Birtherism Must be Denounced

By  Dawud Walid, CAIR-MI Executive Director

It is time for the Romney campaign and GOP leaders to denounce campaign season birtherism, which is nothing but veiled racism.

For the past four years, President Obama has been subjected to the most vitriolic and conspiratorial attacks endured by an American presidential candidate and president in my lifetime.  Though Tea Party rallies depicting him and his wife as monkeys have dissipated, the outlandish rhetoric that our president may not have been born as an American, and thus does not have the right to be president, is rearing its ugly head again. 

From Donald Trump’s most recent false statement that President Obama was born in Kenya to former Michigan congressman Pete Hoekstra’s remarks that we need a Birther Czar to verify citizenship of presidential candidates, the Romney campaign and its surrogates have not vocally denounced this extremely divisive discourse. 

Before even addressing the subtle racism within birtherism, we should all be clear that even if President Obama, who has produced a birth certificate from Hawaii, was born in Kenya, he still qualifies to be president due to having birthright citizenship through his American mother.  Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who ran for president in 2008, actually was not born within the 50 states, but in the Panama Canal Zone, though no politicians questioned him being a “natural-born citizen.” 

Birtherism is nothing but a racist ploy to paint President Obama as the other, not truly American enough, as well as the continued Islamophobic suggestions that he is a secret Muslim.  Given that one out of six Americans still believe that our president is a secret Muslim, there are cheap political points to be scored by questioning the president’s citizenship and even his religion. 

Let us be real. The entire birther movement would not have been born if President Obama’s parents were both White Christians.  His being painted as potentially born in Kenya and being secretly Muslim can be proclaimed, while it is not politically correct to say that many Americans still are not comfortable with having an African-American as president.

Though the Romney campaign and many GOP leaders have not proclaimed birtherism, there has been a level of silence, which is in fact complicity, regarding this issue.  As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” 

It is time for our politicians not to betray the spirit of what our nation is suppose to represent, which means that they must denounce the xenophobia, Islamophobia and racism within birtherism.

Photo: from the Flickr stream of Jon Dresner

Dawud Walid is the Exec. Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI), and a board member of the Metropolitan Detroit Interfaith Workers’ Rights Committee. A decorated US Navy veteran, Dawud has presented about Islam/interfaith dialogue at over twenty institutions of higher learning, on panels with int'l leaders and academics, and in media outlets including Al-Jazeera, CNN, BBC Radio, FOX, NPR, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal.

Liberation Theology in the Public Square

By Daniel P. Horan, OFM 

Originally posted 5/30/12 at Dating God

Due to the recent travel and my schedule these last few weeks, I’ve been slow to keep up with news stories and public discussions about matters that would otherwise be very important. Such is the case with a New York Times piece that ran a few days ago, “A Campaign Pitch Rekindles the Question: Just What Is Liberation Theology?” written by Mark Oppenheimer. The last sentence of the opening paragraph summarizes the import of what follows: “With the complicity of clueless pundits and incurious journalists, they are reducing an important theological movement of the past 40 years to an abusive sound bite.”

 

Oppenheimer’s contention is that conservative politicians and media pundits are “ridiculing liberation theology,” which is certainly the case in many instances. But my sense of the matter is that few who are involved in the public discourse of politics and culture are well-versed in this manifold subfield of theological reflection. And,as Oppenheimer righty notes, “liberation theology” — in its diverse iterations — is a very important theological movement.

What amazes me is that the general ignorance, on the “right” and “left,” of the population is what permits the abuse of an important term so as to construct a metonym for something fearful. Further complicating the pernicious misuse and abuse of the term “liberation theology” is the blatantly racial overtones associated with its now-fearful invocation. This is the impetus for Oppenheimer’s current reflection: anti-Obama movements are seeking to draw attention to the President’s former paster, Rev. Wright, in an effort to scare voters into voting for another candidate. The indictment for Rev. Wright is that he subscribes to “liberation theology.”

Oppenheimer gets right to the point:

Contrary to the simplifications of the past four years, liberation theology, which has become hugely influential, teaches not hate, nor anti-Americanism, but a renewed focus on the poor and the suffering, as embodied by Jesus.

He goes on to quote Dr. James Cone and Dr. Shannon Craigo-Snell on the meaning and aim of liberation theology, which, as noted above, simply reverts the focus of theological reflection from doctrinal starting points to the lived experience of the poor and marginalized. Craigo-Snell even said, “Liberation theology, at its most simple, is the Sunday school Jesus who healed the sick or took care of the poor people…It’s what your Sunday school teacher taught you if you grew up in a church. It isn’t something people should be afraid of, unless they’re invested in poor people not getting fed or sick people not getting healed.”

The truth is there are indeed many people who are “invested in poor people not getting fed” and the “sick not getting healed.” Which makes me think that perhaps the pundits and the politicians are not as ignorant as I first thought.

Could it be possible that those who wish to smear terms like “liberation theology” and “social justice” know exactly what they are doing? Is it possible that they are quite aware of the implications that the Gospel demand of followers of Christ and that the questions that arise from such honest and sincere reflection challenge their power, wealth and hegemony? Perhaps.

Our challenge, though, as women and men of faith, is to recognize that whatever the theologians call their particular field of work, their efforts are to exercise what St. Anselm referred to as “faith seeking understanding.” The work of liberation theologians, of moral theologians, scripture scholars, and the like, is at the service of the tradition and of the people of God. Politicians and pundits need to think more carefully about dabbling into territory for which they are definitely not qualified. And we need to be more critical of and discerning about what people in power and authority say.

Inspired by the life and writings of Francis and Clare of Assisi, Daniel P. Horan, OFM, reflects on the possibility of understanding relationship of prayer as Dating God in the everyday and ordinary experiences of the twenty-first-century world. You can check out Dan’s Amazon.com Author Page here.

Tea for '12

By Jake Blumgart

Originally posted 5/29/12 at Full Stop

Among left-leaning urbanites, the Tea Party is usually spoken of with a mystified shake of the head — it really seems as though approximately half the country has lost its damn mind. A moderately reformist, business-friendly Democratic president whose compromises and tactics are so often met with derision from the left is considered a sinister Kenyan anti-colonial socialist by many Republicans. The healthcare reform law he champions is a bizarre jury-rigged contraption that builds on the current system but does not replace or dramatically alter it. And yet this law, which conservatives advocated six years ago, is now denounced thunderously as a murderous assault on the free-enterprise system. The scent of madness is in the air. But why is this happening? 

Two recently released books provide fascinating insight into the general current of the conservative mindset and its present American iteration. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism by Harvard professors Theda Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson is a socio-political examination of everyone’s favorite hard-right social movement. Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin is a collection of essays loosely framed around the opening chapter that outlines a unifying theory of conservatism as “the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.”

Robin’s main contention is that conservatism, in all its varied forms, shares a unifying mission, a driving passion that animates everything from the French Counter-Revolution to the antebellum South, fascism, Nixon and his silent majority, and the Tea Party. Robin dismisses the hoary dichotomy whereby the left stands for equality and the right stands for freedom. The conservative’s notion of freedom is limited to those who already enjoy it: the privileged. “Historically, the conservative has favored liberty for the higher orders and constraint for the lower orders,” he writes in The Reactionary Mind’s opening essay. “What the conservative sees and dislikes in equality, in other words, is not a threat to freedom but its extension.”

There are two other important aspects of Robin’s thesis. First, conservatism is usually a reaction against social movements and political actors on the left, both reformist and radical. The religious right did not rise to postwar political prominence until the gay liberation and feminist movements challenged heterosexual male power and privilege in the 1970s; the fascist parties were a direct counterpoint to Bolshevism. Second, conservatives are usually willing to cede the public sphere to democracy, but the private sphere is another matter. The fiercest battles are waged in the home and workplace — as the recent wave of anti-union and anti-reproductive freedom Tea Party legislation on the state level demonstrate. The conservative will not surrender the private sphere to democracy, equality, or freedom.

This thesis won Robin a degree of notoriety rarely enjoyed by left-wing academics. The audacious contention that the sophisticated intellectual rightism of figures from Edmund Burke to William F. Buckley shares much of anything with proudly non-analytic demagogues like Sarah Palin (let alone monsters like Hitler) disturbs and angers many. “I feel sure that if trapped on a desert island with the man, I should soon commit suicide,” notes John Derbyshire, who was recently fired from The National Review for writing what Gawker‘s Louis Peitzman referred to as the “most racist article possible” in the wake of Trayvon Martin’s murder.

Denigrated from the left, right (of course), and center, The Reactionary Mind has been considered an oversimplification, and Robin a bit of an intellectual bomb-thrower. It’s clearly a thesis that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.

Despite the alleged lack of finer-grained analysis, Robin’s chief contention makes a good deal of sense, particularly in the light of recent events. Consider the Tea Partiers scrutinized in The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism — as friendly a bunch of rock-ribbed conservatives as you’re ever likely to meet. Skocpol and Williamson’s portrait of the movement flies in the face of those who would dismiss the Tea Party as ignorant rednecks and tri-corner-hatted weirdos, or those who would hold it up as a populist alternative to the Republican Party. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism reveals a conservative movement that fits neatly with Robin’s analysis: a reaction to the left, obsessed with maintaining privilege, and intent upon restricting democratic expression.

Skocpol and Williamson find Tea Partiers to be “overwhelmingly older white citizens, relatively well educated and economically comfortable compared to Americans in general. Almost all are Republicans or conservatives to the right of the GOP.” Many Tea Partiers volunteered for the Goldwater campaign in 1964 and swelled the ranks of the John Birch society. The gray-haired ranks at Tea Party events synch neatly with the fact that “average age of Fox viewer is over 65, while conservative talk radio listeners average 67.”

These reactionary news sources reinforce their belief in Obama’s innate evil. Almost all of the people interviewed in the book felt an intense, unwavering antagonism toward the president. One woman notes that her husband and she were never political until Obama “got in,” a note struck by several other interviewees (although many Tea Partiers, at least two-fifths, had been previously involved in politics). Defeating Obama, the Democrats, and their moderately reformist agenda — recast as a socialistic takeover — is the driving force behind the movement. “We do Tea Party stuff to take the country back to where we think it should be,” one interviewee proclaims. For the Tea Party, “reform is revolution, improvement is insurrection,” to use Robin’s neat description of many reactionary movements.

Interestingly, grassroots Tea Partiers express very strong levels of support for popular safety net programs, like Medicare and Social Security. In one poll cited in the book, 62 percent of Tea Partiers  believe  the two programs (which make up about one-third of the federal government's budget) are “worth the cost . . . for taxpayers.” Other polls have found similar levels of support. Two-thirds support extending the payroll tax, which does not apply to annual wages above $110,100, to ensure Social Security’s stability. Contrary to the popular “Get Government Out of My Medicare” anecdote, Tea Partiers are well aware that their favored social programs are funded by tax dollars and run by the federal government (veteran benefits are popular too). They feel that the social welfare programs that they benefit from have been “earned,” in sharp contrast to other public support programs that they believe are shot through with fraud and abuse, “placing a burden on hard-working taxpayers to make payments to freeloaders who have not earned public support.”

The groups most often named as “freeloaders” are immigrants, the poor, and the young. Skocpol and Williamson find “an almost total lack of empathy for fellow Americans beyond the group” among Tea Partiers. Despite the interviewees’ generally sweet demeanors and friendly attitudes towards Skocpol and Williamson, they can be “downright cruel” when discussing those they consider parasitic. The general privilege of the Tea Partiers is highlighted by the fact that they rarely express a fear that immigrants will take jobs (because most of the activists are retired or happily employed), instead emphasizing the idea that immigrants are illegitimately dipping into the public purse. In fact, most immigrants are excluded from the social safety net, even though their payroll taxes contribute to Social Security and Medicare.

At first blush, these attitudes seem hypocritical, but Robin argues that it is cases just like these that allow for a mass-based conservatism. Unlike the old feudal orders, whereby the elites jealously horded their privilege, conservatism must operate within a democratic framework. The elites secure the support of their followers “by making privilege democratic and democracy aristocratic.” Right-wing parties must build a mass base in order to get elected and rule, therefore they must provide genuine power and benefits for their supporters, who are framed as “deserving” or “earning” government support, unlike whichever flavor of “other” is (un)popular at the time.

Robin has been accused of promoting a variation of the old Marxist “false consciousness” theory: that grassroots right-wingers, like the Tea Partiers, are simply tricked into giving the elites their support, bedazzled by the distraction of “cultural” issues (Thomas Frank’s problematic What’s The Matter With Kansas? is a famous recent example of this line of thought). Occasionally he seems to fall prey to this simplistic analysis, as in this flippant line from one of The Reactionary Mind’s later essays: “characteristic of all great counterrevolutionary theories, in which the people become actors without roles, an audience that believes itself on stage.”

But in the book’s opening essay, Robin utilizes a more nuanced analysis. The conservative elites provide something tangible to their allies and offer them real power in a hierarchical order in the home, workplace, and (at least symbolically) over ardently stigmatized groups. In the case of the Tea Party, they also offer material benefits. Even Paul Ryan’s viciously austere budget proposals preserve Medicare for those who currently receive it, or will in the near future. They also provide a defense against unionism at work and reproductive freedom at home. Immigrants and young people, clamoring for a seat at the table, are a threat to that control, to the privilege they have eked out. They are afraid of losing “their” America, the nation as it used to be.

“That is the task of right-wing populism: to appeal to the mass without disrupting the power of elites or, more precisely, to harness the energy of the mass in order to reinforce or restore the power of elites,” Robin writes. And sure enough Skocpol and Williamson find that reports of the Tea Party’s supposed antipathy towards big business and Wall Street are greatly exaggerated. Instead, “they never blamed business or the superrich for America’s troubles.” No, Tea Partiers are frightened by the Democratic Party, which they conceive of as a rabble of welfare recipients, immigrants, and public union members, groups they believe are going to steal away their hard-earned gains.

This powerful animus and the grassroots fervor it inspired after the sweeping Democratic victory of 2008 is used to further the influence of elite conservative organizations, mostly based in D.C. and staffed by lobbyists and former politicians. Newer “astroturf” D.C. organizations include the Tea Party Express, an organization that supports massive and immediate cuts, but equivocates when asked about specifics.

Freedom Works, along with Ryan and his acolytes, plan to dismantle Social Security and Medicare as we know them, shifting many costs to the elderly, while completely shredding the rest of the social safety net. This is one instance where the “false consciousness” accusation rings true. “There is no evidence that ordinary American citizens who sympathize with the Tea Party were clamoring for the elimination of Medicare,” write Skocpol and Williamson. But the Tea Party only has eyes for Obama: “If an organization seems to be against Obama and liberals, Tea Partiers are trusting to the point of gullibility.”

Bolstered by conservative media, political, and economic elites, Tea Partiers believe that their America is fundamentally threatened. For them, the mild-mannered reforms offered by the Obama administration are the thin-edge of the wedge, the beginning of a path that could lead to revolution or even worse, socialism. They cannot be compromised with or brought into a bipartisan huddle. To preserve their privilege, the envisioned threat must be throttled, and the 2012 general election is their golden opportunity.

Photo: from the Flickr stream of Fibonacci Blue

Jake Blumgart is a freelance reporter-researcher living in Philadelphia. His work has been featured by Jacobin, AlterNet, American Prospect, Philadelphia City Paper, and The Stranger. Follow him on Twitter.

A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action Please

By Amanda Quraishi

I don’t have the habit of quoting Elvis Presley (especially when writing about issues of faith) but I find this song playing in my mind after reading about interfaith activism.  Unfortunately it seems that interfaith activism is often defined as a select group of people sitting around a table having lofty and esoteric conversations about tolerance and understanding. 

Don’t get me wrong, there are some really excellent people engaged in this kind of ongoing dialogue.  At the end of the day, though, it is important to ask what is really being accomplished with all this “activism.”  Blog posts are written, news coverage is had, and those who were involved go home feeling optimistic about the future and good about themselves.

But what about the gas station owners, the corporate accountants, and the software engineers who aren’t necessarily part of the world of interfaith dialogue?  What about people who still feel uncomfortable approaching the parents of their child’s classmates, not knowing if a simple invitation to a party will offend them?  What about all those folks who don’t have special access to the elite world of highly esteemed academics, clergy, and non-profit organizers?

It’s a grave mistake to leave interfaith dialogue to those who hold such elevated positions.  Real, meaningful change in any society is not the result of vicarious experiences.  Changes in public opinion are the direct result of everyday people coming into contact with people and ideas they may not otherwise have the opportunity to know. We can evolve only by ensuring the greatest number of people in our society have the opportunity to experience new things for themselves.

Since 9/11 I have been drafted as a participant into local interfaith activism.  Over these past eleven years I’ve engaged in all kinds of events that are meant to build bridges among those of different faiths.  In my experience, the most effective events are those that have almost nothing to do with talking about religion.  They are about putting people into situations where they must work with people from other religions.

There are some organizations and programs around the U.S. where this kind of work is happening.  Eboo Patel’s Interfaith Youth Core is a perfect example of the kind of service-based activism that creates real change—externally and internally—among people of different faith traditions.  But it’s not enough.  We need more organizations (formal and informal) for people from all age groups, socio-economic statuses, and education levels to work together side-by-side.

Simply using existing service-based organizations to facilitate this kind of activism also works beautifully.  For example, my family and I are regular participants in an annual Muslim-Jewish interfaith project with Hands on Housing, a program of iACT.  Each year a group of volunteers from both communities joins forces to renovate a home for an elderly person with low-income status.  These workdays are full of interfaith activism, and yet rarely is religion formally discussed.  Rather, Jews and Muslims are working side by side in service with one another, observing one another growing sweaty, dirty and tired in an active demonstration of what our respective faiths teach us about charity. 

As an employee of Mobile Loaves & Fishes, a Christian-based non-profit, I have also been able to coordinate efforts with the Muslim community so that we can regularly participate in this incredible mission to address the needs of our local homeless population.   We take catering trucks stocked with food out to the local homeless to distribute food, toiletries and love to the people who need it most.

In both of these cases, the reward of the activism is two-fold.  First, our communities see the direct result of their good work, often expressed by the very people they are serving.  Whether it’s an 80-year-old woman who might otherwise break a hip by falling down her dilapidated stairs, or a homeless man who is grateful for a sandwich and a pair of socks—the direct contact with the people we serve is a reward in and of itself.  Every single time we repair a house with Hands on Housing or deliver food to the homeless with Mobile Loaves & Fishes, our volunteers come away with a kind of soul-satisfaction that can only be the result of fulfilling our purpose in serving others and working with compassion. 

The other benefit, of course, is that we come away with relationships.  Real, solid relationships with other volunteers that are based on shared values and experiences that are deeply spiritual.  Friendships between faith traditions form like this—not by discussing doctrinal differences or presenting PowerPoint slides on how we can all communicate better—but by working hard, getting down to the nitty-gritty and getting messy together. 

Our bonds become stronger each time we work together, so that when tragedy strikes or bad news hits, we don’t have to live in fear of our neighbors from different faith traditions.  In fact, we can find reassurance, solace and camaraderie with them in the face of those trials.

Please consider this a call to action…and I do mean action.

This is a call for us to create more opportunities for our faith communities to work together in service-based projects; and for those highly esteemed religious and academic leaders to facilitate this kind of wide scale interaction rather than just keeping the dialogue to themselves.

What we need in our interfaith activism is a little less conversation… a little more action.  Please.

Amanda Quraishi is a Muslim-American writer, blogger, interfaith activist and tech professional living in Austin, Texas. In 2003 she founded Central Texas Muslimaat to address the unique needs of central Texas Muslim women. Amanda represented Austin’s Muslim community as the youngest board member in iACT/AAIM’s history. She currently works for Mobile Loaves & Fishes, serves on the Board of Directors for Texas Impact, and as a fellow at the American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute.

When Interfaith Goes Sideways

By Imraan Siddiqi

Interfaith events have always represented a paradox to me - yet, I find myself attending more and more of them.  On one hand - these events do give an opportunity to bridge religious gaps.  Conversely, the tenor of the events sometimes tend to be too sugary sweet - and representatives from all faiths have been guilty of toning out the other side while smiling, only to tune in when their religious group weighs in.  Even though you enter the events with the best of intentions, only to walk away asking yourself - "Have I really accomplished anything today"?

Last Tuesday, I was one of two Muslim representatives at an event hosted by the Arizona Interfaith Movement - entitled "Texts of Terror".  The purpose of the event was to highlight verses within the 3 major monotheistic scriptures (Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and Quran) that contain violent imagery and have possibly been used to justify violent acts.  The title was a red flag to me - when I received the invitation to attend, I knew this was going to be a lightning rod event.

A few days before the event took place - we received word that the already controversial subject matter had just added a new wrinkle - an infamous local pseudo scholar named Carl Goldberg would be attending the event with the hopes of stirring up the crowd and turning the dialog into the debate.  This just added to my hesitance, but I knew I would have to pull through.

Imam Anas Hlayhel and I both sit on the board of CAIR-AZ, and we have attended multiple events held by the Arizona Interfaith Movement as representatives for the Muslim community. Usually, the attendance is relatively sparse - but on this day, we were told we would be walking into a capacity crowd at the Arizona Jewish Heritage Center.  As we walk toward the entrance, a familiar face greets us - the director of the Heritage Center.  "Hey guys, I just want to let you know that we have a weird crowd today, so I apologize in advance for anyone who may say offensive things to you."  As the two Muslims walk into the room - I felt like the scene in Gladiator when Russell Crowe and Djimon Honsou were first thrown into the arena, waiting for the carnage to begin.  At first glance, it was hard to tell who was friendly and who was there in the hopes of seeing the Emperor give the "thumbs down" signal to us.  I have never seen the Goldberg figure before, I have just read his hateful, manipulative and inaccurate discourses on my religion - Which one was he?  I scanned the room looking for someone who looked like they were coming with an agenda - but it was hard to tell who was who.

Looks like we would have to wait until the lions were released...and then the Tea Party Patriots walk in.  How did I know that these people were with the AZ Tea Party Patriots movement?  Well one of them was wearing a pin that said "AZ Tea Party Patriots," so that sorta gave it away.  You see Dr. Goldberg along with other virulently Islamophobic speakers such as Pamela Geller are extremely popular among Tea Party groups - especially here in Arizona.  These groups like to get worked up and amplify violence conducted by Muslims - assigning guilt by association to the religion and all its adherents due to the acts of a few.  Here are just a few links to the events they put on:

http://www.sparksrepublicanwomen.com/srweventcalander.html

https://www.facebook.com/events/184604054923770/

http://sonoranalliance.com/tag/carl-goldberg/

As the event commenced, it became clear that the organizers wanted nothing to do with the Tea-Partiers and their self-described "expert on Islam." The organizer (Dr. Paul Eppinger) set the ground rules from the beginning - this event was for our selected clergy to cover the topic of violence in holy scriptures.  This was not going to turn into a debate or an opportunity to bash a religion - basically an Islam-bashing fest.  He also stated that each audience member was only allowed to ask one question - and no speeches or diatribes were going to be accepted.  It is then, we saw Goldberg and the other Tea-Partiers look at each other, scrambling for a backup plan.

When it came to the program itself - each clergy member did a great job of covering and giving an explanation of so-called "violent" verses in their scriptures, while providing the historical and social context.  For example, the rabbi read from the book of Deuteronomy - where the believers are instructed to wipe out the 7 nations: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 

Next, the Methodist pastor/scholar covered material from the Book of Revelations - where many of the verses that appeal to fighting refer to "The Beast" - which in historical context represented the Romans.  Finally, the imam read from Surah 9 (al-Tawbah) which many extremists misuse to justify acts of violence - and which many Islamophobes misuse to label Islam as inherently violent.  All three clergy presented great cases as to why their faiths' respective verses should not be taken out of context, while highlighting recent cases of violence done in the name of almost every faith - and some in the crowd seemed to agree.  But what were Goldberg and the Tea Party doing while the actual program was taking place?

After their wings got clipped with the one-question limit, the provocateurs in the crowd were scrambling for a solution.  This was going to be Dr. Goldberg's big moment - he brought a binder full of material, and had a list of questions that he was ready to shout out.  What was he going to do next?  He started coaching the people sitting next to him and the Tea Partiers on what questions to ask during the Q&A portion.  As the Q&A started, the "expert on Islam" jumped out of his seat in anticipation to be the first questioner.  This is where the wheels started to fall off  - as Goldberg accused the imam of being apologetic and obscuring information, while praising the pastor and the rabbi for being so honest.  "I now have a comment if you will allow me" said Goldberg

The moderator of the session shut him down -and Goldberg's time was up.  He now went to other audience members to try and coach them on what questions to ask.  There was a poor old guy sitting next to Goldberg - (I sat directly behind them) and Dr. Carl was kept pointing to the piece of paper in his hand on what question to ask.  The elderly man wasn't very quick on the uptake, so it took about 5 minutes for him to get properly coached by the anti-Islam polemicist.  In the meantime, our Tea Partiers shouted out questions on how all Muslims want "Sharia Law," and screaming out cases of where Muslims have done bad things.

The interfaith event was officially sideways.

In the dozen inter-religious events I have attended in the last few years, this was the first time we have encountered hostility - and boy did it come strong.  Thankfully, we only had to endure about 10 minutes of wild-eyed, out-of-context, unhinged questions - although it seemed like it lasted an hour.  The members of the clergy did a great job of extending their answers - sort of like the 4-corners offense in basketball lingo.  The event came to a close and the Dr. Eppinger thanked everything for coming.

At this point, I didn't know if I would have to play the role of secret service agent, and exit - stage left.  Would this be the moment where the crowd joins up with Goldberg's crew and starts screaming "Go back to where you came from"?  But a funny thing happened - instead of being taunted with jeers, chants and madness - we were greeted by hugs, handshakes and gestures of goodwill streamed from the majority of the crowd.  The Tea Party reps were still looking for a confrontation after the event was over, but their hostility was completely overshadowed by the warmth and compassion from the rest of the attendees.  As the angry Tea Party lady peered in the distance, the rabbi asked us - "You have time to go to lunch?"  We obliged the rabbi on his offer, much to the chagrin of our counterparts.

For the hour and a half that we sat in the auditorium, the question "what are we doing here?" kept resonating in my mind. It was impossible to shake the feeling that we were on the road to accomplishing nothing but increasing our anxiety levels.  But as we are taught in our faith, if you approach a potentially negative situation with the best of intentions - there is always a positive that will arise from it.  Thankfully, the ensuing lunch with the rabbi opened up such positive avenues.  After leaving the tension of the previous environment, it was great to just sit down and have meaningful dialogue with another member of the faith-based community.  In this brief but meaningful conversation, we were able to discuss myths and misconceptions about our respective faiths along with the organizations that we represent.

More importantly, we all reached the conclusion that while interfaith events are great and have their place, the more important work will be "hands-on" and educating our communities on a grassroots level.  As many activists and clergy who have participated in interfaith events have said before, we shouldn't be trained to just "tolerate" each other.  Its time to transcend those lines and advance the conversation past the uncomfortable smiles, selective hearing, and simply going back to business as usual after the event is over.  Thankfully, with the relationships we forged on this day, there is definitely hope for a greater and more meaningful level of participation in the future.  And while the detractors attempted to steer this event off the tracks, they actually helped strengthen the bond between faith leaders, and ensure that we will work together to defeat the forces of hate and intolerance.

Imraan Siddiqi is a CAIR-Arizona Board Member, Editor of StopIslamophobiaNow.com, & an Entrepreneur.  He writes on the experiences of Muslim Americans as well as the subject of Islamophobia.  He has been published in outlets such as The Dallas Morning News, The Oregonian, Huffington Post, CounterPunch, SuhaibWebb.com, altMuslim, among many other media outlets.  You can follow him on Twitter @imraansiddiqi.

Can We Trust Christians? A Question For LGBT People And Straight Allies

By Joseph Ward III

Originally posted 5/16/12 at The New Civil Rights Movement

We all have complicated relationships with faith. Last week when President Obama made the announcement that he supported marriage equality, the LGBT civil rights movement was electrified. Progressives across the country and others in favor of LGBT equality issues joined in a thunderous applause of solidarity.

President Obama made history when he became the first sitting President of the United States to support marriage equality. What’s more, he cited his Christian faith as a motivating factor in his decision. The latter of which brings me to my question: can the LGBT community and straight allies trust Christians?

Homophobic Christianity is rampant in our culture and made even more virulent by a media culture that over-emphasizes conservative Christianity. It also understates (or all out ignores) its moderate and progressive Christian counterparts.

There are over 5,000 congregations in the U.S. that have declared their unequivocal affirmation of LGBT equality. Four of the seven largest mainline Protestant denominations have institutionalized LGBT equality measures – ranging from ordination of LGBT pastors to embrace of same-sex marriage.

These churches and hundreds of thousands of individuals, both LGBT and straight, are compelled by their faith to fully support LGBT equality. Don’t take my word for it. Take a look for yourself at some of the compassionate individual Christian voices from around the country who have responded to President Obama, with gratitude and thanks.

The shared stories are powerful. These faithful Christians, straight and LGBT alike, are thankful not only because the President has come out in support of LGBT equality, but because his statement—as a person of faith—is so important in the context of a society whose elevated religious figures are rabidly homophobic. In President Obama’s declaration they finally see writ large the intersection they embody – of faithful Christian and LGBT advocate. But what they typically fail to receive is respect from either camp. Battered by the LGBT community for their choice to be Christian and battered by other Christians for their support of LGBT equality. Isn’t there a way to end this false dichotomy and unite as allies?

We—lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people—are sometimes those who make these over-simplified generalizations. I’ve been on the receiving end of both sides: I’ve been told my faith is “garbage” by some LGBT people and told I’m a sinner and an abomination by some Christians. Surely everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but nobody is entitled to be intolerant.

Faith is not the problem here. It’s not Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism. The holy books of all these religious traditions can in no way, shape or form be fully and literally followed in today’s world. They simply do not comply with acceptable ways to treat our legal system, nor do they afford acceptable human rights standards around the world. Many people of faith know this, but still make a personal decision “to believe” as they choose. The fact that over 90% of the United States Congress is Christian, yet it is not federal policy to ban the consumption of shellfish (Leviticus 11:10) speaks to this point.

Homophobic Christian culture is fueled by two sources: homophobic and conflicted people. But both of these groups can change. Rather than discount out of hand people who are either quietly conflicted or loudly hateful, we need to continue to challenge them on spiritual and moral terms, but terms that support faith and LGBT equality going hand-in-hand.

Conflicted people of faith along with already LGBT-supportive Christians have the power to eradicate homophobic Christianity. If for no other reason, this is why we must support “conflicted” individuals as they journey towards LGBT equality. Just as President Obama needed to “evolve” on this issue, so will countless others. Our support of this process is essential for true change to occur.

A few weeks ago I attended a conference called “Circling The Wagons,” organized by members of the Mormon community in Washington, D.C. I am not a Mormon, but I respect the opinions and theology of anyone (including these LGBT affirming Mormons) who are causing no harm to anyone because of their beliefs. Towards the beginning of the conference, I attended a breakout session where a powerful experience was shared by a straight woman named Katy Adams. All her life she was Mormon. She grew up in the Mormon church, with Mormon parents, and Mormon siblings who all attended the largest religious University in our country, Brigham Young University (BYU), owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

She and her family were not affirming until Katy’s brother put a human face on “homosexual” when he came out, sharing with them the pain, the grief, the emotional abuse he endured for being gay. Initially rejected by his family, school and others, he was driven to multiple suicide attempts. And it was homophobia’s devastating effect on Katy’s brother that eventually led her family to change their mind and embrace LGBT equality.

Now, as Mormons, they are advocates for LGBT equality and critical of so many in their lives—church leaders, youth leaders, their Book of Mormon, family—who “lied and betrayed” them about LGBT equality.

She tells her girlfriends in Utah, straight and gay, to make sure that they know, and their kids know, “that there is nothing wrong with anyone.” Her father, a professor at BYU, began teaching about LGBT issues from a faith perspective, and provided a safe haven for gay and transgender students whose “LDS families abandon them.” This is the change and awareness that’s happening across the country. And it’s the change that’s needed to create a Christian culture that supports LGBT equality.

No matter what your faith, no matter what you believe, supportive Christian voices are necessary to win full LGBT equality. So today, let’s stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow LGBT advocates-even those who are Christian.

Joseph Ward is the Director of Believe Out Loud, an online network that empowers Christians to work for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender equality, and a writer on Religion and LGBT equality issues. Follow him on twitter @JosephWardIII.

North Carolina’s “Abomination”

By Dr. Art Kamm

Originally posted 5/11/12 at Art On Issues  

I returned from Paris, France, to see that North Carolinians had voted to restrict the rights of a minority by approving a constitutional amendment that would make marriage between one man and one woman the only domestic legal union that would be valid or recognized by the state.  And with polling showing that 60% of North Carolinians did not understand the amendment, they also unwittingly approved an amendment with far reaching consequences to both same-sex and straight couples.

What follows is a largely similar piece to what was submitted to the Raleigh News & Observer as a letter to the editor.  As one of my letters regarding the amendment was recently published by the N&O (ref), this one likely will not be.  So I post it here.  I have included references here in support of statements contained in the brief piece.  There is little doubt, as previously published (ref), that the driving force behind this amendment was religious objection to homosexuality; and that objection has now been incorporated into the state’s constitution.

May 10, 2012

The American Psychological Association has affirmed that “same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity” (ref).   And the American Psychiatric Association has affirmed that attempts to change homosexual behavior “are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians” (ref).  Yet our state will deny committed same-sex couples, and their families, rights currently afforded to them under a civil union?

Religious interpretation has, regrettably, all too often been used to relegate individuals to second-class citizenship.  The husband shall “rule over” the woman (Genesis 2).  As God placed the races on different continents it is proof that He never intended for them to mix (in justifying miscegenation law, Loving’s criminal trial – ref).   And homosexuality is “abomination” (Leviticus).

Protect marriage?  It is high time that we protect our cne of our most cherished founding liberties, our First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. 

Photo: via the Flickr stream of CarbonNYC

Arthur R. Kamm, PhD (Dr. Art Kamm) has devoted his career to the study of patient populations and the research and development of treatments to alleviate pain, suffering, improve quality of life, and save lives. His blog is dedicated to his study of many topics including, but not limited to, debt, deficits, economy, leadership, healthcare, climate, politics, hunger, intolerance, etc. The intent is to disseminate information and open dialogue based upon consideration of information rather than spin.