THE LETTER FROM IRAN
|
You
probably heard news of a letter on its way from the President of Iran to President
Bush. The first from Iran since 1987 or so. I guess diplomatic letters take
a while. The rhetoric from both sides makes any kind of communication suspect.
We were told from Iran's side that it contained a major proposal. We were
told from our side not to expect anything new. So it goes.
|
I had
almost forgotten about the letter when I came upon an article in section B,
page 6 of our local paper on May 10 with the title “Iran Letter Prods Bush
on Christian Beliefs.” I thought to myself, there have been a lot of folks
on our own side who have done the same.
|
Honestly,
now. Haven't you sometimes had a feeling that, when it comes to foreign policy,
politicians tend to unplug any connection with religious principles? Haven't
you felt a bit uneasy about bearing the banner of a “Christian nation” when
you read stories of complicity in various activities in the world? (If not,
why not?)
|
Anyway, moving on, I wondered what was
in the letter. After all, it contained 18 pages. Was it like one of Fidel
Castro’s famous five hour speeches? Do Presidents real such long letters ─
or anything?
|
President
Ahmadinejad called his letter “words and opinions of the Iranian nation aimed
at finding a way out of problems facing humanity.” While our officials were
looking for something about how Iran might propose to break the impasse regarding
development of nuclear development ─ allegedly for peaceful purposes ─ the
only proposal is an invitation “to join in with those believers who adhere
to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and human dignity.”
|
My cynicism rose a bit, remembering the
time when I as a progressive (liberal?) Christian was invited to an evangelical
service of prayer for Christian unity. It began with a pledge to agree to
a creedal statement that was anything but uniting. The Iranian president's
strict religious governing of his country made me wonder how open he could
be.
|
But his proposal is astonishing because
it changes the playing field. Instead of dealing with his many grievances
against the U.S. he is “seeking to build on a shared faith in God.” He questions
“whether Christ and other religious prophets would have approved of U.S.
policies and actions in the Middle East.”
|
It is no surprise to read that “the U.S.
dismissed the letter as irrelevant and devoid of any concrete proposals whatsoever.”
That may or may not be so. There is hardly a nation in the world that has
not felt the sting of rebuff by the U.S. on one issue or another. Listen
to overseas news broadcasts and you hear of U.S. “arrogance” and “bullying.”
Not much about willingness to listen, learn, understand how another feels.
So dismissal of the letter should not be a surprise.
|
I have just finished Karen Armstrong's
latest book, “The Great Transformation ─ The Beginning of our Religious Traditions.”
She talks about the Axial Age, roughly the 1000 years before Christ. All the
major modern religions had roots there. It was an age like our own in many
respects. There were endless wars and little respect for human life. The
fist and sword dominated. Terror, torture, suffering, genocide and human sacrifice
were considered “normal.” But during that age a great transformation occurred.
|
Sages and prophets, in China, India,
Greece and the Middle East were beginning to say to their leaders such things
as “Arms are not instruments of the sage…The sage must not intimidate
the world with a show of arms, because the belligerence would almost certainly
recoil on him.” (Laozi, 200 BC)
|
A new principle was being taught and
proposed. “Concern for everybody.” “Heaven is all-embracing and
not selfish.” Confucius is credited with the first statement of
the Golden Rule: “Never do to others what you would not like them to do
to you.” He said this principle applied to affairs of state as well as
affairs of family.
|
Anderson summarizes:
All
sages preached a spirituality of empathy and compassion; they insisted that
people must abandon their egotism and greed, their violence and unkindness.
Not only was it wrong to kill another human being; you must not even speak
a hostile word or make an irritable gesture. Further, nearly all of the Axial
sages realized that you could not confine your benevolence to your own people;
your concern must somehow extend to the entire world. (Anderson, p. xiv)
|
I don't
know whether our President actually read that letter. I don't know whether
what is asked is possible. But it should be possible to talk about what common
faith basis there might be for achieving a peaceful solution. There's a new
book out by Madeline Albright called “The Mighty and the Almighty.” I haven't
read the book but heard her say that these times require religious principles
along with traditional diplomacy. Religious arrogance, the idea that “God
is on our side,” is dangerous. Because religious issues are involved
in human problems we must use religion to find common ground. Who knows?
Maybe that letter is on to something.
─ Art Morgan, May 11, 2006
|