The Breakdown of Long-Held Categories

For those of you who don't know, the project I am working on is related to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international treaty outlining basic rights for children, including the right to life, education, health-care, and other basic rights that are, in the words of the Convention, "in the best interests of the child." The Convention has been ratified by every country in the world with the exception of the United States and Somalia, and as Somalia does not have an internationally recognized government, the United States is the only country in the world capable of ratifying the treaty that has not done so.

When I tell people about the Convention, the first question I am usually asked is, "Why hasn't the US ratified it?" As with everything else in American politics, the answer is complex. Some are reluctant to sign on because they believe it will infringe on United States' sovereignty, others because they fear the Convention will take rights away from parents and give them to the state, and still others have misconceptions that the Convention takes a particular stance on abortion or will allow children to sue their parents. Many of the groups that have worked tirelessly to oppose the Convention are groups of the so-called "Christian Right."

As I've been conducting research for this project, I have tried to sort my research into different categories just to keep it organized, so that I can go back later and find exactly what I need at any given time. At times, however, I find myself having trouble deciding whether to classify a group's comments as religious or political. The John Birch Society, for example, claims that their primary goal is "restoring and preserving freedom under the United States Constitution." Yet their objections to the Convention on the Rights of the Child include the assertion that it will undermine the Constitution as well as the "fact" that it would "also forbid parents to employ biblically mandated physical discipline." They have objected to a "political" treaty on both "political" and "religious" grounds.

As the John Birch Society is only one example of the link between religion and politics on this contentious issue, I have been thinking a lot about the relationship between religion and politics. I have always been fascinated by the connection between the two - which is probably why I am a Religious Studies major with an International Relations minor. Where is the line between religion and politics? Is it the same in all situations? Who decides where the line is?

We casually toss around the phrase "separation of church and state," without bothering to realize that by declaring that the two should be separate implies that there IS in fact a way to link them. If a politician's identity is at least partially determined by his or her religion, how can that religion not be a part of the actions he or she makes within the political arena?

It seems that more and more these days, we see politicians invoking religious phrases and sentiments and basing their decisions on what they classify as religious values. I continue to ask myself why this is more true today than it was twenty years ago. The only answer that I can come up with is that our once-held categories are continuously being broken down. The barriers between the categories of religion, politics, culture, society, and the economy are not nearly as clear as we make them out to be. Alongside these vanishing constructs is the break down of the distinction between the public and the private. Issues like religion, sexual orientation, and the like used to be private topics, only discussed with friends or family and rarely mentioned in public discourse or on the Senate floor. Today, however, all of these issues are brought into the public sphere, and as such are opened up to public and political scrutiny.

I'm not sure what this means, or if it's good or bad, or if it can or should be reversed. What I am sure about, however, is that it is something that needs to be taken into consideration when we throw out the terms "political" and "religious" intending to convey a particular set of meanings.

can someone BE interfaith?

I agree wholeheartedly with Will about the impossibility of entering into interreligious dialogue feeling spiritually superior to others, but one aspect of today's theological climate that I find disconcerting is the interfaith ministry.

In other words, there are people who, when asked their religion, actually answer "I'm interfaith." My boyfriend is in a chaplaincy program this summer at New York Presbyterian Hospital, and a fellow chaplain who calls herself interfaith wears a necklace with the symbol of each world religion on it. Whether she personally identifies with a particular religion is hard to know (I think she tends to evade the question), but there is heavy doubt in my mind that she can be fully committed to a specific religion and still call herself interfaith.

What is interfaith? I like the idea - as all of us here do - of engaging in interfaith dialogue and expressing open-minded reverence for other religions, but how much depth could someone have if he/she tries to represent the whole theological spectrum? It reminds me more or less of a peddler, trying to sell what best suits a customer: "Ok, so Islam isn't quite your thing? Forget the Qur'an, then. I've got a communion cup and flask of wine in my left pocket - wanna try Christianity? No? All right, well we can always fast and meditate on the Tao, if you'd like..." I just can't imagine someone being sincere and devout having every religion under the sun within grasp for convenience. And if I were a patient at New York Presbyterian Hospital, I certainly wouldn't want an interfaith person trying to best "cater" to me according to my faith preference. It seems phony to me.

There are also interfaith seminaries, where people learn to "become" interfaith. I can understand studying world religions, but actually converting to an array of faiths (though I don't know how far they take this process) seems highly suspect. If you're interfaith, do you go to temple, mosque, church, and shrine, all in one week? Or perhaps you work on a rotation?

Well it's obvious that I'm not buying into this interfaith thing, but maybe there's something I'm not getting and I'd love to hear what any of you have to say about it. I guess the bottom line for me is that I believe that trying to fit under x number of theological categories drains the substance out of one's spirituality. How meaningful can that be to one's soul? And in the end, what does it mean?

Interfaith?

Sometimes when I'm on google, I just like to type in really outrageous stuff to see what I can find. Sometimes I look at the KKK website to get a feel for how they can justify such strong sentiments of hate and vicious intolerance. This time, I was looking for religious intolerance, and I typed in "other faiths wrong." What I came up with was the site that I linked (just click on this post's title), which was a sermon delivered in 2003 by David Hutt, Canon of Westminster.

In the thesis of this sermon, he presents a question: "...may our strength in our [Christian] variety be applied to looking at our vital relationship with those who espouse other Faiths?" He then goes through a very curious discussion of other faiths, but first he starts by solidifying his own views. He states that an absolutist claim to Jesus Christ -- that Jesus is the One and only Savior, that his word is reality -- is essential. While I may personally disagree with this statement, as I mentioned before, the first part of openness and respect for other beliefs is knowing where you're coming from. I still stand by this.

At one point, he even says calls the Christian Church as a whole as being somewhat inappropriate by Jesus' ideals. "Jesus Christ at some essential points puts all religions in the wrong. He puts much of our familiar Christianity in the wrong and as a result we cannot claim that he condemns other faiths out of hand." Wow. I was really impressed by this statement, because I don't often hear clergy questioning their own religion.

Likewise, his end remarks are optimistic: "Loyalty to the absolute and exclusive claims of Jesus Christ requires a complete openness to the challenges of our divided and fragmented world and also to give evidence of our readiness to serve in a common exploration of the possibilities that are, as yet, hidden." More or less gives you a good feeling right? This sounds hopeful, full of potential for understanding and exploring the viewpoints and perspectives of other traditions and faiths.

Only, some of his statements didn't sound quite right to my ears. I said his discussion of other faiths was curious, because they are not so much discussions of the validity and interesting elements of other faiths, as much as they are open-handed slaps to the face. His critiques of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all end with outright rejection and refutation. His comments on Buddhism are largely one-sided, stating that it is atheistic (that it does not follow one God) and escapist (in the sense that one tries to flee cyclic rebirth). In these ways, he flattens Buddhism, ignoring beliefs in many deities, and although he says Buddhists decree that one must "escape from, rather than fulfil, our potential making full use of personality," I fear he may be looking at it from an odd angle. A central concept within Mahayana Buddhism is to use every resource and ability in your grasp in order to help other beings from suffering and pain. He sums up each analysis with a similar notion as the one he has towards Buddhism: "No, says the Christian, the Buddha and his teaching are wrong, we know better. "

And, "the claims [of Islam] must surely be wrong and misguided for God, we know, is not like that."

And again, "Logically, anything in other Faiths that goes against the reality of Jesus Christ and the historical record has to be erroneous and must be withstood and refuted. For the sake of reality and the truth of things there’s no choice in the matter. "

I found this last one kinda chilling...has to be erroneous and must be withstood and refuted...there's no choice in the matter.

So, here's my question: how successful can you really be in exploring other faiths if, from the get-go, you think they are wrong? How can you give other religions and religious practitioners the kind of respect they deserve, if you already view them as lower, flawed, and fundamentally incorrect? For my dollar, I'm not too sure how far you can go into the sea of interfaith dialogue in a boat of self-proclaimed righteousness, even if it has a good sail. Maybe I'm totally wrong...maybe it's completely possible to do it in this way. But from what I've been able to ascertain, it's best for interfaith dialogue (and for life on the whole) if one sees all religions with equality -- that they're all on the same level. And just because I don't follow Islam or Judaism or Christiantiy or Shinto, or Sikhism or any of the other religions and faiths that I don't subscribe to doesn't mean that they're wrong, or less valid, or erroneous. Nor does it mean that I don't have immense respect and reverence for them. Other people find them useful; that's great. I'm all for that. They're just not for me. And I'm fine with that if you are.

And I'm still fine with that, even if you're not.

One closing thought. I vividly remember one of my first days of high school after my parents moved me from Rochester, NY, the city I'd been living in all my life, to Mequon Wisconsin, a white flight suburb (I'm not too fond of), just north of Milwaukee. I was sitting in my journalism class, and I met this guy named Ben. Ben was (and still is, as far as I know) a Pentacostal Christian Evangelist, and I asked him, "Do you think your religion is the right religion?" Before he could answer, some other student turned to us and said, "Of course he does, you idiot. What kind of a stupid question is that?" I didn't -- and still don't -- think that's a stupid question at all. You can believe fervently in your faith or religion. But whether or not you think it's THE RIGHT religion, at the exclusion of all others...I think that's an entirely different matter altogether.

Hatred against Islam, and against religions

Today, I was a little bit shocked during the conversation with my classmate over the lunch.

I don’t know why we came to have that kind of conversation, but she said she disliked Islam. I was shocked, probably because she is one of my best friends, and she openly showed her hatred and prejudice toward Islam. She said that she thought Islam sometimes drove people into terrorism, and it is the most dangerous religion.

She basically doesn’t believe any religion. And she thinks that it would be much reasonable to invest money to alleviate social issues such as poverty, rather than, say, donating to build a church. And she continued her discussion, saying that she thought some religions were bad because they do not admit the right of abortion, and allowed poverty escalated because of increase of population. And she said that she felt disgusted after watching “A Mighty Heart” starring Angelina Jolie, and it increased her hatred toward Islam.

To be honest, as a person who also does not believe any religion, I personally and partly can understand what she said. But do not ever take me wrong. Although I do not believe any God, I do respect religious values and religious people. I don’t think religions themselves are bad at all.

I disagree with her, especially because she thinks religions (especially Islam) themselves are bad. My viewpoint about religions is always the same, which is that religions can be a double-edged sword. We can use religious values and believes positively to make the world better. But unfortunately, in this world, there are some pseudo-religious people like Bin-Ladin who misapply religions to promote anti-social activities such as terrorism…

I never think that Muslim are bad, nor be Islam, nor be religious people in general at all. I think mass media sometimes (or often) exaggerate negative stories and over-represent a few bad people like Bin-Ladin. I believe from the bottom of my heart that those evil people are not majority, rather, probably they are only .0000001% (or more zero?) of total Muslims. I cannot say many things about the film, because I haven’t even watched it. But it is clear that her antagonism against Islam was strengthened by the film. Here is the clear evidence showing mass media’s bad effect.

She is actually a Mongolian. And I heard from her that in her country, Muslim (Kazacs) represent only 5% of its entire population, and never be willing to communicate with the other majority of Mongolian. They never get married each other. They always complain that they are unfairly mis-represented in the national congress. So there might be unconscious (or conscious) hatred between those two. Being born and raised in that kind of environment, it makes sense that she got such hatred. In that sense, I can understand why she said that.

And as an atheist, I can understand a little bit her opinion saying we should invest money more practically, rather than for religions themselves. But I cannot be that much of atheist. I understand that we are human beings with heart and mind. We are not totally materialists. That’s why we still have and need religions in the 21st century. The role religions play is never small. If we invest money to a church, its effect could be bigger than directly investing money to the poverty. Its religious believes might keep people in the social cause longer. Who knows? There is no solid answer about this.

And also, as a person having studied multi-culturalism, I respect religions. I want to, and I do. Without respect, we cannot have truly diversified society. In a sense, diversity and multi-culturalism are a religion that I believe in.

I cannot quote religious leaders’ words. But here’s a word coming from one of the singers that I respect. “Respect each other. Respect the difference.” It’s so simple. But all the more, it is so strong and meaningful to my heart.

Looking at my best friend showing antagonism toward Islam is such cynical to me. Actually, she is the one who was really afraid of being marginalized in some level after Virginia Tech’s shooting, because she is an Asian. Just because she was an Asian, she was afraid that she might have some bias after the incidence. But, now she is kind of offending Islamic people, just because they are Muslims. It does not make sense at all to me… So today’s lunch was disappointing to me.

But from this experience, I learned that why activities of Religions for Peace are so important. I had underestimated how strong hatred is between people who have different religious understandings. I had thought if we have much education and information, it can be overcome. But when I encountered her opinions, I realized the wall is much higher than I thought…

Billy Graham: last of the mass evangelists?

I read an article in the NYT earlier this month that I found rather interesting. It was on Billy Graham and a library that has been built in North Carolina devoted to his life and teachings. Several political figures (including Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) paid tribute to Graham at a gathering commemorating the opening of the library, and Randall Balmer, a religion professor at Barnard, was recorded as having said something at the event that caught my attention:

"Nobody is going to be the next Billy Graham. What we are looking at in the future of evangelism is niche evangelism, based on ethnicity, language, worship style. Graham was no doubt the last of the mass evangelists."

Is this true? Are the younger evangelists of today inherently divisive and unable to appeal to a mass audience? Or in my own more specific, blunt terms, are many of them just plain mercenary? (One of the things I admire about Graham is that from the start he had a fixed salary; he didn't try to gain a profit out of the "evangelism business," a decision which honors his cause.)

Most people don't take evangelists seriously these days. I usually don't. I'm suspicious of how much the big ones (like Joel Osteen) are in it for success and money, and the whole prosperity gospel they can be apt to preach is very problematic and not scripturally-based.

However, I was fortunate to have attended Billy Graham's Last Crusade in Flushing Meadows two years ago, which I loved, and a year ago I went to a service at Saddleback in California, Rick Warren's Church. (Author of "A Purpose-Driven Life.") But that brings me to a more basic question: what IS an evangelist? It should be just a preacher of the gospel or a so-called revivalist, but like many other words these days, it seems to have become more of a loaded term. (Kind of like "evangelical." Doesn't that conjure up political affiliation as well?) I do like the idea of sincere and strong leaders who are spreading their faith with integrity, fervor, and overall love and kindness towards all, but when someone with such power starts taking a political stance (which harkens back to Sarah's post on political buzz words) or preaching the "wrong" gospel, then that's when there's trouble.

Whether or not Billy Graham is truly the last of the mass evangelists (and whatever that REALLY means), I think the biggest problem these days when it comes to religious expression in our society is the issue of misrepresentation. Whether in the words of a politician, the scenes of a movie, the lines of a book, the quotes in an article or op-ed piece, or the voiced convictions of a religious leader, it is so easy to distort another religion, strip it of its integrity, and thus not give it its just due. This creates a domino effect of sorts: the offender who has made the statement misrepresents the tradition with which he/she is affiliated, the offended naturally take offense, and many of those listening and watching knowingly or unknowingly become indoctrinated with a harmful bias. Individuals and groups are spiritually misrepresented every day in the mass media, and the worst part of it is that misrepresentations are much harder to reverse than they are to cause.

Belief-O-Matic

I took the Belief-O-Matic test that Kes was telling Sarah and I about...it's a goofy test and a little obvious, but my results were somewhat accurate (insofar as #1, #2 and #7), and certainly pretty humorous.

1.	Mahayana Buddhism (100%)
2.	Theravada Buddhism (91%)
3.	Unitarian Universalism (90%)
4.	Neo-Pagan (88%)
5.	New Age (81%)
6.	Liberal Quakers (77%)
7.	Hinduism (69%)
8.	Jainism (68%)
9.	Taoism (68%)
10.	Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (64%)
11.	Secular Humanism (63%)
12.	Sikhism (61%)
13.	New Thought (59%)
14.	Scientology (57%)
15.	Orthodox Quaker (55%)
16.	Reform Judaism (55%)
17.	Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (46%)
18.	Bah�'� Faith (43%)
19.	Nontheist (38%)
20.	Orthodox Judaism (32%)
21.	Seventh Day Adventist (25%)
22.	Islam (24%)
23.	Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (24%)
24.	Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (22%)
25.	Jehovah's Witness (14%)
26.	Eastern Orthodox (12%)
27.	Roman Catholic (12%)

PS. How'd I get 57% Scientology?

Developments in Gaza

In the June 17th issue of Newsday, an opinion piece by Sonia Verma drew my attention with a rather bold title: "Dream of Palestinian state is dead." Due to the violent events of this past weekend, which resulted in a Hamas-controlled Gaza and a Fatah-controlled West Bank, Ms. Verma claimed that "any sort of meaningful peace process with Israel is lost." She based this assertion on the idea that, with Palestinian nationalism now irrevocably divided, the two state solution is no longer feasible, as there is no longer anyone with the popular authority required to steer an independent Palestine.

It seems to me that Ms. Verma has described only one possible outcome where there are innumerable possibilities. With Hamas now controlling Gaza and Fatah controlling the West Bank, it seems to me that the two state solution is more workable than ever. The evidence that a Palestine could arise under Fatah in the West Bank is very strong. It includes the continual dialog between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as well as the fact that, with Hamas out of the equation, the West (including the US) has resumed its aid for Palestinians in the West Bank and lifted the embargo against it. Progress is sure to continue.

The result of this is sure to be dichotomous. While the 2.5 million residents of the West Bank would be sure to benefit in nearly all respects if the political divide became permanent and this in turn resulted in the rise of an independent Palestine there, the 1.5 million people in Gaza would be (if it is indeed possible) worse off than they are now. As long as Hamas continues to profess its desire for the dissolution of Israel, it cannot progress further. Hamas will be hard-pressed to continue providing the same infrastructure to the people of Gaza that won it 73 seats in parliament in 2004, especially when one considers the fact that, with Fatah gone, Western nations will feel less inclined than ever to lend support to whatever government may soon arise in Gaza. The results could be disastrous.

While proponents of peace should rejoice in the fact that the split between Hamas and Fatah will give 2.5 million people an eventual path to true self-determination and economic stability, they must remember that 1.5 million others are in a very precarious position as a result. As conditions get worse, the situation becomes more hopeless, and violence inevitably increases, we must remember not to vilify the people of Gaza as their small region begins to look more and more like the Mogadishu of the late 90's, though suicide bombing is clearly wrong. Rather, the people who can be vilified are the dogmatic leaders of Hamas, who admit to not wanting peace.

I have faith in Israel, and I believe that, when faced with the opportunity to set things right with the Palestinian people, it will do the right thing and grant statehood. Likewise, I believe that the events of this past weekend will give Mahmoud Abbas the chance to make good on his word and to come to the table in good faith, wanting only what is best for the people of the West Bank. Hopefully, this will serve as an example to the people of Gaza. Hopefully.

Divided We Fall

Last night, the participants of our Interfaith Academies joined with others in Kansas City to watch a screening of Divided We Fall, followed by a panel discussion, at Open Circles (more information about this event available here).

I think those sitting around me would share my sentiments when I say that I was moved to tears, shocked, and chilled at what I saw on the film. Valarie Kaur, a young Sikh woman, journeyed across America and captured the stories of Sikh, Muslim, and Arab Americans in the aftermath of September 11. As individuals in this country banded together and linked arms with their neighbors in shared mourning and pain, there were some individuals who chose to attack their neighbors instead. Valarie interviewed a young Sikh man who was chased and called a terrorist only moments after the second plane hit the Twin Towers, before most people even knew what happened, and hours before a face was put on the attack. (The first person to be killed in America in a bias crime after 9/11 was a Sikh man. Read more here.) She spoke with Sikh men and women who were attacked, or whose family members were murdered, because they "looked like a terrorist." She even documented a young eight-year-old Muslim who was tormented at school, an Australian who was attacked for being with a friend of darker skin, and a Hindu who had a gun held to his head simply because of how he looked.

Perhaps one of the most chilling moments in the movie was when Valarie and her cousin Sonny interviewed two brothers who had heckled them. Even though Sonny tried to explain to them that Sikhs share the same values as Christians, he was told that he would go to hell for not being baptized. When Valarie tried to explain something else about Sikhs, one of the brothers cut her off to say "Six-Six-Six. That's the number of the devil." Valarie responded that she was saying "Sikh. S-I-K-H." The man simply replied "To my ear, I hear six-six-six."

Sarah is right and Will is right. We have to be careful of these political buzz words. Unfortunately, the politicians will not be censoring themselves as long as the media gives those quotes air time and the public does not respond. The burden is on us, then, and the burden is two fold. First of all, we must filter the information that comes to us. We must remember that just because the news shows a picture of a man with a turban and a beard and then a picture of a burning building, it does not mean that men with turbans and beards are terrorists, and we must not allow that connection. Second of all, and much more challenging and much more crucial, is that we must speak out against our politicians and members of the media who continue to say and play hate-filled statements. We must speak up and proclaim that we will not tolerate such a message. It is just like our parents taught us when we were little: when a bully sees that his torment doesn't affect us, eventually he will stop.

Sanctuary

The beginning of an article published May 9th in the New York Times, by James Barron:

"Recalling a movement that challenged United States policy in Central America in the 1980s, several religious congregations in New York and other cities will announce a campaign Wednesday to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants who face deportation.

As of Tuesday, the organizers of what is being called the New Sanctuary Movement said that five churches in New York City had already offered assistance to two families — one from China and one from Haiti — and would provide them with shelter if the federal government moved to enforce the deportation orders filed against them.

“We’re launching now because we’re fed up with detentions, deportations and raids,” said the Rev. Dr. Donna Schaper, the senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village. “We felt it was not morally possible to remain silent.”

Dr. Schaper and a half-dozen other religious leaders are scheduled to gather this morning at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle, a Roman Catholic parish at 405 West 59th Street, near Columbus Avenue, to announce their participation in the campaign.

Other announcements about the New Sanctuary Movement are scheduled in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego and Seattle, and the organizers said that prayer vigils supporting the effort would be held in other cities.

The campaign comes as Congress and the Bush administration wrangle over immigration reform. President Bush and many Democrats have called for a path to legalize some 12 million illegal immigrants, but a significant number of Republicans in Congress advocate a broader campaign of deportations.

“We don’t expect any easy answers, but we believe the moral issues have to be lifted up,” said the Rev. David Rommerein, the pastor of the Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd in Brooklyn, which has been debating how it can help the campaign.

Juan Carlos Ruiz, one of three national coordinators of the New Sanctuary Movement, said one inspiration for the project was the case of Elvira Arellano, a Mexican woman who came to the United States illegally in the 1990s and who has been living under sanctuary at a Chicago church since August..."

That was just a blog-sized taste. To see more, visit http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/content/news/2007/05/congregations_to_give_haven_to.html, then follow the link at the bottom of the page to the NY Times page with the full article.

Did anyone read this article and see Quasimodo banging on the door of Notre Dame, holding a limp, streaming Esmerelda in his arms? No? I did. And so I say kudos to the New Sanctuary Movement. Not only for doing an obviously good thing, but for bringing a bit of romance into the church.

Religious Terms as Political Buzz Words

Reading "Beyond Bush: What the world needs is an open, confident America" by Fareed Zakaria in the June 11 issue of Newsweek, I was struck by the number of references to religion and religious groups in this article on the state of the United States domestically and internationally. In particular, I was dismayed at quotes from two presidential hopefuls that carelessly and insensitively tossed around the names of sacred places and denominations. Days after reading this article, their words still pop into my mind, leaving me floored that our elected representatives not only think such things, but have the gall to speak them in public.

Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts who is making a run for the White House in 2008, was quoted in 2005 as saying, "How about people who are in settings - mosques, for instance - that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror? Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping?" All civil liberties issues aside, the way Romney tossed in the phrase "mosques for instance" took a political issue and brought it into the sphere of religion, took a public debate and made it intensely personal. The implication that it is common for people in mosques to "teach doctrines of hate and terror" perpetuates a stereotype and a fallacy that has been working its way into the minds of the American people for years now, and the more these kinds of statements are made, the harder it is going to be to correct that false perception. Our elected leaders should be the ones educating and protecting their constituents, not spreading incorrect information and insulting and accusing a portion of their constituency.

Even more shockingly, Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who is also running for president, suggested that in the event of a nuclear strike by Islamic radicals, a possible response might be the United States threatening to "take out" Mecca. Tancredo's statement suggests that revenge would be an appropriate response for the United States military, that collective punishment might be a necessary course of action.Yet our president and members of Congress routinely condemn terrorists and authoritarian regimes that threaten to "take out" Israel or Jerusalem. Is the parallel not strikingly similar?

Finally, another quote by Mitt Romney confirmed for me just how uneducated he is on the issues he hopes to tackle as Commander in Chief. He said recently, "This is about Shia and Sunni. This is about Hizbullah and Hamas and Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood." The author of the article, Fareed Zakaria, discusses the problems with linking together all of these groups that are not united against the United States as Romney implies, but often disagree with each other or are even engaged in ruthless and bitter battles. To link Shia and Sunni to Hizbullah and Hamas shows extreme ignorance on Romney's part. Maybe in reality he does know and understand the difference between these groups and their complex relations, and is only conflating them to drive home a point or to create an atmosphere of fear. Zakaria's point, I believe, was in fact to show that these candidates are trying to create the image of a unified, shapeless enemy that threatens the United States day in and day out.

While this tactic in and of itself could be a topic for debate, what really concerns me is that in order to make this strategy work, they have to misinform and mislead the general public. Their words will fall not only on the ears of current voters, but on the ears of the next generation of voters, planting seeds of hate and mistrust that are based on errors and misconceptions. If this continues to occur, I am scared to think of what our foreign policy will look like thirty years from now. The upside: I know there will be plenty of work for those of us in non-profits seeking to educate the public and make peace between its members.

Interfaith Challenge and Train to Pakistan

I think Margaret is onto something here. It seems that there is a precarious balance, but after finishing Kushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan tonight, I’m certain that if there is no interfaith dialogue, there will only be infinite interfaith strife. From what I can tell about being open and tolerant, the trick is primarily, to do two things. First, it’s important to know where you’re coming from – what you believe, how you feel about issues, and likewise, how you feel about faith. Second, be able to see commonalities in places you really wouldn’t expect them. Be open and receptive to finding ideas that span across traditions and beliefs, and even, in some cases, be willing to incorporate these ideas into your own beliefs and practices. I'm a big fan of religious syncretism.

One shining example of this was summed up in a single image I saw when trying to find a picture to put on the other computer in the RFP office (don’t worry, Briana, I didn’t delete the image of the dog). I was looking for images of Kundun, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. One image I saw was of him at the Wailing Wall, wearing a Jewish kippah. He was touching the wall in great reverence, adorned with traditional Jewish religious headwear, and while some may find such displays offensive (and I’m sure there must be some who do), I found the image to be greatly heartening. I think it shows willingness on Kundun’s part to be open to other faiths, other spiritualities, because he appreciates and has great respect for the validity and the value of other traditions. He has said many times “obviously, I am a staunch Buddhist,” but that doesn’t mean that he thinks that Buddhism is the ONLY faith, or the RIGHT faith. He views it as his faith, but simultaneously, one among many. So I think this is so important: being comfortable with your own beliefs, but also realizing the value that other beliefs can have for other people, as well as the potential it can have to illuminate your own ways of thinking about, perceiving, and acting in the world.

Kushwant Singhji’s Train to Pakistan is a brilliantly written novel about how the effects of the 1947 partition of India shaped the religious understandings (or lack thereof) in a small village in the Punjab. I think it beautifully and savagely explicates the potential that a lack of tolerance and open-mindedness can have on people. In mere moments, Muslims and Sikhs who had lived as brother and sister in a small village are turn against each other, thirsty for blood, furious with monolithic conceptions of the ‘other.’ At one point, a Sikh bhai asks, “what have the Muslims done to us?” The reply? “They are Muslims.” The brilliant writer and academic (and former Hampshire College faculty) Eqbal Ahmad said that ‘othering’ involves a double distortion: glorifying the achievements of the ‘us,’ and darkening the contributions of the ‘them.’ Singhji takes the reader through these distortions, and the book has a really brilliant and (thankfully) heartening twist at the end.

Something that Eqbal said that I will carry with me forever was something I heard in a documentary on him. He was talking about Partition, and said (I’m paraphrasing here), “Yesterday, it was the Indians against the British. Today it is the Hindus against the Muslims. Tomorrow, it will be the Hindus against the Sikhs and the day after that, the Christians. There is no end to the logic of difference.”

There’s a mosquito trying to get dinner from my body and I’m doing my best not to squish it.

-Will

The Interfaith Challenge

There's a tricky balance involved in a lot of things, and one of them is interfaith dialogue. I can infer this even before having truly engaged in it myself, because it involves two very separate, opposing realms: one's inmost, private convictions, and the public, cooperative collaboration of common ideals and beliefs. How is one to hold on to personal beliefs in a faithful, steadfast manner and yet expand one's spiritual breadth by being open to other (perhaps conflicting) credences in an interfaith forum? The balancing act, which seems to me just as precarious as walking on a tightrope, has two crucial items at stake, one being the preservation and integrity of one's soul and spirituality, and the other being, plainly speaking, world peace. A lot of battles would not have been fought had people been of an open mind spiritually, culturally, theologically and otherwise, yet completely compromising one's beliefs in the process is not ideal or fair as an alternative.

A propos of this, I stumbled upon a quote from a sourcebook on world religions that I think articulates this point very well:

"In this new age of developing global community and interfaith dialogue, the world religions face what is perhaps the greatest challenge that they have ever encountered. Each is inspired by a unique vision of the divine and has a distinct cultural identity. At the same time, each perceives the divine as the source of unity and peace. The challenge is to preserve their religious and cultural uniqueness without letting it operate as a cause of narrow and divisive sectarianism that contradicts the vision of divine unity and peace. It is a question whether the healing light of religious vision will overcome the social and ideological issues that underlie much of the conflict between religions."

Steven C. Rockefeller,Spirit and Nature, p. 169.

Anyway, I'll leave you guys with that, and I hope I haven't bored you to tears. I'm new at this blogging business (I think I just CREATED a blog instead of posting this to our RFP-USA blog, until I figured out what I'd done!), but next time I may have to think of something profound and pertinent yet spicy and borderline scandalous to keep your attention. ;) However, let me know if you have any thoughts on what I've posted, and I'd love to talk with any of you about such issues this summer.

Imams in America

I read a very interesting article last week in the New York Times called “A Growing Demand for the American Imam.” The article discusses how many imams in America come from overseas, which is increasingly presenting a conflict between the imams and American society. Even though many imams barely speak English, older Muslims often find a sense of familiarity with home. However, foreign born and taught imams aren’t always meeting the needs of the younger generation.

Other imams are trying to incorporate as much American society as possible, such as discussing topics of love and relationships on Valentine’s Day. Imams in the Middle East probably wouldn’t be happy with that idea! The first generation of American-born Muslims are now graduating from college and mosques are seeking more imams who can give advice on issues such as drugs, dating, and even how to set up 401K plans for charitable purposes.

The problem is that there are no real training programs for imams in the United States. Many of the men acting as imams are volunteers who are also doctors and lawyers who have not been trained in Islamic Law or studied the Qur'an and its commentaries in depth. This has opened up a discussion about how much education one must have to be an imam in America. This is difficult, especially in light of the fact that in Sunni Islam there is no hierarchy.

Experts say the problem is exacerbated because few immigrant parents want their children to become imams, but want them to become doctors, engineers, and scientists. As Dr. Bazian comments, “If you suggested that they might want their kid to study to become an imam, they would hold a funeral procession.”

Some fear that this problem will lead to young people becoming disconnected with their own religion and will lead them to abandon it or be attracted to fringe groups.

Of course this situation is not a one new; many other religious communities have been faced this same problem, or still are.