Secularist's Corner: A Conversation on Religion, Politics and Liberty With Susan Jacoby

Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic Offenses

Forums » The Secularist's Corner » Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic Offenses

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register

Forums » washingtonpost.com forums » The Secularist's Corner » Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic Offenses

Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic Offenses

posted at 10/18/2007 5:14 PM EDT

*Moderator*

Susan_Jacoby

First post: 7/18/2007
Last post: 11/30/2009
Total posts: 328

This week, in spite of China’s strong protests, President Bush met with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists, and Congress awarded His Holiness (who enjoys the same honorific as the Roman Catholic pope) the Congressional Gold Medal, the nation’s highest civilian honor. At the same time, Congressional leaders appeared to be backing away, as a result of Turkish threats to impede U.S. policy in Iraq, from a vote on a resolution to condemn the mass killing in 1915 of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks. Does the juxtaposition of these two events imply that we’re more willing to offend a powerful country to honor a religious figure than to deal with an old human rights issue?

I greatly admire the Dalai Lama, and I wish that Bush would pay attention to the Buddhist leader’s consistent support for nonviolent solutions to world conflicts. But I do not agree with the Dalai Lama’s statement, discussed in this week’s “On Faith” panel, [http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/index.html?nid=roll_onfaith] that all religious traditions have in common a message of compassion and forgiveness. If that were true, religion would not continue to be a cause of so much violent conflict in the world. I should also make clear that I see no reason why an American president should pay the slightest attention to what China thinks about his receiving the Dalai Lama. That said, I do have reservations about Congress awarding a government-sponsored honor to any religious leader.

Nor do I think that an American Congress, given that body’s failure to call the Bush administration to account for condoning torture of prisoners, is in the best moral position to be passing ex post facto judgments on massacres committed by another government nearly a century ago. At the same time, the reaction of our Turkish “ally”—a nation in which conservative Muslims are gaining more and more influence over a once-secular government—is disturbing. If Congress backs down, it will be for one reason and one reason alone: we do not want the Turks to interfere with our military pipeline to Iraq. Doesn’t morality always get shoved aside when strategic military interests are involved?

Should Congress be in the business of awarding national honors to any religious figure? Should our legislators be spending their time passing moral judgments on other nations for distant crimes? I’m of two minds, as you can see, and I’d really like to hear what others think.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic Offenses

posted at 10/19/2007 9:13 AM EDT

biteme1

First post: 9/4/2007
Last post: 2/9/2009
Total posts: 67

Replying to:

Should Congress be in the business of awarding national honors to any religious figure?

If they are in the business of awarding honors at all, then there's no intrinsic problem to awarding it to religious figures. (N.B., this one's not a Christian!) The award is not for his religiosity, but for the "shared value" of non-violent response to conflict. The scare quotes indicate that the value is shared nominally across a number of prominent worldviews, but it is not necessarily shared in practice by our current government.

Replying to:

Should our legislators be spending their time passing moral judgments on other nations for distant crimes?

WaPo's Krauthammer thinks not (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101801579.html), and I'm inclined to agree with him. There should be bigger fish for them to fry.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Re: Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic Offenses

posted at 10/19/2007 11:44 AM EDT

DArete

First post: 10/12/2007
Last post: 1/9/2008
Total posts: 36

Replying to:

Doesn’t morality always get shoved aside when strategic military interests are involved? Posted by Susan_Jacoby

This question probably belongs in a comprehensive discussion on the morality of war.

The short answer is probably "not always," but certainly often. Certainly enough that people should be skeptical when claims arise that draw lines between one and the other.

It's a question of leverage though, and the examples cited demonstrate the power of economic ties versus military ties. China is irritated, but will amost certainly bite the bullet when it comes to the Dali Lama thanks to its dependance on US Consumers. For all the close alliance between the US and Turkey militarily, however, it probably isn't enough to make them swallow the Armenian Genocide resolution. Maybe we will have better luck if they become a member of the EU.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

skeptic

posted at 10/19/2007 3:26 PM EDT

jhherring

First post: 9/6/2007
Last post: 6/10/2009
Total posts: 38

You disagree with the Dalai Lama "that all religious traditions have in common a message of compassion and forgiveness." So, what religion would you like to assert does not have these values as a core?

Note that he did not say that was the sum total of what each religion taught. Each of the major world religions is self contradictory in many ways- perhaps the Dalai Lama simply meant that there is a core of compassion and forgiveness which could be used to reduce the conflict within and between religions. That interpretation seems to agree with many of his more extended writings.

As for the propriety of awarding honors to religious figures, would you preclude, for example, recognition of, say, Desmond Tutu, another individual whose work springs from a religious basis but is largely secular? What about other figures whose positions are formally secular but who profess their faitth as critical in sustaining their work- think, for example, of individuals as diverse as Jimmy Carter, Lech Walesa, Elie Weisel, and George Bush. All of them have publicly asserted, repeatedly, the central role of their religious beliefs in forming their actions- does that mean they should not be honored for their works?

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

If religion matters in secular bussines the way you imply it...

posted at 10/20/2007 11:22 AM EDT

conquer

First post: 7/28/2007
Last post: 6/6/2008
Total posts: 497

...the theory of Evolution should never included the experiments of Gregory Mendel because he was a monk.

The same rejection seeing in China to the "honoring" of the Dalai Lama by US it is found here by the US goverment with the "honoring" given to the president of Iran.

In several ocassions this president was applaused by the audiences.

We must notice that this president rules his country in base of their religious laws.

I do not see why a religious person's works or actions cannot be honored the same way as a secularist's works and actions are.

I guess that religion itself is not the "enemy" but the wrong interpretation of what religion really says.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic

posted at 10/21/2007 8:52 AM EDT

Maddogg

First post: 7/25/2007
Last post: 11/26/2009
Total posts: 2173

The United States Government needs to close down if these are the only matters they get involved with. The voters need to be outraged over this non-sense and send all incumbents packing in November 2008.

In January 2009 the fresh now members of Congress can examine why the FBI failed on 9-11 and why that agency remains dysfunctional.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

cold war redux

posted at 10/21/2007 9:38 AM EDT

FIUS

First post: 8/1/2007
Last post: 4/1/2009
Total posts: 251

Replying to:

Should Congress be in the business of awarding national honors to any religious figure? Should our legislators be spending their time passing moral judgments on other nations for distant crimes? I’m of two minds, as you can see, and I’d really like to hear what others think.

Congress should get a clue and do the job we hired them to do. It's the only lesson of the Clinton I period, worth learning. Resolutions and honors are stupid, waste time, appeal to our vanity and nationalist emotions. Go to work, repeal some laws and cut some taxes for God's sake!

That said:

On the left, Tibet is easy to defend because it doesn't cost any lives to defend; the old "free tibet" movement would not have had any traction if it meant spending our blood. It is also a showcase for the ineffectiveness of the strategy of the Ghandian/Hollywood alliance.

On the right, the great game is being played with China in order to deflect the global focus on its overdue economic awakening. Power is as power does. We are weak now, and this tactic increases FUD and manipulates the headlines.

Cognitive dissonance is a glorious state of mind. Newspeak, dubyathink, selective spade calling, pots v. kettles... whatever. I guess we're tired of our own trespasses so we need to point out that they're not so bad in a wishy washy relativist sort of way.

Turks, Ottomans, Age of Empires. To what end? So they can point out how well Manifest Destiny treated the natives in North America? I guess that's better than actually working out any trade agreements or human rights strategies, or military treaties going forward.

In war, expediency trumps idealism. These resolutions are nothing but idealism sans teeth.

Is torture effective? If so, we'll continue to use it; if not, hey, it's only a terrorist who would otherwise be dead already.

As Harris said, collateral damage be damned. The morality is no different than using any other weapon of war. The difference is intention, and while that is small consolation to the innocent few caught in an imperfect net, it makes us feel good about condemning others with perhaps less nuanced intent.

And feeling good about ourselves is really what it is all about after all.

--Faithless in US

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic Offenses

posted at 10/21/2007 10:41 AM EDT

Maddogg

First post: 7/25/2007
Last post: 11/26/2009
Total posts: 2173

What is one supposed to do if you are in government and the only problems facing the US are millions who lack health insurance and millions of jobs going overseas.

Not to mention the FBI remains broke as witnessed by pre and post 9-11 events.

Report Abuse Discussion Policy

Forums » The Secularist's Corner » Double Standard for Religious and Secular Diplomatic Offenses

Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Classifieds

SEARCH:

Search Archives

The Washington Post Company: Information and Other Post Co. Websites

Help | Contact Us

washingtonpost.com

Groups