Saturday, August 26, 2017

Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy in Politics and War

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Legitimacy defines what we consider to be right and wrong, and conflicting concepts of legitimacy have polarized our politics and initiated our wars—war being “an extension of politics by other means”.  Controversy over monuments to the Confederacy has reminded us of lessons in legitimacy that we should have learned in politics and war.

            Slavery was considered legitimate in 1776 when slave-holding American colonies proclaimed their independence from the British Empire; but in 1833 Great Britain passed the Abolition of Slavery Act.  When slave-holding states in the South seceded from the Union in 1860, state sovereignty was still an unsettled issue, but slavery had become a political anathema.

            The Confederacy was considered legitimate by white southerners, but it needed the support of Great Britain or France to defend itself against a vastly superior Union Army.  Had Lincoln announced an Emancipation Proclamation in 1860 rather than in1863, it would have undermined the legitimacy of the Confederacy earlier in Europe.  But Lincoln justified the war with the preservation of the Union, a justification dictated by politics rather than morality.       

            History provides the proper perspective to judge past military crusades.  The resentment of blacks to Confederate monuments and the statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford is understandable.  Those monuments represent painful lessons learned in legitimacy, and they remain unpleasant reminders of the danger of using military force to reconcile conflicting concepts of legitimacy.

            Although Great Britain abolished slavery in 1833 it and other European nations retained colonial empires that rivaled slavery in their exploitation of natives in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and India.  The French colonial regime in Indochina ended at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and the U.S. unwittingly filled the French political vacuum left in Vietnam, with catastrophic results.

            Earlier in the 20th century the U.S. had tried its hand at being a colonial power in the Philippines and Latin America; and after World War II the U.S. kept Okinawa as a U.S. protectorate for its military bases.  It was not until 1970, after increasing Okinawan resentment toward Americans, that the U.S. allowed Okinawa to revert to Japan.

            The U.S. learned a painful lesson in legitimacy after LBJ deployed U.S. Marines to Vietnam in 1965.  Even a vastly superior U.S. military force could not overcome the lack of legitimacy in the South Vietnamese government.  That lesson should have prevented the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, and should dictate an end to U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan.  
           
            American exceptionalism promotes American standards of legitimacy overseas.  Human rights and democracy have long been strategic objectives of U.S. foreign policy and military operations, but human rights have been a hard sell in Islamic cultures where Islamic Law (Shari’a) denies the freedoms of religion and speech with apostasy and blasphemy laws.   

            Religion is the primary source of standards of legitimacy, and conflicting concepts of legitimacy have historically motivated military crusades—most recently U.S. interventions against terrorism in Islamic nations.  Such interventions have been countered by terrorists using asymmetric warfare, confirming that God/Allah has nothing to do with wars in His name.

            Public support is essential for the legitimacy of military operations, and conflicting concepts of legitimacy can create public resentment that can turn a military success into political defeat.  The U.S. must remember the painful lessons of legitimacy learned in its Civil War and in its past military interventions overseas if it is to avoid having history repeat itself.     


Notes:

See generally, Barnes, Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy, a paper submitted for a conference on April 14-16, 2016 at The Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL) at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.  See https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5473-barnesreligion-and-conflicting-concepts-of.

Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) was a Prussian general who famously described war as “an extension of politics by other means” in his classic On War (unfinished at his death in 1831). 

On lessons learned in legitimacy and the legitimacy of military operations generally, see Barnes, Military Legitimacy: Might and Right in the New Millennium (Frank Cass, London, Portland, 1996), posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-VmpMUV9sSU9kaDA/view.

Seymour Martin Lipset has defined American exceptionalism in religious terms, citing Alexis DeTocqueville, Max Weber and Samuel Huntington to support the idea that American religions provided the moral energy for American progress and economic success. See Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp 60-67. In a more recent work focused on US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Andrew J. Bacevich has predicted the end of American exceptionalism. See Bacevich, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2008.  Richard Cohen has described American exceptionalism as a misguided mix of patriotism, politics and religion that seeks to impose American values in other cultures, the real danger being in using military force to accomplish that objective, as in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.  See Cohen, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, The Washington Post, May 9, 2011.

Fareed Zakaria has described Trump’s recently announced U.S. policy in Afghanistan as more of the same Bush and Obama policies that ignored issues of legitimacy.  Zakaria concludes that “…half a century later, at a lower human cost, the U.S. has replicated its strategy in Vietnam.”  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-signs-on-to-the-forever-war-in-afghanistan/2017/08/24/64684004-890e-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.


Related Commentary:

(12/29/14): Religion, Violence and Military Legitimacy

(4/12/15): Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy

(5/24/15): De Oppresso Liber: Where Religion and Politics Intersect

(7/19/15): Religion, Heritage and the Confederate Flag

(10/25/15): The Muslim Stranger: A Good Neighbor or a Threat?

(11/15/15): American Exceptionalism: The Power of Persuasion or Coercion?

(4/16/16): Religious Violence and the Dilemma of Freedom and Democracy

(5/10/15): Religion, Human Rights and National Security

(8/27/16): A Containment Strategy and Military Legitimacy

(9/3/16): The Diplomat-Warrior: A Military Capability for Reconciliation and Peace

(4/1/17): Human Rights, Freedom and National Security

(5/6/17): Loyalty and Duty in Politics, the Military and Religion

(8/5/17): Does Religion Seek to Reconcile and Redeem or to Divide and Conquer?

(8/19/17): Hate, History and the Need for a Politics of Reconciliation

http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/08/hate-history-and-need-for-politics-of.html 

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Hate, History and the Need for a Politics of Reconciliation

   By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Hate and history took center stage this past week.  Violence erupted in Charlottesville after white supremacists marched to protest the removal of a monument to General Robert E. Lee, and activists in Durham, N.C. toppled a monument to Confederate soldiers.  Historic conflicts in culture, politics and religion have generated hatred that threatens the very fabric of American democracy, and it will take a politics of reconciliation to expunge that hate.

            There was no moral equivalence between the two sides in Charlottesville.  The white supremacists, including the KKK and Neo-Nazis, are the most dangerous hate groups in America today.  Their torchlight march on Friday night set the stage for the violent confrontations that erupted the next day.  They were fueled by a palpable and unrestrained hatred on both sides.                

            Confederate monuments inspire outpourings of hate in some and reverence in others.  For most white Southerners those monuments are familiar reminders of the dark days of their history.  Few consider how the unique culture of the Ante-Bellum South shaped the racist standards of legitimacy that persisted in the Jim Crow South.  They are reflected in the evolution of the American civil religion, which is at the calamitous crossroads of American religion and politics.

            White supremacy and racism pervaded U.S. politics until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  It signaled a cultural change in U.S. political and religious values.  But a militant remnant of white supremacists continued to oppose the civil rights and political equality of non-whites, and they found a home among Christian evangelicals.  Donald Trump has stoked the coals of hatred by unabashedly seeking the support of white supremacists and sympathetic Christian evangelicals.

            The doctrine of white supremacy was pervasive in the Ante-Bellum South, but all who fought for the Confederacy should not be condemned.  They should instead be judged by their actions in their cultural context—even the church was split on the morality of slavery since it was not condemned in the Bible.  In that context, General Robert E. Lee was an honorable man, while General Nathan Bedford Forrest was not.  We should never try to change history, but we can alter or remove monuments to change how we remember history—but never by mob rule.

            State sovereignty was still an issue in American politics when Abraham Lincoln asserted that the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery.  The American colonies had slavery when they seceded from the British Empire; and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move in 1863 to undermine the legitimacy of the Confederacy.

            Today slavery and racism are universally condemned, and demographic projections indicate that whites will become a minority in America within 20 years (white births are already a minority of U.S. births).  White supremacists fear their loss of political power, and Trump, like other populist politicians, has exploited their fear and hate for political gain.

            Hate is the common enemy that is polarizing us from one another.  There is disagreement over whether hate is a learned or innate characteristic of human nature, but it is at the root of racist and religious polarization and violence.  The antidote for the hatred for others is love for others, as taught by Jesus in the greatest commandment to love God and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.  It can mitigate polarization and promote a politics of reconciliation.

            President Trump was elected with 81% of the white evangelical vote, and he has retained their support with the mythical ideal to Make America Great Again.  Trump’s conservative Christian supporters have subordinated the teachings of Jesus to distorted and exclusivist religious beliefs that were once marginal, but now seem mainstream in American civil religion.        

            Now more than ever, a polarized America needs a politics of reconciliation.  Those who cause violence or destroy property must be held accountable for their actions, but America’s real enemy is the hatred that divides us.  Christians should seek to reconcile our polarized politics by emphasizing the moral imperative to love others as we love ourselves—even those we hate.

       
Notes:                

On recounting a day of rage, hate, violence and death in Charlottesville, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/charlottesville-timeline/?undefined=&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1.

On Trump’s view of the moral equivalence of the Alt-Left in the Charlottesville violence, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-alt-left-fact-check.html.

On two contrasting views of whether hate is learned or a characteristic of human nature:
A tweet from Obama quoted South Africa’s Nelson Mandela that “…People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love...For love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” (see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/15/obamas-response-to-charlottesville-violence-is-one-of-the-most-popular-in-twitters-history/.  For an opposing view that hate doesn’t have to be taught and that love “is an attitude that must be cultivated through storms of adversity and droughts of trust.”  See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hatred-doesnt-have-to-be-taught/2017/08/15/c2a24ba6-81e3-11e7-902a-2a9f2d808496_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On why Trump’s Charlottesville response won’t hurt him with a key chunk of his base (Christian evangelicals), see https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/17/why-trumps-charlottesville-response-wont-hurt-him-with-a-key-chunk-of-his-base/?wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1.

On how historians question Trump’s comments on Con federate monuments, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/arts/design/trump-robert-e-lee-george-washington-thomas-jefferson.html.

On the view that the whole point of Confederate monuments is to celebrate white supremacy, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/16/the-whole-point-of-confederate-monuments-is-to-celebrate-white-supremacy/.

On why Lawrence Kuznar detests Confederate monuments but thinks they should remain, see

Tradition is a powerful force in retaining monuments to great men of dark periods of history. For   Oxford University’s denial of black students’ demands to remove a statute of Cecil Rhodes, see  

In 1967 Robert N. Bellah defined [American] civil religion as “a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals,” drawn from American history and “institutionalized in a collectivity” that function “not as a form of national self-worship but as the subordination of the nation to ethical principles that transcend it in terms of which it should be judged.”  It reflects how Trump is reshaping American civil religion.  See https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2017/07/11/trump-reshaping-american-civil-religion/.


Related Commentary:

(12/15/14): Faith and Freedom
(1/11/15): The Greatest Commandment: A Common Word of Faith
(1/18/15): Love over Law: A Principle at the Heart of Legitimacy
(4/12/15): Faith as a Source of Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(2/27/16): Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy in Faith, Freedom and Politics
(6/18/16): A Politics of Reconciliation with Liberty and Justice for All
(6/28/15): Confronting the Evil Among Us
(7/5/15): Reconciliation as a Remedy for Racism and Religious Exclusivism
(4/23/16): Standards of Legitimacy in Morality, Manners and Political Correctness
(7/9/16): Back to the Future: Race, Religion, Rights and a Politics of Reconciliation
(7/19/15): Religion, Heritage and the Confederate Flag
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(4/30/16): The Relevance of Religion to Politics
(5/7/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation
(8/5/16): How Religion Can Bridge Our Political and Cultural Divide
(9/17/16): A Moral Revival to Restore Legitimacy to Our Politics
(11/19/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation Based on Shared Values
(11/26/16): Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy
(2/18/17): Gerrymandering, Race and Polarized Partisan Politics
(3/4/17): Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics
(3/18/17): Moral Ambiguity in Religion and Politics
(4/22/17): The Relevance of Jesus and the Irrelevance of the Church in Today’s World
(6/24/17): The Evolution of Religion, Politics and Law: Back to the Future? http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/06/the-evolution-of-religion-politics-and.html.
(7/1/17): Religion, Moral Authority and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy
(7/15/17) Religion and Progressive Politics
(8/5/17): Does Religion Seek to Reconcile and Redeem or to Divide and Conquer?

Saturday, August 12, 2017

The Universalist Teachings of Jesus as a Remedy for Religious Exclusivism

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            Universalism is a religious concept based on universal salvation.  It rejects exclusivism—the concept that salvation is limited to one religion and that all others are condemned to hell.  The teachings of Jesus are universalist and provide accountability to God and man with values and moral standards of legitimacy based on altruistic love.  They allow free will, political freedom and democracy, and promote religious and political reconciliation rather than division.

            Universalism originated within Christianity, and while most Universalists are now Unitarians, there is a remnant of Christian Universalists who believe in universalist principles based on the teachings of Jesus.  There are also Jews, Muslims and Unitarians who share belief in the teachings of Jesus as the word of God but do not accept the divinity of Jesus.  It is belief in Jesus as co-equal with God in the Trinity that makes Christianity exclusivist.

            Muslims consider Jesus a prophet born of a virgin who taught the word of God and who will return on the last day.  That is provided in the Qur’an, which Muslims consider the perfect and immutable word of God.  But while the Qur’an accepts Jews and Christians as believers, it condemns all Christians who believe in the Trinity as blasphemers, since the Trinity conflicts with the unitarian nature of God that is explicitly provided in the Qur’an.

            Mustafa Akyol has presented an Islamic Jesus who was not divine, but a messenger of God’s word, much like Muhammad.  In fact, Jesus never taught that he was divine.  His divinity is based on Paul’s atonement doctrine, which evolved into the holy Trinity and made Jesus a co-equal with God.  Jesus taught his disciples to follow him, not to worship him, and his teachings provide timeless and universal values and moral standards based on the altruistic love of others.

            Religious fundamentalists believe in the divine perfection of their holy books, including their religious laws.  When Islamist fundamentalists seek to enforce ancient apostasy and blasphemy laws, they are not only exclusivists but political oppressors who deny the freedoms of religion and speech.  Religious standards of legitimacy must be voluntary moral standards rather than religious laws in order to be consistent with freedom and democracy. 

            Progressive Christians and Muslims believe that their scriptures should be interpreted as consistent with freedom and democracy.  Over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson, who was a Unitarian deist and a child of the Enlightenment, asserted “the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence, and he also asserted that the teachings of Jesus were “the sublimest morality that has ever been taught.” 

            Jesus was a Jew who never promoted any religion, not even his own.  He taught that all who did the will of God were his spiritual brothers and sisters in a universal family of God. (Mark 3:33-35).  Jesus taught the greatest commandment was to love God and our neighbors as we love ourselves; and when asked who is my neighbor? he told the story of the good Samaritan in which an apostate Samaritan was a good neighbor to a Jew. (Luke 10:25-37) 

            The teachings of Jesus rejected rigid religious laws and opened the door to the libertarian values of the Enlightenment, and Western religions have since conformed their doctrines with individual rights and democracy.  But Christianity and Islam continue to be exclusivist, perhaps because rejecting their unique claims to salvation would eliminate negative incentives that are needed to retain their believers and their worldly power.

            Both Christianity and Islam accept the universalist teachings of Jesus as the word of God.  Christians and Muslims should reject their exclusivist and divisive doctrines, and as universalists who follow the teachings of Jesus they can then promote religious and political reconciliation.    


Notes:

On universalism generally, see Universalism: A theology for the 21st century, by Forrest Church, November 5, 2001, at http://www.uuworld.org/articles/universalism-theology-the-21st-century.

On Christian Universalism, see the website at https://christianuniversalist.org/.

On Mustafa Akyol’s Islamic Jesus (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 2017), see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/what-jesus-can-teach-todays-muslims.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2FMustafa%20Akyol&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&version=column&pgtype=article; Akyol has also affirmed the importance of fundamental freedoms in Islam (see  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/is-free-speech-good-for-muslims.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2FMustafa%20Akyol&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&version=column&pgtype=article); and Akyol has suggested that an Islamic Enlightenment might follow the model of the Jewish Enlightenment (see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/13/opinion/shariahs-winding-path-into-modernity.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region). 

Thomas Jefferson embraced the moral teachings of Jesus but considered the church an obstacle to freedom.  He wrote Henry Fry on June 17, 1804: "I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught; but I hold in the utmost profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of man."  Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible, edited by O. I. A. Roche, Clarkson H. Potter, Inc., New York, 1964, at p 378; see also Jefferson’s letter to John Adams dated October 13, 1813, at pp 825, 826; Jefferson's commentaries are at pp 325-379.  See also, Introduction to The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy, at page 10, note 2, posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-aTJubVlISnpQc1U/view

The Teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on Morality and Law: The Heart of Legitimacy is a study guide for interfaith groups that compares those teachings of Jesus selected by Thomas Jefferson with comparable provisions of the Qur’an and hadith, with commentary.  It is posted at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3gvZV8mXUp-aTJubVlISnpQc1U/view.


Related Commentary posted at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/:

(12/8/14) Religion and Reason
(12/15/14): Faith and Freedom
(1/4/15): Religion and New Beginnings: Salvation and Reconciliation in the Family of God http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2015/01/religion-and-new-beginnings-salvation.html
(1/11/15): The Greatest Commandment: A Common Word of Faith
(2/8/15): Promoting Religion Through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness?
(2/15/15): Is Religion Good or Evil?
(5/3/15): A Fundamental Problem with Religion
(8/23/15): Legitimacy as a Context and Paradigm to Resolve Religious Conflict
(9/20/15) Politics and Religious Polarization
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(2/27/16): Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy in Faith, Freedom and Politics
(8/5/16): How Religion Can Bridge Our Political and Cultural Divide
(11/5/16): Religion, Liberty and Justice at Home and Abroad
(11/19/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation Based on Shared Values
(11/26/16): Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy
(2/25/17): The Need for a Revolution in Religion and Politics
(3/4/17): Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics
(4/22/17): The Relevance of Jesus and the Irrelevance of the Church in Today’s World
(5/27/17): Intrafaith Reconciliation as a Prerequisite for Interfaith Reconciliation
(6/10/17): Religious Exclusivity and Discrimination in Politics    http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/06/religious-exclusivity-and.html
(6/17/17): Religious Exclusivity: Does It Matter?   http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/06/religious-exclusivity-does-it-matter.html (6/24/17): The Evolution of Religion, Politics and Law: Back to the Future? http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/06/the-evolution-of-religion-politics-and.html.
(7/1/17): Religion, Moral Authority and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy
(7/15/17) Religion and Progressive Politics
(7/8/17): Hell No!

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Does Religion Seek to Reconcile and Redeem or to Divide and Conquer?

  By Rudy Barnes, Jr.

            It has been said that God’s will is to reconcile and redeem those of all races and religions, while Satan’s will is to divide and conquer.  It has also been said that Satan does a convincing imitation of God in the church, mosque and in politics.  That may explain why exclusivist religions seek to divide and conquer other religions rather than to reconcile with them.  

            The tendency of competing religions to divide and conquer was an underlying theme of Samuel P. Huntington’s 1993 essay on The Clash of Civilizations which was set in the Balkan conflict.  According to Carlos Lozada, “Huntington described civilizations as the broadest and most crucial level of identity, encompassing religion, values, culture and history.”

            In Poland, where religion pervades politics, President Trump evoked Huntington’s clash of civilizations when he called on the nations of the West to “…summon the courage and the will to defend our civilization…and to never forget who we are.”  Since religions are the source of the ideals that shape the values of civilizations, they can be either a reconciling or divisive force.

            Trump has asserted that Muslims don’t share the values of western civilization, but Reza Aslan disagrees.  Aslan points out that Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is not a monolithic religion and that “There is no clash between Islam and American culture.  In fact, there is no clash between any religion and any culture because religions are inextricably linked to culture.” 

Culture is like a vessel, and religion is like water — it simply takes the shape of whatever vessel you pour it into. And this is why the prosperity gospel — the notion that what Jesus really wants for you is to drive a Bentley — can exist in the United States.
Islam in the United States is an overwhelmingly moderate version of Islam, but more interestingly a highly individualistic form of the religion. Islam is a religion that often advantages the community over the individual, but in the United States, where the culture is rooted in radical individualism, you see a radically individualistic Islam forming.

            If Huntington ever suggested that religions are monolithic, history has proven him wrong.  Aslan emphasizes that religions are diverse and shaped by culture and politics, just as religions shape culture and politics. That is evident in the American civil religion.  It is an amalgamation of Christian and secular values that shape American culture and that are constantly changing.

            Just as Christianity and Islam are remarkably diverse, so is the American church.  In its myriad and dynamic forms the church plays a formative role in shaping the values of American culture and politics, and all but a few universalist denominations promote exclusivist doctrines that continue to divide believers of different religions rather than reconcile them.

            Most Christians are exclusivists who have fostered political polarization along racial and partisan lines.  Last year white Christians elected Donald Trump as president and gave the GOP a majority in Congress.  Their political priorities conflict with the greatest commandment to love God and to love their neighbors—including their neighbors of other races and religions—as they love themselves.  That should be a common word of faith for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

            Globalization has increased racial and religious diversity around the world, exacerbating religious and political tensions.  To avoid a dangerous clash of religion and politics in America and a worldwide clash of civilizations, people of faith must reject religious exclusivism and seek reconciliation with those of other religions rather than seeking to divide and conquer them.  That will require more interfaith dialogue and a commitment to share a common word of faith.

      
Notes:

On Carlos Lozada’s view of Huntington, a prophet for the Trump era, see

On religion and politics in Poland, where Jesus is king for Poland’s new rulers and where Trump stressed Poland’s religious traditions, see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/religion-and-power-reunite-in-modern-poland.
                                                                                                                          
On Reza Aslan’s assertion that There is no divide between Islam and American culture, see                                    https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/24/reza-aslan-argues-there-is-no-divide-between-islam-and-american-culture/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=Flashpoints.

In 1967 Robert N. Bellah defined [American] civil religion as “a collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals,” drawn from American history and “institutionalized in a collectivity” that function “not as a form of national self-worship but as the subordination of the nation to ethical principles that transcend it in terms of which it should be judged.”  See How Trump is reshaping American civil religion at https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2017/07/11/trump-reshaping-american-civil-religion/.  See also, American Civil Religion is Dead, Long Live American Civil Religion, see https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/american-civil-religion-is-dead-long-live-american-civil-religion/.


Related Commentary posted at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/:

(12/8/14) Religion and Reason
(12/15/14): Faith and Freedom
(1/11/15): The Greatest Commandment: A Common Word of Faith
(2/8/15): Promoting Religion Through Evangelism: Bringing Light or Darkness?
(2/15/15): Is Religion Good or Evil?
(5/3/15): A Fundamental Problem with Religion
(9/20/15) Politics and Religious Polarization
(1/23/16): Who Is My Neighbor?
(1/30/16): The Politics of Loving Our Neighbors as Ourselves
(6/18/16): A Politics of Reconciliation with Liberty and Justice for All
http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2016/06/a-politics-of-reconciliation-with.html (8/5/16): How Religion Can Bridge Our Political and Cultural Divide
 (11/5/16): Religion, Liberty and Justice at Home and Abroad
(11/19/16): Religion and a Politics of Reconciliation Based on Shared Values
(11/26/16): Irreconcilable Differences and the Demise of Democracy
 (2/25/17): The Need for a Revolution in Religion and Politics
(3/4/17): Ignorance and Reason in Religion and Politics
 (4/22/17): The Relevance of Jesus and the Irrelevance of the Church in Today’s World
(4/29/17): A Wesleyan Alternative for an Irrelevant Church
 (5/27/17): Intrafaith Reconciliation as a Prerequisite for Interfaith Reconciliation
(6/24/17): The Evolution of Religion, Politics and Law: Back to the Future? http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/06/the-evolution-of-religion-politics-and.html.
(7/1/17): Religion, Moral Authority and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy
(7/15/17) Religion and Progressive Politics
(7/8/17): Hell No!