Should religious tolerance be a part of ouir foreign policy

That is thev question?

listener said:

That is thev question?

Click to expand...

I don't see any actual poll choices, but I'll answer anyway.

My answer is no. Our foreign policy should be driven ONLY by: (1) The security/safety of US citizens and of US interests. (2) The promotion of free trade and of US economic interests, and (3) The prevention of severe human rights violations when, AND ONLY WHEN, the people of those soveriegn nations ask for assistance.

Religious tolerance shouldn't figure in at all.

I don't understand what you're asking. Can you give an example of how religious tolerance would be part of foreign policy?

teamosil said:

I don't understand what you're asking. Can you give an example of how religious tolerance would be part of foreign policy?

Click to expand...

Suspicion goes back hundreds of years between Christians and Islamist and part of the Israeli Palestine problem has to do with apparent hatred between Jews and Arabs. Problems between Sunni and Shia Islamist is a source of much M E unrest. I do not think we should try to tell others what to believe but believe that our being a leader in trying to break down conflict based on religious differences could be helpful.

listener said:

Suspicion goes back hundreds of years between Christians and Islamist and part of the Israeli Palestine problem has to do with apparent hatred between Jews and Arabs. Problems between Sunni and Shia Islamist is a source of much M E unrest. I do not think we should try to tell others what to believe but believe that our being a leader in trying to break down conflict based on religious differences could be helpful.

Click to expand...

Well it hasn't been very "helpful" since Obama has been in the control room..........and he even bowed to the leader of Iran...... on camera. :shrug:

I don't think we should go there. What we should be against is religious persecution. Some nations will remain theocracies that believe all other faiths are wrong and we as a nation shouldn't comment on that. However, we should speak out if nations persecute others from other religions.

Of course, religious tolerance must be part....it has to be an integral part and it may be to an extent..
Is not Islam the world's "largest" religion ?
And Judaism and Christianity are two small religions on the world level..

teamosil said:

I don't understand what you're asking. Can you give an example of how religious tolerance would be part of foreign policy?

Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia.

FluffyNinja said:

Well it hasn't been very "helpful" since Obama has been in the control room..........and he even bowed to the leader of Iran...... on camera. :shrug:

Click to expand...

And President Obama has displayed respect for others...we would do well to emulate.

It definitely already is... You don't see Hillary Clinton going around criticizing other countries for their lack of Christianity, or anyone affiliated with Obama for that matter. The very few congressmen that criticize other religions stay at home.

listener said:

That is thev question?

Click to expand...

Of course it should. There's, well ah, let's see: there's dem Chinese, I'm purtty sure the rooskies don't belieb in god.

Of course it should; why do ask the question?

earthworm said:

And President Obama has displayed respect for others...we would do well to emulate.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point..........Did you read the other part, where I asked how much good it's done? Do you really believe that the US openly showing tolerance of religion is going to change the way the members of a particular religion feel about the US in general?

It never hurts to be optimistic..........but any American who's overly optimistic regarding this line of thinking, should spend a little time in a predominantly Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan and come back to report your findings. :shrug:

The radical elements of Islam which have been controlling the governments of several ME nations are not concerned with our tolerance or lack thereof...............in fact, some are ONLY concerned with enacting Sharia Law and with only the strictest interpretations of the Quran. No amount of religious tolerance on our part is going to change these most deep-seeded beliefs that they've espoused for over a thousand years.

I'm not sure I really understand the question.

Should we treat other nations differently based on their religion? No.
Should we respect the religious beliefs of other nations? Yes.

Our foreign policy needs to be based on one thing: What policies are in the best interests of the United States?

We can't change the world. We can't police the world. We certainly can't impose religious freedom (or any other sort of freedom) on another nation. We can, and should, step back and let other nations set their own policies until and unless those policies threaten us.

Dittohead not! said:

I'm not sure I really understand the question.

Should we treat other nations differently based on their religion? No.
Should we respect the religious beliefs of other nations? Yes.

Our foreign policy needs to be based on one thing: What policies are in the best interests of the United States?

We can't change the world. We can't police the world. We certainly can't impose religious freedom (or any other sort of freedom) on another nation. We can, and should, step back and let other nations set their own policies until and unless those policies threaten us.

Click to expand...

Ah! We've found common ground. Good post.

The answer to this poll is not as simple as it may appear. It is not monotonic answer. We should not tolerate bad behavior that is done in the name of religion, and there is a bunch of that. However, we still are better off if we develop and maintain relationships with other nations and peoples. But where any religion, that is here or there, provides for the religious needs of people in a country then we have to accept that, understand it, and figure out how to deal with them. Tolerance is not the real question, acceptance is what is needed. In my two visits to Japan where I had a friend that is Buddhist, that religion informed me. One example is learning that the family knew of their history in their neighborhood for slightly more than 800 years.

I think as a nation we're fairly tolerant but many individuals aren't.

shiang said:

I think as a nation we're fairly tolerant but many individuals aren't.

Click to expand...

Is there a nation on Earth where every citizen shares the same level of religious tolerance? As far as I know, the Borg Collective is entirely fictional. :shrug:

FluffyNinja said:

Is there a nation on Earth where every citizen shares the same level of religious tolerance? As far as I know, the Borg Collective is entirely fictional. :shrug:

View attachment 67134017

Click to expand...

Oh really? It started with mandatory universal health care. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

FluffyNinja said:

That's exactly my point..........Did you read the other part, where I asked how much good it's done? Do you really believe that the US openly showing tolerance of religion is going to change the way the members of a particular religion feel about the US in general?

It never hurts to be optimistic..........but any American who's overly optimistic regarding this line of thinking, should spend a little time in a predominantly Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan and come back to report your findings. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Your analysis process is simple and obvious, but not correct. Here is a simple situation: If you were going to meet with the leadership of another nation; and, some of those leaders were Jews; and, the Jews knew that you did not respect them for the stupid error of their religion in your opinion; you are saying it would not matter.
Here is a simple example of your thinking process: I can’t pound in nails with a pair of slip-joint pliers; therefore, pliers are not a useful tool.

OhIsee.Then said:

Your analysis process is simple and obvious, but not correct. Here is a simple situation: If you were going to meet with the leadership of another nation; and, some of those leaders were Jews; and, the Jews knew that you did not respect them for the stupid error of their religion in your opinion; you are saying it would not matter.
Here is a simple example of your thinking process: I can’t pound in nails with a pair of slip-joint pliers; therefore, pliers are not a useful tool.

Click to expand...

Predominantly Muslim nations trade with us on a regular basis......all the while knowing that the US harbors a degree of intolerance or even disdain towards the more radical elements of Islam or perhaps even for Islam in general, depending on which US public officials you talk with. Many have made the claim that US foreign policy under Bush wasn't necessarily "Muslim Friendly" (I don't disagree)..........but did it stop those nations from willingly doing a great deal of business with the US..........no.

You see, my original point was that the only religion that really matters when targeting foreign policy, is the "Church of the Almighty Dollar." Our Foreign policy goals should be centered on Economic interests, as well as security interests which directly impact the US and its citizens.

Going into negotions with our hands stuck out, trying to convince another nation that we Americans are all a bunch of completely tolerant folks, ready to fully trust and to embrace their foreign ways and beliefs with fervor is just......well........is being dishonest. Any world leader with access to the internet and a shred of common sense would identify these lame gestures as patronizing.

Do we tell them how much we love them anyway? Sure we do.....for PR reasons and to be Politically Correct.....especially during an election year. Does anyone with sense recognize it as nothing more than patronizing?........I should hope so. The REAL foreign policy negotiations begin when both side begin to lay NUMBERS down on the table.

In an ideal world, your argument may hold water..............but you should remove the rose colored glasses for a moment and see foreign policy, and international diplomacy/negotiations for what they truly are.

Obama has already used this "We are tolerant" approach with Ahmadinejad. How well has it worked? Has it stopped the threats and hate speech from Iranian leaders or has it changed the hearts and minds of the Iranian people? Come on, be completely honest. How comfortable would you feel walking the backstreets of Tehran with your arms open wide sharing with all you meet that you are a tolerant American?

The world needs idealists like you......the US just doesn't need them designing our foreign policies. :shrug:

I see it more as encouragement of religion to religion encounters not as a means of conversion but finding ways to work together for common good from a religious standpoint as in fighting hunger or better health care for all.

FluffyNinja said:

Well it hasn't been very "helpful" since Obama has been in the control room..........and he even bowed to the leader of Iran...... on camera. :shrug:

Click to expand...

It was not the Iranian leader, but the Saudi Arabian one,

The same one GWB took a stroll down a flowery path hand in hand and gave a kiss on the check to

FluffyNinja said:

I stand corrected and I'm no Bush apologist either. 12 years of inept leadership.......and counting.

Click to expand...

Just 12

I would have thought you would have included Clinton in that

I stand corrected. I must have been thinking of his formal apology to Iran for the burning of Korans:

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Another Obama Apology

And BTW, I'm no Bush apologist either. 12 years of inept leadership......and counting.