Afghanistan and American Fundamentalism

The problem with American involvement in Afghanistan is fundamentalism, but not of the Muslim variety. True, many of Afghanistan's problems are rooted in the Taliban's militant Islamic fundamentalism. But America first must grapple with the religious roots of its fundamental belief that it is entitled to prevail in Afghanistan before going all-in.

American exceptionalism, the thought that the United States of America is a uniquely felicitous political institution, has religious roots. From America's first European immigrants seeking religious freedom and commercial opportunity in a new land, our national mythology has drawn from stories about Abraham, the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Abraham's migration to the land that God showed him and the capture of the Promised Land by his formerly enslaved descendants have fueled the self-mythology of both dominant and oppressed Americans for the last three hundred years.

Believing that America is a special place is an appropriate, patriotic sentiment. But the abiding belief that America has a unique, inevitable destiny is a dangerous fundamentalism. It leads to unrealistic expectations that the perceived rightness of an American cause will promptly produce military and cultural victory. This is particularly ahistorical thought concerning Afghanistan. Greece, Persia, Britain, Russia all invaded and were driven out of Afghanistan multiple times over hundreds of years; each one was a dominant military power.

The moral debt that Americans owe to fellow human beings in Afghanistan is to avoid the fundamentalism of American exceptionalism. If America continues to intervene militarily, it must be motivated by an abiding belief in the Afghan right to self-determination and the human value of every Afghan. If America fights for Afghanistan simply to remade in the image of America, the fight sanctifies American values, but desecrates Afghan life.

Gov't Cash + God's Work = Gov't Rules

Last week a coalition of 58 religious organizations submitted a request that the Obama administration review and reverse the previous administration's interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under former President George W. Bush, federally funded religious organizations were not required to obey nondiscrimination laws. It is no surprise that the issue of religious organizations, nondiscrimination laws and federally funded good works has arisen like Lazarus from the grave. It is not every day that the President of the United States is a former constitutional law professor with a public, campaign-tested faith journey. As a former law professor and Presbyterian Church USA elder, I respectfully suggest that the president set aside the legal lens for a moment and examine this through the lens of faith.

The interaction of religious fervor and governmental authority is certainly a matter of foreign and domestic anxiety, but it is nothing new. Jesus addressed the question of the obligation of the faithful to pay taxes to the Roman government in chapter 22 of the Gospel according to Matthew. When a group of antagonists tried to bait Jesus into insurrection against Rome or blasphemy by asking whether taxes should be paid, Jesus asked his interrogators whose picture was on the coin of the realm. When they replied that it was Caesar's picture, he told them, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”

Money is a creation of the state, and is of significance in the arena of public life – exchanges among society's members. Jesus' statement implies that money is of the state, but one's life and being come from God and must be lived in submission to God. Public funding requires submission to the boundaries of public life: the law. If one's religious mission conflicts with nondiscriminatory values embodied in a governmental grant, one must remain faithful to one's religious mission and seek other sources of funding. To do otherwise diminishes the power of one's God and the integrity of one's faith.

Jesus expressed it subtly, and James Brown expressed it simply: “you've got to pay the cost to be the boss.” The Obama administration would be well advised to adopt this simple dictum as policy and restore the application of nondiscrimination clauses in federal contracting to religious organizations.