Robert Schmidt

The interplay between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV on the plight of deportees and the war with Iran is just a skirmish over a much larger issue. Is religion a handmaiden of the state, a resource that can be used and abused in service to a party or the state, or is it the voice of another kingdom? Pope Leo is an Augustinian. He is not only well informed on Augustine’s theory of just war, he is also well acquainted with Augustine’s monumental work, Civitas Dei (The City of God), a work not just about politics and the state but an expansive view of another kingdom, a commonwealth of humanity. For Leo, loyalty to humanity is not just a challenge to the state, but also to artificial intelligence as he pointed out in his recent encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas. Will a moral plea have a lasting effect in a world of power politics and desire for wealth? At the end of the Roman Empire The City of God helped shape a fledgling Europe and brought some light to the dark ages. Might a similar vision do so now?

            For many, religion is the cause of war and inhumane practices, not its antidote. From biblical battles to the wars of religion, to the use of religion in colonial exploitation, history records a grim story. It is also a complicated story. Political figures have often used religion to enhance and promote their power — this is nothing new. For their part, institutional religious leaders have often sought the support of political and military power to protect and advance their issues and property. This is particularly true when religion is organized with buildings and salaries and asserts its right to educate and promote its teachings. However, by linking themselves to governments and supporting the goals of the state, religions often slide into denying some essentials of their faith to achieve and maintain their privileges and influence. Though most churches and faith communities are dedicated to helping the poor, the costs of building and maintaining structures and paying religious leaders and their staffs cut deep into the help available to the vulnerable. Staying on the right side of the state is very important to many religious organizations.

Politics around the world has latched onto organized religion to enhance and increase its influence and power. In America, Trump made an appeal to evangelical Christians and, with their help, won the presidency and surprised political experts. At the same time, evangelical Christians, while championing family values, have supported the deportation of illegal migrants, breaking up thousands of families. Another consequence has been the deep cut of funds for food and clinics in the poorest nations of the world, even though their own missionaries struggled to improve the lives of those same people. Many supported a war with Iran that has killed thousands because of their loyalty to Israel and prejudice against Islam.

Fueled by the Jewish faith and ignited by centuries of persecution and the Holocaust, Zionists dreamt of a Jewish state fulfilling the prophecies in the Bible. Achieving that goal has not been easy. It required uprooting and moving thousands of Palestinians, killing many in the process. Wars and conflicts have been endemic. To protect its citizens, Israel walled in Gaza and much of the West Bank. Moved by Islamic fervor and the desire to end Israeli domination, Hamas murdered over 1,139 and took 240 hostages on October 7, 2023. Israel retaliated and killed over 70,000 in Gaza in revenge for Jewish losses. Tapping into conservative Judaism, Israel’s right wing pushed for more carnage in Gaza and theft of land in the West Bank. Motivated by their common Shia Muslim background, Iran supported Hezbollah and the Houthis to attack Israel in retaliation for their killing and persecution of the Palestinians. This in turn moved Israel to assassinate Iran’s leaders and involve the U.S. in the current war with Iran.

In Russia, Putin is blessed by the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to continue the war in Ukraine with the deaths of thousands on both sides. In India, Modi is cheered on by Hindu nationalists to turn a blind eye to the persecution of both Muslims and Christians. The lasting struggle over Kashmir has at its root the centuries-old struggle between Hinduism and Islam. Myanmar, a Buddhist nation, expels the Rohingya Muslims, and China moves against the Muslim Uyghurs. Written soon after the war in Bosnia, involving Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics, Samuel Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilizations, predicting that after the cold war, culture and religious identity would be the basis of future conflicts.

A Global Ethic

            As war broke out in Bosnia, however, a significant gathering was held of representatives of the world’s religions, great and small, as well as those of no religion. The 1993 meeting was convened under the auspices of the Parliament of the World’s Religions to discuss and affirm a minimal ethic to which all might agree. Leaders of the major religions and humanists, under the leadership of Hans Kűng, met to affirm a common irrevocable, unconditional, norm for all areas of life. Based on the teachings of the world’s religions, a common set of core values formed the base of a global ethic, a major aspect of which condemned those who stir up hatred and enmity toward those of a different faith and incite or legitimate religious wars. Together they agreed that all humankind is a family — of children, the aged, the suffering, the poor, and refugees. No person should ever be considered a second-class citizen. They also declared that humans are interdependent, as each of us benefits from the wellbeing of the whole.

Might such an ethic be the seed of a new inter-religious City of God, a Kingdom for Humanity? When Pope Leo criticizes the current administration for its treatment of refugees and its rationale for war, he has the support of Christians of many traditions, for whom the Kingdom for Humanity recalls Jesus’ teaching of the Kingdom of God. Long before any institutional church, Jesus said human life would be judged on whether we fed the hungry, clothed the poor, befriended the refugee, and visited the sick and imprisoned. But these are common human values, not just Christian or even religious in origin. They are important in a Christian context, however, because they are set as part of the final judgment. This places them in a primary position, more important than other moral issues.

That same moral vision also comes out of Judaism. In both the law and the prophets, concern for others is of prime importance. Release of captives, fairness for the poor so that they could eat, vital concern for health, and a desire for peace are at the core of the Jewish faith. Jewish concern for others is well recognized around the world through their charities and hospitals. Seeking to fulfill the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be a blessing to all people, Israel has been in the forefront of disaster relief in Nepal, Peru, and other places thousands of miles from Israel. Long before Christians, they saw this as part of an eternal kingdom that was apart from and far better than the kingdoms of the world.

The entire family of Muslims is called the Ummah. From the Arabic, it could be translated as “religion” or as “nation.” But one gets a clearer vision of what is meant when the Qur’an says that in the beginning all humankind was one Ummah. The Qur’an proclaims the unity of all humankind because God is the king of all the heavens and the earth. Islam teaches that all people are equal and seeks justice, compassion, and human dignity for all. One of the five pillars of Islam is the Zakat, a duty to give alms equaling two and one-half percent of one’s wealth under various conditions. The money collected is for the poor, the needy, those escaping bondage, and stranded travelers. One of the largest non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the world is BRAC (Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee), which grew out of Bangladeshi Muslim culture. It has benefitted millions in housing, micro-finance, and development projects. In the evening news about crises in the Middle East, one also can see ambulances marked with a red crescent, a reminder of how the Islamic faith works to help the sick and injured.

Many streams have flowed into what is today’s Hinduism. Because of its bewildering variety, accumulated over the centuries, its dominating feature is tolerance of different spiritual paths, involving various gods and forms of devotion. Though less accepting of what many see as exclusionary religions such as Islam and Christianity, some Hindu leaders such as Gandhi worked hard to declare that all religions are equal and that Hindus and Muslims might even worship together. A fundamental ethic of Hinduism is Ahimsa or nonviolence. From this flows a variety of other virtues. Seeking to explain Hinduism to the modern world, leaders emphasize universal spiritual values such as social justice, peace, and the spiritual transformation of all of humanity. With this ethical perspective, Hindu representatives gladly supported the jointly written global ethic.

They were joined by representatives of Buddhism. The ethics of Buddhism are chiefly derived from its five precepts. The first deals with the taking of life, which includes the prohibition against approving other people’s killing. Instead, one should be scrupulous, compassionate and trembling for the welfare of all living beings. However, as with other religions, this precept can be dimmed and buried when the government of a state calls on Buddhist support to move against religious minorities such as the Tamils in Sri Lanka or the Rohingya in Myanmar. Based upon the ethical teachings of the world’s religions, it is not hard to see why representatives of these faiths and traditions signed on to a global ethic against wars and conflicts based upon religious convictions. The global ethic was also applauded by those of no faith who have often been vocal in criticizing religions for their part in promoting wars fueled by religious convictions and loyalties.

Religious Support for Violence

             With people across the religious spectrum sharing some basic human values, how can they be persuaded to support war against a people of a different faith? Leaders like Netanyahu, Putin, Modi, Trump, and others simply make their appeal to religious identity, not to its root values. Sometimes this is done through overt appeals; at other times it is hinted at or simply assumed. Religious identity is comprised of customs, culture, traditions, a history of persecutions, and hopes for the future of a specific faith. It is also cleverly combined with national identity and sometimes race. Whether orthodox or atheist, Jews share a common religious identity and can be persuaded to support Israel’s wars. Some of the greatest support for the U.S. war against Iran comes from white evangelical Christians, who have been friendly to Israel and hateful to Islamic nations. Islamic Pakistan turns a blind eye to the forced marriage and conversions of young Hindu and Christian girls to older Muslim men. Modi of India celebrates Shivaji, a Hindu hero of the 17^th century who helped to liberate India from its Islamic Mughal rulers. At the same time, he permits the persecution of some Muslims in contemporary India.

Why do the faithful fall for it? Ironically, it is because their deepest values are all tied up with their religious identity. An Israeli soldier fights for his homeland because his faith is about mercy and compassion, especially to Jews who have suffered through the centuries and now seek a haven safe from persecution. A Christian longs for peace and harmony in a community where people share the teachings of Christ. When the community and even the nation are invaded by others with a different language and religious identity, that Christian can be persuaded to support deportation even though refugees from Iran are sent to Central Africa. The long-suffering people of Russia have lived through devastating wars, Communist rule, and through their faith have deep sympathy for the misery of others. Yet by appealing to their Russian loyalty with those values, they can be moved to support a war in Ukraine that has killed thousands on both sides.

Why has religious identity, when merged with nationalism, become so important in the 21^st century? It is a natural reaction against the perceived threats of a global invasion into our space. Now mosques and Buddhist temples are places of worship in America. Israelis hire people from Thailand to pick the crops. The internet enables conversations across the globe. Russians vacation in the Mediterranean; Arabs ski in Switzerland. When the world’s financial system cannot provide decent employment in poor countries, migrants leave by the thousands. Wars spawn refugees; where shall they go? Now people, whose lives are shaped by their religion, want to build a wall against the outsiders. With tacit support of religious groups, defense spending has increased across the globe.

 Humane Values?

             Can religions regain their voice and speak out for humane values? With their background in Latin American, their positions in a global church body, and access to world media, both Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV have championed humane values regarding immigration and wars. They are not alone. Episcopalian Bishop Mariann Budde asked President Trump from the pulpit to have mercy on immigrants. ELCA Lutheran leaders advocate for more funds to feed the hungry and a path for refugees in danger of their lives to enter America. Grounded in their Social Principles, leaders of the United Methodist Church oppose current U.S. policies on immigration and foreign policy. The Social Witness of the Presbyterian Church also backs concern for the vulnerable. Black evangelicals have long been the leaders for racial and economic justice; Martin Luther King Jr. rose to worldwide prominence in his struggle for human rights.

On the world stage, Mohandas Gandhi, Bishop Tutu, and the Dalai Lama have made a profound impact. Less known but even more important are those rabbis and imams who come together to work for peace in their communities. In the streets are protestors against the deportation of immigrants bearing signs with religious symbols. Holocaust survivors protest the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon. A university in Qom, Iran, promotes a mutual understanding of the world’s religions, its purpose to establish human solidarity, strengthen peace, alleviate human suffering and disseminate spirituality and morality.

Through the struggle for humane values is noble, it is often lonely. Denominational leaders who have taken on controversial stands for humanity often find themselves criticized by their own membership for getting involved in issues with which their members disagree. This can neutralize initiatives that might make a difference. In some cases, offended members simply leave the church, and others think twice before joining. Likewise, peace groups in conflict zones are ostracized by both sides. Here religious identities, coupled with patriotic loyalty, wipe out concern for the other. Yet, despite all opposition, ideals have been lifted and hopes with the capacity to endure raised.

The struggle between national policies and humane values is also a crisis within each of us. Would we want unlimited immigration into America, or do we want to help refugees fleeing conflict and migrants who need a decent job? While for some this is a major political problem, for others it is a profound moral one. Should Muslim Pakistanis applaud the deportation of thousands of Afghans who fled the violence in their homeland? How should Christian South Africans feel about the thousands who have fled to their land to find work? When fears are exaggerated for political purposes, parts of our humanity shrink and moral numbness sets in. At a time like this people look to Pope Leo but doubt that his singular voice will have much effect on ether immigration or war. Might there be a way of bringing together all those championing humane values whether they are religious or simply people of goodwill? In the past some called such an endeavor “a kingdom.”

A Kingdom for Humanity

            The Hebrew Scriptures speak of an “everlasting kingdom.” Christians talk about the “kingdom of God.” Muslims refer to the Ummah of creation, a nation or kingdom including all people. None of these kingdoms have an army, joining Hinduism and Buddhism in their opposition to violence. Instead, they embody a vision of a commonwealth of humanity and its intended harmony. Perhaps the word kingdom was used because it suggested an alternative to kingdoms and nations so often in combat? What might such a kingdom be today? What would a kingdom for humanity look like?

One of the chief roles of any nation is to provide an identity for its people. People wave its flag, boast of its national teams, observe the same religious festivals, and volunteer to fight in its armies. While this patriotism moves people to sacrifice their comfort for the good of the nation, it also moves people to ruthlessly kill others their nation considers enemy. The chief role of the kingdom for humanity would be to provide people with a prior identity. Like an immigrant from another country never really forgets their language, customs, and culture, so the citizen of the kingdom for humanity never forgets that their first loyalty is to the humanity and wellbeing of others, regardless of their race, nation, or politics. Thus, while such a citizen obeys the laws of the nation in which they live, they will refuse to fight in a war they see as unjust. With that prior identity they will protest cruelty to the vulnerable and will disobey unjust laws.

Now richer nations refuse refugees and immigrants and work to deport those who have sought safety and employment. As a result, the world is filling up with people without either home or homeland. When deportees are sent to yet a third location, not of their choosing, they are indeed stateless, without a national identity. Yet they remain human beings, with dignity, human needs and aspirations. This “Humane Kingdom” recognizes them, and champions them as full citizens. However, as they arrive in a new nation, not knowing anyone, a stranger to the language and culture of the people, who will welcome them as a fellow citizen of the Kingdom? Perhaps they will be found and received as fellow citizens by the good-hearted people of that strange place. Does it matter if she is of a different religion? No, not if they are all deeply committed as human beings willing to help.

The Humane Kingdom does not need property, an administration, or a budget, but it could use some visibility and a recognizable identity. That will not come through advertising or planned events. Instead, it can come by recognizing and celebrating with words and actions help for the vulnerable and work to prevent conflict. While this is sometimes done through the secular media, it really needs to happen in the religious press. Christian church publications should praise the work done by Islamic charities. The Israeli press might highlight the suffering of a Palestinian mother and how her neighbors are helping. Questions should be raised every time the winds of war are blowing: “Do you really want to kill innocent people to prove a political point? Who said a nation must always retaliate?” Religious folk who asks these questions will be quickly labeled unpatriotic, friends of terrorists, or traitors. Then we can reply, “No, we are servants of humanity and join with others throughout the world to promote peace and aid the most vulnerable among us. Who are we? We are human beings, citizens of the Kingdom for Humanity.”

Philosophers and poets have long claimed all people as part of one human family. Statesmen have worked hard to bring nations together. Consider the United Nations. Individual nations, however, have rarely looked to these voices to support their wars and cruelty. Instead, they often look to their religions to do that. This is why religions have a special responsibility to fight off the crimes of Christian nationalism, Zionism, Islamic terrorism, Hindu persecutions of minority religions, and a state-oriented Buddhism. All these religions have a universal perspective that must take precedence over the customs and culture that are intertwined with the state.

For the Kingdom for Humanity to have a stronger identity citizens need to talk with each other and share what is happening. We need stories of how migrants have been helped or homes built for those living under bridges. Church publications might feature one of their members, a congressman who opposes what he feels is an unjust war. An Israeli newspaper highlights a Jewish Holocaust survivor who describes the Gaza war as genocide. In Pakistan as Hindu and Christian girls are forced into marriage and conversion to Islam, a Muslim cleric quotes the Qur’an prohibiting forced conversions.

The real divisions among church bodies in the Christian world are not as much over doctrinal issues as whether they support their government’s policies. Most branches of Judaism are also split whether they support Israel in the conduct of its wars. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists face the same dilemma and for similar reasons. Is it time for another meeting of religious leaders and humanists? Building on the Global Ethic, might those leaders help shape a Kingdom for Humanity and what that might mean for our world in its present crises?

If religious leaders do not speak from the foundational principles of their faith and condemn the use of religion to promote conflict and war, they may find a mass exodus of people from their religion. Those leaving will do so precisely because they find more humane values outside their religion than they do within it. The other result may be that the world will experience a clash of civilizations that will lead to other wars, even a world war, that would kill millions. Now may be the time to renew the Global Ethic to address our current crises and conflicts.