I’ve been meaning to get to a report in Wednesday’s Washington Post headlined “‘God gap’ impedes U.S. foreign policy, experts say.”  The story, by Post reporter David Waters, well… let me just quote it rather than try to explain it:

American foreign policy is handicapped by a narrow, ill-informed and “uncompromising Western secularism” that feeds religious extremism, threatens traditional cultures and fails to encourage religious groups that promote peace and human rights, according to a two-year study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

When I read this, I was surprised — The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a well-regarded and -respected organization, and its reports have made valuable contributions to the debate on the scope and direction of U.S. foreign policy.  How in the world could they be associated with a report that suggest that religion should be a core tenet of our foreign policy?

Then I went to their website and read the report.  The first thing I discovered was that the phrase “God gap” doesn’t appear anywhere in either the executive summary or the full report.  The second thing I discovered is that “narrow” is used in the report, but not exactly in the way Waters suggests:

The United States should avoid actions that use or appear to use religion instrumentally, i.e., the United States should not try or be widely perceived as trying to manipulate religion in pursuit of narrowly drawn interests.

and…

The greater visibility of religion and religious actors in international politics has greatly complicated America’s approach to world affairs. A narrow view of religion in the context of terrorism and counterter- rorism strategy will no longer suffice. Instead, religion must be seen as a more profound and encompassing social reality—one that shapes and is shaped by other major transnational phenomena, including violent conflict and war, globalization, and democratization.

What about “ill-informed”?  Nope.  Nowhere to be found.

And “uncompromising Western secularism”?  Yes, that does appear, but I think it’s not exactly what Waters infers:

The United States should build, cultivate, and rely upon networks and partnerships, which will vary in scope and size, with religious communities. . . . Such a strategy will enable the United States to avail itself of opportunities and facilitate the constructive role that religious organizations and leaders play in the world. It also recognizes that the United States cannot reduce the appeal of destructive religious forces by promoting an uncompromising Western secularism. Such a position can have the unintended effect of feeding extremism by further threatening traditional sources of personal, cultural, and religious identity. Instead, engaging religious communities can cre- ate an atmosphere that marginalizes extremists.

So if I understand the report correctly, promoting an “uncompromising Western secularism” could feed extremism.  That, of course, may be true, but it’s also true that much of the world could regard past actions by the United States — particularly during the Bush Administration — as having promoted an uncompromising Christian world view.  So Waters manages to state a key point — and yet mangle it at the same time.

Then there’s this graph from Waters’s story, which is even more alarming:

The council’s 32-member task force, which included former government officials and scholars representing all major faiths, delivered its report to the White House on Tuesday. The report warns of a serious “capabilities gap” and recommends that President Obama make religion “an integral part of our foreign policy.”

Here’s what the report actually says:

President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009 set the stage for a new departure in U.S. foreign policy toward Muslim communities. This is a vital task and a laudable beginning. However, the scope must be much broader. Engaging Islam is only one very crucial component of a larger challenge—engaging the multitude of religious communities across the world as an integral part of our foreign policy.

Uh, okay.  Call me crazy, but I think there is an enormous difference between making “religion” an “integral part of our foreign policy” and making “engaging the multitude of religious communities” an “integral part of foreign policy.”  There is a kinda sorta pretty much completely obvious distinction there.  But Waters doesn’t seem to notice it.

In seeking a response to the report Waters quotes Chris Seiple, the President of the Institute for Global Engagement:

“It’s a hot topic,” said Chris Seiple, president of the Institute for Global Engagement in Arlington County and a Council on Foreign Relations member. “It’s the elephant in the room. You’re taught not to talk about religion and politics, but the bummer is that it’s at the nexus of national security. The truth is the academy has been run by secular fundamentalists for a long time, people who believe religion is not a legitimate component of realpolitik.”

I don’t know Chris Seiple, so I won’t make any assumptions here.  But I do know his dad, Robert Seiple, who was the first U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom in the Clinton Administration.  It’s a little odd, don’t you think, that his son would think that religion isn’t part of U.S. foreign policy when his dad’s former job was to make sure that the U.S. addressed religious freedom issues as part of its foreign policy. Even more troubling is the fact that Waters doesn’t appear to have even thought about using the Googles to make the connection.

Maybe Waters read the report.  But it sure doesn’t look like it.  And as a result, a serious effort to address the question of how U.S. foreign policy should address the challenge of engaging religious communities becomes, in Waters’ story, an “ill-informed” screed calling for an end of separation of church and state in U.S. foreign policy.

To put it another way, the report attempts to put forward a nuanced argument in favor of broader U.S. engagement with religious groups around the world, and approvingly cites President Obama’s speech in Cairo as an important first step.  And it’s not exactly news that engagement with religious communities is a component of U.S. foreign policy.  Last I checked, we had diplomatic relations with the Vatican, the President regularly receives religious leaders — most recently the Dalai Lama — at the White House, and the State Department issues an annual report on religious freedom around the world.

Waters’ story, in contrast, adopts a sensationalistic tone that breathlessly implies that the report thinks Obama should to name God to be his next Secretary of State.

In fairness, Waters isn’t the only one who didn’t read the report.  Bloggers from across the political spectrum seized on his story, using it to reinforce their own arguments.  They might want to sit down and read the 100-page report, or at least the executive summary.  As I’ve said, I don’t agree with many of the report’s conclusions.  But I do think that it deserves a better fate than the Waters’ inept pastiche.

This is exactly the kind of shoddy journalism that the Washington Post used to abhor.  Shame on them for allowing such a terrible piece of reporting to grace their pages.

Image:  josephpetepickle via Flikr, using a CC BY 2.0 license

Related posts

• Whoopsie
• When Stupidity Strikes
• Transition Watch: Mona Sutphen
• Transition Watch: Iraq
• Transition Watch: Anger in the Ranks

I’m not a big fan of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known to most folks as the Mormons.  Their decision to fund Proposition 8 in California angered me, and their history of prejudice and polygamy is not pretty.  To be clear, rare is the faith that doesn’t have skeletons in abundance, and I try not to judge individuals for the missteps of their religion — otherwise, I’d be hating myself.

That said, this is a bit ridiculous:

A reader contacted me last week, saying that last year, in the heat of the presidential campaign, the Mormons had posthumously baptized Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. Baptizing the dead of other faiths, secretly and without the consent of their families, is a common Mormon practice. For the past fifteen years the Mormons have caused quite a stir by forcibly baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims - in other words, converting them to Mormonism - despite strong objections from the Jewish community.

As Ta-Nehesi Coates (h/t) notes,

I think the arrogance of “baptizing” someone posthumously says a lot. I think the arrogance of baptizing someone who’s child, only 30 years ago, would have been scorned in your church says even more.

I agree, but I would take it one step further.  What about Obama’s dad?  Why didn’t this person petition to baptize him?  It wouldn’t be because of his race non-citizenship, would it?  Maybe not.  But it is a good quesiton to ask.

For those unfamiliar with the practice, here’s a good summary via Wikipedia:

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that baptism is a prerequisite for entry into the kingdom of God as stated by Jesus in John 3:5: “Except that a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (KJV).

The LDS Church teaches that performing baptisms for the dead allows this saving ordinance to be offered to those who have died without accepting or knowing Jesus Christ or his teachings during their mortal lives. It is taught that this is the method by which all who have lived upon the earth will have the opportunity to receive baptism and to thereby enter the Kingdom of God. . . .

Any member of the LDS church, male or female, who is at least 12 years old and holds a current temple recommend may act as a proxy in this ordinance. Men must also hold the Aaronic Priesthood prior to entering the temple. A man must act as proxy for a deceased man, and a woman must act as proxy for a deceased woman. The concept of a spiritual proxy is compared by some in the LDS Church to the belief that Jesus acted as proxy for every human when he atoned for the sins of the world.

In the case of Obama’s mom, it wasn’t a relative who made the request, so the baptism is likely to be reversed.  But you have to wonder whether the Church gets how offensive this can be.  Here’s what an LDS spokesperson said in response to the reports:

Mormon Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said that “the offering of baptism to our deceased ancestors is a sacred practice to us and it is counter to Church policy for a Church member to submit names for baptism for persons to whom they are not related. The Church is looking into the circumstances of how this happened and does not yet have all the facts. However, this is a serious matter and we are treating it as such.”

If you accept the LDS statement at face value, why don’t they also regard the forcible baptism of Holocaust victims a “serious matter”?   Jewish leaders in New York and elsewhere have been trying for years to get the LDS to stop this practice, but to date, the church has argued that they only do it for ancestors of those among the faithful, and only when they request it.

I can only conclude that the Church believes that forcibly baptizing someone after their death is okay, but only if it’s done at the request of a relative.  I’m not sure I’d want that standard applied to my family.  If, for example, I became a member of the LDS and decided to follow this practice, I could theoretically baptize my grandparents, all four of whom are deceased.  All four were devout Catholics, and I think all four would not exactly be happy with my decision.

Free will, white courtesy phone please.

Related posts

• It’s Equality, Not Marriage
• Your Own Personal Jesus (Buddha)(Marx)(Whatever)
• You’ve Been Barrack Rolled
• You Know It’s DC. . .
• You Have Got to Be Kidding Me, Hillaryland Edition

As follow up to my post on Truth In Spiritual Advertising, I thought it might be interesting to explore current trends/needs in the marketing of religion.

I have no issue with the need for marketing in religion.  Marketing is a necessary reality for any organization to stay fiscally sound. I’d like to see those of us who pursue organized spiritual activities stay awake, and not let marketing and budget concerns over-ride common sense and our true values.

Two points I’d like to press:  1) organized religion is market-driven; 2) being market-driven, it can run the risk of losing the original mustard seed (so to speak) and cross the line from spirituality to spirituality theatre.

If you have a good sense of humor and willingness to laugh at this side of Organized-Religion-as-Business, watch this video (h/t Think Christian):

Short story: no one would come back.

For more on this, check out Web Design for God’s Audience: Learning From Church Development, on the Blogger’s Blog by Lorelle Van Fossen.

Related posts

• What about Dad?
• Truth in Spiritual Advertising
• Surprise: Washington Post Mangles Story on Religion and Foreign Policy
• It’s Equality, Not Marriage

Ezra Klein has a new post on Al Sharpton’s latest call to religious leaders to knock off the homophobic preaching.  I appreciate what Sharpton has to say, but I don’t like his suggestion that homophobic ministers are all closeted gays:

“I am tired,” he went on, “of seeing ministers who will preach homophobia by day, and then after they’re preaching, when the lights are off they go cruising for trade. . .

That too is a stereotype that needs to get deep-sixed.  But I  do agree with much of the rest of what he says.  I applaud Sharpton for having the courage to stand up for equality for all Americans, and for his continued, if angry, persistence in doing so.  Some issues must be inflammatory to get the attention needed to activate change, or counteract equally inflammatory nonsense.

While I greatly appreciate Rev. Sharpton’s unwavering support for equal rights and his work in education, I believe that Klein’s response is the real story here.   Klein’s does not hesitate to name the elephant in the pulpit:  religion is a commercial venture, and like all such goods and services, it is market driven.

Particularly insightful is Klein’s recognition that fundamentalism, marketing, and homophobia are interconnected:

[P]eople are less comfortable digging through the implications of a market-driven religion. . . . Preachers obsess over homosexuality for the same reason that newscasters talk about polls rather than policies:  It gets ratings. It arouses passions. It ensures relevance. It’s not about religion, or justice.  You can’t read the Bible and honestly decide its primary political imperative is to block gay marriage. . . .

This stuff is not about the judgment of the divine but the demands of the market. And that’s okay, I guess, [but] it’s just a bit weird we make it tax exempt to sell a market good so long as you make God part of your sales pitch.

As a gay Christian who believes in the value of all faiths that want you to love your neighbor, I’ve long recognized that churches, temples, and  mosques need to market themselves to stay fiscally sound.  When marketing and religion collide, there is great potential for lack of truth in spiritual advertising.

It’s a tricky line for any religious leader to walk.  Without exception, they want to see their flock grow.  But more than a few cross the line from proselytizing to marketing.  And when such efforts turn into little more than an effort to improve attendance and donations (a.k.a. ratings and sales), then you start running into problems.

Isn’t it time that we ask ourselves how our place of worship is benefiting from a given view or stance?  Are such positions really what I believe?  Are they really in line with the spirit of my religious text?  Does my religion’s sacred text actually embrace intolerance, hate, rigidity and intemperance, or is my preacher trying to bump up his “ratings”?

If your answers surprise you, talk to your faith leader.  They need your help as much as you need theirs.

Related posts

• Wonk’d: What’s Right with the United Nations
• While You Were Filing for Bankruptcy: Pakistan
• While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia
• While You Were Away: Pakistan
• What about Dad?

A thoughtful friend forwarded this comment off an Obama listserv where the Warren pick is a hot topic, and asked me how I felt about it:

While I certainly disagree with some of Rev. Warrens views I feel the need to point out that complete intolerance of others’ views is one of the things we hated about the Bush administration.  President-elect Obama asking someone with whom he disagrees on issues to be part of a celebration of our democracy is pretty much exactly what he said he would do.

Having Rick Warren five the invocation at the inaugural will not make Obama any less pro-gay or pro-choice.  What it will do is show the millions of Americans who did not vote for him that he will include them in the discussion even when he disagrees with them.  Obama’s desire and ability to reach out to people with a variety of beliefs is one of the many reasons that I supported and voted for him.

Amen. I couldn’t agree more.  In terms of needing to keep the dialogue open, even with people who believe we shouldn’t be equal,  I’m all for it.  I’m proud of a President-elect who will do that in the face of opposition.  Because it is right.

I’m not incensed that Obama asked someone who hates gays to speak at his inauguration.  Honestly?  It hurts when someone I respect and admire chooses someone who hates me to speak…but that’s free speech and that is tolerance. I can live with it.

What bothers me is he asked someone to speak at his inauguration who does not believe in equal rights for all Americans.  Such a person has no place in an inauguration of any president.

I think both the gay (and non-gay) community who support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it have gotten a little mixed up over what is the core issue here: it’s equality, not marriage.

The right to marry is something tangible we can hold up (and hang onto) to show that second class citizenship still exists for some citizens of the United States.  It’s a good illustration: marriage is something most people can identify with — what if you couldn’t marry?  Overall inequality for gays is more amorphous — harder to pin down and to show .  Not being able to marry is a glaring transgression, but it is a symbol of the fight, not the fight itself.

The real issue, beneath the-right-to-marry campaign, is that there are still people in our country who do not have full rights of citizenship.  Anyone who thinks that is acceptable should not be giving the invocation at a presidential inauguration.

People are entitled to their opinions, but I don’t see Obama inviting a racist to give the invocation so that they can keep the lines of communication open.

Sitting down with people you disagree with is the right thing to do.  I wish that Obama had said to Warren, “We’ll talk.  I’m open.  Let’s bring this up,” and had chosen a different but still significant, time and place.  The current venue does not send out the right message to anyone - neither to those who support gay marriage or to those who oppose it.

If he had done that, I’d be right up there yelling at anyone, gay or straight, who believed Warren had no right to speak and Obama no right to listen.

Related posts

• Right Message, Wrong Messenger
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• What about Dad?
• Some Thoughts on Obama’s Speech
• Powell, Obama, and Torture