[Newsbot]

Title: Does Canada need an office of religious engagement?
Category: Religion
Posted By: ThisyThat
Date: 2013-06-12 11:42:13
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

No. Government should have nothing to do whatsoever with Religion.

[Freakinoldguy]

NOfreaking way

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. Government should have nothing to do whatsoever with Religion.

In matters of foreign affairs it makes sense to have this kind of office to assist diplomats and etc. in their dealings with governments that do not have lines between church and state or where religious groups figure prominently in domestic matters.

Syria is an example of a country that is woefully misunderstood by secular Western powers. You just can't begin to understand their civil war without understanding the several key religious sects that are at war.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. Government should have nothing to do whatsoever with Religion.

In matters of foreign affairs it makes sense to have this kind of office to assist diplomats and etc. in their dealings with governments that do not have lines between church and state or where religious groups figure prominently in domestic matters.

Syria is an example of a country that is woefully misunderstood by secular Western powers. You just can't begin to understand their civil war without understanding the several key religious sects that are at war.

But that could be handled by the Diplomats as an internal department for their needs. We don't need a new government department and all it's bureaucracy for something that Government should not be involved with.

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No. Government should have nothing to do whatsoever with Religion.

In matters of foreign affairs it makes sense to have this kind of office to assist diplomats and etc. in their dealings with governments that do not have lines between church and state or where religious groups figure prominently in domestic matters.

Syria is an example of a country that is woefully misunderstood by secular Western powers. You just can't begin to understand their civil war without understanding the several key religious sects that are at war.

"What the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites? I thought they were all just a bunch of Muslims."

- George W. Bush, circa 2002

[sandorski]

No, thanx

[DanSC]

Bart and Thanos are right. An office that helps all departments of government understand the cultures of and interactions between religions would help immensely.

Education is a good thing, even if it means learning about something you don't like.

[romanP]

that already exists, it's why there are diplomats. you don't need an office of "religious freedom", an Orwellian title at best, to find out what's going on between various religions and cultures. just send the people who are already charged with doing that job.

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

that already exists, it's why there are diplomats. you don't need an office of "religious freedom", an Orwellian title at best, to find out what's going on between various religions and cultures. just send the people who are already charged with doing that job.

Diplomats in the West are almost uniformly liberal-left and devoutly secular and enamored of a fashionable aversion to anything resembling faith. The result is that all too many times we've seen our foreign relations people cast religious conflicts as being purely political in nature.

For the USA this has been a syndrome that has cost lives. Thus we implemented the religious office to help equip our diplomats with the information that enables them to convey diplomacy to people who see things through a religious lens.

One of the marked failures of the US in the past year was to send an openly homosexual man to Libya as an Ambassador. This was an act that was both utterly oblivious to the conservative muslim values that dominate that country and it also cost that man his life.

We can do better.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

that already exists, it's why there are diplomats. you don't need an office of "religious freedom", an Orwellian title at best, to find out what's going on between various religions and cultures. just send the people who are already charged with doing that job.

Diplomats in the West are almost uniformly liberal-left and devoutly secular and enamored of a fashionable aversion to anything resembling faith. The result is that all too many times we've seen our foreign relations people cast religious conflicts as being purely political in nature.

are you saying that diplomats are not biased enough to find out what is happening between various religions and cultures?

$1:

For the USA this has been a syndrome that has cost lives. Thus we implemented the religious office to help equip our diplomats with the information that enables them to convey diplomacy to people who see things through a religious lens.

this sounds more like a propaganda effort than a means of negotiating relationships between nations.

$1:

One of the marked failures of the US in the past year was to send an openly homosexual man to Libya as an Ambassador. This was an act that was both utterly oblivious to the conservative muslim values that dominate that country and it also cost that man his life.

shouldn't the CIA already be aware of these things? isn't that why they have a "world factbook"? does the CIA not inform diplomats?

[CDN_PATRIOT]

No. Never. No.

-J.

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

does the CIA not inform diplomats?

I'm responding to this point alone because it is emblematic of the greater problem with Foggy Bottom:

State is notorious for their contempt of the CIA and they have long had a habit of ignoring warnings from the CIA and then blaming the CIA for not giving State enough warning about a problem.

The State Department career diplomatic corps is more akin to the tenured faculty of an average university. These people think that they know best about almost any subject and that everyone else is an idiot.

Thus if you want the State Department to be more aware of the religious sentiments of religious people (in particular, Muslims) then they need an internal or parallel resource to give them such advice. And, as you are astutely alluding here, the religious office will most likely channel a lot of information from Langley to the career diplomats.

The info will be better received sourcing from within State than from the hated and loathed CIA.

It also occurs to me that the whole thing may well be a CIA initiative in the first place.

[romanP]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

romanP romanP:

does the CIA not inform diplomats?

I'm responding to this point alone because it is emblematic of the greater problem with Foggy Bottom:

State is notorious for their contempt of the CIA and they have long had a habit of ignoring warnings from the CIA and then blaming the CIA for not giving State enough warning about a problem.

why would this problem change with a spurious "office of religious freedom"?

$1:

The State Department career diplomatic corps is more akin to the tenured faculty of an average university. These people think that they know best about almost any subject and that everyone else is an idiot.

i think this problem is probably pervasive throughout the government. patriarchal, hierarchic, coerced association, it's a thing they do.

$1:

Thus if you want the State Department to be more aware of the religious sentiments of religious people (in particular, Muslims) then they need an internal or parallel resource to give them such advice. And, as you are astutely alluding here, the religious office will most likely channel a lot of information from Langley to the career diplomats.

The info will be better received sourcing from within State than from the hated and loathed CIA.

so, you're in favour of more bureaucracy?

$1:

It also occurs to me that the whole thing may well be a CIA initiative in the first place.

please, tell me more about how you just figured this out.[/Willy_Wonka_hat]

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

$1:

The info will be better received sourcing from within State than from the hated and loathed CIA.

so, you're in favour of more bureaucracy?

Of course not. But if this is how we have to work around the culture of the State Department then this is a solution...I hope.

$1:

$1:

It also occurs to me that the whole thing may well be a CIA initiative in the first place.

please, tell me more about how you just figured this out.[/Willy_Wonka_hat]

If it is then the CIA is just trying to channel the information in such a way that it is well received by the audience that it is intended for.