« February 2007 | Main Blog Page | April 2007 »

March 29, 2007

Faith and Congressional Leaders Unite for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

This morning in Washington, Faith in Public Life initiated and organized a press conference featuring national evangelical leaders and leading bi-partisan Senators and Representatives to call for moral comprehensive immigration reform. See below for exclusive video of the event!

Speakers included Rev. Sam Rodriguez, Executive Director of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Senators Kennedy, Menendez, Graham and Salazar, and Representatives Gutierrez and Flake.













March 28, 2007

What's new in the neighborhood?

Faithfully Liberal scores an interview with Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.

Q: How will faith play a role for the 2008 Democratic candidates during the primary and then for the eventual nominee for the general election?

A: The ever growing scandals in the Bush administration has helped to weaken the authority of the Christian right. It is hard to claim to be on the side of righteousness after the war in Iraq, Katrina and the treatment of veterans. Moreover, none of the Republican candidates have as yet captured the passion or commitment of the religious right.

In contrast, the religious left is growing in strength as they have joined with the right on particular policy questions. And, a number of the Democratic presidential candidates have hired staff to conduct outreach to the religious community. My hope is that my book—Failing America’s Faithful and similar books will help to shift the debate from a narrow morality to one that is more inclusive with a greater attention to the common good.

Along with Keith Olbermann, JSpot takes umbrage that DeLay compares himself to the Jews in Germany by associating the people who disagree with him with Hitler.

The Rev. Chuck Currie remembers former Sen. Thomas Eagleton who cared about faith and politics and stopping war.

And the Pastor Dan, of the Street Prophets notes the trouble for Christian theologians that supported the Iraq war on the basis of just war theory.

Weighing in on that, Dr. Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Baptist calls Richard Land the Court Priest for the War Denomination. And he gets some angry comments. . .

And with a Street Prophets diary, kingdomemariner notes the power drunkeness of not-so-focused-on-the-family James Dobson.

Racking up the comments, Amy Sullivan blogs again at God's Politics, quoting polls showing that Republicans don't own evangelicals.

Eamon takes on the myth of abstinence-only education.

City of Brass notes the new Islamophere blog.

Catholics United for the Common Good calls for small farmer support.

Danny Fisher
remembers the official Buddhist chaplain for the 1984 Olympic Games.

The Rev. Debra W. Haffner just got back from the National Religious Leaders Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Provoke Radio has a show on Corporate Social Responsibility: Beyond the Bottom Line.

Independent Catholic priest Even the Devils Believe saw Into Great Silence and loved it.

Power to the churches -- Philocrates gives you "this week in UUworld.org"

Here's a little scripture comic from Radical Torah.

Check it out! WoodMoor Village is getting ready for his Faith in Public LIVE blog exchange with the Rev. Eric Elnes.

A bona fide invitation to engage in a conversation about public discourse and religion. Cool, eh? Since this semester I'm teaching RHET365: Rhetoric of Religion, this conversation dovetails quite well with the curriculum and with my own scholarly interests.

What might I be able to contribute? I ask because, as I hinted at above, and as I make clear in my about pages, mine is a non-religious voice. I identify more readily as atheist and deeply agnostic, certainly as "Zen Humanist" or "Post-Humanist" whatever that might mean (I'm well aware that a post on that is seriously needed). Again, what might I bring to this exchange? Mostly questions. To be sure, goodwill, compassion, kindness, and good looks too... ahem (sorry, I can't take myself too seriously). Persistent questions about how we might best live together with all our comprehensive views, identities, and dispositions in plural democratic society. I believe in building bridges, and these conversations can help in that regard. Moreover, my ethical inclinations, as well as my academic/scholarly interests come together precisely around questions of the formative power of public discourse, especially religious discourse, and also on questions of political thought and democratic life. I'm always intrigued by arguments about democratic deliberation.

Over at CrossWalk America, the Rev. Eric Elnes writes: "Starting Thursday and continuing for the next several days, we’ll be conversing on how to account for America’s religious diversity in talk of religion and progressive politics. "

It's coming tomorrow. . .here.

March 27, 2007

Get to know: PICO's campaign to Cover All Children

Teaming with 53 partners as national as Working Assets and as local as Rev. Heyward Wiggins of Camden Churches Organized for People (in pic), the mega-organizers of PICO have launched a campaign to Cover All Children.

They write: "PICO, a national network of one thousand religious congregations and schools in 150 cities and 18 states, has been working on a step-by-step campaign to expand access to health care to uninsured children. This is part of the campaign for SCHIP reauthorization. SCHIP is a lifeline for 6 million children whose parents cannot obtain family coverage at work. Already PICO federations in California have helped develop county-level programs to cover all children in half the counties in California."

PICO's Road Map for Covering all Children as part of SCHIP reauthorization includes enough funding to protect children now enrolled, without putting Medicaid at-risk; incentives for states to expand eligibility and reach out to eligible children; support for innovative outreach programs; policies that cut red tape to increase enrolment among eligible children; and incentives to increase workplace coverage. All this by 2012.

And here's the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute Center for Children and Families which states: "SCHIP and Medicaid have been resoundingly successful in providing health care to children. Despite the success, more still needs to be done to cover the remaining 9 million children in America who are uninsured. The SCHIP Portal is a resource for those involved in the efforts to reauthorize SCHIP and finish the job of getting children covered."

Here's how people can get involved.

March 26, 2007

PBS' NOW: NCC talking to Iran (link to VIDEO)

Aired this weekend, PBS' NOW focused on the 13-member team from the NCC which met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, top officials in the government, and several of the ayatollahs who have a powerful influence on government policy. "When political leaders mess up, religious leaders ought to be here to go and build up the people, build up relationships, and bring the conversation up the high moral ground," said one of the U.S. delegates, Rev. Dr. Shanta Premawardhana, who represented Episcopalians, Methodists, Evangelicals and dozens of other denominations.

The Associate General Secretary for Interfaith Relations, National Council of Churches USA, Rev. Dr. Premawardhana has received criticism from Rabbi James Rudin of the American Jewish Committee, who called the visit "An Exercise in Spineless Christian Diplomacy."

On his blog, Premawardhana recently responded:

"Ahamdinejad told us he is not building nuclear weapons because Iran is an Islamic country and Islamic Scripture forbids them. Ayatollah Ali Khamanei has issued a fatwa against such weapons. On the other hand, as a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), he said, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy.

Rudin, rather than seize the slight ray of light that is in that statement, would disregard that comment and continue as if Iran is building nuclear weapons. And to what end? Would he encourage President Bush to attack Iran? Would he encourage Israel, which unlike Iran is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to use its nuclear weapons against Iran?"

If you have a few minutes, the video, available here from PBS, is worth watching just to see the kids trying out their English on a Mennonite delegate, and then half-heartedly chanting "Down with USA" while smiling.

March 23, 2007

What's new in the neighborhood?

Faithful Progressive asks: Is the US ready for the Christian Left? And then answers, Doesn't Matter, They're Here.

He comments on an In These Times article, which notes:

left leaning Christians have been regularly attracting bigger and more passionate crowds than the Christian right recently. In St.Paul, MN, Jim Wallis had much a much bigger crowd in back to back nights than James Dobson. 'One of the Dobson organizers came over and told me, 'If they make us keep focusing on just two issues [abortion and gay marriage], they're going to lose all of us,' he says. But some people I know actually take the ministry of Jesus seriously. This can lead to some very radical and even lefty behavior."

Retired seminary president Del Brown is blogging a book defining progressive, as opposed to liberal, beliefs. He writes, "Christianity did not begin with the Bible. It began with Jesus of Nazareth as he was understood and proclaimed by his followers."

Catholic Media Report notes: Iraq Diaspora is 'Humanitarian Crisis'.

Speaking of. . .Eamon quotes the Pope on the Iraq war: "War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions."

Quaker blogger, Gathering in Light, just bought a bunch of books for a Fuller Theological Seminary class on emerging church as social movement.

Johnny's Cache is heading down to the OC for the One Voice to End Slavery event. Watch the One Voice video.

Over at the Christian Century blog, Theolog Debra reads former New Republic editor, Peter Beinart's book. She writes: "Beinart’s confession to being “intoxicated with the revolutionary potential of the United States” reminds us to be skeptical about notions that the U.S. is somehow an exceptional nation with a exceptional mission in the world."

Faithful Democrats' Jesse Lava notes who really supports the troops.

"And so it's natural that, to conservatives, the phrase "I support the troops" signifies a profession of faith -- faith in the mission that the troops are undertaking. It means avoiding saying things that might, in the short-term, be construed as demoralizing. And it means pretending -- eternally, one suspects -- that this war is still winnable. To progressives, supporting the troops means something far more profound. It means treating them with the love and respect they deserve. It means doing what we must as citizens to protect them. It means honoring the sacrifices of generations past by enjoying our liberties at home and refusing to spill more blood abroad unless it's truly necessary."

JSpot praises John Edwards. As does the Rev. Church Currie. And so does Xpatriated Texan, who's going all the way.

Do you have thoughts about The Evangelical Vote? Well, Street Prophets' Pastor Dan does and writes, "I wish I could believe that the conservative megachurches are ripe with progressive converts, but the numbers simply don’t bear that assertion out."

OT or Hebrew Bible? Weigh in here with Cross and Flame, a Street Prophets diarist.

WoodMore Village says fire the AG AG.

Navroz Mubarak 2007. Islamicate notes that "the holiday is now hybrid. Little bit of Zoroastrianism, little bit of Iranian nationalism, little bit of Islam, little bit of 21st century style globalization."

And finally set your TiVo. The NCC Interfaith blog notes that the Iran delegation will be featured on PBS' Now this weekend.

March 22, 2007

Get to know: One Franciscan Voice

Last week, members of Franciscan dioceses and orders gathered in Washington, D.C. to form a new Center for Action and a broad-based Franciscan Family Commission for Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation. More than 130 leaders and social justice and peace representatives from the Franciscan provinces, congregations, Secular Franciscan Regions, and Ecumenical partners approved the new initiative in Baltimore last week.

The move represents an unprecedented effort within the Franciscan family to focus combined resources on social justice and peace advocacy. With the Center for Action, the Franciscan community - which comprises tens of thousands of Franciscans in the U.S., and the millions whom they serve - hopes to effectively influence social policy in order to transform the world.

Vision Statement

We Franciscan brothers and sisters, Religious and Secular, from throughout the United States, gathered together in Baltimore, Maryland, to discern the possibility of a unified Franciscan Voice for justice. With great concern for dehumanizing issues in our society, we recognized trends contrary to our calling as followers of Christ. We see that we have the power to effectively advocate for the redistribution of resources, the responsible care for creation, and the healing of relationships within the Franciscan Family, the Church and society. To these ends, we commit ourselves and call all members of the Family to speak with one Franciscan Voice to effect the transformation of national social policy. By walking with our brothers and sisters who are poor and marginalized, we intend to advocate for peace and to reaffirm the dignity of all creation.

This is a notable step in the development of the Catholic social justice and peace movement. The Center for Action will provide Franciscans with a powerful voice on a wide array of issues, such as war, oppression, poverty, and the global climate crisis.

To find out more about the Franciscan community's efforts, visit their web site at www.hnp.org.

Bonus: Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM, speaks beautifully about his faith and how he is utterly humbled by mystery. Listen to him on NPR's This I Believe.

March 21, 2007

Boxer: Elections have consquences. . .for climate change

Sen. Barbara Boxer at a rally for the Day of Climate Change Action pointing out the remedies that exist to save the environment.

March 20, 2007

Blogs on the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq

In addition to the hundreds of MSM hits, there are over 270 blog hits for the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq.

Here's a sample from the people who went:

Yet Another Unitarian Universalist
shot this footage.

From at the crossroads' Karissa, an EMU student:

I went to a war protest this weekend.

I know, I know. Me? I was surprised too. But don't worry. I didn't hold any angry signs or yell obscenities. All I had was a small electric candle, symbolizing the light of Christ and his call for peace. And all I said, aside from conversations with my friends and strangers along the 4-mile walk from the National Cathedral to the White House, was "Peace," which we chanted at the White House. . . .At any rate, it was a beautiful, worthwhile event, and I am glad I went. Even though I never thought I would go to a protest:

From the Back Pew writes, "Even the name -- the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq -- is a revolutionary act."

On his MySpace blog, 28-year-old Hammer of Truth writes, "I felt the need to help sound the trumpet myself."

Don't Eat Alone notes: "A significant part of the protest was the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, the combined conspiracy of most everyone from Adventists to Catholics and Pentecostals to the UCC." And the restaurateur adds,

"One of the reasons it is significant to me that this particular protest was explicitly Christian is the justification of the war in Iraq often carries religious overtones, as if the war is Christian vs. Muslim. Bush intimates, often without much subtlety, that God is on our side because we are fighting for freedom and God is for freedom. I’m proud of the people who conspired to say God is for peace and so are many American Christians."

Speaking of eating, An Old Curmudgeon writes:

"We would need to be at the Cathedral at about 5:00pm and were not sure when we would have another opportunity to eat. When feeding times are not certain, the only logical thing to do is eat big when the opportunity presents itself. We sat down to a fantastic lunch at the Old Ebbitts Grill. After cups of seafood gumbo and a crab cake, we again considered the uncertainty of supper and decided it would only be prudent to have some pie and ice cream. In these uncertain times, one cannot be too careful."

Hoosier Daddy takes issue with the MSM coverage, noting the tendency for the media to lump the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq with the regular "anti" protests. He writes:

"However, this event Friday was in a whole different category of its own. It attracted no counterdemonstrators whatsoever. It was rooted and grounded in worship which filled the National Cathedral and in "divine obedience" in the middle of the night at the gates to the White House. It was definitely FOR something - for important and constructive goals that honor people, preserve life and work towards justice."

"President Bush is going to win this war come hell or high water. Maybe he's willing to forfeit his soul for his noble cause. He's not dragging me down with him," writes Les Enragés.

Here's an audio recording of Jim Wallis' speech.

Unexpectedly for herself, Margaret feels patriotic: "It's a pretty incredible country that will allow several thousand Christians to process down Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, DC carrying electric candles and various banners."

Texas-based Brains and Eggs notes that Bush has "lost the Christians."

From the buckle of the bible belt, Presbyterian minister Shuck and Jive simply notes: "they need to know that we want it ended."

On LiveJournal, thatjugglerguy writes: "It was an amazing experience to see people connected like that, taking a stand for what they believe."

March 19, 2007

A soldier's confession

The words of Joshua Casteel, an Iraq War veteran and conscientious objector, who served as an interrogator at Abu Ghraib. Footage from the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq service at the National Cathedral.

When I traveled outside the prison walls on convoys, terror surged through
my heart. I was not afraid of being killed. If you live by the sword, by the sword
shall you die. If I died with a loaded rifle, I could not be angry with God. The
terror that filled me … was the possibility of becoming one who kills. Once while
driving outside, I pointed my rifle as I always did, out the window of our armored
humvee. Through the sites of my rifle I saw the faces of three young shepherd
boys – probably eight years old, each. I realized in that moment that I had just
pointed a loaded weapon at three eight year old boys.

How was I, an ambassador of the love of Jesus Christ, supposed to recall that
day?

How can I talk of the freedom of Christ, while playing the role of captor?
How can I talk of faith when I only move from place to place by means of guns
pointed in all directions - even at eight year old shepherd boys?

(source: Joshua Casteel, Catholic Peace Fellowship, West Coast Tour, 2005)

March 16, 2007

What's new in the neighborhood?

Lots of bloggers posted Faith in Public Life's action alert about the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq at the National Cathedral.

JSpot notes Sen. Obama's gay problem. And Sen. Clinton's stutter step.

Noting these candidates' slow stand against Gen. Pace's bigotry, the Rev. Chuck Currie shares some reader responses.

Boy in the Bands titles his take, "Not Pace, but a Sword."

At the Shalom Center, Rabbi Waskow and his posse are putting full-page adds in The Forward & The Nation. Why? Because though 77% of American Jews oppose the Iraq war, '"official Jewish organizations are silent."

Faithful Progressive says: get thee to a protest in order to support the troops.

If you're in California on Earth Day, Interfaith Power & Light has lots of information on events.

The Beatitudes Society is sending seminary students to the Gulf Coast on a service learning trip.

Who would Jesus deport? Faith leaders from CLUE, Sojourners, and the National Hispanic Leadership Conference held a panel discussion on immigration reform at the Center for American Progress.

“We in the religious community have a tradition of being the voice for people who have no voice,” said Rev. Alexis Salvatierra, Executive Director of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. “There are congregations across the country that see this as a moral issue.”

Johnny's Cache introduces 15-year-old abolitionist Zach Hunter, he's "freeing slaves and changing the world."

Baptized Pagan writes about liberation theologian Jon Sobrino.

America's Young Theologian, on sickness and death, reads back issues of Poetry Magazine.

Faithfully Liberal explores "Literal and Figurative Neighbors."

Over at Street Prophets, waitingforvizzini takes down "Prosperity Theology Down One Verse at a Time." And also at SP, its simple IF you ignore the complexity offers a mediation on science and religion. And Pastor Dan adds analysis to an interesting poll on character and presidential elections.

Mainstream Baptist covers the coverage of Mohler's "gay baby" remarks.

Quaker blogger Gathering in Light explores "Transitioning in A Global Information Age: Questions For Church Traditions."

And finally, Islamicate takes on an interesting idea: "My God Hates More Than Your God."

March 13, 2007

VIDEO: Kathleen Kennedy Townsend on Churches Failing America's Faithful

"Two-term Maryland lieutenant governor Townsend makes a valid point: in America, faith is no longer about community. She longs for the Catholic Church of her youth, that 'dealt with issues at the core of the Gospel—suffering, injustice, sickness, and poverty' rather than a Christianity influenced by a crop of preachers who seem to believe that 'Jesus healed the sick, fed the hungry and cared for the poor just so we don't have to.' Addressing a broad range of issues including women, the religious right (and left), the GOP and her own political party, the Democrats, Townsend hopes to appeal to a wide audience, not just a Christian one."

March 12, 2007

American Islam: The Struggle For The Soul of a Religion

Who represents Islam in the United States, a country with 6 million Muslims? Is it the radical imam, the webmaster, the mystic, the feminist? Barrett traveled the country to discover what life is like for American Muslims in different regions of the nation. He finds that Muslims, like the rest of the population, are varied and diverse in look, thought, belief and behavior.

Paul Barrett is the Director of the Investigative Reporting Team for BusinessWeek and the author of American Islam.

I found this to be very provocative and worth my time. If you want to skip around, click on the FORA Tools icon and click through the channels. Update: I read this article, "The The Halal Melting Pot: Why Dearborn isn't Paris" in the current issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas and it also adds to the mosaic picture of American Islam.

March 09, 2007

What's new in the neighborhood?

Faithful Progressive doesn't feel bad about Scooter Libby:

I don’t feel one bit sorry
for Libby's crimes against the FBI--
if you think about it, that State of the Union
alone could make you cry.

[snip]

And I feel sorry for my own kids,
who will be paying for this
unnecessary, trumped-up war
that has made things
so much worse than before.

At Faithful Democrats, Jesse Lava nails the terrible danger of Ann Coulter.

On Jspot, Aaron Hahn Tapper writes, "The Golden Calf of the Biblical Hebrews continues to plague the Jewish community, my community. Everytime I see my community place ourselves up on a pedestal, privileging our tragedies or successes above others, I am reminded of the ancient golden heifer. For me, idolatry is not only about raising something above others. It also manifests in the lowering of an ‘other’ beneath oneself."

The Rev. Chuck Currie sheds some light on the so-called lost tomb of Jesus.

Can you write Newt Gingrich's smarmy hypocrisy? At Street Prophets, Pastor Dan does.

CrossLeft posts about Bill Moyers receiving the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation's first Frank E. Taplin, Jr. Public Intellectual Award. Here's his speech "Discovering What Democracy Means."

At God's Politics, Lyndsay Moseley, Associate Representative for Faith Partnerships for the Sierra Club notes hope, along with Brian McLaren, in the recent letter to the NAE regarding the Rev. Cizik.

City of Brass posts on the St. Petersburg declaration from the Secular Islam Summit.

"'Bush Doctrine' of pre-emptive war will be George W. Bush's most enduring legacy." What? Mainstream Baptist draws attention to this terrifying but ironically true analysis by Karl Rove.

Talk to Action covers the new book about James Dobson's faith-based political machine.

With a great urban graphic, Faithfully Liberal wonders: How do you help the homeless?

American Buddhist chaplain Danny Fischer posts another vlog about global dialog.

And more media, Provoke Radio asks: Do You Know Where Your Children Are?

And Philocrates notes the Berkeley UU congregation great video casting on YouTube.

And the Beatitudes Society blog posts Marcus Borg giving a great address at the annual Progressive Christians Uniting banquet.

Jesus Politics points to a great interview with Chicago Theological Seminary president Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite who says: Learn About Other Faiths? Yes. Mandatory? NO!

And DoC pastor and church historian Bob Cornwell ponders the New York Review of Books discussion of Jimmy Carter and apartheid.

Faith in Public LIVE Dr. Nazir Khaja and Islamoyankee: Islamophobia Rising, Part 6

Remember last month's exchange on Islamophobia and challenges facing the American Muslim community internally? Our writers are back to build on that conversation and break new ground. Dr. Nazir Khaja of the Islamic Information Service and FPL board member and blogger Islamoyankee of Islamicate will take on this subject and more throughout this week!



Part 6: Islamoyankee on the Reformation vs. Renaissance

Dear Nazir,

I think I would easily fall into the category of someone who is offended by the notion of an Islamic Reformation. The Reformation in Europe, broadly speaking, allowed immediate unfettered access to scripture. In and of itself this notion is problematic. However, the dominant narrative is that this access was a moderating influence on religion, effectively allowing for a more rationalistic approach to faith that succeeded in relegating it to the private sphere. Such a narrative ignores the rise of charismatic figures such as David Koresh (see also Jim Jones, Jung Myung Seok, Sun Myung Moon (2)), who took the scripture and created a violent and damaging reading of the text. Having said that, the use of the dominant narrative also ignores the realities of the Muslim world. In Sunni Islam, and in a different way in Ithna'ashari Islam, a strong, vibrant, legal (here I use the term to refer to all religious sciences) tradition existed. This tradition gave a framework for understanding religious enquiry that acknowledged diversities of interpretation. Since the Qur'an is proscriptive in only 6-7% of its pronouncements, any methodology must recognize the differences that come out of struggling with God's word. In fact, one of the earliest concessions made by all communities of interpretation was that God's Word was perfect, and as such humanity could not understand the true meaning of those words. This philosophy was practiced with various degrees of success throughout Muslim history. The methodology of approaching the text limited readings that would give rise to interpretations that would be on the excessive side of faith, either in making everything allegorical or literal. The collapse of the legal tradition in the colonial period gave us our reformation, and the result is the rise of characters such as Bin Laden and Muhammad Omar who see themselves as being the guarantors of faith, even though most students would laugh at the rigor of their arguments. In other words, the system we as Muslims had was to a certain extent what the Reformation brought to Europe, and the reformation that was thrust upon us brought us to where Europe was before the Reformation. It ignorance of both our history and European history that gives rise to this constant call for a reformation.

Despite that criticism of terminology, I do agree with the thrust of your argument, that the Muslim community needs a Renaissance, a rebirth, of the message of Islam. From my perspective, such a Renaissance would actually entail a return to a structured, systematic, and methodological approach to faith. Such an approach would hopefully limit the rise of charismatic figures who read their ideology into the text rather than having world-views emerging from the sources of the faith. I do believe that the US is in a unique position in being able to spread its ideas throughout the world, and as such American Muslims have a unique responsibility, but I also think that it is problematic for us to see ourselves as the only, or even the primary, beacon of thought in the Muslim world. Iranian intellectuals, as well as Indonesian and Malaysian thinkers, are engaged in some fascinating debates as to work with tradition and modernity. The reality is, most Americans, including American Muslims, are unaware of the real debates happening in the Muslim majority world. At some level we still privilege Arab as Islam, and don't recognize the pluralistic traditions of Muslims in Indonesia and India, or in various African nations.

As American Muslims, we do have a challenge and responsibility, and we have a great opportunity to help revive our traditions and make them respectable again. Aside from the work we do in our own country, I think we need to emphasize the idea of the ummah, the universal Muslim community, and reach out to like-minded Muslims across the world, particularly where these debates are already happening at a highly sophisticated level.

Regards,
islamoyankee

Part 5: Dr. Khaja on Reform and the American Muslim Community

Hi Hussein,

To summarize it seems that we both feel that Islam currently is in a volatile state, engaged in internal and external struggles. islamophobia in both of its dimensions, the internal, and the external is a real entity. Obviously it is a complex subject and the analysis of each of these dimensions will keep us engaged in this forum for a long time.

To start with however as concerned Muslims we must look at the issue of reform within Islam. This is necessary. Otherwise to place the fear, bias and animosity of others towards Islam ahead of reform would be like placing the cart before the horse.

You and I both know however that even the mention of the word reform to Muslims evokes an angry rejection. I do not hold any hopes for this process going forward in the so-called Muslim countries for obvious reasons. We American Muslims clearly must step up to the plate. We abide in freedom and interact with others in pluralistic framework. The majorities of Muslims elsewhere are lacking in this experience and are controlled coerced and manipulated not just by their secular leaders but also by most of their religious leaders also. The concern regarding Islam’s threat to others is necessitating not only political realignments and restructuring but more importantly ideological retooling Despite the adverse impact of 9/11on Muslims here and Islam and also recognizing that there is indeed distrust presently in America about us. The concern regarding Islam’s threat to others is necessitating not only political realignments and restructuring but more importantly ideological retooling.

We can yet play a critical role in lessening the tensions on both sides. The long over-due liberal reform is likeliest and possible here. And I choose the term liberal deliberately to mean all the processes of inclusion through which Islam gained acceptance and spread in different parts of the world without armed conflict or coercion However as we discussed before, unfortunately this community here has not yet evolved in their experience and approach to measure up to the task. Most here realize that a change or "ideological retooling" is necessary as a need of their own to make Islam more meaningful to themselves. Yet as you have rightly pointed out the majority of the Muslim community which is still the immigrants with their cultural baggage, is not yet ready. Their affiliations to diverse and contending views of Islam and also their unfamiliarity with working in a democratic pluralistic framework are still a problem. Leadership continues to be in the hands of this group which is lacking in confidence ---confidence to see Islam outside the frame of "literalism". This itself is a major obstacle to reform within Islam. The most important feature of all religious text is not what they actually say but how their followers understand and say about it.

From the unchanging past charting a course into an uncertain future is not proving easy for us. With "hot rhetoric" alluding to utopian plans and historical nostalgia, and with no intermediary steps of analysis or practical program of implementation, the confusion remains unabated.

We have already talked about our unfamiliarity with the processes that are fundamental in effectively engaging democracy. A major source of confusion and also a major source of tension and disunity within our ranks is the idea that politics and religion are the same. While this has been the dominant belief among Muslims historically and is still the hallmark of Muslim societies it has been long discarded here and elsewhere in the west. The sooner we Muslims start to deal with these core issues the more effective overall we will be not just in stemming this tide of Islamophobia but also pushing the envelope of reform within Islam…..

Regards,
Nazir

Part 4: Islamoyankee on Institutional Challenges

Salaam Nazir,

I think if we are to focus on institutions of the Muslim American community and how have failed us, I would focus on two parts. The first part is the failure for us to build institutions. As I mentioned previously, I believe many of “our” national institutions have, at the least, invested their mission with normatizing a particular understanding of Islam. By this, I mean that by representing “Islam,” they are have to define what “Islam” is; for most Muslims, Islam is not 1400 years of history, it is not the interaction with faith and dozens of cultures, it is not about understanding how we got to the nuances and contradictions we live with day-in and day-out, it is not about the disputative tradition that makes the Muslim intellectual tradition so vibrant. The “Islam” that these institutions present is the “Islam” the founders of these institutions know, which is not terribly rich. Their ignorance of Islam plays well to a certain constituency that finds surety and comfort in a national voice representing their “Islam.” Unfortunately, that ignorance keeps non-Muslims ignorant, and it keeps Muslims looking to understand their faith better ignorant. When I spoke of Muslims being a ghetto before, this is part of what I was alluding to; “our” current institutions came out of a ghetto mentality, and they are structured to maintain that ghetto. They were necessary when they were founded, and they serve a purpose now, but they no longer represent the reality of American Muslims, and they never represented “Islam.” While it may seem like a semantic issue, if a group seeks to represent Islam, they will fail, as Islam is not a monolith, even if Muslims wishes it were. A group that claims to represent Muslims has a much better chance of success, in my opinion, and will have the ability to evolve as Muslim understandings of the Divine Message evolve. The institutional failure to address Islamophobia exists because these groups present ignorance as the basis of our faith, if not in word, in deed. It is easy for others to dismiss and demonize Muslims, when their “leaders” dismiss understanding Islam.

The second issue is the ease in which we are dismissed from the mainstream. As an example, let me refer you to recent smear campaign instituted against Sen. Barack Obama. Fox News recently claimed that he trained at a radical Wahhabi terrorist school in Indonesia, and that he was raised as a Muslim. These accusations were quickly dismissed, and Sen. Obama's office issued a letter addressing the issue. In his letter, intentionally or not, he sounds as though being called a Muslim is a smear (see here for a good breakdown the relevant part of the letter). Sen. Obama may be light on foreign policy credentials, but his personal history makes him aware of the diversity of the world in which we live. How could he have written such a letter? Are there really no Muslim Americans in Chicago people on his staff could interact with? Are there no Muslims on his staff? Could not anyone involved in writing this letter have thought, I know a Muslim, and I don't want to denigrate them like this? So the key issue is where are the Muslims? As you've said, we are an extremely well-educated community, and we work in medicine, law, finance, and as entrepreneurs. When we wear the doctor's coat, do we stop being Muslim? At an individual level, why is it so difficult for non-Muslims to think of Muslims as people? I would suggest that we have failed to either present ourselves as Muslim, or to present ourselves as people. The other sub-text is that Muslims are not necessarily going into fields other than law, medicine, and finance, so campaign staffs don't have Muslims who are comfortable claiming to be Muslim. That is a cultural failure on our part.

Not all is lost. We need new institutions that represent Muslims who know no other homeland than America, regardless of where their parents were from. These institutions need to represent Muslims, not Islam. We need to make the diversity of Islam normative, so that all Muslims feel comfortable talking about being Muslim, and the questions we get asked as individuals are about what it means to us as people to be Muslim, not for all of us to be able explain “Islam.” We have to have pride in our Muslim identity, but we don't have to be militant or strident about it. Once we have reached comfort in ourselves, I believe our representation will reflect that comfort, and non-Muslims will be comfortable with us.

Salaam,
islamoyankee

Part 3: Dr. Khaja on Looking Inward

Dear Islamoyankee,

Thank you for responding to my piece on Islamophobia. As we look at the issue in terms of Civil Rights and questions of authority, how American Muslims' loyalty to their adopted homeland is being called into question is everyday news. At the official level it is under the blanket of "Security"; in the public arena it is the result mainly of ignorance compounded by the post 9/11 fear.

A major contributing factor is the failure of the American Muslim Community to effectively engage with the experience of participating in a democratic framework. The requirement for this is "instititutionalisation" and as you have pointed out there are hardly any Muslim institutions here which have the strategic depth and resources to face the burgeoning challenges. This is ironic because the American Muslim community is the most educated of Muslim communities and individually Muslims have attained high level of success and prosperity in this country.

This then brings us back to the issue of "Civil Rights". The message that we as Muslims must understand is that there really can not be any rights without responsibility attached to it. This dovetails into the discussion of Leadership and Organization.

It is therefore useful to have an inward look at our failures as we examine the attitude of others towards Islam, that of fear, phobia and prejudice. Where do we start?

Best,
Nazir

Part 2: Islamoyankee on Learning to Speak American

Salaam Nazir,

I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. I agree with you concerning the issues facing the Muslim community in the US regarding Islamophobia. However, my approach is slightly different than yours. Following the outline of your post, there are two broad areas you identify: Civil Rights and questions of authority. The first, while not unique to Muslims in the US, has a particular American flavor that makes sense to deal with at a national level. The second point is a more universal concern in the Ummah, and one that I would like to address more broadly.

Muslims in America, whether we like it or not, are basically divided into two camps: immigrants and non-immigrants. Immigrant Muslims are generally those who are 1st and 2nd generation immigrants, while non- immigrant Muslims are those who came to Islam, or whose family came to Islam, in the United States. More colloquially, immigrants are non- Latino brown and immigrants are black (and nobody has thought which is more denigrating to Latinos yet, so they are unclassified). This point is a generalization that holds true throughout popular discourse, irrespective of a persons actual point of origin. Hakeem Olajuwon is not seen as Muslim in the same way I as being of South Asian descent am, even though he immigrated from a Muslim majority community and I was born and bred in New York. As a result, immigrant Muslims are seen as more authentic, and more radical. The term Muslim, when used to describe an undesirable element, is the polite way of saying “sand nigger,” or “towel-head;” it has become a racial category as much as a religious one. I raise this point for two reasons. The first, is when we are talking about Muslims in America, the dominant discourse almost always dictates that we are talking about immigrant Muslims, or brown Muslims. This is a convention that I will follow in my postings this week. The second point, is that we need to recognize how insular the immigrant Muslim community is in terms of its activism, and sometimes that can only happen by recognizing the bifurcation in the Muslim American community.

As American Muslims we constantly reference 9/11 as a moment when everything changed. Things may have changed in terms of scale, but not in terms of content. The US has a long and varied history with Islamdom (reading list at the end of the piece). However, as recently as 1991 and the First Gulf War, Islamophobia has been part of the national discourse, un-named, and more virulent than after the 1979 Iranian Revolution (see “Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World” (Edward W. Said)). To hate Arabs, at the time a synonym for Muslims, was condoned. Popular media reveled in the idea that the new enemy was the brown Muslim, look at True Lies or Air Force One, to get a sense of how prevalent that image was (see “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People” (Jack G. Shaheen)). Aside from a brief period in the late 1960s (The Hate that Hate Produced), black Muslims have not been persecuted for their faith as much as they have been for their race. In my eyes 9/11 was a catalytic event, speeding up a process already taking place; it did not begin a new reaction.

While the rhetoric of Islamophobia has become more formal and institutionalized since 9/11, the process began much sooner, and to me, the key question is where has the immigrant Muslim come since 1991. Were we ready? If not, why not? If so, why? Are we becoming part of the American public sphere, or are we continuing a drive towards insularity that will relegate our existence in American politics to irrelevance? Regarding Civil Rights, you mention the case of Rep. Keith Ellison. To me, this is a perfect case of some of the problems facing the Muslim American community, specifically, coalition building. I saw some responses from Muslim American groups like CAIR; I saw some responses from Jewish and Christian groups (see here), but I don’t recall seeing a joint statement from Muslims and Jews and Christians (I’m not Googling this, because I want to make a point from the perspective of someone who follows the news more closely than most that appearance is as important as fact). Much like a situation with Fleet Bank (now Bank of America) several years ago (see here), we are missing the opportunity to create coalitions and make ourselves part of the discourse on what it means to be American.

What we have done at this point is scream that we are victims and we are being victimized. Yes. True. However, by claiming this is a Muslim problem, we are addressing nothing. One component of identity is identification against an “other.” During the Cold War, the American “other” were the Soviets. Such an “other” is rarely considered an equal, but an inferior, or made to seem inferior through the process of “othering.” Now, Muslims are the “other,” because we are perceived of as weak. We can claim we are victims, but we are victimized because we are weak, and as long we play the role of weak victims, we will continue to be victimized. We need to decry Islamophobia as being un-American; we need to build coalitions with those who are interested in keeping American society open and welcoming. So far, most of what I have seen has been people living in ghettos, building institutions that are ghetto-minded, and maintaining the ghetto at all costs. We have not yet learned to speak American. I’ve often heard of politicians referred to as whores, who’ll do anything for the highest bidder, so at Muslim outreach efforts I hear boards talking about gaining political influence by essentially being “Johns,” hiring the cheapest politician we can to satisfy our needs. Such an effort proves we don’t understand the American system, and offers us no long-term solutions. American politicians also gave us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Gettysburg Address, the “Kitchen Cabinet,” the warning against the Military-Industrial Complex, and a certain speech at the 2004 DNC against discrimination. I’ve only read one Muslim who has attempted to speak both “American” and “Muslim” (“What's Right with Islam: is What's Right With America” (Feisal Abdul Rauf)). In my mind, the best way for us to battle Islamophobia in America is start learning to speak “American,” with a Muslim accent of course, instead speaking Muslim, and hoping someone will listen.

This is a long-winded response to the first part of your post. I hope during week we’ll be able to tease out some more ideas, and hopefully return to the issue of authority.

Khuda Hafiz,
islamoyankee (aka Hussein)

Reading List on Islamdom and America:

“Islam in America” (Jane I. Smith)
“Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas” (Sylviane A. Diouf)
“The Crescent Obscured: The United States and the Muslim World, 1776-1815” (Robert Allison)
“American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945” (Douglas Little)
“Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present” (Michael B. Oren)
“Islam and Arabs in Early American Thought: Roots of Orientalism in America” (Fuad Shaban)
“Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror” (Mahmood Mamdani)
“Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project)” (Robert Dreyfuss)

Part 1: Dr. Khaja on Islamophobia Rising

Dear Islamoyankee,

I’m happy to join in this exchange with you, and thank Faith in Public Life for arranging it. There are a number of crucial challenges facing the Muslim community today, so I hope this forum will allow us a public space to discuss a number of them.

Since 9/11 questions abut Islam, its nature, its distinctive identity, its potential threat to the West have seized center stage in intellectual and political debates and discussions. Worldwide fears and misconceptions, combined with lack of credible information, continue to foster a climate of fear and hostility. This is partly the fault of the media and partly the inability of the Muslims to effectively engage with the process of correcting the misconceptions on both sides.

It is no surprise therefore that "Islamophobia" is a very real entity. What is becoming increasingly disturbing is how pervasive it has become. Existing at all levels of society it is now a part of the discourse in framing governmental policies here and abroad. Many complain that "political correctness" inhibits them from questioning or discussing Islam and its practices, yet the Pope, preachers, politicians and pundits all seem now to express their fears quite openly.

In the U.S and Europe, new laws are being enacted under the umbrella of security concerns. The Patriot Act and other surveillance programs impact the civil liberties of all Americans, but bring particular intrusions in to the lives of American Muslims and others who look different or have different sounding names.

The recent uproar over the oath of office for newly elected first American Muslim to the Congress Keith Ellison further highlights this growing Islamophobia. Rep. Ellison wanted to take his oath of office on the Quran, much to the loud objections of radio talk show hosts like Dennis Pranger. Even more disturbing than the talk show hosts was Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode's fear mongering. Goode wrote to his constituents, “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt strict immigration policies.” The Constitutional protection of all religions from discrimination disappears in the face of this fear of Islam.

All of the above is to highlight how real the problem is. As you no doubt know, numerous other examples of discrimination and hostility have arisen in the past few months. And with the continuation of wars, occupation and unresolved conflicts in Muslim lands, one can predict that the fear of Islam and Muslims will only increase. In a world of anger and violence as it seems now there has to be a break from the traditional "us versus them" approach .The recycling of historical animosity from the Crusades to the post-Cold War demonization of Islam must end.

This is not going to be easy. The frame of conflict between Islam and the West has become a dominant media theme on issues both political and social. Media, politicians, faith leaders and average citizens share a responsibility to challenge this twisted pattern of discourse.

Muslims have their work cutout, especially those who live in freedom and are educated. It is their responsibility to reject the message of the extremists whose worldview and actions are not only a serious affront to Islam but also to the peace and stability of this world.

It seems to me that the key question that they must tackle is one of control--control of interpretation of the Quran and the authentic teachings of Islam. In other words: who decides, by what process and in what context, which reading or text to promote? Presently the control is with those who lack any experience in pluralism and see the world in Manichean paradigm. In this struggle within Islam, which is mainly about power rather than faith, lies one of the root causes of the violence sectarian and otherwise. By engaging with these important questions the Muslims here can lead the way in stemming the rising tide of Islamophobia.

I look forward to your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Nazir

March 08, 2007

UPDATE: IRD joins anti-Cizik attacks: How dare he defend Darfur and oppose torture!

We wrote a few days ago about how Jim Dobson and assorted other on the far right had issued a public letter going after the job of Rich Cizik, director of the National Association of Evangelicals' Washington office. Cizik's sin: speaking out for the majority of evangelicals who think that serious action needs to be taken to combat global warming.

Well, never wanting to miss the opportunity to attack an advocate for the common good, the Institute on Religion and Democracy has gotten into the act with this press release, which adds to Cizik's list of abominations: defending Darfur and opposing torture. This is all in the lead up to the NAE's board meeting tomorrow. Cizik's job seems safe for now, but it's worth watching this developing story.

Get to know: The Balm in Gilead

It's The Black Church Week of Prayer for the Healing of AIDS this week and The Balm in Gilead is speaking out against "complacency, denial and do-nothing attitudes regarding HIV/AIDS."

Promoting the Healing of AIDS Week of Prayer for 18 years, Balm works to improve the health status of people of the African Diaspora by building the capacity of faith communities to address life-threatening diseases, especially HIV/AIDS.

It all started back in 1989, when Pernessa Seele, Founder and CEO, received the cooperation of 50 Harlem pastors to acknowledge those infected and affected by HIV/AIDS. Today, the Balm In Gilead mobilizes thousands of churches and mosques domestically and internationally to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. Each year the Black Church Week of Prayer for the Healing of AIDS mobilizes thousands of faith institutions to champion AIDS awareness, prevention and education in the African American community. Balm also helps partner Black Churches with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to encourage communities to get tested.

Click here to learn more about the Black Church HIV/AIDS Network.

March 07, 2007

VIDEO: Mara Vanderslice with Colbert on the Least, the Lost and the Last

Mara Vanderslice founder and Senior Partner at Common Good Strategies sells Stephen Colbert on the idea that folks of faith want America's moral leadership restored around world.

Mara: "It's such a myth that somehow Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell represent religious Americans. Most religious Americans care about poverty, about health care, about fighting global AIDS."

Speaking of marketing and politics, here's an excellent Michael Wolff Vanity Fair article about the marketing machine that exists in the White House as revealed by the Scooter Libby conviction.

March 06, 2007

Jewish Voices Speak Out on Iraq

Two recent articles from within the Jewish American community have challenged Jewish leaders to speak out against the continuation of the Iraq War. As Nathan Guttman pointed out last week, in spite of the fact that 77% of American Jews think the Iraq War was a mistake, "most Jewish organizations have refused to speak out against the war, and at times they displayed support for the administration." As Rabbi Arthur Waskow writes in a current opinion piece, "What to do about the Iraq war has made for the sharpest and most important disconnect between the political behavior of large Jewish organizations and the opinions of the flesh-and-blood Jews who actually make up the American Jewish community." In another op-ed, Rabbi David Saperstein put the challenge more bluntly in his title: "Time for Our Community To Join the Iraq Debate."

A number of initiatives within the Jewish community are rising to that challenge. A group of Jewish leaders has launched an ad campaign in both Jewish and secular media outlets. See the ad below, and follow this link to the Shalom Center to find out more. And when the Union of Reform Judaism's Executive Board meets next week, they will discuss how to best address the current situation in Iraq. Visit the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism for more resources on how Jewish leaders are responding to the crisis in Iraq.

jewishiraqad.jpg

March 05, 2007

Iran Delegation Members Take on Hannity

Voicing Faith Media Bureau member Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the Methodist Church's General Board of Church & Society, and Jeff Carr, COO of Sojourners, went on Hannity and Colmes Friday evening to talk about their participation in the recent religious peacebuilding delegation visit to Iran. See the video for a lesson in making your point in a hostile environment!

March 02, 2007

The only time we hear about Dobson's passion for protecting the poor…

Focus on the Family President James Dobson paired his attack on National Association of Evangelicals VP Richard Cizik for speaking out about the need to fight global warming, with a reassertion for his desire to protect the poor from those who would seek to combat climate change.

In a “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming,” the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, led by Dobson, claims that “Government-mandated carbon dioxide emissions reductions not only would not significantly curtail global warming or reduce its harmful effects but also would cause greater harm than good to humanity–especially the poor–while offering virtually no benefit to the rest of the world’s inhabitants.”

Once again, pretty much the only time we hear about Dobson's passion for protecting the poor is when he's attacking other evangelicals on global warming.

Where was Dobson and his passion for helping the poor, for example, when he took issue with Christians for protesting federal budget cuts to programs for those most in need? From the Washington Post at the time:

"It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important," said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. "But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that."

Cizik attacked by Dobson and Friends

The diversity of the evangelical social agenda has become a regular trend in coverage of religion and politics. Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals has been among the most articulate proponents of this broad social agenda, speaking out eloquently on issues like global warming and genocide in Darfur. This agenda has allowed innovative partnerships to form to fight global warming, combat modern slavery, and work for an end to genocide in our day.

Well, James Dobson has apparently had enough of all that. In yesterday’s daily Focus on the Family newsletter, Dobson went directly after Cizik in the sort of attack that’s typical of right wing distortion:


“We ask,” Dobson and the other pro-family leaders wrote, “how is population control going to be achieve if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and, even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where Richard Cizik would lead us?

It's no coincidence that this attack comes with the National Association of Evangelicals board about to meet in Minnesota. Here's the money line from a letter signed by Dobson and allies:

“We implore the NAE board to ensure that Mr. Cizik faithfully represents the policies and commitments of the organization, including its defense of traditional values. If he cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues, then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE.

The work of evangelicals like Cizik is one of the most encouraging stories of faith in public life today. It’s crucial that the American public understands the kinds of internal pressures that leaders of principle like Cizik confront every day.

Who's got faith in Iran and US relations?

Just recently the first U.S. religious group to meet with an Iranian president in Iran since the revolution in 1979 returned with assurances from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran "does not intend to develop nuclear weapons" and that he is willing "to enter into direct, face-to-face talks with the United States government."

Read the FPL press release. And here's the main website for the Iran delegation.

"Even with this tragic history we have visited upon Iran for the past 55 years, there is an amazing depth of appreciation and love for the U.S. people," said Jim Winkler, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, the denomination's social action agency. "There have been lots of contacts between Muslim religious leaders and Christian leaders from around the world—and with American Christians—over the years, but this was considered to be significant because it was attached to meetings with government leaders," Winkler said.

The Weekly Standard writes: The delegation was organized by the Washington, D.C. lobby offices of the Quakers and the Mennonites and is a follow up of sorts to a meeting that several dozen religious officials, including Winkler, had with Ahmadinejad in New York last October. This time, the group will also meet with former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, who spoke at the Episcopal Church's National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. in September.

Besides Winkler, the Quakers, and the Mennonites, the delegation to Iran includes representatives from the National Council of Churches, Sojourners (Jim Wallis' evangelical-left group), and Pax Christi, a liberal Catholic group.

"We are making this trip hoping it will encourage both governments to step back from a course that will lead to conflict and suffering," explained a Quaker official, Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee. But the delegation acknowledges that Ahmadinejad's unsavory positions may have to be confronted.

Over at beliefnet, Sojourners COO Jeff Carr went on the trip and blogged on the journey. Reflecting on the Iranian Hostage Crises, he writes:

"I don't think I have ever realized how traumatizing those events were for me, and how seared into my memory and psyche they are. How they serve as a filter, even today, 28 years later, to the way I (and I surmise many other Americans) see Iran. It is the narrative that informs my thinking about Iran today and the relationship between our nations."

Iranian born Reza Aslan speaks about the future of U.S./Iran Relations. At the World Affairs Council, Reza notes:

The strategy of the United States over the past two and half decades to contain Iran has only strengthened the hand of the country's clerical regime and made full democracy a more distant prospect. It is time for a new approach, one that could curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and force Iran out of its economic isolation, leading to the regime change that the U.S. has been striving for since 1979.


March 01, 2007

Gary Hart talks about God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics

Gary Hart talks about God and Caesar in America: An Essay on Religion and Politics. In this new and sure-to-be controversial book, Hart takes the religious right to task for their assumption of political power, noting that they are both defining faith too narrowly and failing to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. In the process, Hart identifies the proper role of religion in democracy.