Honest Impressions

The Founding Fathers on Religion and Politics

In the contemporary debate over religion’s place in American Politics both sides seem to find justification for their arguments in the actions and beliefs of the founding fathers. However, beyond the selective history employed by those waging the “war against (or in defense) of religion,” there are a number of valuable lessons and interesting details in the lives and stories of the founding fathers.

First, one general note; It should come as no surprise to anyone living in this country that American politicians are not characterized by consensus. Keep in mind that this has been true since the nation’s inception, and the words “founding fathers” are used with a grain of salt. Today, one would be weary of anyone who tried to make general substantive statements about the opinions of “American politicians”, so this same caution should be applied here.

To dispel a few myths:

Myth 1:The founding fathers were Christian- The founding fathers would perhaps fit the definition of Christian by some. Most of them attended church regularly and were either baptized espoused membership to one faith community or another. Many of them including Patrick Henry and John Adams were very devote Christians. However some of them, including Jefferson and Washington, were reluctant to admit the divinity of Christ. In fact Jefferson believed the early Christian church had manipulated the words of Jesus, a religious rebel of sorts who never intended to create a new religious organization. In pursuit of the intended meaning of Jesus’ teachings,  Jefferson took scissors to a copy of the gospels, removing any reference to Jesus’ divinity or miraculous works. He rebound his new book and entitled it “The Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.” (Interesting side note: He kept this book secret, fearing the implications it could have on his reputation and political career) 

Myth 2: The founding fathers were all deists- A common argument used by those in favor of a more secular government. Defining a deist as someone who believes a great being created the world, but then left it to its own devices (started the clock but allowed it to tick independently), none of the founding fathers (that I know of), were true deists. Washington, often the number one figure mentioned in this argument, may not have had faith in the divinity of Jesus, but he certainly believed in a God that had a hand in the affairs of man. He often credited his military victories to God, calling them “smiles of divine providence.” Similarly, when he survived a particularly grueling battle, in which 3 of his horses were shot from under him, he admitted he felt God had a unique and great purpose for his existence.

Myth 3: America was founded on the ideal of religious liberty- Sadly this is not unanimously true either. Often the religious refugees that fled to the colonies did so with the purpose of establishing a new realm where they could enforce their own vision of religion. Many lacked the perspective to see the inherent hypocrisy in starting a religiously repressive state of religious refugees (though the irony is not lost on me). When Massachusetts was first founded, politician and preacher John Winthrop decreed that the the new colony would be as a “city on a hill,” (a reference to the gospel of Matthew) or an example to the world of a place where God’s word is enshrined and implemented. It seems rather clear marginalization forced these groups to greater degrees of extremity and religious absolutism. The unfortunate after affect was persecution of minorities. Jews, Catholics, and even Baptists were often killed or shunned by much of the American populous. In fact it is this brutal treatment of Baptists in Virginia that informed James Madison’s thoughts on separation of church and state, and freedom of conscience. 

In the end, I think it is foolish to over emphasize this history. Before the founding fathers were raised to their sacred stature, they were but men. They disagreed fiercely. (In 1800, a Federalist paper simplified the election saying the voter could choice Adams “and God, or Jefferson and No God.”) They fought. (Burr killed Hamilton…I had to do very little research to validate that one) And They often held Bigoted beliefs (Adams said Catholics were kept in “sordid ignorance and staring timidity” by their Church)  I see no reason to enshrine their words and theories, beyond a healthy reverence for their investment in this unique experiment.

John

-There is so much more I would have liked to bring up, but unfortunately time and the reality that the longer I make a blog post the fewer people read it has restricted me. If this has peaked your interest I recommend “Founding Faith” the book that provided most the background for this blog.

Religion in Public Life- A Global Debate

Johnathan Favini Spring intern, Interfaith Alliance

          I have just returned from an academic trip to Turkey and Jordan. As travel often does, this trip provided me with an added perspective on American life and culture, simply through adding a comparative model. As an intern at Interfaith Alliance, I cannot help but see its value in the current, and raging, debate over religious liberty. In fact both nations are struggling with the place of religion in their public realms, and their debate provides interesting fodder for ours.

          Turkey, a fiercely secular Republic founded by Kemal Ataturk, has seen nearly a half dozen military coups, interventions orchestrated by ranking military leaders whenever religion, namely Islam, become too much a part of government. This reality included the regular disillusion of parties with supposed “Islamist” leanings and often the imprisonment of their leaders. Reciting Quran or even mentioning one’s faith in a public forum was often cause for repression. In a very real sense Turkey was that nauseating state that made Rick Santorum throw up, “one where people of faith cannot approach the public life.”

           However, since the early 2000’s this status quo has begun to change. The AK party, a fairly conservative democratic party, came to power under the stewardship of Turkey’s current Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the former mayor of Istanbul, famous for his public reading of an Islamic poem, and subsequent imprisonment in 1998. The Islamic leaning of the AK party has brought them mass support, as they garner nearly 50% of the popular vote, but also a great deal of condemnation. Some in Turkey and abroad, overplay or simply misconstrue the influence of Islam in their politics (perhaps most notably in the American context, Rick Perry, who referred to Turkey as a country led by terrorists). In a meeting with our class, an AK party parliamentarian, defended his party and told us Islam was a major part of his character and informed his beliefs, but also impressed upon him the value of a secular government.

            In Jordan, the tides of the Arab spring have brought the discussion of religion in politics to new light. While the waves have certainly been gentler to the small Hashemite monarchy, especially compared to its close neighbor, Syria, change has certainly found its way to Jordan. In Amman, my class had the opportunity to meet with the Islamic Action Front, the Political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. The ideal state described by our speakers there, and one more than a few Jordanians subscribe to, is an Islamic state, though not in the sense the average American might imagine. Rather, they painted a picture of policy change that would discourage discrimination, as the Quran places all men and women on the same plain of equality, end corruption, as a sin Islam condemns, and support acceptance of the minority Christian population, as the Quran teaches there is no compulsion in religion. In an article in Time Magazine, the Freedom and Justice party of Morocco (the Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing in that nation) noted an interest in the model US Republican party leaders could provide as politicians who use their faith to inform their politics. It is ironic to see the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization vilified by Newt Gingrich as a foe to American culture and beliefs, turn to his party as a model on how to navigate the religion-politics boundary.

            In short, the ongoing debate over the place of religion in the public realm is not unique to the United States. In fact, in a short guided discussion at Jordan University with a number of graduate students, I saw a microcosm of this international debate unfold. One student argued that the ideals of Islam were best expressed through a secular government, and that while policy could be informed by these beliefs, it need not don the title of its creditor. Another student countered that the people of Jordan were Muslims, and their government should mirror this quality; consent of the governed requires it. At this time, a fellow classmate of mine, and convert to Islam offered a unique perspective. “Some brothers back home” he offered, “feel we [Americans] are living in the closest thing on Earth to an Islamic State.” In perhaps the most powerful argument for a secular state I can imagine he credited the United States, the nation of all religions, as the closest to the ideal state of his religion in particular. As our President here at Interfaith, Welton Gaddy, always says, separation of religion and state is “good for government, and good for religion.”

Jordan

Until arriving in Jordan, I considered Turkey very much a part of the Middle East. With the added perspective I have received over the last week, I have difficulty placing the two countries in the same region. Turkey was modern and growing, and the landscape of mountains and snow was far from the iconic arid scenery one might imagine.  Jordan, on the other hand, was stagnant, economically paralyzed and politically stoic, and the tan buildings and dusty air better fit the Middle East stereotype.

However our time in Jordan revealed a country with complex realities, a Hashemite King with wavering loyalty, a divided populous of tribally oriented East Bankers, and Palestinian West Bankers, and a labor rich country, poor in seemingly everything else.

Our speaker visits in Jordan were many. To name a few: We met with the Norwegian Ambassador (thanks Bettina) and discussed Jordanian politics, as well as Norway’s interests in Jordan and the Middle East. Later, the Islamic Action Front (the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan) hosted my class, and told us of their policy stances, and current political repression. Perhaps most notably, we met with Nasser Judeh, the fast talking Foreign Minister of Jordan, an event that made a few local newspapers (see below). <we were pumped when we saw this.

 

As tourists, we found renewed adventure in Jordan’s ancient and religious history. We took a brief afternoon visit to Jerash, a Roman city complete with two massive theatres and a number of grand temples and fountains. 

Along the same vein, we visited “the crown jewel of Jordan,” Petra, the ancient stone city built by the Nabataeans (a famous landmark you may know for its appearance in Indiana Jones, as the temple that holds the Holy Grail).

From Petra we took an hour drive to Wadi Rum (valley of the Moon), a massive desert of mountains and sand where we toured the barren landscape with a Bedouin guide.

On our final day in Jordan, Easter Sunday, we took a timely visit to Mt. Nebo, the Baptism Site (the location Jesus is said to have been baptized), and the Dead Sea.

Anyway, That’s my trip. I am back home in DC, tired from nearly 30 hours of travel. Thanks for reading my blog/travel journal. In the coming weeks I will try to write a post or two with a less superficial approach to the experience.

Thanks,

 John

Ankara and Konya

Hello again everyone. As you know, currently my blog, used otherwise for my personal meditation of class or internship concepts, has taken the form of a travel journal. This next installment will briefly describe my time in Ankara, Turkey’s capital, and Konya, the former Seljuk imperial capital and a modern day cultural hub.

Istanbul is New York, said our professor, cultured, metropolitan, and spirited; Ankara is Washington, political, orderly, and boring. (I may have embellished on that last adjective). I couldn’t help but make an even closer to home comparison. I was on my way outside Philadelphia straight to Harrisburg. Why would anyone want to go to Harrisburg?

However, I was pleasantly surprised to find Ankara more than merely a bureaucratic center and home for public servants. A sprawling city, Ankara overflowed from its valley center onto rolling hills and white-tipped mountains, providing stunning views and unfortunately, altitude enough for an occasional flurry.  A brief drive to the peak of one of these hills, and the crumbling ancient castle atop, yielded the panoramic photo below.

 

Despite this surprise, our activities in Ankara proved more predictable, though equally enjoyable. We had the opportunity to meet with nearly a dozen government agencies, ministries, and officials; from the US embassy, to the Turkish Foreign Ministry, to a number of AK party parliamentarians.  This brief but intensive time in Ankara provided my classmates and I with a remarkable understanding of Turkish politics and public debate.

From Ankara, we took a few hour drive to Konya, where we spent about a day and a half. Konya is a much smaller city in population, with just about 1.5 million. However its expansive spread makes it, geographically, one of the largest in Turkey.

 

In that brief day and a half, we managed to meet with a women’s group and the milli gorus, a Turkish Islamic social movement, while simultaneously making the usual tourist stops at Rumi’s Tomb and a number of ancient mosques and churches. Additionally we visited a Gulen movement elementary school, discussing curriculum with administration, and conversing casually with the 7^th grade English Class.

Sunday morning we got back in our van and drove 9 hours back to Istanbul, took a quick boat tour of the city, and went directly to the airport, where we endured subsequent delays until around 1:00 am. We arrived yesterday morning in Jordan around 4:00 am, getting to our hotel around 5.

Thanks for reading. As a result of this full schedule I have had little time to write this blog. There is an incalculable number of anecdotes that I wished to discuss, but have opted to leave out. Talk to me in person sometime, I’d be happy to discuss my trip in greater detail!

John

Travel Journal- Istanbul

Hello all,

As I indicated when I first started this blog, a large part of its purpose is to recount and document my travel experiences.  For my own entertainment, and yours, I will avoid taking a simply chronological approach. An itinerary makes for a poor story.

That being said, I will of course maintain some sense of sequence.  

Our first destination was Istanbul, a modern and growing city steeped in ancient history. As the hook of that enormously infectious song repeats far too many times, “Istanbul was Constantinople,” and this past is surprisingly immediate. On the drive from the airport alone, we passed mosques from the 8th century as well as the fortified wall built by the Byzantine Empire. A very tangible sense of history was everywhere in the aptly titled “Thousand Year City.”

Just a few blocks from our hotel stood two of Istanbul’s most famous landmarks, the Hagia Sophia, and the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (Blue Mosque). 

Hagia Sophia is a former Orthodox Church built during the Byzantine Empire in 532. Prior to this last and 3rd construction, the Hagia Sophia was burned in a fire, and destroyed by the Crusaders. After Mehmet II, and the Ottomans captured Constantinople, Hagia Sophia was adapted into a mosque. Today, it serves only as a museum.

The Sultan Ahmed mosque stands just opposite Hagia Sophia. It is a massive structure built by the Ottomans, supposedly for the purpose of casting a tall shadow on the church (Hagia Sophia) next door. 

However most impressive about Istanbul is the integration of this remarkable history into a modern and developed city. Large residential high rises are being constructed around the remains of buildings with roots in antiquity, and the subway rails cling to the sides of former siege walls. A growth seconded only by that of China is occuring in Turkey, and perhaps no where as powerfully as in Istanbul. This boom gives a very old city young and energetic feel.  

Visiting the Hagia Sophia, Sultan Ahmed Mosque, and Topkaki Palace, home for generations of Ottoman Sultans, constituted the bulk of our Istanbul “tourist” experience. Of course, I am here as a student as well, and in this capacity, I have had the opportunity to meet a Former Air force Colonel, a leading journalist, and a professor from Fatih University. 

Perhaps most interesting for me was our meeting with a journalist from “Today’s Zaman” an English language paper published throughout Turkey and available online. He was a passionate advocate for democracy and continued reform in Turkey, a resolve he put into action through consistent and dedicated reporting. His stories, and that of his paper, were uncensored, neither consistently critical nor supportive of the government or state, a rarity in Turkey.

He admitted to us that Zaman’s English language paper would never create a profit. However, he considered it a public service imperative that its publication continue, to foster a better understanding of Turkish realities for English speakers in the nation and abroad. 

Alright. I apologize for any mistakes. Our schedule does not allow for much time to write and the quality and quantity of these new few blog posts may not measure up to those of the past. I will discuss the further implications and lesson I have learned through my travel here later. For the time being I will remain fairly superficial…but the pictures are nice right?

I will write a blog post about our time in Ankara, Turkey’s capital, in the next few days.

Thanks for reading!

John

Kony 2012, My Thoughts

Caution: I am not an expert on this subject. Feel Free to Disagree. I write this blog, in part, for academic credit at AU. However, for the sake of my own pleasure while maintaining this academic venture, I choose subjects that I have personal passions concerning. As such I have decided to briefly discuss Kony 2012. 

When Kony 2012 first launched its massive media campaign, a veritable tidal wave of public outcry followed. Kony 2012 soon became one of the highest trending hash tags on twitter, as the free youtube film captured millions of views (over 79 million currently). A brief honeymoon of seemingly unanimous support (admittedly, of which I was a part), was broken with the publication of a number of critical blogs and articles.

Dissidents of this trend pointed to Invisible Children’s poor fiscal responsibility, and its suspicious ties to the Ugandan Army, which by most experts’ accounts is not vindicated of at least partial responsibility in this terrible tragedy. Similarly, information depicting the Ugandan war as a fading conflict gave many a sense that capturing Kony should be secondary to healing the consequences of his actions, and helping those hurt. Finally, some cautioned the new Kony 2012 activists that their spirit and rhetoric was approaching that of “the white man’s burden,” a misguided relic of generations past. 

A third splinter group condemned the trend wholesale. Would American youth really care, when the movement continued and popular sentiment wained? Did they truly feel a sense of empathy towards a people half a world away, or had an American film maker managed to briefly make humanitarianism sexy and appealing through an MTV-esque style documentary? Finally, if they truly cared, why Kony, and why now, when his army has been mostly diffused, and his war nearly resolved?

In the last few weeks this scrutiny that followed the Kony 2012 movement has had a serious mental and physical effect on the founder and director, who was recently arrested drunk and up to some nefarious activities in California. He has since been treated for malnutrition, dehydration, and exhaustion. (This is a sad fact that I believe should not be considered an important part of this debate— the man is not the entirety of the organization. He is after all, just that, a man; under massive pressure)

In the last few weeks I have been swayed towards a perspective of empathy and hope, yet realistic and healthy skepticism. As Afeefa Syeed, the Director of USAID for the Middle East and Asia, told my class just weeks ago, the first step in assessing a situation, and how a realistic and good-intentioned humanitarian should proceed, is to ask the simple question “how do you want me to help you?”(if at all). This seems an obvious concept, but her stories, and that which I have found from the past few decades of USAID, Save the Children, and even UN records, shows the idea escaped the development community for far too long. I do not wish to delve into this here but I recommend “Humanitarianism in Question; Power, Politics, and Ethics” by Michael Barnett and Thomas Veiss, if you wish to investigate further. In the Kony 2012 context, the following video best describes the application of this concept. Al Jazeera filmed the reaction of Ugandans to  a screening of the now controversial documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rU_1jnrj5VI

However, in the the past few days, media attention has swayed from the film itself, to a very descriptive, new term; Slack-tivism. 

This meme perhaps expresses the sentiment of this term best (and how could I better define a new-media phenomenon than by using one?). Simply put, youth have a sense of empathy long enough to motivate a change in profile picture or new tweet, but neither the resolve nor spirit to become realistic and action oriented advocates.

I have to admit, it seems this term has proven its worth. It is likely when I post this blog a good many of you will read the title and roll your eyes, considering this subject an outdated relic of a brief fad. It is this, slack-tivism, that I truly would like to discuss.

We live in a time where social media use has transcended the vision of its creators and dwarfed the expected scope of its influence. The Arab Spring revolts have been referred to as the “Facebook Revolutions” as a recognition to the influence the tool had on the dissenters ability to mobilize and communicate. Though this term is a bit of an overstatement, it does speak to the power of new media in motivating and organizing grass roots movements.

In a distinctly American reinvention of this phenomenon, we have created slack-tivism. At the peak of Kony hype, I was amazed and proud to see my peers finally using new media to convey a message beyond their daily frustrations or favorite song lyrics, and eager to expand its use it myself. Of course as the source of this movement was called into question, it lost legitimacy and soon many of its new supporters to suspicion and doubt. Most of those who remained, still committed to Invisible Children, seemed to lose enthusiasm and vigor. They had not signed up to be lonely activists, but members of a mass movement, and they must have been rather discontent with their new job description. In this wave of reality, I felt a sense of sadness, a feeling of deep regret that the only movement able to capture the attention of my generation (albeit briefly) was not fit to lead it. 

I have since found some hope in a number of friends, a small minority that managed to be captured by the movement, and yet evaluate it critically. They have found empathy through this flexibility that is not dependent of Invisible Children, but in fact transcends it.

In a way, I wrote this blog for them, for one reason, or rather one request: Broaden your empathy. If Kony 2012 truly managed to open eyes, look beyond the settling ash of a quieting conflict and its aging and now nearly powerless leader. The world is a very large, and very cruel place. Your efforts, and that of activists worldwide, can be better placed. Invisible Children certainly has a rock star appearance, but the empathy they have facilitated is better placed elsewhere. Keep searching. The sad truth inherent in this film; that a kid from California can get on a plane and wander into absolute tragedy speaks volumes about the accessibility to violence, conflict, and rape, in our world.

I speak of course from an equal plane as you, my readers. I have neither the experience or knowledge for my request to demand your credence. However this blog is not meant to be an authoritative review and recommendation, but as the title says, merely my own thoughts. 

So thanks for reading.

John Favini

Civility and Polarization

As a relatively new resident of our nation’s capital, I find myself awed by the glamor and majesty of one of the world’s most powerful cities. The Capitol building looks remarkably larger in person and the penny does very little justice to the massive Lincoln Memorial; both rather pleasant surprises.

However, with that, my surprise transforms into consternation and disappointment. The burden of my revelation does not fall on the city itself either, though admittedly the constant Metro construction is nearly reason enough to condemn it. No, I am most disappointed by the state of our federal government, and particularly our Congress.

 Perhaps this should be no surprise. With Congressional approval down in the last few years to a record low of around 16%, hoping the “Washington is broken” rumor was merely sensationalism on the part of the news media or election babble by eager politicians looking to try their hand at repairman, may have been naïve.  Nonetheless I have come to see the justification for that catchy phrase all too clearly. The source of the dirty water in which we now swim is undoubtedly at the confluence of our government’s and media’s inability to comprise or debate respectfully as well as its increasing polarization to either end of a growing spectrum.

This trend of declining cross aisle understanding and escalating extremism has been condemned by many in this country, and even a dwindling few with the Capitol Building. Olympia Snowe, a Republican Senator from Maine long revered as a maverick (not the Sarah Palin kind) that defied the pressure to vote along party lines, has recently decided to retire rather than pursue another term in Congress. This announcement came as a surprise to many in Washington, if not a disappointment. In her op-ed to the Washington Post, explaining her withdrawal from politics she wrote “Some people were surprised by my conclusion, yet I have spoken on the floor of the Senate for years about the dysfunction and political polarization in the institution [Congress]. Simply put, the Senate is not living up to what the Founding Fathers envisioned.” She condemned Congress for focusing on party talking points and platforms rather than personal opinion, or the greater good of the nation. She explained this phenomenon by noting that “before the 1994 election 34 senators came from states that voted for a presidential nominee of the opposing party. That number has dropped to just 25 senators in 2012. The result is that there is no practical incentive for 75 percent of the senators to work across party lines.”

The implications of this are obvious. For instance, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, “Obama-care’s” Senate bill, passed with a unanimous Democrat approval of 60 votes (including 2 Independents) despite the unified disapproval of all 39 Republicans. I am reminded also of past State of the Union Addresses where standing ovations and applause rarely pass the center aisle and an occasional muffled “you lie” can be heard from an irate spectator. Perhaps this is progress from a darker era in American politics of dueling and physical violence, epitomized by the death of Alexander Hamilton. However, many here seem to remember a time when blue and red politicians would shed their colors at the end of the work day and share a drink.

In a properly working Washington, this is when the Cavalry, media attention, would ride in from the flank to restore civility and pressure extremists back towards the center of the spectrum. However with the development of a vilified “liberal media” and the “fair and balanced” counter weight of Fox News, the media has lost its ability to do so. Print journalism and news networks are now identified as liberal or conservative, as if the concept of a truly impartial approach to media is impossible. With this assumption, the media has lost is separation as a counterforce, and instead, has been attached to the same trend as our politics; increasing polarization and a lack civility. An appearance by Rick Santorum on MSNBC is likely to become more of a verbal beating and obstacle course of well-planned traps, than a legitimate journalistic interview. Similarly pundits on Fox News might consider President Obama’s re-election campaign, and the question of whether he is truly an American citizen, or secretly a Muslim, in one breath.

This media trend is exemplified, in the vilest of ways, by the recent comments of one Rush Limbaugh. As someone with a great deal of media power, he should be help up to some journalistic standard of impartiality. Of course, at this point, expecting anything but pandering to one perception and opinion from this caricature of a conservative would be ignorant. However, if you need any convincing that civility is lacking in the news media, a brief look into his recent condemnation of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law student who was forbidden from speaking at the Senate hearing on the birth control mandate, will illuminate my point. In reference to her petitions to have government mandated free birth control in healthcare coverage, Limbaugh said:

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.” He continued “She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”

He added, in order to pay back the tax payers for this service, she should video tape herself having sex and post it on the internet, as a form of compensation.

Despite, a person’s given opinion on a political controversy, attacks this personal and squarely vindictive in nature should not be part of our public discourse as a nation. Can we not disagree with one another and yet maintain some semblance of respect?

In response to these comments the President of Georgetown University released a letter which captures much of what I am trying to say here. Of Ms. Fluke he wrote “She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression.” He validated her approach, and respected her advocacy, without agreeing or condemning her position, a crucial capacity lost to far too many. He added, “The greatest contribution of the American project is the recognition that together, we can rely on civil discourse to engage the tensions that characterize these difficult issues, and work towards resolutions that balance deeply held and different perspectives. We have learned through painful experience that we must respect one another and we acknowledge that the best way to confront our differences is through constructive public debate.” I could not agree more.  

Bishop Gene Robinson

Hello again,

For those of you that are unaware, as part of my program here at American, I am completing an internship with the Interfaith Alliance.

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

If you are curious about this organization or the work it does please go to their website. I have much to say, and little time to say it so I will avoid discussing interfaith itself here. 

However, I would like to take a bit of a step away from the Islam focused content of my previous posts. In fact, I am taking a reluctant step into an issue of remarkable controversy, and one of very personal relevance right now. 

I recently met a man of immense courage and extreme compassion. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Bishop in the Episcopal Church, was recently interviewed on Interfaith’s weekly radio show, “The State of Belief,” and I had the pleasure of listening to his appearance and talking to him briefly.

I would like to take some time in this blog and simply share with you his story. I will do by best to allow it to speak for itself. Though I may try to avoid it, I will add my own commentary when my better judgement surrenders to my personal respect for this man. 

Bishop Robinson was born into a very religious family in Lexington, Kentucky. Naturally, he was drawn to the church as a community center and personal sanctuary. He loved the church, and he loved God.

However, he had a growing sense, he was in some way different. He noted comically

at about age 13 a couple friends managed to get there hands on a playboy. I distinctly remember thinking I’m not getting as much out of this as they are.

He admitted coming to terms with this growing sense of homosexuality, and his love love for the church, became increasing difficult. In hopes of stifling what he then considered to be an affliction, he prayed to God, that he might take it away from him. When this failed, he attended, for 2 years, a number of religious programs that promised through counseling one could rediscover heterosexuality. Nonetheless, he continued to struggle with his sexuality, repressing inklings that he might be gay, while pursuing his career in the Episcopal church.

Eventually Robinson came to terms with his sexuality. He spoke very little on his actual “coming out” during the interview but mentioned it was a slow process; first to family and friends and then later more openly in his career and to the general public. 

Controversy around his homosexually only truly emerged when after 17 years of serving as the executive assistant to the Bishop of New Hampshire, it appeared he might be elected into the role. Following some close voting and controversial debates, Robinson was consecrated as the Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, with a bulletproof vest under his ministerial robes. 

Since then death threats have consistently been levied upon him, and with a startling frequency. Similarly, a number of other members of his own church and the christian community have condemned him. Particularly he has had vocal opposition from the national Bishops of a number of African nations, most notably Nigeria.

In 2008 the Episcopal/Anglican church held a massive event in London called the Lambeth conference. Every Bishop of the Church from across the globe was invited with the small exception of its only openly gay Reverend (coincidence?). Ever resolute, and stubborn, Robinson traveled to London anyway, often making his presence know, preaching where he could and supporting liberal anglican perishes and gay-rights organizations. The entirety of his time in London, he again wore a bulletproof vest. 

To me, the hypocrisy of threatening another person’s life in the name of religion, is supremely and inexplicably horrific. Bishop Robinson is still often heckled at his sermons, and threatened by protesters who use scripture and the message of an “all-loving God” to fuel hate and justify bigotry.

I admittedly spent little face to face time with Bishop Robinson. I watched the radio show, with avid interest, from the other side of a soundproof piece of glass. He was a small, neat man, with grey hair and glasses. After a recent injury he had sprained his ankle, and was forced to use one crutch. I had a hard time imagining anyone ever threatening a man of such modest features and with such an approachable demeanor. His abundant sense of humor and remarkable wit impressed upon me a man who enjoyed life, not one who has often been threatened to have it taken from him.

However, what is most remarkable about Bishop Robinson is his seemingly irrepressible passion for ministry and message of love. In perhaps the ultimate victory in a contest amongst competitors of religious faith, he responds to the jeers of his protestors with prayer, and forgiveness. He even mentioned in passing that he prays for the Bishop of Nigeria, a man who is one of his most virulent condemners. He added with a smile after the interview:

 I’m sure it gets back to him somehow that I am praying for him, and I imagine it frustrates him to no end.

In the end, its hard not to root for this man. Regardless of one’s opinion on homosexuality or religious perspective, Bishop Robinson is if nothing else an immensely courageous and refreshingly selfless man. He has stood up to years of intolerance and hatred, and yet continues to tell a message of universal love and forgiveness. I cannot imagine anything more Christian. 

Islam and Christianity- A common history beyond Abraham (Ibrahim)

It surely comes as no surprise to those reading this that Islam and Christianity have a few things in common. From the simple creed that there is but one creator in God, to the origin story of Adam and Eve, these two faiths share a great deal.

Nonetheless, few notice the depths of commonality beyond the shared roots of what is referred to as the “Abrahamic tradition” and a few leading roles. I have decided in this blog to focus on a subtle reality that has become increasing surprising throughout my time here; Islam and Christianity, portrayed by some as the great clashing forces of our time, a bitter cultural and spiritual rivalry pushing humanity to the brink of oblivion, are in fact, not all that different.

In writing this blog I have discovered an almost burdensome amount of information. For the sake of time I will refrain for delving into every story and similarity, but there are many worth mentioning:

The Temptation of Adam and Eve by Satan in Eden- the story is nearly the same in both texts. Satan comes and tempts the first two humans to defy God and eat the forbidden fruit. Thanks to the murder of Abel, by his jealous brother Cain, the second generation of man does little to repair our reputation with God (in both texts as well).

“Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for ever.”  - Quran 7:20

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.  - Genesis 3:5

Noah and the great flood- Noah, a righteous believer in a community of sinners is told by god to build a massive ark.

(Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water, We said: Load therein two of every kind, a pair (the male and female), and thy household, save him against whom the word hath gone forth already, and those who believe. And but a few were they who believed with him. - Qur’an 11:40

And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the ground,There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah. - Genesis 7: 7-9

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah- Incredibly similar. Both include Lot, a relative of Abraham and Sodom resident, who is visited by two angels who instruct him to leave before sunrise. In both stories Lot’s wife doubts the angels and is killed during the destruction of the city.

To bring on, on them, (a shower of) stones of clay (brimstone) - Qur’an 51:33

Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven. - Genesis 9:24

Moses and the parting of the sea- I have chosen to use this portion of the story of Moses because of its similarity in the actual texts, but much of the story is the same, including the circumstances that send him into the Nile as an infant, and the ten commandments.

Then We inspired to Moses, “Strike with your staff the sea,” and it parted, and each portion was like a great towering mountain. And We advanced thereto the pursuers. And We saved Moses and those with him, all together. Then We drowned the others. - Quran Surah 26: 63-66

 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. The Egyptians pursued and went in after them into the midst of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. And in the morning watch the Lord in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down on the Egyptian forces and threw the Egyptian forces into a panic, clogging their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily. And the Egyptians said, “Let us flee from before Israel, for the Lord fights for them against the Egyptians.”Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, that the water may come back upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.” So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its normal course when the morning appeared. And as the Egyptians fled into it, the Lord threw the Egyptians into the midst of the sea. - Exodus 14: 21-27

 

Commonalities are also present in the stories of Joseph, Korah, Gideon, Saul, The Queen of Sheba, Jonah and the “big fish”, John the Baptist, and much much more. For these stories I have refrained from referencing the Qur’an and Bible just for the sake of time (both yours and mine).

Nonetheless I think it is important to visit one last commonality, perhaps one I expected least; a devote reverence for Jesus. 

While it is obvious the two faiths disagree on the nature of his holiness (Muslims do not believe he is the son of God but rather a messenger from God), both religions find a divine message in his coming and his words. In fact Jesus is considered one of the most holy prophets in the Muslim faith. His name (Isa- in Arabic) is often followed by a respectful “peace be upon him” when used in common parlance amongst some Muslims; a sign of reverence offered only to Muhammed and other great prophets.

Muslims even recognize the concept of the immaculate conception. The Virgin Mary is considered a holy women, and an entire book in the Qur’an bears her name.

Similarly Muslims, like Christians, believe that Jesus will return in the end times, and this “second coming” will signal a final battle between good and evil. After a period of holy rule, Jesus will die, and his body will be placed in Medina, in a spot reserved for him directly next to the grave of the Prophet Muhammed.

Unfortunately, and perhaps more literally so than ever, the devil is in the details. Followers of both faiths find ways to hate each other in that which they do disagree. However it is remarkable the volume of history they share. To Muslims, Christians have merely misinterpreted the teachings of a very holy man, a prophet who never intended to inspire worship for himself, but rather the God whose words he was sent to deliver; a simple misunderstanding. To Christians, Muslims have found a different prophet as their final teacher, but continue to recognize the validity of the teachings of Jesus; respecting his piety and divine favor.

It is perhaps too idealistic to suggest ignorance of these commonalities is all that separates these two faith communities from joining together in the worlds largest group hug. Bigotry is never rational, and hatred never logical. Nonetheless fostering and learning from this common ground can, if nothing else, help us tolerate one other, and better understand ourselves. 

Thanks for reading!

Side note: I have not cited any sources during this blog. In all honesty I did use Wikipedia to start of my search.

Truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise - Prophet Muhammad

That being said I checked everything I used here within the actual holy texts, spending a great deal of time to assure the information was accurate. Also much of this I found by simply scanning through the holy texts (which also serves as a testament to the number of similarities between the two faiths)

John 

Sharia Law- Misconceptions

Hello again everyone,

In this blog I would like to discuss Sharia law, a type of legal jurisprudence observed, in varying degrees, by the Muslim community. I have chosen this topic, for a number of reasons. One, it is incredibly controversial. Considering the multitude of State legislatures either creating or debating the proposition of an “Anti-Sharia” bill, and the comments a number of political figures have made over the last few months, few would argue Sharia has not become a contentious issue in this country. Second, I held a number of misconceptions about Sharia when I entered this course, and this blog will serve as a means to further investigate the reality of Sharia. Third, and lastly, I felt this could be a forum to dispel any misconception my readers (those determined few) may harbor and spread some information I wish I’d heard earlier.

The word Sharia itself means “path” in arabic. Following Sharia would be to say you are following the holy or just path.

However, Sharia law, despite the way it is often portrayed, is not a specific set of codified, explicit rules. It is a sort of collection of information from a number of sources. The Qur’an, the Sunnah (a spiritual guide of how to live based on the life of the Prophet), a number of Hadith (explicit approvals or denunciations by the Prophet), the conclusion of Uluma (Muslim scholars), and the general consensus of the muslim community form a network of knowledge that is defined as Sharia law.

This realization has a powerful effect on how one should look at Sharia. For one, the conclusion of Muslim scholars are in no way everlasting, conclusive, or universally accepted. Uluma often disagree, and popular fatwa (conclusions or rulings of Muslim scholars) age and are changed with the passage of time. Similarly, fatwa are not observed within Sunni Islam unless a given believer values the opinion and trusts the intellect of the scholar (in Shii Islam there is a more strict hierarchy which dictates how fatwa are observed and by who). Also through the ongoing process of ijtahad (reinterpretation) Muslim scholars adjust their fatwa, and in doing so, the tenants of Islam for those who choose to give their recommendations credence.  

This concept of ijtahad springs from the idea with in Islam that the Qur’an is the literal word of God (meaning his exact words) but not necessarily something to be taken literally. Analogies and parables thus become a huge part of the scholarly debate over Islamic jurisprudence, a fact that allows some room for new interpretations.

A misconception many have (including myself until recently) is that Sharia is inherently brutal. Horrible images of murdered adulteresses and handless thieves are often the first that come to mind when an American hears Sharia, and I was no exception. Perhaps the call for a return to Sharia by extremists the world over, and the vivid impact these images leave on the human psyche justify this thought process. Nonetheless, these punishments are considered a maximum punishment, a sort of stopping point made by Islam, to draw a clear line between permissible and not. It is important to note that Sharia also includes messages of forgiveness, and mercy. The believer who does not punish his offender, is given religious credit and respect for his/her level headed and righteous decision.

Islam also teaches an idea that there is no compulsion in religion. Thus while the religious and spiritually guided man may opt to give a lesser punishment, those who choose not to practice mercy, are at least limited by the law of the land to a punishment of equal detriment to the offender.

Also these punishments, just like everything else in Islam, are subject to ijtahad. Some muslim scholars argue these punishments are outdated, a sort of legal order necessary to rule a state in the time of the prophet, but not today. However there is of course a very vocal extremist minority that suggests otherwise, and clings to the bloody inherited tradition of Sharia past.

A comparative model shows Sharia is not dissimilar to the other Abrahamic faith traditions’ legal codes. In Canon law, the Sharia equivalent in the Christian faith based on the bible, you can find a number of equally violent punishments.

A quick look through leviticus yielded this example:

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:9)

Now this is not an attack of Christianity, but merely a bit of information to provide a larger perspective with which to look at Sharia. This verse shows that in the text itself, Canon and Sharia law are likely more similar than different. It is the interpretations of the followers that define the practice of the legal code, and these interpretations are varied in both faith traditions. 

I have done my best to explain my current interpretation of Sharia in this blog. It is certainly possible that I continue to miss some of the nuance of Islamic jurisprudence, as a new student to the religion. Nonetheless, I have, in the least, presented the idea that Sharia is a more complex concept than it is typically portrayed, and hopefully instilled a bit of skepticism about its use in popular media and elsewhere. 

Thanks for reading!

John