R. Bennett Furlow

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with religious leaders today to discuss ongoing efforts of the U.S. in an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I do not doubt the sincerity of the clerics present. Nor do I doubt Secretary Rice’s sincerity in getting a workable peace in the Israel-Palestine region. However this strikes me as nothing more than a photo-op. The sentiment may be noble but the execution is impotent.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s most recent book The Mighty and The Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs has, as one of its themes, the idea of religious experts working for the State Department. She claims that during her tenure at the State Department, and for many many years prior, religion was a non-factor when determining U.S. foreign policy. This seems like an absurd idea. When dealing with the conflict in Bosnia, how can you not factor in religion? When trying to achieve a peace procress between Israelis and Palestinians, how do you not look to religion? Understanding liberation theology could have completly altered U.S. foreign policy in Latin America in the 1980’s, but it was a non-issue. Albright states that while she was head of the State Department she had one person on her staff who was an expert on religion. One.

Religion can no longer be a non-issue. When dealing with foreign policy matters a great deal needs to be considered, but one of the most important things to consider is the religious history and traditions and beliefs of the central players. Secretary Rice’s meeting with religious leaders is important, but it is more important that some of these experts, be they clergy or scholars, have a role in crafting foreign policy.

Last night President Bush gave a speech outlining a new strategy for Iraq. Bush intends to add 21,000 troops to the approximately 135,000 that are already there. There are tons of pundits all over television and the net commenting on whether it is a good idea or not so I figured I’d throw in my two cents.

Regardless of whether you were for or against the war, we are in it, and since we are in it we have to do what is right for the U.S., Iraq and the region. I don’t believe that 21,000 troops will make a significant difference. If the U.S. is to do a troop increase it should be massive, 90,000-100,000 troops. The problem is we don’t have them. We don’t have the troops or the equipment necessary to send such a large force.

If we can’t send 100,000 and 21,000 is too small, what do we do? Senator Joe Biden and Leslie Gelb have a plan for three semi-autonomous regions divided by Sunni, Shia and Kurdish lines with a central government in Baghdad responsible for oil revenue and border security. This is an imperfect idea but when you are forced to choose between bad and worse, you choose bad. The war in Iraq has cost over 320 billion dollars, over 3000 American lives and who knows how many Iraqi lives. The Bush administration wants victory in Iraq but seems to have no idea what victory looks like.

Islam is all over the news today. Since September 11th, 2001, and later the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been a growing interest in Islam and the Middle East. In May I will recieve my Master’s degree in Religious Studies with an emphasis on Islam. I have given a few talks in the past year to church groups, trying to explain the basic beliefs of the worlds 1.2 billion Muslims. I would like to continue that here. While I reserve the right to post my thoughts on meaningless topics (see below) I will try to use this forum to discuss the issues and topics that surround Muslims today and what that means for the non-Muslims in the U.S.

Rather than write one giant post trying to encapsulate all of Islam, I will tackle one topic at a time. In other words I will discuss the issue of the veil in one post and the hajj in another and so on. If there is a particular issue that you wish to see discussed, please let me know in the comments section and I will do my best to address it.

In modern Islamic scholarship there tends to be two dominant points of view: (1) Islam is inherently violent and aggressive toward other religions or (2) Islam is not inherently violent and those that use Islam as a cover for violence are misinterpreting the religion. I personally feel that each of these perspectives are a bit too simplistic. Religion is complicated. Islam is a very large tent and there are numerous perspectives that exist under it. Islam, like any religion, has its warts and scars, but it also has beauty, poetry, love and peace. I seek to understand all of the above.