In 1945 the victor nations of World War II looked back and saw the demise of the League of Nations project that President Woodrow Wilson had sponsored so ardently at the end of World War I, how American politicians in particular led the way in undermining its mission of peace-keeping, how the winners of that earlier war had forced Germany to its knees economically starting in the 1920s, especially by their demand for war reparations, and how this process of lording it over the largest loser country contributed to the rise of Nazi power.

By 1945 it was understood by the victorious world leaders that allowing one nation or group of nations to exploit or otherwise beat up on another nation without the effective intervention of a referee to keep things under control was a terrible way to try to create a peaceful world. Thus the nations (including America's "Greatest Generation") came together and adopted the charter of the United Nations, which opens with the following words:

CHAPTER I. PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

A few months earlier, however, the young and charismatic Democratic Senator from Massachusetts who sought to succeed Eisenhower had refined his election strategy by maximizing the threat posed by the legacy of "Uncle Joe" Stalin and his Soviet successors; he warned the nation about a nonexistent "missile gap" which he claimed favored the Communists over the West; this pleased the military-industrial folks, and after he was elected over a Republican rival (who himself had built his entire political career by baiting the Soviets), this new young President toyed with the prospect of an anti-communist military crusade in Southeast Asia, thus making it feasible for his successor to lead the American people through the fakery of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and on into ten years of war that killed and maimed millions of human beings, but did nothing for the security of the United States.

After that war finally came to an end, though, and even in the face of the scandalous history of the White House lies disclosed in reports on the Tonkin incident and in the Pentagon Papers, American officeholders and American citizens have failed to confront our national addiction to militarism. Thus we paved the way for the tragic folly our country has created in Iraq and the resulting global anti-Americanism you would have to face as President.

We all understand that America did not invent the ancient tradition of militarism, but for the past 40 years and more we have been its most abusive practitioner. Consider our history in Vietnam, and now in Iraq: if you look and listen carefully and analyze what was and is really going on, you can hear the words of United States Marine General Smedley Butler ringing down the decades: He told us that for the most part the actual function of the American military establishment is to act as handmaiden to American Commerce. The fact that our country began to emerge from the Great Depression of the 1930's only after we joined the Allies in World War II in the early 1940's has merely reinforced popular support for the Military-Industrial Complex as an instrument of economic policy. Following in that tradition, President Clinton brought the American economy out of the early 1990's recession largely through massive arms sales all around the world.

The fact that you, Sir, were personally victimized by your captors in Southeast Asia leads many Americans to hold you up as a hero; my response, however, and that of millions of others, is one of sadness that after you regained your freedom you did not rise up and join thousands of your fellow veterans in disgust at all forms of warfare and its invariably horrendous consequences, and moreover, that you seem to have voluntarily compromised your recent campaign to prevent Americans from torturing others.

I know many of your supporters, and perhaps you yourself, would challenge me and ask by what authority I question the standard American attitude of militarism, of total domination over chosen adversaries, and disregard of most international peace efforts. For me that question raises the subject of religion and how much overlap there is between politics and religion in so many billions of lives throughout the world. I am not affiliated with any religion or religious grouping, but I can see how conflicts between religious beliefs now and throughout human history have led to the zealotry and military crusades that have caused such mischief and suffering in so many places. George W. Bush, for example, had it right when he declared on September 20, 2001 that "those hijackers have corrupted their religion." I am convinced, however, that religion used wisely can play a major role in resolving the world's conflicts and creating a lasting peace, particularly if we can engage our officeholders in a genuine dialogue on the subject.

We could remind everyone, for example, that the Dalai Lama declares simply that "kindness is my religion."

You have announced repeatedly that you are a Christian, so I refer you to the warning uttered by Jesus to "Judge not, lest you be judged." And just as crucial to this discussion is that portion of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus is reported to have said: "You have heard it said you must love your neighbors and hate your enemies, but I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."

It is rare that we hear these words - after all, loving one's enemies seems absurd to most people at first blush; many would see it as a manipulation of our emotions that seems impossible to achieve. Honest clerics (such as Rev. Jim Wallis) admit that there is a general blackout on this message. You hardly ever hear it, even in church. No wonder most Americans do not even know that Jesus instructed his followers how to deal with their enemies. But let's listen to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his essay written in a Birmingham jail, called "Loving Your Enemies":

We citizens are not so interested in debating the statements made by various members of the clergy with whom you or Senator Obama have associated - instead, we want to know how your own personal religious orientation would affect your policies and actions as President. We also want to make sure you know that people throughout the world are seeking desperately for ethical guidance, for a general consensus about how people ought to treat each other and how nations ought to treat all groupings. So we need to hear from you in no uncertain terms whether you would lead us by honoring your own prophet's teachings, or instead keep advocating military solutions.

Nearly everyone understands that no one in this land of 240 million Christians (80% of the American population) could hope to be President unless he told us he was a Christian. That designation, however, will never amount to anything more than a meaningless label unless we citizens exercise our legitimate right to find out whether the allegedly Christian candidate has any more than just a conveniently casual attitude toward the teachings of Jesus.

As Wendell Berry explains his use of religious language in tackling the global catastrophes we face, "I doubt that we can define our present problems adequately, let alone solve them, without some recourse to our cultural heritage."

It may well be particularly difficult for you, Sir, to reject militarism. You yourself are a long-time military officer, preceded by a long, family history of military service. But it is not inconceivable that you could become the President with the wisdom and courage to lead the world out of that cycle of violence that Dr. King warned us about. I can imagine you as President, stepping outside the current agenda of American diplomacy and Presidential campaigns by taking a whole new approach. You could first admit to your fellow citizens, for example, that this country has treated the United Nations not much better than we treated the League of Nations, that we chose instead to use NATO, the CIA, and other institutions in maneuvering for strategic and commercial advantage, but that henceforth we intend to treat all nations and all people with an even-handed attitude and commence an immediate campaign for a permanent, global peace. The first step could be your speech as President to the General Assembly at the United Nations, calling upon all members to convene a global peace conference. At that conference you could ask the nations to acknowledge the history of the disregard of the United Nations by the major powers, to look carefully at how that cavalier approach has led to chaos, how the present regime of individual nation-states acting independently has failed to keep the peace, and to recognize that this disorderly regime will always be unable to contain the ambitions of aggressive heads of state who lead us repeatedly into needless warfare and global suffering.

You could next request the solemn political and financial commitment of all nations to the formation and deployment of a global peace-keeping force, which would have the authority and capacity to enforce a permanent global cease-fire. Next you could call for a secure, competently-monitored process of gradual, proportionate and complete destruction of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and nuclear bomb-making materials everywhere, together with an equally secure, monitored, gradual and complete global conversion of military forces and materiel into the new international peacekeeping force.

Once this peace process is well-launched, the member states would likely be self-possessed and confident enough to turn to the great effort of saving us all from the widely-predicted consequences of global warming and from the scourge of needless deprivation afflicting billions of people around the world. To address these problems, you as President could call for a gradual, rational, closely monitored and comprehensive restructuring of the already globalized but crippled and grossly distorted international economy. You could encourage everyone to acknowledge that the economy is and always has been a process involving government as well as private controls and participation, and that the invisible hand of the Capitalist market-place is a myth nurtured by those in command at the top of the economic heap. There is no good reason why this new economy could not be based on the highest human principles. You can assure the Donald Trumps of the world that, while no one will any longer be able to horde the world's resources, no one will be allowed to involuntarily starve to death, or go without health care or a place to sleep. Thus we would replace profit and greed as the highest goods with a new standard for judging the value of all transactions, namely, any particular economic activity is good only if, considering all factors, it enhances the well-being of people and avoids degrading the ecosystems that sustain life. Further, we insist that the very highest value be assigned to helping those who cannot help themselves.

It seems to me, Senator, that, not only would this program for global peace and social justice serve the dire needs facing all of humankind, it would serve your needs as well, because promoting this initiative would be the best way for you to distinguish yourself from your likely opponent, Barack Obama. Senator Obama says repeatedly that he is a "proud Christian", a "devout Christian", who "follows Jesus' gospel", but in the next breath promises us he will increase both the Army and the present military budget and bomb the "enemies" in Northwest Pakistan even against the will of the Pakistani head of state.

You could also challenge Hillary Clinton, if she is the Democratic nominee, particularly about her statement that she wants to be ever vigilant to protect and enhance the power of the Presidency. I had thought Mr. Bush had demonstrated how easily a President could abuse those powers and trample upon the rights we hold dear, and that we ought to do everything possible to curb the powers of that office.

Senator, thank you for your patience. I note that you are quoted in the May 2008 issue of Harper's Magazine (p.48) as saying: "Ethics and transparency are not election-year buzzwords, they are the obligations of democracy and the duties of honorable public service."

Now please, tell us specifically how you interpret your religion's ethics, and how those ethics would affect your handling of American foreign policy.