that indeed we are not—what will that mean for this nation’s unity, let alone its “charity” for the rest of the world?
Awareness about all things religion has expanded significantly even in the altars of secularism (governmental and non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, policymaking organizations, think-tanks, etc.), to the extent that some bemoan the perceived instrumentalization of religion. Moreover, multitudes of initiatives and efforts which claim to be faith-based and interfaith in nature are also proliferating in this nation, which has a history of being the first to host the world’s largest multifaith gathering in the world (the Parliament of the World’s Religions). And yet, despite these changes and this legacy, religious actors in their diversity (institutions, leaders, NGOs) are as polarized and self-interested as any other sector. Indeed, why should they be any different when many in the religious spheres cherry-pick certain rights to defend while neglecting others, and persist in working in silos, duplicating and replicating efforts ad nauseum?
We cannot make the mistake of assuming that all is light and well with the world of religious and interfaith affairs, while chaos abounds elsewhere. In an age where religious actors align themselves with political ones, we will continue to witness arrogance and ignorance being used to justify exceptionalism, deceit, warfare, and unbelievable injustice—all in the name of (certain) religious values.
We forget, conveniently ignore, or malign the fact that common religious values are already enshrined in human rights. Rather than proceeding with business as usual in the now fashionable realms of religion, it is time to review all things religious very critically, using the standards of universal, interdependent, inalienable, and indivisible human rights and their laws. Or we risk ceding to what Neibuhr termed the “false meanings which the pride of nations and cultures introduces into the pattern” of domestic and foreign policies (made by executive authority), strongly influenced by the self-righteousness of Christian hegemony.
We would do well to realize that one religion’s actions to safeguard its superiority are bound to cultivate and invite another religion’s similar, if not more reactive, responses. This is not a recipe for security. It is, however, a sure-fire way (pun intended) to secure religious conflicts.
