May 23, 2008
April 04, 2008
Dr. King | War and Poverty
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, The Washington Post's On Faith section has a great collection of faith leaders' personal reflections on the loss and legacy of Martin Luther King.
Rev. Sue Thistlethwaite (an FPL board member):
Dr. King’s message was so challenging to established power in the United States, power based on racial privilege, on militarism and on economic stratification, that he was killed for speaking out. It is no wonder that established power today wishes to domesticate Dr. King’s prophetic vision and co-opt it order to justify conflict.
But today of all days, today as we remember that 40 years ago Dr. King was killed for speaking out against unjust power, let us not be fooled. Dr. King was killed because he challenged racism, militarism and economic inequality. And if you are not doing the same, you have no right to claim this legacy.
By noon on April 5, Washington was ablaze. It was touch and go whether 18th Street — four houses from my door — would join the flames. Just barely, our neighborhood’s interracial ties held fast.
By April 6, there was a curfew. Thousands of Blacks were being herded into jail for breaking it. But the police did not care whether whites were on the streets. So for a week, my white co-workers and I brought food, medicine, doctors from the suburbs into the schools and churches of burnt-out downtown Washington.
King’s ultimate vision was not just about race or nation, but new relationships – between people from different backgrounds, between America and the world, between humanity and God. That is why people from every country and faith derive inspiration from his legacy, a legacy best summed up in one of King’s final books, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community: “The great new problem of mankind (is that) we have inherited ... a great ‘ world house‘ in which we have to live together - black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Moslem and Hindu ... Because we can never again live apart, we must somehow learn to live with each other in peace.”
King does not belong only to people who look like him, or pray like him or speak like him.
King belongs to people who live up to his legacy of pluralism.
I met Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on a February day in 1968, when, as a seminary student, I took a long bus ride to Washington D.C. to hear him speak at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church about the connection between the cost of the war in Vietnam and its devastating impact on the poor.
His courageous words that day -- earnest, unafraid, challenging America’s moral failings without judgment or alienation -- changed my life. He inspired my political activism that came to include serving in Congress for 12 years, and now serving as the president of Common Cause.
March 21, 2008
Brother Wright, the Cross, and the Rest of Us
The Rev. Anne Howard writes:
Jeremiah (known now, of course, as Jeremiad) Wright preaches in a way that white preachers like me just don't dare. And we don't even know how.
Let me speak for myself: I come from a tradition of reserved Scandinavian Lutherans, and I know that no Minnesota pulpit of my childhood would countenance the kind of impassioned gospel that Rev. Wright proclaims--and certainly not about things that might be "too political".
And I also know that the churches of my adulthood, my own Episcopal church and just about any other white Protestant church, is not familiar -- to put it mildly -- with the kind of preaching we see in Jeremiah Wright. We just don't know that tradition. We just don't know how.
We are subtle and nuanced when we broach a topic that might smack of politics. When we muster the occasional guts to preach a social justice sermon, when we dare to take on, say, this five-year war, or the need for immmigration reform, or a living wage, we are very very careful and we leave lots of room for interpretation and others' views. Our version of "pastoral" often means "do not offend." That's how we've been trained, not to mention socialized.
Now, many of us would say that Rev. Wright was more than offensive with his anti-American comments, that his words were divisive and hateful. If any pollsters are paying attention, Jeremiah Wright's ratings could be even lower than George Bush's right now.
And I would say that his statement regarding the opposite of "God bless America" was both a bad choice of words and bad theology; the overarching evidence of the bible shows us a God who redeems and rescues, not a God who "damns" anybody or anything.
Still and all, my guess is that when Jesus dumped over those tables in the temple, his speech might not have been pretty.
And we need to remember that we preachers are called to preach truth to power: how do we do that? What words do we use to decry this 5-year war, our punishing neglect after Katrina, our head-in-the-sand response to climate change, the travesty of No Child Left Behind, our abandonment of our returning wounded soldiers, etc. etc. etc.
What words do we use?
For my part, I envy Jeremiah Wright and his outrageous audacity to speak stinging truth as he sees it from his unique perspective as a black pastor in white America.
Speaking the truth, we remember this Holy Week, leads to the cross.
The cross always carries a kind of irony. Brother Wright, with his outrageous and harmful choice of words, has made us face into one of the largest crosses in our American landscape, the cross of racism. Wright's harm asks the rest of us to attempt healing, to use words that can be heard, words not of blame but of contrition, conviction and courage, words that name the crosses of our day.
Only if we face into this cross, and all the crosses we continue to plant, will we move through to the hope of Easter.
February 01, 2008
A reflection on Black History Month
You'd be hard pressed to find a clearer example of faith's power to inspire and sustain social movements than African Americans' long struggle for freedom and equality. From the beginning, when slaves found in faith the strength to endure (and in some cases resist) indescribable oppression, to the high water mark of the Civil Rights Movement when Christians, Muslims and Jews gave their lives to the struggle, the cause of justice has always been rooted in and animated by religious faith.
As Black History Month begins, that is an example to honor, not just by listening to "I Have A Dream," but by recognizing that the struggle is not over, and by involving ourselves in it. As long as we have separate and unequal education systems, unequal access to healthcare, and an ever-widening chasm between the haves and the have-nots -- all breaking down on racial lines -- faith should compel us to act, in our own communities and in areas of greatest need. The best way to honor our heroes is to emulate them.
January 21, 2008
Thoughts on Martin Luther King Day
I’m writing from my home in a section of Washington, DC, that burned after Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968.
The motel, now the National Civil Rights Museum, has preserved the room in which King spent his last night on earth, and in the anteroom you can play his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech by pushing a red button. A wreath marks the spot outside where he died as his companions pointed at the shooter’s position. It is heartbreaking and inspiring, to an extent that dwarfs the power of words.
The Bible is replete with such powerful stories, and from time to time I thank God for animating them by guiding me to the history of civil rights movement (my undergraduate concentration), and especially to Martin Luther King, Jr. Reading and hearing the words of a person willing not only to challenge the powerful to honor the word of God, but to follow his Christian convictions to an early grave is humbling and gratifying, and it has repeatedly reminded me of the power of faith.
The fire that destroyed my neighborhood following King’s death must be viewed within the context of the world from which he was violently taken. While the rage of oppressed people consumed uptown Washington and gave grist to opportunistic segregationists, a few miles down the street the federal government was escalating a war that was antithetical to everything for which King stood. That he gave a speech condemning the Vietnam war and the socio-political structure that enabled it exactly one year before his death is a detail lost to the cliffs notes history fed to us by popular culture.
Some 40 years on now, we have a Martin Luther King federal holiday, but a mixed (yet sum positive) record of racial and socio-economic progress, and a seemingly steadfast commitment to the militarism and economic inequality King decried in his final years. In recent years it’s become common to commemorate Dr. King by using his holiday as a day of service; in keeping with his words and deeds, we should also use the day to call leaders to honor the teachings of the faiths they espouse.
November 14, 2007
Lessons from Islamo-fascism awareness week
Note: FPL intern Nouf Bazaz recently led an interfaith response to Islamo-fascism Awareness Week. Below is her reflection on the meaning of the event.
David Horowitz’s Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, hosted by the Young America’s Foundation (YAF) recently concluded at universities across the nation. At George Washington University, the Peace not Prejudice campaign simultaneously launched as a peaceful alternative similarly came to a close. In the aftermath, one thing has become painfully clear: the entire campus, including YAF, played right into the hands of the political machine that will continue to churn out hate long after Islamo-fascism Awareness Week is forgotten. Several other key lessons can be drawn from the highly politicized sequence of events that divided our campus.
On Thursday, October 25th, Peace not Prejudice and Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week met in a climactic fashion. A speech by David Horowitz was juxtaposed to an interfaith prayer vigil titled “Pray for Peace,” headlined by six prominent religious figures and Ambassador Edward Gnehm.
When David Horowitz stepped on stage he began shouting at the GWU administration and student body in a fit of rage. He accused the president of the University of heading a “lynch mob” against conservative white students and further shrieked about the treachery of the American Left. If it was not evident enough before, it now rang crystal clear: The purpose of Islamo-fascism Awareness Week had nothing to with Islam. Muslims were merely the latest in a long line of victims carved up at the political chopping block. Horowitz serves only as the overzealous errand boy behind the knife, dutifully obliging the system for paycheck after paycheck. In typical fashion, he went on to depict Muslims as violent and merciless henchmen that would bring about the destruction of the West. At the end of his diatribe he dramatically stated, “You have to understand who your enemy is” or else you are “defenseless.”
Lesson 1: Hate is the greatest weapon of war.
By accurately equating Horowitz’s words with hate speech, one serves only to strengthen Horowitz’s claims of being victimized. With this coveted “victim card” tucked safely in his pocket, he adroitly avoided and twisted every question he was asked. There was no room for dialogue.
The ending of Horowitz’s speech pushed the prayer vigil off to a late start. As a modest-sized crowd settled in their seats, the speakers made their way to the podium. Immediately hope permeated the room as they exclaimed that equipped with the message of “Peace on Earth,” we will move forward united. Each speaker expounded on the idea that if we truly live our lives with the understanding that all of mankind is created in the likeness of God, all outward differences, and thus sources of prejudice, fade away. Ambassador Edward Gnehm related that same sentiment to his tenure in the Middle East: Behind the deceptive veil of politics, we are one and the same.
Lesson 2: Division is merely a political artifice
As the vigil drew to a close, one of the speakers posed a question to the few dozen people in the audience: Who believes that if we were talking about hate rather than love, and division rather than unity, that this room would be full? Every single hand immediately went up.
It was undeniable that the peaceful vigil failed to draw close to the same numbers that Horowitz’s hateful speech did. Playing right into the hands of the political demon, hate conquered love. The division of our campus not only formed the crux of Horowitz’s speech but attracted reporters from across the globe. It is amid this sea of shouting voices and empty words that truth ceases to exist. Within this vacuum, the mainstream media had their story long before George Washington University heard anything about Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.
It is our responsibility to break the cycle of hate that has trickled down from the political juggernaut to our own universities. Through the darkness of the storm that inundated our campus, the prayer vigil stood as a beacon of light. In order to truly eliminate the ignorance that breeds prejudice and division, we must strengthen interfaith and cultural bridges. If you say that you love God, then you must prove it by embracing the simultaneous diversity and unity of creation.
Lesson 3: It is often the few that bring about the liberation of the many.
Nouf Bazaz
Islamic Alliance for Justice, President
September 24, 2007
Reflecting on a Civil Rights milestone
Fifty years ago Sunday, nine black teenagers integrated Little Rock's Central High School under the armed guard an elite U.S. military unit. Little Rock Nine member Jefferson Thomas' spare recollection is a reminder that movements are made of countless acts of individual courage and grace:
Half a century later, sluggish desegregation and rapid resegregation have diluted the legacy of the Little Rock Nine, and the injustice of separate and unequal education persists. Segregation and education are every bit as urgent moral issues now as they were 50 years ago, but the clearly justice-centered approach and energy have dwindled in the "post-Civil Rights era."
The Miami Herald's Leonard Pitts, for my money America's most underrated columnist, puts it all in context of faith and values:From the vantage point of half a century, it seems an absurd drama. You shake your head at the fatuity of the adults in the old news footage, their mouths twisted, fists clenched, eyes alight, and you marvel that they were driven to such a fury, such a madness, by so innocuous an event. You wonder what in the world they could have been thinking.But of course, that's an easy one. They were thinking they were right.
We always expect evil to look different, obvious. We are always anticipating the pointed ears and the pitchfork, the black stovepipe hat and the Snidely Whiplash mustache. The truth, however, is that evil is rather banal. You might pass it five times a day and never recognize it for what it is.
The pale men and women who took to the streets of Little Rock, Ark., in 1957 would have been, in the overwhelming majority, Christian people. They paid their taxes. They helped the poor. They visited the sick. They held hands over hearts for the Pledge of Allegiance. They were decent folks, except they had this evil belief that people with dark skin were of a savage, yet simultaneously child-like, lower order and that if anyone sought to mix pale and dark, pale must resist by any means necessary.
If you had suggested to them that this was wrong, they would looked at you askance, maybe even laughed, and wondered what was wrong with you. Because they knew they were right, knew it in their bones, knew it in their Bibles, knew it with certitude, knew it beyond all question.
Five decades later, there is a starkness, a black and white purity, to the issues argued those tense days in Little Rock streets: inclusion versus exclusion. It is enough to make one nostalgic. After all, after affirmative action, after busing, after O.J., after Cosby, after Imus, there is little starkness, much less purity, to the conflict between pale and dark. All is complexity, all is gray.
Or maybe that's just the self-deluding conceit of a generation that is pleased to think of itself as enlightened beyond history, pleased to look back on past events and tsk tsk the behavior of the poor, benighted souls who lived through them.
Yet in Jena, La., six American children with dark skin were charged with attempted murder after jumping a pale child whose injuries amounted to a black eye and a concussion.
In Tulia, Tex., 38 mostly dark-skinned people were convicted of drug dealing on the perjured testimony of a pale cop known to describe dark people with a racial slur.
In Paris, Tex., a dark-skinned girl who shoved a teacher's aide was given seven years by a judge who had earlier given probation to a pale-skinned arsonist.
All this not in 1957, but now.
Yet, it has become common for some pale Americans to deny that these and other inequities have anything to do with skin tone. That's an absurdity we left in the '50s, they say. We are beyond that. There are no pale Americans and dark Americans. There are only Americans. They wish dark Americans would understand this and get over it already.
And it's the darnedest thing. If you suggest that they are wrong, they will look at you askance, maybe even laugh, and wonder what is wrong with you. Because they know they're right, know it in their bones, know it in their Bibles, know it with a certitude.
Know it beyond all question.
September 21, 2007
Interview with a Jena 6 mother
September 20, 2007
Civil Rights Movement evoked in Jena, La.
By now you probably know by heart the details of the Jena 6 case. If not, there are many, many good stories about the absurd miscarriage of justice in this isolated, now-infamous town. The best stories always comes from the people on the ground, though. Who better to capture the essence of a demonstration than a demonstrator?
Fortunately, FPL Board President Rev. Meg Riley and her remarkably articulate 11-year-old daughter Jie have sent us some notes from a march in Jena they took part in on Thursday. Jie sets the stage, and Rev. Riley's insights after the jump.
A dark parking lot is home to action, to a protest finally happening, Jena 6. I am in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It is 4 o’clock, the air is fresh and the sky reflects black on the trees. I’ve boarded a bus with people, all with the same mission.Jena is a dusty, barbecue smelling place. We pulled to a stop in front of two old ball parks. We had passed little businesses and woods. The bus pulled away leaving us on a sandy gravel road.
We wandered a bit and then went to bleachers. The sun blazed down on my face, my sunglasses were sweaty. Static metallic voices boomed out from left field. I’ve met and am meeting many new people. Good music. Many different hairstyles and dos. Different t-shirts and Red Cross handing out free chips, Gatorade, water, cookies, rice crispies, etc.
Rev. Meg Riley:
The march is going two miles to the Jena courthouse, in 90 degree full sun, and then back again. Our row includes Bob and Diana Doroh from Baton Rouge—Bob the courage behind the decision to charter a bus, our bus Captain—and also a family of African American residents of Jena. I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk to them. It is two sisters, their mother, and a son Demetrius who, like Jie is in fifth grade. Unlike Jie, Demetrius is not skipping school today—Jena has closed its schools. Demetrius tells me the school was on ‘lockdown’ the day before, and kids were unable to go down the halls to the bathrooms.
Closed along with the schools are Jena businesses, ranging from McDonalds’ and Popeye’s to local stores. They are eerily surrounded with yellow police tape and orange plastic fencing. We are incredulous; all the money these vendors will lose! But we are delighted to see the entrepreneurial spirit of African American vendors, who sell a wide variety of food and rally paraphernalia. We wonder what the residents of this 85% white town expect to happen today.
I ask Demetrius and his family the questions which have been on my mind as I have made this journey to Jena: Are they worried about white violence after all the ‘outsiders’ have gone home? This extended family (which extends into the entire row behind us, more folks of all ages from Jena) is delighted that we are there. They say some folks they know are worried about ensuing violence, but they’re just happy. I ask them if they see any white folks from Jena in the crowd, and they shake their heads sadly. “No, says the family matriarch, and I been LOOKIN’!”
A man named Timothy who is the ninth member of our row, a slim young man with a battered Bible in his hand, who says “Bless you” to each person he encounters, tells me, “Even if the whites aren’t here, they’re thinking about this. It’s a good thing to bring these kinds of wounds out in the open, so they don’t fester.” Timothy is from another town fifteen miles away. He says life there is very similar to Jena, with whites believing racism is over, all healed, and the people of color holding all the pain of it. Later Jim VanderWeele tells me he did meet one white woman from Jena whose father was a KKK member.
It is a delight to run into one more unexpected colleague, Rev. Forrest Gilmore of Princeton New Jersey, whose black “Free the Jena Six” t-shirt also says “Philly bus.” He tells me that that he is joined by several UUs from Princeton, and that the busride down took 27 hours!
Dozens more NAA buses are held up by sheriffs and never make it. News reports say “tens of thousands of people” were in Jena. In town, there are more speakers, allegedly including families of the young African American men, but the sound system makes it impossible to understand a word they say. Someone tells me it has been announced that the $90,000 bail has been raised to release Mychall Ball.
As the day winds up and we wait for our bus to pick us up, rumors begin to circulate. A young woman walking by says that the third circuit Court of Appeals has stated that Mychall Bell must be released within seventy-two hours. We all cheer wildly. This is the same court of appeals who had said a week earlier that it was illegal to try him as an adult and threw the case out. (Why that decision did not result in his being immediately freed has been the matter of bitter speculation all day.)
Soon someone else walks by and says that Louisiana Supreme Court has dropped all charges against all six young men, and they are now home. We all look like we want to believe it but the cheering is less enthusiastic. Three other people come by and say exuberantly that Mychall Ball is home. On the bus home, those with electronic equipment are desperately seeking corroboration of these great rumors, and when I get back to the Baton Rouge hotel room I do the same. All that an extensive search nets me is that the first statement is true: Within seventy two hours, Mychall Ball must be released.
I report this to Jie,saying happily, YES! At least we know for sure that they have to release Mychall within 72 hours! We can hope that our coming here helped that decision to get made! “Sure it did,” she replies with wisdom which makes me wonder if it can really be that she’s only turning eleven, not fifty, on Sunday, “No one down here wants this kind of fuss.”
September 19, 2007
Too many secrets or "too many mosques"?
Two news stories today captured the tension between an overzealous, even bigoted government and the American Muslim community. As reported in an AP article (which was included in Faith In Public Life's newsreel, to which you can easily subscribe for free):
Advocacy groups sued the FBI and the Department of Justice on Tuesday for failing to turn over records they requested on surveillance in the Muslim-American community.The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Muslim groups, alleges that the FBI has turned over only four pages of documents to community leaders, despite a Freedom of Information Act request filed more than a year ago. The documents were not related to surveillance.
The request sought records that described FBI guidelines and policies for surveillance and investigation of Muslim religious organizations, as well as specific information about FBI inquiries targeting 11 groups or people.
The lawsuit states that all the plaintiffs — who include some of the most prominent Muslim leaders in California — have reason to believe they have been investigated by the FBI since January 2001.
This afternoon, Politico.com ran a story and a video of Congressman Peter King (R-NY) expressing concern that there were "too many mosques" in America, and that the NYPD should be commended rather than investigated for its controversial and possibly illegal tactics during the 2004 Republican Convention.
So, Muslim leaders must sue the government to obtain basic information about the guidelines by which the government investigates them while a non-Muslim member of the United States Congress says there are too many mosques, and that Muslims must be investigated more aggressively. Glad that's cleared up.
March 09, 2007
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
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
February 26, 2007
The new abolition movement
An informal conversation at San Francisco's Grace Cathedral with David Batstone about the fight to free the 27 million persons who live in slavery today. Yes, human trafficking exists and it permeates American culture. Professor of ethics at USF and co-founder of Business 2.0 magazine, David shares his experiences traveling 90,000 miles over five continents in writing Not for Sale while documenting the return of the global slave trade and how we can stop it.
February 08, 2007
Get to know the Not For Sale Campaign
Go behind the façade of any major town or city in the world today and you are likely to find a thriving commerce in human beings. Nearly 200,000 people live enslaved at this moment in the United States, and an additional 17,500 new victims are trafficked across our borders every year.
Sold into slave labor and prostitution, they staff our favorite local restaurants and work the streets just fifteen blocks from our nation’s capital.
NOT FOR SALE: The Return of the Global Slave Trade—And How We Can Fight It by award-winning journalist and professor David Batstone shines a light on this 32 billion dollar industry. Batstone traveled to five continents, chronicling a shocking investigation into the world of human trafficking and the heroic abolitionists combating this global epidemic.
Go to the campaign You Tube site for more videos of David Batstone talking about the campaign to stop human trafficking.
This week a huge coordinated effort to free the 27 million people in slavery kicked off. Visual artists, businesses, students, people of faith, athletes, actors and many others have formed a new global abolition movement.
On Feb. 23, Bristol Bay Productions (Ray) releases a major motion picture on the life of William Wilberforce who combined his Christian faith with a dogged commitment to abolition. I saw the film and it actually mixes a compelling story and a serious call to faith-based social justice.
Learn more about Amazing Grace.
Amazing Grace Sunday is February 18.
Check out the emerging Concert to End Slavery.
Here's the growing Not For Sale Campaign My Space page.
Join Brian Boitano and the Free to Play campaign for athletes.
February 06, 2007
Sundance festival films for justice and the common good
Many film critics believe that we exist in the golden age of documentary filmmaking. Several recent films shown at the recent Sundance Film Festival fuel the fight for justice and human rights.
Here's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib by Rory Kennedy who is, yes, the daughter of RFK. I really like her film because it explores why ordinary people all too often commit extraordinary acts of violence.
In an interview with New York magazine, Rory says:
I had planned on making a film exploring the question of how ordinary people commit extraordinary acts of evil, and Abu Ghraib kept coming up. It was really with the intention of doing a psychological profile of the MPs —were these people psychopaths? Or was it the pressure of working under these conditions?
So, what did you find?
They’re perfectly normal in many ways. Javal Davis—there’s a sweetness to his eyes, an honesty to him. They did horrible things, but it was pretty obvious that these guys were told to do 95 percent of what they did.
This film will play on HBO on February 22.
Another excellent documentary to appear this year at Sundance is The Bible Tells Me So.
This film is "an exploration of the religious right's use of the Bible to justify shutting homosexuals out of the faiths in which they've grown up.One of the central figures in For the Bible Tells Me So is Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first-ever openly gay man to be elected a Bishop of the Episcopalian Church. Robinson's consecration in 2003 (at which he had to wear a bullet-proof vest due to death threats) was a historical occasion that caused a rift in the Episcopal church." The doc also includes conversations with Desmond Tutu, Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer, the Rev. Susan Sparks, Crissy Gephardt daughter of former Presidential hopeful Dick Gephardt, and "the Poteats, an African-American family in which both parents are preachers still struggling to accept that their daughter, Tonia, is a lesbian."
January 16, 2007
Two views on American Blacks and Jews
This week as people celebrated the lives and mourned the deaths of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Heschel, Mik Moore writes:
"In the 2000s, we have seen a renaissance of local Jewish groups committed to social and economic justice issues, often working closely with local black and Latino groups. Many of these organizations were formed by local Jewish activists saddened by deteriorating relationships between Jews and communities of color, and angered by the Jewish role in this deterioration. Groups like the Progressive Jewish Alliance in California have been particular successful at rebuilding burnt bridges and reestablishing trust between communities."
Unfortunately some national politicians continue to lash out and stereotype both groups. Today, a Virginia state blog reports,
"Bloggers who oppose the Slavery Apology resolution have acquired a champion of sorts. His name? Delegate Frank Hargrove (R-55th, Hanover).When asked what he thought of the resolution by The Daily Progress' Bob Gibson, Hargrove reportedly replied: "I personally think that our black citizens should get over it."
Gibson reports on Hargrove's opposition today in The Daily Progress. Hargrove says some pretty interesting things. The quote of the day?
How far do these calls for apologies go, wondered Hargrove, a member of the House Rules Committee that could take up McEachin’s resolution as early as Wednesday.
“Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ?”
Clearly we've still got a long way to go.
During 2006 and already this year provides some terrible examples of the racism that rides below the surface in many parts of America. From George Allen, Mel Gibson, Michael Richards to Rep. Virgil Goode and Rep. Hargrove - now's the time to realize that multifaith and multi-ethnic American dream for which Abraham Heschel and Martin Luther King marched together.
November 02, 2006
An Afternoon Sermon
One idea we've had at FPL is to feature some particularly inspiring sermonizing on the site from time to time. In light of this morning's forum with Rev. Butler and Bishop Robinson, the following words seem especially fitting.
Father Matthew Ruhl, S.J., is the pastor of St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Kansas City, MO. This homily is a discussion of Matthew 28: 18-20, a reading known as the Great Commission in which Jesus directs his disciples to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”
This reading from the Gospel of Matthew is frequently referred to as the Great Commission. It’s great because Jesus asks us to do it, and great because it is much more radical than it seems at first glance. What makes it radical is that Jesus sends us out to all the nations. You see, after the Babylonian Exile when the Jews came back to Judah, they wanted to have the nation filled up again and all the prophets were saying there will come a time when Zion will be rebuilt, the hill within Jerusalem on which sat the Temple which had been destroyed. And so all these Jews, they were the good Jews, they were what they called the faithful remnant. They were so good they didn’t want anything to do with other Jews who hadn’t gone through this Exile. They were the elite of the elite. And it was they who wanted to rebuild the Temple with nobody’s help. They who wanted to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. They who wanted to build the city of Jerusalem with nobody’s help. It would be the purified Judaism that did it and it would be this purified Judaism that would give birth to this new Davidic king and we were going to be so great that all the nations would come to us. They would come to our hilltop and they would see how great our God was. Whoops! It never happened.
Six hundred years later, here’s Jesus. There’s no kingdom. There’s no king. The Temple that was rebuilt was such a shadow of the former Temple that half of the population wept in embarrassment when they saw it. It just didn’t happen. And here comes Jesus and the early church and they said it’s not going to happen. You and I have to go out to the nations. You see, it is completely radical difference. It’s a completely radical way of understanding. We’re not going to sit here and wait for God to come and then for people to come to us. We’ve got to go out baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now, I think it’s quite honest and a good thing to say that Jesus was no idiot. He was sending the disciples out to countries and to the nations that they had been fighting with for about two thousand years—the Moabites, the Edomites, the Ammonites and all the other “ites,” not to mention the hated Samaritans. These people were at war with the Jews forever. And yet, Jesus sent his apostles out to all the world, even to the people who put him to death. Now, do you think that Jesus was so stupid that he didn’t know that there were going to be differences introduced into the church? And it was almost immediately. Almost as soon as Christ shows up, rises and goes away, people started saying to be a true Christian, you have to be circumcised. And Paul says whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! We have been not saved by the law. We are saved by the blood of Christ. And so circumcision was absolutely dropped as a requisite for being part of the church.
All right. When Jesus sends them out to the nations, he’s very aware that he’s sending them out into a group of people that are really different and, in fact, really sinful. And so this idea, St. Francis, that there could ever be a purified church or a faithful remnant is complete rubbish. The Catholic Church is for the hairy and the unwashed. It’s for sinners, and all sinners. There’s this radical inclusion. We’re all in this together. Okay. “Fr. Matt, where’s that said in the Bible?” Okay. Now, listen carefully. If there’s one sentence about one thing, then scripture scholars say, well, an editor probably slipped that in because he had a little axe to grind. Scholars, when they want to discover what Jesus really meant, they look for a thing called multiple attestation. That is to say it’s written several times, or the stories several times. Okay. Let me tell you what is multiply attested to in three parables—not one, not two, but three parables, all of which have the same message of radical inclusion.
In the first parable, Jesus says the world is like a great sea, and there are all these fishes. There are fishes that feed on the bottom. There are fishes that feed on the top. There are some fishes that aren’t fishes at all, but are mammals. There are some fishes that come out of the water for a little while and then go back in. There are all these fishes. And they all live together happily, except they eat one another every now and again. But they’re all given permission to live. And at the end of time, the Kingdom of Heaven will be like a great dragnet dragging all this sea life to shore.
And guess who gets to separate the good fishes from the bad fishes? No pope, no bishop, no priest, no pastor, no lay man, no lay woman, no lay movement. Who gets to separate the good fish from the bad fish? God, and God alone, gets to separate the fish.
And then there’s another story. There’s the sheep and the goats. God said, Jesus says, you know, if you didn’t read the one on the dragnet, let me give you another one. There’s this huge pasture and there’s a bunch of sheep and a bunch of goats, and those sheep and the goats, they get to enjoy the sunshine and the water and they get to eat grass all day long. And you and I, we’re those sheep and goats, and they get to live happily. At the end of time, all the sheep and the goats will be brought together and they’ll be judged. And who gets to do the judging? No pope, no bishop, no pastor, no priest, no lay man, no lay woman, and no lay movement. Who gets to judge between the sheep and the goats? God, and God alone.
As if two parables weren’t enough, Jesus says I’m going to drive this point home to these guys. They’ve got to understand it. And so he gives us another parable. He said the whole world is like a wheat field. And the householder comes to the master and he says, Master, somebody sowed these seeds of weeds in with the wheat (NAB, St. Joseph edition, Matthew 13: 24-30). Should be go ahead and dig up the weeds? And the master says, no, you let them grow together. And that was Jesus’ way of saying our judgment, mine and your judgment, is so shabby we can’t tell a poisonous weed from a foodstuff. No. At the end of time, we’ll do a harvest. And when the harvest happens, I will separate the wheat from the weeds. And no pope, and no bishop, and priest, and no pastor, and lay man, and no lay woman, and no lay movement will have anything to say about it. The separation of the wheat from the weeds belongs to God, and God alone.
Let me read something to you. In case you’re thinking I’m putting my own spin on this, this is a Catholic Bible. It’s got a little love note from Paul VI at the beginning. And this is a footnote on the parable of the wheat and the weeds. “The refusal of the householder to allow his slaves to separate the wheat from the weeds while they were still growing is a warning to the disciples not to attempt to anticipate the final judgment of God by a definitive exclusion of sinners from the kingdom. In its present stage, it is composed of the good and the bad. The judgment of God alone will eliminate the sinful.”
In short, St. Francis, the world is a sea, it’s a pasture, it’s a field, and the good and the bad and the ugly and the indifferent and the ambiguous, we all get to live together in the ocean, on the field, on the pasture. And if you and I start excluding people, pretty soon the Church is going to be the First Church of You and Me, and I’m a little suspicious of you. But the Church in this country is famous for excluding. Every time I see a black Catholic I praise God, because that is the only group of immigrants that the Catholic Church never conscientiously went out to try to evangelize. There was a great exclusion. And I have a friend in St. Louis. She’s only my age and they didn’t want her to go to the Catholic school because she was epileptic. And epilepsy, of course, was a sign of possession. And we had a most sorrowful instance across the state line -- St. Agnes, when the young man, Nadeau, got kicked out of celebrating in that church for no reason other than he was gay. He was by all accounts a Christian, full of the spirit, but because he was gay, he was denied his opportunity to express his love for the Church in a fashion that the Holy Spirit had called him to.
St. Francis, this kind of exclusion has no place in the Catholic Church. This kind of bigotry has no place in the life of Christ. This kind of hate has no place in the Christian ethic. If you want to go out and baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and promote this kind of exclusion, please stay home. The world is filled with enough hate already. But if you want to go out to the nations baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then please preach the Gospel and preach the whole gospel. Please preach a radical inclusion as Jesus Christ did. Go out, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but preach about Christ, who is about love. Who loves us all -- the good, the bad, the black, the white, the straight, the gay, the short, the tall, the fat, the skinny, the sinner, the saint -- loves them all equally.
If you can’t preach that, stay home. If you can, go on out, because the world needs you.
The Common Good, Gay Rights, and Faith
With last week's New Jersey State Supreme Court ruling, the Religious Right has once again tried to trump up voter fears with the specter of gay marriage destroying the traditional American family. This strategy has worked in the past, although the latest poll numbers from CBS show that Democrats enjoy an ADVANTAGE among evangelicals right now.
This morning at the Center for American Progress, FPL Executive Director Jennifer Butler moderated a discussion with Bishop Gene Robinson. Most remember Bishop Robinson's election as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and the strife that has ensued within the Anglican communion since then. Check out CAP's website for video of this very interesting event. The Bishop's remarks were notable for both their wisdom and charity (even to those with whom he disagrees), two virtues that are rare in our public discourse.
June 30, 2006
A Patriotic Action for the 4th Weekend
Feeling patriotic this weekend? Take some action to ensure that all of your fellow citizens have equal access to the vote. The Voting Rights Act is among the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation in our nations' history. It enjoys broad bi-partisan support, but is being held up in the House by a determined group of GOP legislators. Check out this page to see how faith leaders are speaking up to break this Congressional logjam before the VRA can expire. For more info, check out www.renewthevra.org. Happy 4th!
June 22, 2006
Rep. Westmoreland Delays Voting Rights Act and Forgets God’s Talking Points
According to the New York Times,
“House Republican leaders abruptly canceled a planned vote to renew the Voting Rights Act on Wednesday after a rebellion by lawmakers who said the civil rights measure unfairly singled out Southern states and unnecessarily required ballots to be printed in foreign languages.?
And as the Los Angeles Times points out,
“The effort to amend the requirement that nine states clear election laws with the Justice Department was led by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.). The requirement, he argued, unfairly singled out Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.?
Of course, these states do have a long history of discriminating against minority voters, and recent studies of Ohio and Florida show that the statist tendency continues to manifest itself by disenfranchising American voters.
So, who is Lynn Westmoreland?
Oh yeah, he's the guy who appeared on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report on Monday to chat about his other agenda: posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings to help folks remember the Rules.
Watch the clip to see what happens when Stephen Colbert asks Rep. Westmoreland if he can remember those rules himself.
June 16, 2006
First Ever Progressive Faith Blog Con!
It's an exciting time to be a blogger interested in faith and progressive politics. There are more of us every day (we'll be featuring some of the best here at FPL), and national leaders in our community are becoming more and more aware of how important blogs can be in spreading the good news about their work. With all that energy in the cyber-air, it's almost providential that we get to announce that the first ever Progressive Faith Blog Con is on its way.
The Blog Con will take place from July 14-16 in Montclair, NJ (just outside of New York). It's the brain-child of some of the best minds in our corner of the blogosphere, and will feature Velveteen Rabbi, Mainstream Baptist, Chuck Currie, Pastor Dan of Street Prophets, XPatriated Texan, Talk to Action, Philocrites, CrossLeft, JSpot, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, and many, many more. Check out the site for more details on attending. You won't want to miss it! The buzz about the event is already building here, here, here, here, and, well, you get the point.
We at FPL are thrilled to be working on this, and will be sure to keep you all up to date as the calendar ticks down to July 14. Register now (space is limited!), spread the good word on your blogs, and make sure you're there for this landmark event.
Welcome to Blogging Faith
Welcome to Faith in Public Life’s corner of the blogosphere! We’re glad to join the hundreds of bloggers out there in this growing and exciting community. Like any responsible new neighbor, we’ll try to make a good first impression, keep the yard looking tidy, and not make TOO much noise.
As you’ve hopefully noticed from the rest of this website, Faith in Public Life isn’t a normal organization. We exist as a resource center for faith communities working for justice and the common good. When we do our jobs right, we provide faith leaders and community members with the tools they need to more effectively carry out their work. When our partners win, we win, so to speak.
In keeping with this mission, this blog won’t be entirely normal either. We’ll feature our share of staff-written content on current events at the intersection of religion and politics, but we’ll spend most of our time featuring the best work of others, in an attempt to build up the strongest voices for justice and the common good in our community.
What does it mean to use a blog to provide resources to the community? We’ll frequently feature cross posts from bloggers whose voices add to the national debate on faith in politics. We’ll have guest blogs from our board members and partners who don’t maintain regular blogs but who are excited by the chance to engage in conversations with this community. We’ll put together a weekly highlight reel of the most interesting posts from far and wide in the faith blogosphere. And we’ll use the blog to post audio and video clips of our partners making an impact in mainstream media outlets.
We hope that this blog can play a role in building up this exciting community. Leave comments, tell us all what you think, and spread the word about Faith in Public Life as a resource center for bloggers who care about faith, justice, and the common good.
