Last week I attended an event put on by the 20,000 Dialogues Initiative, a group which works to use film to facilitate a dialogue on Islam and the Muslim people. The event included a viewing of the film Cities of Light and a subsequent discussion of how to apply its content to current inter-religious concerns.  It drew participants from very diverse backgrounds.  My own small discussion group consisted of two Muslims, a Presbyterian Minister, a Jew, a woman who ascribes to all religions, and two people who considered themselves “unsure.”

I thought the event was a wonderful step towards fostering interfaith dialogue in America.  Cities of Light ended with the reminder that although the Abrahamic religions have diverged in history, at the heart of each one is the teaching to “treat thy neighbor as thyself.”

The film also highlighted the fact that world history has shown the greatest progress in times of tolerance and peace.  This remains an important lesson in today’s society.  As George Santayana once said, “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

The next event in the series will be in late July and will follow the story of a West African prince captured and sold into American slavery. I would encourage any and all to check to see if there is a viewing in your area.  You can find information here (http://www.20000dialogues.org/films.aspx)

Praise for Cities of Light
“Called “fascinating” by the Wall Street Journal, this historical documentary utilizes feature-film style re-enactments to bring to life the 700 year long history of the European Islamic civilization of Muslim Spain.  It tells of the triumphs and shortcomings, achievements and ultimate failures of a centuries-long period when Muslims, Christians, and Jews inhabited the same far corner of Western Europe and built a society that lit the Dark Ages.”
The 20,000 Dialogues Initiative is funded by the Unity Productions Foundation.

Share on Facebook

An article in the Christian Post, “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism—the New American Religion,” recently caught my attention. Written by Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, it discusses the current state of belief among American teenagers, and his view of a troubling trend towards what researchers have named Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

A study on the religious beliefs of teenagers, done by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has (shockingly) shown that American teenagers can be relatively apathetic in matters of faith.  In Mohler’s words, the study “found that American teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their religious beliefs, and most are virtually unable to offer any serious theological understanding.”  The majority of interviewees responded to questions about faith and religion in unspecific terms, with answers like: “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.”

As a recent graduate of teenagedom and a student of religious trends, I feel especially qualified to respond to Mr. Mohler and the larger themes at stake in this study.  There are two specific items I want to address:

• First, I want to offer a plea in defense of the American teenager and their right to be conflicted, confused, and questioning.
• Second, I want to address the concept of “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” in terms of what Mohler continually refers to as “historic Christianity.”

According to Mohler, the preoccupation of American teenagers with human relationships and “being nice” is a “radical transformation in Christian theology,” because it “replaces the sovereignty of God with the sovereignty of self.”  He cites the lack of religious rhetoric as a clear indication that “Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith”—one centered in the rhetoric of “happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward.”

Mohler also seems very concerned that the teenagers interviewed expressed tolerant and open attitudes towards other religion; his exact response was: “Some go so far as to suggest that there are no “right” answers in matters of doctrine and theological conviction.”  The word choice employed in this sentence can only imply his distaste for these suggestions.

In response, I must start with this: if recent history has taught our youngest generation anything, it is that religion is incredibly important in today’s world and cannot afford to be taken lightly.  I have often heard my parents say that they will always remember where they were when President Kennedy was shot; for me and my generation, that watershed moment will always be September 11, 2001—when the progression of American history was put on a crash course with terrorism based on religious extremism.  For many (and hopefully for most), growing up in the post-9/11 world has encouraged more frank discussions about religion—I am hopeful that it has also encouraged tolerant attitudes towards those with differing view points.  If this is fostering the sense that there may be no “right answers in matters of doctrine,” it is my sincere hope that it spreads like wildfire.

As for the second point, I wish that Mr. Mohler had included an explanation of what he refers to as “historic Christianity.”  As a Baptist Minister, he most certainly represents a part of Christian history, but the existence of hundreds of Christian denominations across the world indicates that “historic Christianity” has taken many forms.  A good portion of our Founding Fathers considered themselves both Deists and Christians.  Take Thomas Jefferson, for example, who included the words “Our Creator” in the Declaration of Independence in deference to his Deistic beliefs.[i] Could it be possible that the move toward a “moralistic, therapeutic deism” in American youth is just the next chapter in “historic Christianity”?

[i] Waldman, Steven. Founding Faith. New York City: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2008. 88-89. Print.

Share on Facebook

Over the last several days the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings on Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee to replace John Paul Stevens as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, only two senators took the time to ask Solicitor General Kagan about the crucially important issue of religious freedom.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Kagan about the tension between the Establishment and Free Exercises Clauses of the First Amendment. Kagan’s answers demonstrated her thorough understanding of the way these clauses can conflict with one another, and of the judicial tests (like the Lemon Test and the Endorsement Test) that can be used to resolve such conflicts. Senator Feinstein also asked about taxpayers’ ability to bring lawsuits (“standing”) challenging presidential programs like the faith-based initiative. Kagan explained the Court precedent allowing taxpayers to bring Establishment Clause suits against legislative branch action but not against executive branch action, but she could not say mush since the Court has agreed to take a case that will deal with this issue next term.

Later in the hearings Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) followed up on this Q&A by asking Kagan about whether students should receive special protections under the Establishment Clause. Kagan’s answer showed that she understood the Coercion Test, which is usually applied by the courts in these cases, saying that this test is applied more easily to children, but that this is a very “contentious area in the law.”

While we are thankful for the questions asked by Senators Feinstein and Cardin, we had hoped that Solicitor General Kagan would be questioned about religious freedom more thoroughly than she was

Share on Facebook

Last week Georgetown University held its annual Global Leadership Forum. Entitled Evangelicals and Muslims: Perspectives on Mission and Partnership, this year’s forum brought together scholars, activists, and community leaders from both religions to discuss how faith affects identity; how the two religions view proselytizing; how consensus could be formed between Islam and Christianity; and how that consensus could be used to forge reconciliation and solve conflicts. All four panels were fascinating, and conversations ranged from the specifics of Bible and Quran passages to overarching questions about the existence and nature of evil.

Two powerful themes particularly stood out from this conference. The first was the importance of forging understanding between faith traditions by actually meeting people from the other tradition. Almost every speaker emphasized that real understanding comes, not from reading academic articles, but from having a neighbor, colleague, or friend who practices another religion. Ahmed Younis, a consultant for Gallup, stressed that the best conversations about religion happen between friends who are drinking sodas together at barbeques, when the primary motive behind the conversation is not to learn about the religion, but to learn about the friend.

Bob Roberts, the Senior Pastor of the Northwood Church in Texas, said that he was terrified of Islam until he was sent to the Middle East and actually met Muslims; now he is committed to bringing together people of different faiths in his community, so that his congregation can learn what he did: that other religions aren’t so scary after all.

The conference’s other overarching theme was the value of respecting diversity while searching for points of unity. Every Muslim speaker quoted a sura from the Quran that states that God created different races, genders, and religions; therefore God must value diversity, or else all people would have been created in the same way. All the conference’s panelists had obvious respect for each other as people of sincere faith, despite theological differences. However, one of the most moving moments of the conference was when Younis described visiting the Lincoln Memorial and seeing the plaque commemorating Reverend Martin Luther King Junior’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He realized then, he said, that being American is a point of unity.

The religious pluralism inherent to the United States is a powerful common ground between faiths, and an important place to begin interfaith conversations. The conference was therefore based on the same principles that guide the Interfaith Alliance: respecting and protecting the First Amendment and the religious freedom that it creates.

Share on Facebook

Key Question:  Whether she will lay her political beliefs aside when she is deciding cases and decide those cases strictly based upon facts and the law of the case – Senator Jon Kyl

As the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings of U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan draw near, the Senate Judiciary Committee (as well as the larger body of American citizenry) prepares to hear Kagan explain and defend her views on the full spectrum of American legal and social issues.  Among the hot-button issues is one that is all too often overlooked: religious freedom.

Recently, Interfaith Alliance submitted list of questions on religious freedom to the Senate Judiciary Committee with the request that they be asked of Solicitor General Kagan during the hearings. Two struck me as especially important in today’s political climate:

• What role, if any, does your religious faith play in your judicial philosophy?
• Does the Internal Revenue Service have the legal and constitutional authority to revoke a house of worship’s tax-exempt status if that house of worship has engaged in improper political activities, such as making an official endorsement of a political candidate?

The first question, while very practical, also represents a level of respect and decorum with regard to Solicitor General Kagan and her personal views.  It is important to know how she thinks of her own faith and how she sees that manifesting itself in her decision-making.  Though her specific religious affiliation is unimportant, this question provides her the opportunity to defend her own right to religious freedom, and her integrity as a student of law.

Interfaith Alliance also joined the Religious Action Center (and 19 other organizations concerned with the preservation of the boundaries between institutions of religion and government) in submitting additional questions.  Though the questions address the same general topics, they are slightly different in their rhetoric.  For the full text of our coalition’s letter, please click here.

Among the topics raised is the issue of Elena Kagan’s personal understanding of both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and the issue of government funding of faith-based social service providers.  This line of questioning stems in part from comments she made during her Confirmation Hearing for Solicitor General, where she referred to religious organizations as “different” with regard to government funding (as cited in the coalition letter).

These are the types of issues that Elena Kagan will undoubtedly face should she be confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.  I hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee will recognize the importance of the debate over religious freedom in the coming weeks.

Share on Facebook

Louisiana’s legislatures recently proposed making Sunday June 20^th a statewide day of prayer to ask for God’s help in stopping the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. My take is that while this may have been a well-intentioned measure, it is at best unnecessary and at worst unconstitutional.

The resolution does not endorse a specific religion, and calls upon people of all religions to engage in “unified, intercessory prayer.” However, establishing a day of prayer ties the government to the private spiritual lives of its citizens. Government’s influence on religion, like religion’s influence on government, weakens both institutions, instead of strengthening them. I don’t think one would be going out on a limb by suggesting that people across the gulf coast region have been seeking comfort and relief through prayer since the start of this tragedy – and they have done so without needing the government to tell them when to do it.

Share on Facebook

Recently, the Center for American Progress held a fantastic event entitled The Global Fight for LGBT Rights, about trends and developments around the world and particularly in Uganda—many of which are, unfortunately grim with the criminalization of and attempts to execute people who are LGBT in many nation.  The event brought together Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Bishop Christopher Senyonjo of Uganda for an hour-long, moving, inspiring conversation.  Video of the event in full is available online and I cannot recommend watching it more highly, but keep reading for one particular point which stood out to me.

Bishop Robinson asked whether the United States’ (and other nations’) involvement in trying to stop Ugandan legislation that would put LGBT people to death is interference or if it is helpful.  In response, Bishop Senyonjo expressed gratitude for those who have spoken out around the world and asked an important question: why is it that everyone in the world can help when there is an earthquake in Haiti or China, but if there are human rights abuses, or even genocide, people say “oh it’s a domestic issue, we can’t interfere?”

Share on Facebook

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies A People

Before I begin, I want to recognize that the video posted above is about media portrayals of Arabs in American Hollywood films, not Muslims. I mention this difference because although most of the people who frequent this blog undoubtedly know the difference, this claim cannot be easily generalized to include the majority of the American public.

An “Arab” is a person born and raised in an Arabic-speaking nation, one in which Arabic is the primary language taught in schools and used in public forums.  To be thorough, all nations from which citizens can be considered “Arab” are as follows: Mauritania, Western Sahara, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan (UNESCO).  It is important to note, however, that each of these nations have their own spoken dialects based off of the standardized MSA used for reading and writing.  It is also important to note that not all peoples in these countries practice the Islamic Faith; Lebanon in particular has a relatively large population of Maronite Christians that would also be considered Arab.

“Muslim,” in contrast, is a religious designation.  A Muslim is a believer of the Islamic faith.  All Muslims do not share a primary language or live in geographically related areas.  In fact, the largest concentration of Muslims in the world is in Indonesia, nowhere near the “Arab World.”  A “Muslim country” is a nation that has assigned Islam as its official religion.

Thus, not all Muslims are Arab, and not all Arabs are Muslim.

There is so little understanding of the difference between these two terms in American popular culture that I would go so far as to say the video posted above might as well claim to represent Muslim stereotypes as well.

As a 20 year-old university student, I am often surrounded by bright, motivated, well-educated people—who rarely know the difference.    It frightens me how powerful media images can be in shaping the perceptions of Americans.  A recent article in the Washington Post by Nicole Neroulias highlighted President Barack Obama’s attempts at a initiating a “new beginning” with the Muslim World, and how it is being complicated by the images presented by movies like “Sex and the City 2.”

I agree with Neroulias’ claim that while much energy is being expended attempting to change Muslim’s view of America, little is being done to change America’s view of the Muslim and Arab worlds.   Movies like “True Lies” (1994) and “Aladdin” fill our heads with negative, violent images of Arabs (and as I have argued, Muslims).  Even movies like “American Dreamz” (2006) (that attempts to poke fun at the dramatized stereotypes) still manages to leave a bad taste in one’s mouth.

If there is to be progress in bridging the divide between the so-called “Muslim World” and the American public—in hopes of staving off a Huntington-esque “Clash of Civilizations”—attention must be paid to the way we are entertaining ourselves, and at whose expense.

Share on Facebook

I recently read an article about British prisoners who converted to Islam in order to receive protection from powerful Muslim gangs within the prison system. This reminded me of a panel that I attended at my college last year about the role that religion plays in prisons. The panelists—a priest, a pastor, and an imam who worked in the local prison system—explained that prisoners sometimes had opportunistic motives behind conversion. Prisoners of a specific faith are given certain privileges on their religious holidays, for example, and some prisoners converted from religion to religion in order to receive these perks (although the prison system, attempting to stymie this behavior, has changed its rules so that prisoners can now convert only once every two years). However, the panelists also pointed out that other prisoners have, throughout their incarceration, been brought new awareness of religion. They spoke of the discipline and sense of human dignity that religion gave to incarcerated persons. Malcolm X, for example, famously converted to the Nation of Islam while in prison, saying that “In the hectic pace of the world today, there is no time for meditation, or for deep thought. A prisoner has time that he can put to good use…If he’s motivated, in prison he can change his life” (The Autobiography of Malcolm X, with Alex Haley).

Prisoners are, in theory, entitled to the same religious protections that any other United States citizen is entitled to. At a recent Interfaith Alliance event, Rabbi Israel Drazin pointed out that in prison, unlike in the military, compelling state interest is the only reason for prohibiting an individual’s religious practices. However, there are often restrictions placed upon prisoners’ ability to worship for security reasons. Sometimes prisoners are proselytized to, or pressured into conversion in order to receive superior counseling or vocational services. And now some British prisoners convert to Islam out of fear, or because of intimidation.

Policymakers, as well as those in charge of individual prison facilities, should work to ensure that prisoners’ religious liberty is not violated. Prisoners have very few freedoms; their freedom of religion is one that should remain intact.

Share on Facebook

Steinhauer of the Veterans History Project talks with Welton

For our May 29-30 Memorial Day broadcast, we did a fascinating segment about Jewish veterans of World War II, and Jason Steinhauer of the Veterans History Project was kind enough to join us in the studio. The Veterans History Project is part of the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress, and they continue to collect the remembrances of veterans of all backgrounds.

The project relies on volunteers to record veterans’ narratives, using guidelines accessible here.  Veterans who’d like to have their wartime experiences recorded, and volunteer interviewers can request information at vohp@loc.gov, or via the toll-free phone message line at (888) 371-5848.

Jason had many more veterans’ stories from World War II than we were able to air on State of Belief. If you’d like to hear more about his research and the Veterans History Project, you can catch a lecture Jason gave in May as part of the Library of Congress’s commemoration of Jewish American Heritage Month by clicking here.

Share on Facebook