Gregarius » Inter-Religious Dialogue

Feeds

Tech Semantic Web and Linked Data (590 unread)

• OpenLink Community Blog (88 unread)
• Z-Blog (242 unread)
• Nodalities (47 unread)
• EN - Flux RSS - R & D (11 unread)
• The Semantic Puzzle (68 unread)
• OpenCalais - Official Blog (6 unread)
• Chief Marketing Technologist (124 unread)
• Semai (1 unread)
• Reactive, autonomous (3 unread)

Tech Coding the Web and Software (157 unread)

• Software Cooperative News (69 unread)
• Talance Friendly Web Tools Blog (88 unread)

Tech General News (14502 unread)

• Tech Eye - Latest technology headlines (4216 unread)
• BBC News - Technology (4615 unread)
• NYT > Technology (5671 unread)

Knowledge Man and Eng (310 unread)

• ISKO UK (56 unread)
• KOnnect (10 unread)
• CELSTEC Publications (216 unread)
• Knowledge Engineering (19 unread)
• Open Intelligence (9 unread)

Friends (312 unread)

• VISION AFORETHOUGHT (82 unread)
• Snell-Pym (230 unread)

Newspapers (27365 unread)

• The Guardian World News (10915 unread)
• The Independent - Frontpage RSS Feed (16450 unread)

Politics UK and Ireland (1187 unread)

• Liberal Democrats RSS (482 unread)
• Green Liberal Democrats News Stories (100 unread)
• Liberal Democrat Christian Forum (5 unread)
• Liberal Youth - Latest News
• The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland News Stories (528 unread)
• Home (72 unread)

Politics EU and International (826 unread)

• European Movement UK (38 unread)
• European Movement Ireland (90 unread)
• OSCE press releases and media advisories (376 unread)
• ALDE News (39 unread)
• ELDR News (283 unread)
• IFLRY News and Updates

Religion Christian (2246 unread)

• Church of England News (263 unread)
• Latest News (729 unread)
• Open Path (19 unread)
• Affirming Liberalism (11 unread)
• Greenbelt Blog (464 unread)
• Fresh Expressions RSS feed (446 unread)
• Emergent Village (56 unread)
• Taizé (258 unread)

Religion Interfaith and Universalism (497 unread)

• Interfaith (230 unread)
• IDC Interfaith Dialog Center (140 unread)
• Inter-Religious Dialogue (127 unread)

Inter-Religious Dialogue

• March 15, 2012
• 20:43

  New book by Alan Brill: Judaism and World Religions: Encountering Christianity, Islam, and Eastern Traditions

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  “In this major new contribution, Brill builds upon his earlier path breaking work on Jewish views of other religions. With expertise in both comparative theology and in traditional Jewish texts—a rare combination indeed—he again demonstrates his impressive ability to tackle this vital topic. The work is methodologically sophisticated, as Brill critically engages with key thinkers on interreligious relations. It is also stunningly wide-ranging. He not only delves deeply into Jewish reflections on Christianity and Islam but assembles enlightening but little-known texts on Eastern religions as well. Thanks to Brill’s valuable work, scholars of Judaism and of religion are well-equipped to deal with a topic of great importance in the modern world.” -- Adam Gregerman, Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies, Baltimore, MD

  “Alan Brill examines the attitudes found in Jewish classical literature and contemporary writings towards western and eastern religions. Brill understands various writers inherently express a wide range of views ranging from rejecting to welcoming. The perspective is designed to argue for a more inclusive and tolerant stance based on modern mind-sets and deeper understandings of Christianity and Islam and even Judaism itself. His wide knowledge of world religions from the perspectives of inside practitioners and outside academic scholars of religion allows him to present original and thought provoking arguments for greater religious recognition of the other.” -- Herbert Basser, Queen’s School of Religion, Queen’s University, Kingston Canada

  “In presenting the urgency, the possibility, but also the complexity of a Jewish engagement with other religious traditions, Brill works consistently with concrete texts and particular contexts.  Doing so, he not only speaks appropriately to Jews but challengingly to Christians.  By being uniquely Jewish, Brill’s book is a distinctive contribution to the general discussion on how to make religious sense out of religious diversity.”-- Paul Knitter, Paul Tillich Professor of Theology, World Religions, and Culture, Union Theological Seminary, New York

  "Alan Brill’s work is an encyclopedic contribution to the literature on religious pluralism. It is at once a guide to the spectrum of Jewish interpretations of other faiths, an insightful analysis of the contemporary interreligious landscape and a sampler of Brill’s own comparative thinking in regard to some major traditions. Through argument and by example, this book encourages a new depth of Jewish engagement in the theological discussion of diversity."-- S. Mark Heim,  Samuel Abbot Professor of Christian Theology, Andover Newton Theological School

  Judaism and World Religions is essential for a Jewish theological understanding of the various issues in encounters with the other major religions. With passion and clarity, Brill argues that in today’s world of strong religious passions and intolerance, it is necessary to go beyond secular tolerance toward moderate religious positions. Brill outlines strategies for Jews who want to remain true to traditional sources while interacting with the diversity of the world’s religions.

  This companion volume to Judaism and Other Religions provides the first extensive collection of traditional and academic Jewish approaches to the religions of the world. In the majority of volume, he presents an excellent survey of the possibilities contained in the texts useful for discussing Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism from a Jewish point for view.

  Alan Brill is the Cooperman/Ross Endowed Professor in honor of Sister Rose Thering at Seton Hall University, where he teaches Jewish Studies in the Graduate Department of Jewish-Christian Studies. He is active in interfaith encounter. Brill is the author of Thinking God: The Mysticism of Rabbi Zadok of Lublin and Judaism and Other Religions: Models of Understanding (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2010).

• February 17, 2012
• 6:36

  “Mary Astell’s Unlikely Feminist Revolution: Lessons on the Role of Religion in Fighting for Gender Rights in 18th Century England,” by Brandon Withrow

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  The Christian philosopher and theologian Mary Astell (1666-1731) called for a counter-intuitive feminist revolution, which included the education of, and Protestant monastic community for, women (as an alternative to marriage), while simultaneously affirming a wife’s submission to her husband. This thinker argued that the Bible does not discuss gender equality, while simultaneously basing a large portion of her case for equality on Trinitarian theology. Astell’s religious nuances are reminders that the modus operandi of change is relative to the cultural and religious expectations of the world one is working in and the future one is seeking.

• 6:35

  “Notes on a Maya Apocalypse: Eschatology in the Guatemalan Civil War,” by Eric Hoenes del Pinal

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  The second half of the Twentieth Century saw much of Latin America undergoing intense periods of political instability and violence resulting in major social and political changes. Responding both to this uncertain political climate and the call to openness initiated by the Second Vatican Council, several theological movements began to take shape within Latin American Catholicism that sought to re-imagine the present and future of the Catholic Church. Critical to these projects was a re-figuration of salvation history that could better account for the social and political inequalities faced by many Latin American Catholics and that could respond to the immediate needs of marginalized peoples. This paper examines how Liberation Theology can be said to have proposed an eschatology that was responsive to social and cultural experiences of marginalized groups in Latin America and explores the legacy of this movement in the light of the extreme violence of the Guatemalan Civil War.

• 6:35

  “Jewish-Christian Encounter Through Text: an Interfaith Course for Seminarians,” by Melissa Heller

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  What happens when rabbinical students partner with Protestant seminarians and commit to a sustained and in-depth study of biblical text?

  A lot.

  They seek commonality. They tell stories.  They bring their vulnerabilities. They are offered a new lens through which to view their sacred texts.  They are challenged to articulate their beliefs and explain aspects of their tradition to their study partners, often helping them to clarify their relationship to their own tradition, to their sacred literature and to God.  As a semester progresses and trust develops, they share their challenges.  They question their partners.  They come to appreciate their differences, and to respect them.

  As the interactions deepen between the pairs, and among the group, so too does understanding. What results is a broadening of their definitions of “Jew” and “Christian” to include nuance, narrative and diversity.

• 6:35

  “Prophetic Courage and the Will of God: Comparative Ethics Through the Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Nishida Kitaro,” by Brendan R. Ozawa-de Silva

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  This article focuses on two concepts, each charged with a distinct ethical valence and ambiguity, namely “courage” and “the will of God,” and approaches them from a comparative perspective. A discussion of either concept by itself could involve the interplay between the philosophical, ethical, mystical, and religious; here, I bring them together in the hope that each may shed light on the other, focusing especially on their conjuncture in what I call “prophetic courage.” There are many ways in which the word courage is used, and in some of them, a courageous act can at the same time be called an unethical act. When we speak of truly great courage, however, we tend to associate it with the ethical and the good. Here I will be concentrating on prophetic courage as a type of great courage, and hence one that is profoundly connected to the question of the ethical.

• 6:34

  “Is Jesus on the Side of the Non-Christian?” by Aimee Upjohn Light

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  In his Journal of Ecumenical Studies response to my piece Hick, Harris and the Demise of the Pluralist Hypothesis, John Hick continues to advocate a meta-approach to religious multiplicity which ignores the problems inherent in such a quest.  Condemning tradition-bound approaches as “dogmatic theology,” Hick remains unaware of the promise of progress which is yet unmined within the religions themselves.  Specifically, this article proposes that by returning to Christianity as a rebellious religion of liberation—with a founder who witnessed to God’s absolute commitment to the oppressed and marginalized—we avoid the problems which undermine the pluralist hypothesis and the abstract, ontologically based positions which follow it.  Further, we reap the good which pluralism was meant to accomplish, specifically the affirmation of multiple religions and the status of their members.  The return to confessionally-based approaches is already taking place within inter-religious dialogue and theology of religions. Making sure that this return is not a return to abstract Christian dogmatism and instead serves the aims of Hick’s pluralism should be the work of this generation of scholars.  This article begins to point at how, for Christians, we can radicalize the current methodological paradigm shift to confessional, tradition-bound approaches and at the same time save this work from suffering the same problems as pluralism.  We need to give our confessional return the content of liberation theology.

• 6:34

  Special Section: Modeling Dialogue

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

• 6:34

  “Poor Jesus: No Place to Stand,” by Lawrence C. Whitney

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  In this response I aim to introduce some distinctions in order to render a more complex view of the sector of theology in which interreligious dialogue resides at present and to raise some concerns about Dr. Light’s theological position.

• 6:34

  Call for Submissions for Issue 10

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  
  

  

• February 16, 2012
• 21:20

  Issue 8

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

• November 12, 2011
• 3:20

  “When Art Takes Over Faith and Conflict,” by Salima Amer

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  The shocking brutality of Anders Breivik’s terrorist acts in Norway makes one wonder if there was anything that could have been done to prevent him from doing it. Was it possible that a work of art with a poignant message of living together in harmony in this globalized world would have neutralized his extremist thoughts? After all, his entire so-called manifesto, later discovered, has given evidence of his hatred for multi-culturalism and Islamphobia as the real reason behind his acts.

  In our modern world we are crammed with images fed through electronic media and it is often violence that has an immediate impact on us. Suspicion and fear flare up when individuals are seen committing insane acts of terrorism to carry out a dogmatic proof of a belief or set of ideologies. This always gives rise to an environment where conflict and unpredictability prevails. And images and iconography which we encounter do play up with emotions and feelings; they work by either creating a desire to express a message or simply to reveal the darker side of mankind.

  There are many creative minds putting up their works on internet to prove that art has some healing potency to erase tensions and hatred culminating from intolerance and lack of spirituality. There are entire communities on Facebook and YouTube dedicated to creating digital works of art and imagery to show that art can be about peace and shunning aside differences. There are societies and communities set up solely to share pictures to prove that our planet earth is Eden-like despite the destruction of the forests and global warming. Some are producing works of the ethereal and celestial worlds to give a glimpse of the visual conception and the mysteriousness of the other reality. Some seek to transform spirituality as an attainment of non-violence and developing a love for a cosmic feeling of one-ness with the universe, which is why Buddha regularly appears in these images. With scores of posters, wall art, and sculptures dedicated to him, the Buddha has attained a Hollywood star status.

  Whether all this is going to make everyone put aside differences, and especially set aside conflict between different faiths, is yet to be proven. But art can certainly quell growing doubts that we are unaware of the need to create bridges to fill the gaps arising from lack of knowledge about other faiths. Many charities working to promote interfaith dialogue are utilizing art as a tool to raise awareness about the cause. The Tony Blair Faith Foundation has created a filmmaking competition for youth are encouraged to show how faith inspires them.

  Heaven on Earth Creations is another charity that makes documentaries on interfaith dialogue. Their recent documentary Globalized Soul was filmed all over the globe and describes the emergent universal spirituality that is transforming our world and thus forming a unity from the diversity that the human family generates through art, music and literature. This all could be an indication that we are interested in seeing religion not merely dominated by politics and scholarly debate, and that art is relevant for us to understand the controversies and issues we are facing in today’s world.

  I set out to explore how three artists have used faith as a backdrop in their paintings. When humans practice ideologies and beliefs that preach a sense of exclusion, art has an essential transforming effect on those practices because it can be surreal and elusive.

  Jane Monica Tvedt, a self-taught Norwegian artist, believes this transforming potential is possible; she says, "[Art] can make human beings think differently, and through paintings we can create thoughts that have never been there before."

  Surprised by the scale of the tragedy in her home country, Tvedt has worked out a mission for herself to reach out to people through Facebook and give them a glimmer of the hope of unity and love. Her hazy and romantic paintings seem to have layers of emotions, some brimming with gayety and a celebration of life and others giving expression to more mystical thoughts. Ethereal and delicate characters float in circles and dots of colors. Certainly the viewer experiences a light feeling of being transformed into a nirvana of blissful scenery and people from her paintings. Tvedt draws inspiration from her readings of Quran, Bible, Hindu and Bhuddist scriptures.

  If attainment of mystical power can be accomplished from the study of the Holy Scriptures, artist Faiza Shaikh has worked out another medium to reflect her inner thoughts about what faith should generate. She left Pakistan in the early eighties and has been based in London--a city brimming with diversity. Over the years, coming into contact with people belonging to different faiths has enriched Shaikh's own knowledge and outlook, and she likes to believe that her paintings are generating a message that all faiths essentially uphold the same moral principles. Her canvases include raw and bold colors schemes in rich patterns creating a baroquee tapestry. Amidst tension, the viewer finds drama infused with a lyrical vivacity that is neither too subtle nor too direct by use of  gold leaf  etched with the Holy texts that take centre place in her compositions.

  Anoma Wijewardene’s work breathes a new meaning to human suffering and the desperate need for peace. She has been drawn to the strife between humans and the environment, between faiths and people. The political strife and civil war of her home country of Sri Lanka leaves haunting traces in the symbolism she creates. Wijewardene's work appears to be a place of the soul; she evoke a sense of divine inspiration and the beauty of form, which comes across in fossil-like figures and icicles of collages or cutout surfaces. In 2002, she showed a collection of her paintings in Delhi seeking to reflect the incidence of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas. It was her cumulative desire to create a tension in bringing together images from diverse faiths like Buddhism and Islam and so mirror the concept of irreconcilable differences which are only generated by human intolerance.

  Modern art has become a global medium, but it is much more than merely an extension of an individual story from the painter. Many artists want to do away with borders and boundaries of intolerance and hate, and seek to share this message in their work.

• November 05, 2011
• 20:32

  “Understanding the Lessons of The Feast,” By Amjad Mohamed-Saleem

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  In a few days, it will be The Great Feast of Islam and Muslims (Eid al Adha) symbolizing the culmination of the pilgrimage to Mecca; a few days of light, fraternity, and love are intended to  symbolize meditation, a return back to the Creator, blessings and prayers for peace.

  Yet, even as we are observing that this noblest of occasion, we find that it has seen custom transform into duty and practice descend into commercialization and waste: waste of money, waste of meat, waste of food.

  In preparation for the feast, over the last three weeks, you would have been bombarded with emails, text messages, and adverts on who offers the better deal on doing one’s Qurbani at a competitive price.  The hadith of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) to “compete to outdo one another for the good things” has become symbolized by market forces as "charities" outbid each other to offer the best price to slaughter a cow, sheep, or goat around the world.

  And so, the most noblest and holiest of acts of worship has been denigrated to shopping around like buying a car: "Where is the best price for a cow, goat, or sheep, so that I can get a happier recipient and thus a better reward in the Hereafter?"

  And so like in any market system, there are problems such as the manipulation of prices, corruption, and abuse as suppliers try to meet the demands for slaughter.

  In the essence of rushing to seek that instant satisfaction of redemption, we trivialize the essence of the need on the ground.  No--the poor, vulnerable and needy do not have meat, but no one stops to ask whether giving them meat for a day would help improve their lives or if doing something else is needed.

  Therein lies the problem--the closure of  space for reasoning, debate, and rational thinking about faith, spirituality and practice. A symbolic and recommended (not obligatory) act of worship in remembrance of the Prophet Ibrahim’s (Peace be upon him) sacrifice becomes a literal obligation of animal sacrifice, so that the blood flows deep and the distribution of meat becomes the anchor for the duty.

  We have forgotten what the sacrifice is supposed to symbolize.  The story and lesson of Prophets Ibrahim and Ismail (Peace be upon them) deserve to be shared, remembered, and celebrated.  The conversation between father and son in this most hardest of scenarios bears serious contemplation.  In the height of challenging circumstance, the consultation of a parent with his child and the firm but soft acceptance of a parent’s wish by a child highlights a dying relationship in the world today.

  Very often, as older people, we neglect to pay those younger than us the respect of equal treatment, often speaking down to them or dismissing their views.  As younger people, we are often quick to rebel against the wishes of the older (and often wiser) generation.  Though such relationships can be open to abuse, this story reminds us of the delicate balance that is necessary in human relationships to ensure respect, understanding and acceptance.

  Through showing the ultimate sacrifice of a parent’s closest and beloved possession for the sake of the One to whom you will eventually return, we are taught that whatever we own and are close to pales in comparison to the ultimate possession that we have: Our relationship with The One Most High.  This sacrifice coming at the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca is the very essence of the celebration. In our journey back to the beginning, how much will we be able to sacrifice?

  This sacrifice not only reminds us to be thankful for all the blessings that we have, but to be content with them.  We are asked to keep in check our greed as whatever excess we have we are encouraged to share with those who deserve special attention - the poor and needy people, as well as the orphans.  This is the true meaning of the sacrifice that we make so that those in need will benefit.  So the question becomes, is it the principle or the actual act of sacrifice that we need to be thinking about during this time?

  The significance of the hajj includes the principle of the sacrifice and the message: "To serve humanity, those in need; those without... To awaken your conscience in the proximity of the wounds and the injustices people face...To move away from your heart, your bad thoughts…To distance yourself from the darkest dimensions of your being, your violence, your jealousies, your superficialities."

  By not allowing space for discussion to examine these ideas and principles, we negate the very concept of our heritage and teachings.

  For the benefit of the voiceless, it is imperative that we not lose our way by being driven blindly by traditional practices or by commercialization, and to return to the very essence of the message that is part of all Abrahamic Faiths: respect and love of human beings (especially those who are vulnerable and have been unjustly treated). This is a manifestation of the love for the Almighty.

  So this festive season, let us return to the essential.  Let us remember that this is, more than anything, a feast of fraternal atmosphere that is shared by all.  Thus, in reaching out to address the true objective of spirituality through prayers and good deeds, let us remember the responsibility we have to the poor.  Let us avoid the waste and, more importantly, the wasted sacrifices.

  May the Almighty, who loves you, guide and protect you.  May there be peace and respite for all those who are suffering. May you spend time with your loved ones in an atmosphere of happiness; Happy Feast!

• August 15, 2011
• 21:21

  Issue 7

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

• 21:20

  “Madhvācārya as Prophetic Witness,” by Deepak Sarma

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  Madhvācārya, the 13^th century propounder of dualism, exemplifies a prophet whose prophetic witness was enacted in a kairos, which demanded his dualist response. The school of Vedānta that he founded was a radical corrective that urged the return to a theistic conception of the universe that was in accordance with the prescriptions of the śruti (the revealed canonical texts). I offer stipulative definitions of three terms and one phrase used in Catholicism, namely kairos, prophet, witness, and the combined, prophetic witness. I use these to show that he is a prophet, and a prophetic witness who acted during a kairos.

• 21:20

  “Uncapping the Springs of Localization: Christian Inculturation in South India in the 19th and 20th Centuries,” by Christhu Doss

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Identified for its diversified culture and traditions, India witnessed a process of assimilation and synthesis of cultures during the Indian subcontinent’s medieval period. Undoubtedly, however, the advent of British colonialism during the seventeenth century profoundly altered Indian life, culture, and polity. Ancient Indian customs and values were undermined by the conquering forces, and “Hindu” practices were decried as being superstitious. Consequently, the scathing attack on Indian culture and religion generated vehement criticism from English educated Indian intelligentsia including Ram Mohan Roy, who even alleged that “the British did not want the light of knowledge to dawn on India.”

• 21:20

  “Spiritual Directions, Religious Ways, and Education,” by Joseph McCann

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Robert Wuthnow, Professor of Sociology at Princeton and the Director of the Center for the Study of Religion, has been observing and analyzing American approaches to religion for some decades now.  His distinction of “dwelling” and “seeking” is probably the most helpful way of thinking about attitudes to religion and spirituality today.

  Wuthnow explains by saying that there are two mentalities, one interested in stability and security and the other which moves towards exploration and transition.  Many individuals now are looking for the sacred and the meaningful elsewhere than in traditional churches or religious institutions, and finding it in places not usually regarded as sacred.  As Wuthnow comments: “Rather than being in a place that is by definition spiritual, the sacred is found momentarily in experiences as different as mowing the lawn or viewing a full moon.” (1998, 3-5)  The purpose of this article is to build on Wurthnow’s idea and map the movement of spiritual seekers as they travel from their familiar locale in different directions by unknown paths to spiritual “fresh woods and pastures new.”

  This article employs an extended metaphor of journey or passage, that is, someone goes from one place to another, chooses a route, makes discoveries on the way and arrives at a destination. The journey is the inner journey of a person seeking, looking and finding a new spiritual home.   The paper provides a framework or map, to enable one to observe where the journey may be headed.  After all, when travellers have a general sense of the countryside, then they are less likely to feel lost.

• 21:19

  “Kenosis, Sunyata, and Comportment: Inter-Religious Discourse Beyond Concepts,” by Eric Hall

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Here, I argue against Masao Abe’s interpretation of the Christian notion of Kenosis. Kenosis supposedly coincides with the Buddhist notion of Sunyata, through which Abe attempts to build an interreligious bridge. Abe, however, presents Kenosis in such a manner that is too out of sync with most historical western understandings of it, meaning his interpretation cannot actually function as the bridge that he wants. Giving what I believe is a more “orthodox” interpretation of Kenosis, I argue that the idea still finds a parallel in Sunyata, only in terms of the notion of praxis rather than conceptuality.

• 21:19

  “Muslims, Modernity, and the Prospects of Christian-Muslim Dialogue,” by Robert Hunt

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This paper seeks to understand contemporary Islam in such a way as to suggest new approaches to Christian-Muslim dialogue. However, the general approach it offers is equally useful in the pursuit of other forms of engagement with Muslims and the Muslim community. It is the thesis of this paper that understanding Muslim (and Christian) identity in terms of narrative will provide a more illuminating and fruitful basis for engaging in interfaith dialogue, or at least a better understanding of those with whom we as Christians are in dialogue. A focus on Muslim narratives will also provide an alternative taxonomy of Islamic movements in the hope that this will provide indications of how future dialogue most usefully can be pursued.

• 21:18

  Wanted: More Than Dialogue-a Response to Robert Hunt’s Essay, “Muslims, Modernity, and the Prospects of Christian-Muslim Dialogue,” by Karen Leslie Hernandez

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Robert Hunt’s essay, Muslims, Modernity, and the Prospects of Christian-Muslim Dialogue is intriguing and interesting.  I especially found his ideas surrounding the narrative taxonomies of Islam and the Muslim world important.  While I agree that not all, but many Muslims struggle within the modern world and Islamic tradition, I think the Western world puts more of a focus on this issue than is necessary.

• 21:18

  “I am so much more than Lutheran: a Response to Hunt’s ‘Muslims, Modernity, and the Prospects of Christian-Muslim Dialogue,’” by Kari Aanestad

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  My primary critique of Hunt’s piece is that while he replaces old categories of religious self-understanding with new categories that supposedly facilitate more fruitful interreligious conversations, I am cautious about the degree to which categories are helpful.  My critique is threefold critique: first, religious identity is only part of the full narrative of the individual. For example, I suspect that though I self-identify as a Lutheran (a principled Lutheran according to Hunt’s taxonomies), my narrative of my religious identity is only part of a larger story - the complex, beautiful, entire story of Kari.

• 21:18

  “Dialogue Hard?,” a Response to Hunt’s, “Muslims, Modernity, and the Prospects of Christian-Muslim Dialogue,” by Benjamin B. DeVan

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  I am grateful to Robert A. Hunt for his thoughtful paper and to the Journal of Interreligious Dialogue for inviting me to respond.  Hunt raises many which resonate with me regarding freedom of religious conviction and expression, interreligious dialogue, cooperation, and egalitarianism.

• 21:18

  “Narrative as New Reality: A Memoirist Responds to Robert Hunt,” by Bryan Parys

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  First off, I’m a memoirist. I’ve been invited to respond to Robert Hunt’s “Muslims, Modernity, and the Prospects of Christian-Muslim Dialogue,” distinctly because I am not a theologian, but a crafter and student of narrative. Or, better yet, the art of narrative—meaning there is an act of creation necessary when humans engage in the parsing and ultimate sharing of narratives.

  In his essay, Hunt purports that a deeper understanding of narratives will allow for more substantial, bridge-building dialogue between Muslims and Christians (he specifies that “Christian” is just one lens here, and that the narrative approach to dialogue could and should work for any non-Muslim group). As he explicitly says, “It is the thesis of this paper that understanding Muslim (and Christian) identity in terms of narrative will provide a more illuminating and fruitful basis for engaging in interfaith dialogue…” (Hunt 2010)

• August 12, 2011
• 23:52

  “The UK Riots – Multi Facet Riot Demands Multi Disciplinary Approach,” by Amjad Saleem of The Cordoba Foundation

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  The riots that have engulfed London and other major cities in the United Kingdom over the last week are finally receding in intensity but in the wake of the horrific scenes of violence, looting and arson that has left people shaken, the real issues look set to take centre stage especially as post mortems are carried out.

  Yet whilst it would be easy for the post mortem to just focus on the failure of the system to anticipate and ultimately handle and control such riots, it would be a shame to simply gloss over examining some of the causes of the initial riot and the subsequent snowballing incidents of looting and criminality.  This is where it gets a bit comlicated.  The riot had multifaceted elements and a proper approach to examining the riots and its causes is akin to the peeling away of the layer of onion skins.  This is not to say that what happened in any way is to be justified, but explanations need to be sought.

  The government on its part is perhaps keen to highlight these incidents as more of a criminal nature as opposed to anything deeper such as disaffection and poverty, despite David Cameron’s statement to parliament on its recall from the summer break, acknowledging the potential  ‘context’ of the riots. In a way there is some justification to regarding some of the incidents as criminal especially in some of the copy cat incidents that followed the initial wave of riots on Saturday night.  An opportunity was seized on Sunday morning to loot stores and this was followed by other people in the following days especially with the riots that took place on Monday and Tuesday.  Yet to simply blame this on criminality is perhaps to be slightly naïve and to put a band aid on a very deep cut. What is needed is to go to the root of the problem.

  There is an element of the people who rioted especially on Saturday night (and on subsequent nights), that feel disengaged not just from the political process (largely because politicians have also disengaged from them) but also from mainstream society (that constantly ignores them), who have no focus for their energy, anger and resentment, no sense that they can change society and no reason to feel responsible for the consequences of their actions.   These are people who suffer from a structural inequality which is all too obvious in the poverty you see in the communities where they live.  They have very little currently in their lives and very little to look forward to.  Thus one should not underestimate the frustration felt by social exclusion, disenfranchisement and wasted lives that many of these youth have.

  It is also obvious that successive Governments took the eyes of the ball with regards this issue. For the last decade or so, the Government has been focused its program called Prevent (Preventing Violent Extremism) which based  on a security agenda deals with mainly one community. By concentrating a majority of resources on counter terrorism measures that ended up scrutinising a certain section of the community from a security perspective and focussing on a minority within that community, real social issues which were conflated with security priorities ended up being sidelined and  opportunities to address them appropriately wasted.  Thus not only did a majority of the counter terrorism initiatives fail but a greater sense of isolation, disillusionment and a decline in community cohesion was the result.

  The copy cat riots that followed the Tottenham one, in many parts of London and other major cities of the UK, though display a more sinister and disturbing problem.  It shows a crass disregard for other people and property and judging from the wide section of people, who did the looting, is not confined to a specific class, race or even educational level.  These events were symptomatic of an unsustainable need to consume and acquire in the face of declining morals.  It is no coincidence that these riots took place at the same time of a global financial meltdown.  The corruption of the politicians, media and police and the recklessness that has condemned our economies to its decline and the big companies that evade taxes, might be different in appearance but they all have a common denominator: Greed! As one commentator explained, the moral decadence of the criminality displayed on the streets is not that different to the moral disintegration at the higher echelons of society. The need to get more and more without ever stopping to think of the consequences! The unequal consumer society that we have become obsessed with , leading to the constant desire to acquire more and more of the better toys and the designer label clothes, in order to affirm our status with material things whilst regaling in our individuality, means that morals and ethics can be disregarded.  This is where the biggest eye opener has come from the riots.   Decency and humanity have been swapped for selfishness and greed.

  Thus in this regard, we as a society all are culpable as we have allowed markets to dictate politics and community life in our drive to become more and to acquire more.  The culture of the society has become one fed on individual achievements influenced by social status and virtual friendships. We devalued social interaction to ‘chatting’ with  so-called friends on Facebook; we have allowed the smartphone to become an appendage of our  bodies and  we have become desensitised to violence as a result of what we listen to, what we watch  on tv, what we read and what electronic games we play.

  The truth of the matter is that as we peer into the mirror to ask questions as to what went wrong, we are faced with a shattered mirror in the analogy of Sir Richard Burton in the The Kasidah of Haji Abdu El-Yezdi, who wrote “Truth is the shattered mirror strewn In myriad bits; while each believes his little bit the whole to own”. Thus parts of the truth are everywhere and the whole truth nowhere! It is with individual pieces that we start.

  From the Government’s perspective, they need to quickly distinguish between political policy and lived experiences.  They will have to stop developing a set of policies that put people into silos and that view things through a security lens in order to understand the diversity of a cosmopolitan society at the grass roots where everyone actually knows each other and respects each other.  If anyone thought multiculturalism at a practical level had failed causing people to dislike the country that they live in, then the evidence of various immigrant communities who readily stood up to defend their neighbourhoods during the riots points to the contrary.  The Government will have to acknowledge that something more than just enacting policy will have to be done. Yet unfortunately, in the debate in Parliament following David Cameron’s speech, MPs seemed to skirt around the issues of tackling the degeneration of moral values in society instead choosing to talk about policy, funding and policing.  It was as if the proverbial elephant in the room was ‘how do we tackle moral decline?’

  So maybe it is not up to the politicians to take the first step.  Perhaps it is up to us as communities and society who will have to swap markets for morals in politics, business and community life.  We have to rediscover the moral agency that will allow us to apply universal ethics and values to our daily lives.  This is not something that can be enforced by a government, but is something that has to be internally generated before it can be lived.  For this, we will have to go back to the basics to develop a shared language of morals, ethics and values, which will feed into respect and understanding.

  In essence, we will have to rediscover a spirituality of commonality which will allow us to recognise the common space and substance amongst all doctrines that will provide the fuel for social change and trigger action for the unity of humanity. This shared language will enable us to develop a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes this improbable experiment of reconciling and rehabilitation of vulnerable communities possible. These values and ideals will have to be living, which cannot find expression on paper or monuments or in the annals of history books, but which remain alive in the hearts and minds of people inspiring us to pride, duty and sacrifice. These living values will have to help us to build on shared understandings and should be the glue that binds every healthy society.

  The concept of spirituality of commonality that we need to develop as a society in response to the terrible incidents of the last week has to be an awareness of the interconnection of all things to provide the fuel for social change.  It has to recognise that diverse doctrines have a common space and substance as we all belong to this world and we need to live in peace with everything and everyone and protect it for those who come after us. It has to be about a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of those who are voiceless.  It has to allow us to value behaviour that express mutual regard for one another, honesty, fairness, humility, kindness courtesy and compassion.

  People might scoff at the naivety of this statement but the point is that we have no choice.  We have got to a position where something new needs to happen. For too long, narrow interests have vied for advantage with ideological minorities seeking to impose their own versions of absolute truth. It is time we reassembled the pieces of the broken mirror.

  In order for this to happen, as many people have already been talking about, we need to engage: with each other, at different levels and ultimately with the authorities. The Bishop of London talked about nourishing relationships in order to develop an understanding of right and wrong. I would go even further to say that an extension of nourishing relationships and engagement is the concept of linking and partnership for mutual learning.  What we need is a change of paradigm of the post Second World War twinning initiative between towns in England, France and Germany which was done as a means to prevent future conflict in Europe through international friendship and solidarity at community level. What we need now is the development of partnerships in solidarity between towns, local authorities, schools, hospitals, religious organisations, youth clubs to not only understand each other but to strengthen communities, add to social cohesion and contribute to personal and professional development through friendships made and work undertaken across the partnerships.  Whilst this is needed within the UK, it is also a feature that this should be undertaken between the UK and counterparts in the Global South.

  The concept of linking and partnerships are increasingly important to people (especially those with counterparts in the Global South) because with the increasing global nature of the workforce; movement of industries and companies; the narrowing of the information border and the gradually interdependency we as a globalised community seem to be becoming, people (especially the youth) in the UK need to understand the cultural contexts of other countries so that they develop the skills to be employed in far flung areas; they develop the skills to interact with each other and ultimately they develop the skills to respect one another. It increases not only community cohesion within the UK but will also contribute to social skills and global cohesion.

  Organisations currently working in the field of linking and partnership such as BUILD (which is a coalition of 45 international development agencies committed to the development of sustained partnerships between communities in UK with counterparts in developing countries) will vociferously tell you that they see that issues such as unemployment, marginalisation, mental health problems, obesity, drugs, gangs and gun culture can and have been addressed through community partnerships undertaken between the UK and  the Global South.  So linking works!!

  Thus there is a need and an opportunity now more than ever to promote the linking of communities to harness more cross-community collaboration, in the interests of peace, tolerance and wellbeing.

  Within this spectrum of partnership and linking, we cannot disassociate ourselves from the role of faith.  As we talk about the development of new morals, ethics, values and spirituality, we need to consider faith and the role that faith organisations will have in adding to this new narrative. Faith provides a narrative and a space in which one can start to explore some of these discussions of ethics and morals.  In many of the smaller communities (especially the minority ethnic and immigrant communities), faith and faith organisations play a pivotal role in responding to the demands and pressures of the local community, where they operate with local knowledge to address specific community problems.  They are highly active in many fields of social service, healthcare, education, human rights, youth development etc. They are self reliant, capable of harnessing the communities’ manpower, skills and resources. They serve very often as role models; variously taking a stand against corruption, developing infrastructure, delivering “sharp end” programmes and offering relief, healthcare and educational resources- where they would not otherwise be found. They are invariably unswerving in their zeal and commitment and many organisations work entirely voluntarily in a spirit of service.

  Though there is a character to the religious playing field, that complicates matters with an undeniably, as strong a history of internecine strife and struggle, discrimination as they do of cooperation and collaboration and a problem of religiosity, we cannot ignore their voices and their role.  Thus it is against this framework of potential disagreement and division, which we need to build and sustain links. The report “Engaging With Faith”, drawn up on behalf of The Commonwealth Foundation, by Professor Ian Linden and Andrew Firmin, recommends that we should strive to, “support joint working between inter faith networks, by promoting North-South, South-South linking, sharing of practice and focussed exchanges.”  But what is needed is something more: linking, between and within faith (and non faith) communities-and certainly faith hub, to faith hub, rather than focussing on inter-faith networks, within the global north and more specifically between cities, towns and communities in the UK.

  We need to realise that each of us (with our own faith, culture and community spirit) have a bit of that shard of broken glass from the shattered mirror.  Only by piecing them together can we ever hope to move out of our silos and attain a much more cohesive community that better understands, respects and accepts each other.  We need to collectively work such that breeding violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate.  We need to ensure that our youth are given accurate information about other traditions, religions and cultures.  We need to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity and to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings.

  Linking, partnerships, engagement all mean the same thing: a sense of cooperation that leads to better understanding which should be encouraged and supported.  This is a powerful tool for the promotion of dialogue, tolerance and harmonious living.  Existing initiatives need to be strengthened and new ones started that have sustainable footprints in the community whilst providing a space for all stakeholders of society to play a role.  The concept of linking should be enhanced through a comprehensive education strategy, both formal and informal, that breaks down the seemingly insurmountable divide of ‘us’ and ‘them’. This education should begin at home, within families and small communities, where the benefit of dialogue and linking can be seen and felt. It should roll through schools, institutes of higher education and ultimately politicians, legislators, governments and multi-lateral organisations.

  Tan Sen, the master musician at the court of the Moghul Emperor, Akbar, had some fifteen musical instruments in the Emperor’s chamber, which he had tuned to one frequency. Upon playing just one instrument’s musical note, the other fourteen started to resonate, to the astonishment and delight of the audience.  Ideally this story can serve well as a metaphor for how communities can work in harmony to achieve an enlightened result.

• May 22, 2011
• 16:09

  Summer Online Course: God Beyond Borders: Building Inter-religious Community

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Sheryl Kujawa-Holbrook, member of the JIRD Board of Scholars and Practitioners, offers opportunity for inter-religious study this summer:

  What potential is there for inter-religious connections in your community?

  The United States is one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world, and yet many individuals and congregations struggle with establishing authentic relationships with people of other religious traditions.

  This course offers an opportunity to reflect on the potential for interreligious community in their own religious lives and relationships, and in their own communities, as well as to gather some practical skills and resources for this task.

  A foundational conviction is that interreligious dialogue not only deepens the understanding and respect we have for other religious traditions, it can profoundly impact our understanding and experience of our own.

  June 6 - July 22

  Registration deadline: May 30. Cost $225; $175
  for groups of 3 or more. 2 Continuing Education
  Units available. Register here.

• April 30, 2011
• 16:22

  Issue 6

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

• 16:22

  “The Need for and Importance of Dialogue of Life in Community Building: The Case of Selected West African Nations,” By Nathan Iddrisu Samwini

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This paper discusses dialogue of life under five main thematic areas. After a definition of dialogue of life the paper goes on to discuss dialogue of life in general, the need for dialogue of life, the effects of dialogue of life, and the importance of dialogue of life in community and nation building, with particular emphasis on selected West African and Nations.

• 16:21

  “Interfaith Dialogue in the Pulpit—Proclaiming an Emerging Gospel: A 21st Century Imperative,” By Denise Yarbrough

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  In this article the author reviews the context of contemporary American Christian experience, which is a thoroughly multi-religious, pluralistic context.  The article argues for an approach to Christian preaching which would at all times interpret Christian texts in a way that is radically hospitable to and respectful of other religious traditions, avoiding supercessionism, triumphalism or any sense of superiority.  This pluralist preaching model would seek to proclaim an emerging gospel that is formed and proclaimed in conversation with the wisdom and insights of many world religious traditions.  Such preaching is presented as a spiritual imperative for 21^st century Christian formation.

• 16:21

  “Sitting at the Buddha with the Tanna’im: Walking Through the Dhammapada and Pirke Avot,” By DeWitt Clinton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  This paper examines the parallels between two ancient ethical texts, the Buddhist Dhammapada, and the Jewish, Pirke Avot. Both of these texts offer the reader insights into what is necessary for maintaining “balance” in the world of ethical requirements for treating each other with respect and dignity.  Buddhists and non-Buddhists can read the Dhammapada for an understanding of how to maintain balance on the Eightfold Path.  Jews and non-Jews can read Pirke Avot for a similar understanding of how to complete mitzvoth, often translated as “good deeds.”  Each text offers insights into the other religion, reminding readers that these ethical texts offer similar wisdom, despite extraordinary differences in religious beliefs.

• 16:20

  “Buddhist-Muslim Dialogue in Ladakh, 2010,” By Maria Reis Habito

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  A Buddhist Muslim dialogue on the topic “Addressing Violence: Religious Resources for Conflict Resolution” was held at the Mahabodhi International Meditation Center (MIMC) in Leh/Ladakh, India from June 28-30, 2010.  This dialogue was the twelfth in a series of dialogues organized by the Global Family for Love and Peace and the Museum of World Religions, this time in collaboration with the Mahabodhi Center and its founder, the Venerable Sanghasena Mahathera. The series was initiated soon after 9/11 by Dharma Master Hsin Tao, founder and abbot of the Wu-sheng Monastery and founder of the Museum of World Religions in Taiwan.  The dialogues seek new perspectives of Buddhist and Muslim co-operation in facing the challenges brought on by political, religious, economic and ecological crises of the twenty-first century.

• March 26, 2011
• 22:48

  “Newspaper for Kids asks Girls about their Headscarf,” by Amanda Vender

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  “Your Turn” is a segment of IndyKids newspaper in which kid readers offer their take on a particular topic, proving that kids, too, can have a say in important current events.

  When the March 2011 issue’s “Your Turn” asked girls at a public school  in the Bronx why they wear a headscarf, the purpose was to help confront misconceptions kids (and adults) may have about Muslim girls and women, that can only be dispelled by asking and becoming informed.

  Also in the March 2011 Issue, one of the young women had the opportunity to share her personal experiences in "My Hijab." She wrote, "Wearing a hijab in the Bronx, where there are more people who don’t wear it than people who do, is really hard, but since I’ve been wearing the hijab ever since I was seven years old I don’t mind wearing it. People ask me questions about it and I answer. Most people are nice but some can be really rude and judgmental."

  IndyKids is a free national newspaper, website and teaching tool that aims to inform children on current news and world events from a progressive perspective and to inspire a passion for social justice and learning. It is geared toward kids in grades 4 to 8.

  A typical American childhood is one that is oversaturated with commercialism and sheltered from the real struggles and injustices in the world. From its first issue of in 2005, IndyKids has worked against that to bring kids in the United States closer to kids worldwide and the genuine issues they face. IndyKids is not afraid to take on difficult topics such as the financial crisis, same-sex marriage, healthcare, wars, immigrant and labor rights, and global warming. It presents these issues in a way that is easy to understand, and mixes in stories of kid activism, science news, recipes, and puzzles.

  IndyKids aims to encourage kids to form their own opinions and become part of the larger movement for justice and peace.

• March 01, 2011
• 2:38

  Issue 5, Part 2: Winter 2011

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Issue 5, Part II: Winter, 2011

  
  These articles continue the writing we shared in Part II of our Winter 2010 Issue, rounding out another fine and substantial offering.

  As we write this, friends in the Middle East continue to engage in urgent and world-changing conversation—conversation linked by Twitter, Facebook, traditional media, and one-on-one relationships in large-scale protests.

  From its very inception, the JIRD has sought to be a free, online resource, and we are inspired by the immediacy and connectedness we see around the world to take part in the spirit of this work. A major part of our mission includes listening, listening to the voices, experiences, travails, and expertise of another’s lived experiences. We thank the writers of the Winter Issue for helping us further that mission, and welcome your comments and submissions now and in the future.

• 2:35

  “Inter-Religious Diplomacy: Trustworthy Opponents Engaging in Respectful Contestation Yield Peaceful Tension,” By Charles Randall Paul

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Historically, when people have found themselves in conflicts over the best way to live or the very purpose of life, they have often found a way to separate from—if not fight—each other to protect their cultural order. Underneath the nation-state and tribal structures, societies have traditionally shared a deep cultural world-view that is religious.

  As our societies continue to become intertwined through virtual and actual migration today, there exist significant tensions between our cultural and religious beliefs and practices. Global trade, modern technology and the common use of the scientific method will not yield universal agreement over the purpose of life and religion. Indeed, as educational and economic differences between peoples decrease, their differences over foundational beliefs become more salient. No economic system, no universal liberal education program, and no political system, even one that emphasizes individual freedom, can resolve our deeper cultural differences over ultimate truth and religion.

  What do we do when we have irresolvable conflicts over the very foundation of order and purpose? This paper will explore this question.

• 2:34

  “Fill in the Middle Ground: Intertextuality and Inter-Religious Dialogue in 16th-Century Guatemala,” By Garry Sparks

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  There are, in fact, very few times in human history when two or more sizably significant groups of people encounter each other and neither one has any actual idea who, or even what, the other group is.

  At the turn of the sixteenth century, Spaniards had no idea where they were or what they were encountering, and the indigenous peoples of the Americas had no idea what had washed up on their shores. While an encounter with the radically cultural and religious “other” is not new within the history of Christianity, the arrival of mendicant missionaries – namely Franciscan and Dominican – to Mesoamerica is unique because it provoked and provided a paper trail authored by both voices of western Christianity from late medieval and early modern Iberia and, to a lesser degree, their indigenous American hosts, resisters, and converts.

  While Christian thought has always addressed, in some form, the intersection between aspects of cultures and the claims of a Christian faith, the encounter between Hispano-Catholicism and Maya religion is one the earliest – if not the earliest – incidents to include contemporaneous minority reports by survivors of Christendom or colonial Christianity.

• 2:33

  “Early Christian/Non-Christian Encounters as Comparative Theological Resources: A Case in Sixteenth-Century Japan,” By N. Frances Hioki

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Recent research on cross-cultural encounters in the early modern period has shown that the records of the first Europeans in eastern Asia provide us with excellent models to reflect on current issues in cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogues. These stories are helpful for understanding ways through which the Self perceives, understands, and interprets the Other, who is radically different. According to sinologist Nicolas Standaert, “One is tempted to call [these records] a ‘laboratory’ for the study of cultural diffusion, transfer of knowledge, and cultural change, leading to deeper insights for broader theories of cultural interaction.”

  To be sure, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the European empires’ agendas for colonization dominated exchanges between Europeans and non-Europeans. Nonetheless, their interactions in eastern Asia—especially in China and Japan—were impressively reciprocal in comparison to contemporary cases in Latin America, India, and Africa. Their stories can serve as resources in conducting a case study of how one is affected by and transformed through interactions with another who is radically different in terms of language, tradition, or worldview.

  The purpose of this paper is to examine Catholic missionaries’ interpretations of Japanese religiosity (i.e., religious inclination/disposition, liturgical habitus) in the late sixteenth century. I will show that many European missionaries were aesthetically attracted to Japanese Buddhist art and respected Japanese people’s devotion to Buddha, despite the fact that the Church considered such devotion a form of idolatry. As they understood Japanese religiosity, there emerged an interesting paradox in the missionaries’ overall assessment of Japanese culture: on the one hand, they condemned the local religious tradition as comprising demonic practices, while on the other hand, they praised the local piety and said that the Japanese were disposed to a deeper capacity for devotion than were the Europeans.

  This paper also aims to offer a historical case study with regards to the ongoing attempts of comparative theology and inter-religious dialogue. Following Francis X. Clooney, I consider comparative theology a venue through which one seeks a better understanding of one’s faith through comparative, inter-religious and dialogical reflections of other religions. In undertaking comparative theology, the subject (i.e., the one who makes the comparison) is open to self-criticism and transformation that emerge during his or her study of other religions. In this context, this study entails an investigation of how the act of comparison helped European missionaries better understand Japanese religions, and how their appreciation of Japanese religiosity influenced and transformed their approaches to non-Christians.

• 2:33

  “Normative Inculturation? A Thirteenth–Century Example of the Middle Ground in Relations between the Latin Church and the Church of the East,” By A. J. Watson

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This paper looks at two thirteenth century accounts, the Itinerarium by the Franciscan William of Rubruck and the Syriac Church of the East text Tashīthā DemārYaballāhā (the History of Mar Yaballaha), and examines the models of comparative theology both present.

  While acknowledging that comparative theology is seemingly redundant between different denominations of Christianity, the ecumenical dialogue presented in both of these accounts occurred at a time when these two branches of Christianity had been separated for almost a millennium and had developed within completely different cultural backgrounds. Subsequently, both underwent dramatic changes to their worldviews: one European, the other Middle Eastern and Asian. As a result of the expanding Mongol Empire, both “Christianities” reestablished contact and were forced to examine internal conceptions of the “other” and “dialogue” as they related to their own unique cultural location.

  This paper examines the ways in which the authors of these accounts relate the ecumenical dialogues they record, and pays particular attention to the language and imagery by which they negotiate cultural difference, thereby establishing what Richard White terms a “Middle Ground.” It also evaluates the comparative theological framework that evolves through its contrast of two different thought systems that, while both Christian, evolve along two very different theological and cultural paths.Finally, it uses these two accounts as historical case studies for examining the role of inculturation in comparative theology and interfaith dialogue.

• January 31, 2011
• 21:30

  In Face of Conflict: Religion as a Force of Peace

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Issue 5: Winter, 2010: In Face of Conflict: Religion as a Force of Peace

  

  Guest Edited by Dr. William F. Vendley, Secretary General of Religions for Peace

• January 27, 2011
• 4:07

  “Hearing the Call…and Listening,” By Jennifer Bailey

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  I grew up in the quintessential small Midwestern town--content with staying put in the ways of the past yet constantly being pushed forward by the reality of time. The Mississippi River is its life source, giving birth to the industry and commerce that sustains town’s population of 40,000 people.  Pickup trucks often outnumber cars in grocery store parking lots, the county fair draws huge crowds each summer, and season tickets to local high school’s basketball games are a hot commodity. Diversity is not accepted and only barely tolerated.  Racial and ethnic minorities constitute only 5 percent of the population. Interaction between racial groups is limited, the result of inequitable housing policies that redlined minority groups into concentrated areas of town.

  I  was first introduced to the politics of race on the playground of Adams School. Navigating the social landscape of recess can be an incredibly difficult process. A white male classmate, approached me at recess confidently stating that I must be dirty and rotten because why else would by skin be brown? As the other students laughed profusely, I became acutely aware of my status as the “other”.  My skin was indeed brown and as much as I tried to wash it off, I soon realized there was nothing I could do to change that. Once confident and bold I began to feel helpless. Throughout the year, the taunts and comments would escalate with little intervention from the teaching staff that was never trained in issues of diversity and discrimination.

  Finding no comfort at school, I ran as fast as I could into the open arms and loving heart of Bethel A.M.E. Church. At my church, I was no longer an “other”.  Sunday mornings the pews filled with bodies in endless shades of brown--copper, russet, mahogany--each unique and striking. My heart leap with each chord Sister Oliver struck on the organ and note Brother Bumbry sang. From Rev. Pendleton’s pulpit I heard stories about those who had worshipped there before.  Families who boldly swam across the Mississippi in search for freedom, sustained by the unfettering belief that God would provide a way. At the altar of the church, I gave my life to Christ and as a teenager first heard the call to pursue ordained ministry.

  My early encounters with intolerance as child engrained in me a deeply held empathy for those are oppressed and marginalized because of who they are. Genesis 1:27 states that, “God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Institutional discrimination on the base of their gender, race, class, and sexual orientation often robs individuals of their full human dignity thus distorting the image of who they truly are as children of God. Through my work in the interfaith and food justice movements, I have seen the ability of the human spirit to persevere against the greatest odds. I have witnessed public housing residents, long forgotten by those in power, rise up and organize their communities to increase basic access to affordable healthy food. I have beheld young women and men of all faiths and none at all stand in solidarity with the Muslim community in the midst of rampant Islamophobia based on the shared value of compassion for their fellow man.

  In the midst of these and other experiences, I have begun to discern my calling. I believe I am being called to work in a ministry of reconciliation. By reconciliation, I am referring not only to the reconciliation of God to his people, but also of people to one another. This process of healing begins by actively seeking to correct the social inequities that continue to drive individuals apart. Inequities such as food insecurity, health disparities, and environmental degradation which often have disproportionate consequences for those who are historically marginalized in the United States including women and people of color.  Our current historical moment requires a vision of ministry that is not exclusively limited to the pulpit, but works in concert with community organizing and advocacy strategies seeking to create change.

  In last night's State of the Union Address, President Obama told the American people that, "Our destiny remains our choice." For a long time I ran away from my destiny, my calling, out of fear--- fear of the unknown, fear of judgment, and fear of reliquishing control. This fall, I made a choice to stop running. I am seeking ordination in the A.M.E. Church as the first step in pursuing this my call.As I stand in anxious anticipation of the steps yet to come, I remember the words of the psalmist: "The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life of whom shall I be afraid?"

  This article was originally published on State of Formation.

• January 25, 2011
• 16:53

  “Religious Leadership and Violence Prevention after Tucson,” By Joshua Stanton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This month, it became clear that Americans must do more to prevent violence. A congresswoman was shot in the head in what seems to have been a politically motivated assassination attempt - only surviving by luck or miracle. Six others have died and many more were wounded. our country is in a state of mourning.

  Of significant note, American religious leaders from myriad groups have stepped up to comfort families, visit the wounded, pray for victims, and speak out against the event. Though beautiful and important, these efforts are not enough. Religious leaders - and future ones such as myself - must also work actively to prevent violence. In fact, they are ideally situated to do so.

  Some religious leaders have blamed the outbreak of violence on the fact that Jared Loughner - the assailant - was an atheist. Yet these rationalizations smack of deflection and a desire to avoid answering more essential questions about why violence takes place in our society - questions that religious leaders cannot in good conscience shirk. Of course our credibility both as communal leaders and people genuinely motivated by our beliefs is at stake. But more importantly, the tenets we believe as faithful demand that we those in need whenever we encounter them. So what can we do?

  In his guest introduction to In Face of Conflict: Religion as a Force of Peace, Dr. William F. Vendley, Secretary General of Religions for Peace, noted his observations from an illustrious career of engaging religious leaders to prevent and transform conflict:

  At its simplest, this method involves assisting religious communities to... identify the needed roles (education, advocacy, mediation, reconciliation) essential to the resolution of that conflict. In a second step, religious communities inventory themselves to discover if they have assets - at least potential assets - to serve the roles identified as essential to resolving the conflict... In a third step, the potential religious assets are mobilized, equipped, and engaged in the needed conflict transformation roles.

  In short, religious communities evaluate and make use of their resources to reduce the possibility of renewed violence. Religious leaders can be a key force in this mobilization effort. In the wake of Tuscon and the subsequent media deflection from possible solutions to politicized blame - it is clear that religious leaders can and must initiate a new movement for non-violence.

  So what are some of the assets in our religious communities? Who could have reached out to Jared Loughner before he began engaging in homicidal ideation? What were the missing links in our society that let him slip by unnoticed, until he made headlines as a brutal killer?

  An investigative article by theNew York Times cites Loughner's mental instability, which caused him to pull inward:

  What the cacophony of facts do suggest is that Mr. Loughner is struggling with a profound mental illness (most likely paranoid schizophrenia, many psychiatrists say); that his recent years have been marked by stinging rejection - from his country's military, his community college, his girlfriends and, perhaps, his father; that he, in turn, rejected American society, including its government, its currency, its language, even its math. Mr. Loughner once declared to his professor that the number 6 could be called 18.

  Loughner was rejected again and again for erratic behavior and other symptoms of his mental illness. It is impossible to say if Loughner could have been helped even in the best of scenarios - and counterfactual history is inherently problematic - but Loughner's mental illness and overt symptoms thereof do point to an area in which religious leaders and their communities can clearly play a role in violence prevention.

  Religious groups are designed to provide community, even - and particularly - to those who exhibit unusual tendencies. For a variety of reasons, from proselytizing to altruism, religious groups actively reach out to people throughout their cities and regions. They offer services that range from prayer groups to support groups, study sessions to - indeed - pastoral counseling and referrals to mental health facilities.

  In fact, many of the facilities to which clergy make referrals are also run by religious groups.Catholic hospitals, for example, house one in five hospital beds in the country - and that is just one of many religious communities that run such institutions. Countless day programs for the mentally ill, group therapy sessions, and addiction-treatment programs are run in congregations and religiously affiliated centers.

  Even if Loughner and others exhibiting unusual behavior are dismissed from community college programs and social gatherings, they could be welcomed into religious communities - and then referred on to treatment programs already available within them. Religious communities could and should focus on identifying those in need and providing an integrated system of community-building and outreach, pastoral care, and referrals to mental health programs and professionals.

  I would suggest that there may be two common problems that create leaks in this system of outreach, community-building, and service provision. The first is that faith-based mental health programs are often not known, even by a community's teachers, guidance counselors, friends, and mentors who could most likely make an informal referral for someone exhibiting worrisome behavior. Sometimes, they even fly under the radar within congregations themselves. It can sometimes require the extra effort of a referral by a rabbi, imam, pastor, or priest to actually get a congregant to a congregation-based program where it remains taboo to speak of mental health programs like other congregational services.

  The second problem may be in the process by which clergy refer congregants to mental health programs and professionals. While seminary, rabbinical, and divinity school curricula increasingly require courses and fieldwork in pastoral care and counseling, many religious leaders still lack expertise in identifying potential symptoms of mental health problems and have limited knowledge of programs outside their immediate congregations. As someone currently engaged in a chaplaincy internship, I can attest to my own lacking abilities - and ongoing need to hone them. While preaching may be a flashier skill to know, pastoral care and counseling is core to the behind-the-scenes work clergy undertake within congregations, notably in making referrals to mental health programs.

  An essential answer to both of these problems may lie in making mental health programming as well-known as the social, community service, and prayer services that religious groups and congregations hold. While holiday celebrations may be exciting and social events easier to advertise, mental health programs sponsored by religious communities are at least as important - and merit the attention that other, more marketable programs already receive in the outreach efforts of our organizations.

  A greater focus among religious communities on the identification of troubled individuals can only be part of the solution to violence. A debate, for instance, must clearly take place regarding the legality of assault weapons and large rounds of ammunition, and the evident inadequacy of background checks. But we cannot stand aside after such violence, nor see our only role as picking up the pieces. Were religious leaders to advocate for policies and practices that address community needs, whatever the faith or creed of the community, it would start us on a path of violence prevention.

  I am not advocating government funding for faith-based initiatives, nor touting them as the only answer to communal violence. What I think may be essential, however, is retooling existing faith-based programs and religious congregations to more effectively provide mental health resources and more effectively use those which already exist.

  Based on Dr. William Vendly's analysis and experience in mitigating communal violence, religious leaders and their communities must survey and then harness their assets in order to actively prevent conflict. American religious leaders cannot negate this responsibility any longer. Tuscon has shown us anew the terrible consequences of communal violence; it is upon us to utilize the resources we have, namely in mental health care, pastoral counseling, and community outreach, to ensure that fewer Jared Loughners go unidentified and untreated in the future.

  This article was cross-posted on The Revealer.

• January 16, 2011
• 2:00

  “The Purpose of Prayer?” By Adina Allen

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  As rabbinical students, from the moment we announce to our friends and family our plans to begin training for the rabbinate and likely even before, we are called upon to lead all types of prayer experiences for our community. Throughout rabbinical school most internships and work experiences that we take include facilitating prayer as a primary part of the job. To me, it feels essential that as we train and develop as leaders of prayer that we devote equal attention to sitting in the midst of our own struggles and questions and continually ask ourselves: what is the purpose of our prayer?

  Just into our first semester of school our community may already be looking to us to play a rabbinic role and we want to live up to their, and our own, expectations. The jobs we are being offered, on the whole, are not asking us to come sit with a group of folks and talk about how confusing or complicated our personal prayer life is. They want us, understandably, to decode the basic outline of a Shabbat prayer service, or to teach new tunes for the holiday liturgy, or perhaps to look at the meaning of certain central prayers.

  I have found for myself that it can become all too easy to slip into the role of leader and facilitator without fully allowing myself the space or giving myself the permission to be in the not knowing. And though the job opportunities may not include this in their descriptions, the place not knowing, at least with regards to prayer, is where most people reside. It’s useful and important to learn the skills—the pronunciation, tunes, choreography, nusach (traditional melodies)—but to evolve a deep and authentic prayer life we also need to continually asking ourselves: why? Not only do we need to sit with those questions to experience prayer in a true and rich way for ourselves, but also so we can relate honestly and compassionately with those who will be looking to us for leadership and guidance.

  This past semester at school we tried something new. In addition to gathering as a whole community twice a week in the morning before school for prayer, we added a component called Tefilah (or Prayer) Groups. Each Thursday after our communal prayer experience we gathered in small groups of about 10 students and one faculty member. In these groups we had the opportunity to process, investigate, question, and uncover our relationship to prayer as guided by the prompts of our faculty member and the probing questions of our fellow students.

  Our tefillah group, lead by my teacher and mentor Rabbi Ebn Leader, explored the large and perpetually-present questions of prayer. We looked at our conceptions of Gd and asked the question: where is Gd in my prayer? Through our discussions I became more cognizant of the fact that I regularly go through a week of participating in prayer without really bringing Gd into my consciousness. The systems we’ve designed to connect to the Force of the Universe are powerful and have been honed and molded over centuries, but it’s the quality of attention that we bring into these modes that makes them work for us or not.

  A powerful question that we asked during our sessions and the one that took central stage in many of our discussions was: what is my goal in tefillah? It seems like such a simple and uncomplicated question in many ways but asking it has helped me to clarify what it is I am looking to get out of a prayer experience. Do I aim to feel gratitude, to worship Gd, to connect to community, to go inward, to sit with sadness, to repent, to feel myself in relation to the grandeur of the universe, to find a place of deep meaning within the Hebrew words, to feel comfort, to gain strength?

  I learned that it was not so simple to figure out what my goal was in prayer, but that when I was able to do so establishing a goal helped me to focus my attention and energy in a specific direction. It also helped to open up many more important questions. If I determined that my goal was to worship Gd, I had to then ask the questions: what is Gd and what sort of tefillah would be fitting for Gd’s worship?

  Towards the end of the semester we began to look at a question I found fascinating: what role does risk play in my tefillah? Is it a positive aspect that helps challenge us and open us up? Is it a negative aspect that limits us and closes us off? Is it the essence of our prayer? Ebn described that what he sees in the majority of synagogues across America is prayer being used to comfort people and to help strengthen ideas that they already hold, or already desire to hold. At a time when we require a radical shift in consciousness in order to live more sustainably on this planet, and, ultimately, to ensure the future survival of life on Earth as we know it, our prayer needs to go beyond helping us to holdfast to our entrenched ideas. Comfort and support is important, especially during these radically changing and challenging times, but so too is risk-taking and openness, not just to adapt to change but to initiate change.

  In a traditional Jewish practice one engages in prayer four or five times per day. With this amount of time, energy, and attention directed toward prayer, what is our goal, and what sort of prayer life do we imagine could serve that goal? To the extent that our prayer is about serving Gd by serving the world at large, a key aspect of our prayer must be to help us learn to risk. To step across the great divide from the known that isn’t working to the unknown that contains our future. May our prayers help us to risk releasing that which is no longer useful and to risk opening ourselves to that which we can’t yet imagine.

  This article was originally published on State of Formation.

• January 14, 2011
• 0:49

  “Lament for Tucson,” By Hannah Kardon

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This past weekend I’m sure many private hours and religious services were spent mourning the recent deaths in Arizona, and praying for surviving victims and families. Today we are all talking bout the attempted assassination of Representative Gifford – but what should we be saying?

  We struggle sometimes with how to be with one another in the face of a tragedy. One common response has been to adopt this event as evidence for some pre-existing political narrative. But I think this response is at worst deeply insensitive, and at best woefully incomplete.

  In the wake of this shooting, we can talk about limiting violence in political language – and we should. As the factors contributing to the shooting become clearer we can talk about gun access and mental health care and homeland security and whatever else is relevant – and we should. But first and foremost, we have to be concerned with the human cost of what has happened.

  On Saturday 6 people died, and 14 people were injured. Among those dead are a woman who was standing next to her husband of 50 years, a 30-year-old former social worker, and a 9-year-old girl. You can read more about them here.

  Given this reality we have to be able to turn to one another and grieve, and share the work of mourning these tragedies, so we can build one another up to believe in people again as well as protect society through political action.

  Many religious traditions have a tool to approach this enormous challenge. It’s called lament. We cry into the wilderness to shout our grief, our confusion, and even our anger, without immediate promise of any balm but faith.

  This week I’ve been praying for the victims and their families with Psalm 23…”Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for you are with me.” I’ve been reading John 11, when Lazarus’s sister Martha cries to Jesus (as I imagine, in confusion and frustration), “If you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

  One of the most moving pieces I have read since Saturday was about Representative Giffords’ synagogue, Congregation Chaverim, coming together as she struggles for her life in the hospital. They held a healing service to pray for her recovery and speak of her goodness, and the Rabbi’s daughter cried “Why, why, why, why?”

  Sometimes that is all we can do. We pray for a better day. We speak of what goodness has been in the past. We cry to God in lamentation for answers we know may not come, or that we may never understand. And we turn to one another, not to make a point but simply to recognize that something terrible has happened, and hope that it will never happen again.

  This article was originally published on State of Formation.

• January 10, 2011
• 4:44

  “How Does Religion Influence Your Art?”: interView with Marc Sapir

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  How Does Religion Influence Your Art?

  interView with Marc Sapir

• January 03, 2011
• 16:17

  “Jews and the Need For God: Modern Lessons from Moses Maimonides,” By Joshua M. Z. Stanton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Judaism is an action-oriented religion. We have, according to the Talmud, 613 Commandments -- not just a top-10 list. In rabbinic courts, your actions can be praised or punished. Faith is a means to achieve just ends, prayer as a way of connecting to the Source of Creation so that we can better play our part in its ongoing unfolding.

  But what if you can achieve those same just, creative, Jewish ends without faith as a means or a motivation? Do you need God if you observe the 613 Commandments (or reinterpret and reapply them as so many modern Jews do)? Do you need God if you consider prayer an act of introspection -- one that changes the way you understand your actions, much as your believing counterparts do? Do you need God if you love the Torah as a national treasure of the Jewish people -- but one written and conceived of by our ancestors rather than the Divine?

  Jews have a long history of grappling with these questions. One of the greatest thinkers to do so was Rabbi Moses Maimonides, the 12th Century Talmudic genius who also wrote one of the enduring philosophical works of his time, Guide of the Perplexed. As a rabbinic judge and scholar, Maimonides was unusually strict and even composed a dogma -- the "13 Principles of Faith" -- to differentiate Judaism from other Abrahamic faiths at a time of oppression. Core to those principles was the belief in one God and faith that Moses was the greatest of all prophets.

  Yet, as a philosopher, Maimonides struggled to define a concept of God rationally. If the world was not eternal (as Aristotle had suggested), then how could God have created the initial substance that composed the world? Moreover, if God was omnipotent, eternal and constant in both features, why did God show conflicted emotions in the Torah -- or, for that matter, emotions at all? And as for his view prophecy, Maimonides endeavored to rationalize the miraculous, suggesting in Guide of the Perplexed that prophecy must have taken place in the form of a vision or dream, hinting that it must be interpreted loosely.

  Some, such as renowned scholar Leo Strauss, have even gone so far as to suggest that Maimonides was an atheist, explaining the contradictory nature of belief in coded language such that only other philosophers could recognize his refutation of faith. While I am of the impression that Strauss overstates this claim, it seems clear that Maimonides' idea of God was far removed from that of traditionalist rabbis of the same era. To him, God was not an "old man in the sky" or one who literally spoke "face to face" with Moses. God was an indeterminate, powerful and perplexing force that acted on the minds of human beings, as well as on the world itself.

  To step back from his beliefs (or lack thereof) for a moment, Maimonides' process of grappling with faith is striking. As his very own works show, from the 13 Principles (in the Commentary to the Mishneh) to theGuide of the Perplexed, Maimonides believed that God was an entity that could be discussed, analyzed and debated -- much like so many of Judaism's ideas. His conflicting and evolving understanding of God fell within a paradigm that allowed for inquiry and introspection. Faith, by definition, was not a self-evident idea and merited further inquiry.

  Contemporary American Jewry should take heed of Maimonides' honest doubts and even more honest efforts to understand them in relation to his beliefs. It is unclear that Maimonides would have writtenGuide of the Perplexed at all were his struggles not such a salient part of his life, study and leadership as a rabbi. Maimonides refused to ignore his doubts for the sake of his leadership position as a rabbinic jurist. He also refused to renounce his religious practice because of those doubts. Doubt, practice and belief could all cohabitate in his mind, likely in different proportions at different times. Guide of the Perplexed was both the story of his quest for a coherent belief system and story of his doubts.

  Today, faith is more of a choice than ever before, and atheism is becoming a more socially accepted alternative to belief. Judaism, especially as an action-based religion, need not feel challenged by atheism and can actually benefit from the new religious inquiries it has inspired. The key for the Jewish community is to allow for respectful, caring and frank discussions about personal belief -- and the doubts that many feel. Questions of faith are not confined to clergy or religious scholars. It is upon all contemporary Jews to write their own Guides in order to more fully understand their actions and the theistic or non-theistic values that motivate them. And it is upon Jewish leaders to allow -- and better yet encourage -- them to do so.

  I, as a Jew, need God. Others may need to eschew belief in order to remain on their Jewish paths. Allowing for genuine engagement and the chance to struggle with faith and disbelief is something that our tradition should not shortchange itself of. Maimonides, as a rabbinic exemplar par excellence, shows us the means -- but the ends are ours to shape.

  This article was featured on the Huffington Post, Tikkin Daily, and State of Formation

• January 02, 2011
• 22:50

  Annual Research Colloquium: “Explorations at the Intersection of Religious Pluralism and Jewish-Christian Dialogue”

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  Spend the month of July in New York working on a research or writing project related to the theme Explorations at the Intersection of Religious Pluralism and Jewish-Christian Dialogue, with access to libraries and research facilities at Columbia University, Union, Auburn, and Jewish Theological Seminaries.

  
  The 2011 Research Colloquium seeks applications for individual research projects relating to the theme Explorations at the Intersection ofReligious Pluralism and Jewish-Christian Dialogue. Application deadline is February 1, 2011.

  The 2011 summer Research Colloquium aims at bringing into conversation two discourses that currently run on parallel tracks. On the one hand, there is the discourse on religious pluralism and comparative theologies, which theorizes and reflects on the changing landscape of religious belongings in a globalized and pluralist world, such as multiple religious identities, religious hybridity and migration patterns, or conflicts between various world religions. On the other hand there is the Jewish-Christian relations discourse which has evolved with renewed urgency after the devastating impact of the Shoah and the founding of the State of Israel.

  The Colloquium will bring together fellows who have worked on either one of these two parallel tracks and offer them an opportunity for in-depth scholarly exploration of commonalities and differences. By creating an environment conducive to research, open reflection and scholarly inquiry, participants are encouraged to learn from both the plurality of religious voices and the particularity of the case of Jewish-Christian dialogue.

  There is a richness of resources that has accumulated in the research and literature on Jewish-Christian relations, but the discourse on Jewish-Christian dialogue may have suffered from a parochial narrowing of perspective. There is a visionary potential for religious plurality, but without deep engagement within a spiritual tradition it may suffer from civic indifference toward communities with deeply-felt religious roots.

  At the Colloquium, participants of diverse backgrounds that represent areas of interest in either of the two discourses mentioned above will spend the length of four weeks together, pursuing individual research as well as gathering as a group for focused and facilitated discussions.

  The Colloquium is led and facilitated by professors Katharina von Kellenbach, Karla Suomala, Björn Krondorfer and Charles Henderson. We already have a commitment from CrossCurrents, under the guest-editorship of Karla Suomala and Katharina von Kellenbach, to put together a themed volume on these explorations as they emerge in the colloquium.

  If you have further questions about the content of the Colloquium, please contact Björn Krondorfer, Professor of Religious Studies, Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, bhkrondorfer@smcm.edu

  Karla Suomala, Associate Professor, Religion Department, Luther College, Decorah, Iowa, suomka01@luther.edu.

  Katharina von Kellenbach, Professor of Religious Studies, Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, kvonkellenbach@smcm.edu
  

  Application Process:
  The Colloquium runs for four weeks during July. Those who are selected for a fellowship are referred to as "Coolidge Scholars" after William A. Coolidge, the principal benefactor of this program. Each Coolidge Scholar works on his or her own project, but benefits by being able to collaborate with others. The collegial relationships that develop within the group are a crucial element of this program and one of its distinctive aspects.
  

  The daily schedule allows a balance of structured and unstructured time, including:
  

  1. Time for individual research, reflection and consultation with fellows and staff   2. Seminars for facilitated and focused discussion that also integrate work-in-progress reports by fellows   3. Common meals and opportunities to explore the artistic and cultural resources of New York City.
  

  The Colloquium is residential and provides fellows with room and board (vegetarian/kosher food available) and access to libraries and research facilities at Columbia University, Teachers College, Union, Auburn and Jewish Theological Seminaries. Participants are required to pay a $125 registration fee upon acceptance plus the cost of travel.
  

  Applications should be sent via an email that includes:
  

  1) Title and brief description of the applicant's proposed project. 2) A brief resume including religious affiliation or preference, academic standing and professional experience. 3) The names, titles, institutional addresses and telephone numbers of two references. (You do not need to have these persons write a letter; we will contact references as needed.)
  

  The successful applicant will be capable of writing for a publication of the caliber of CrossCurrents. Normally, fellows will hold doctorates; some will have professional degrees; a few will qualify by reason of equivalent experience.  For ideas on the types of projects we encourage, please check the CrossCurrents website to view back issues of the journal.
  

  If you have any further questions about the Colloquium or would like to explore the appropriateness of a project you are thinking about, please contact:
  

  Charles Henderson, CrossCurrents, Executive DirectorEmail: colloquium@crosscurrents.org Tel: 212-870-2544 or Cell: 917-439-2305

• December 31, 2010
• 21:44

  “Pass the Antacids; Skip the New Year’s Predictions,” By Martin Davis

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  It's tempting to write year-end reflection pieces, or to predict what is to come. But I've become bored of these.

  
  Year-end stories are designed to focus on the sensational, the harrowing, and the worst possible scenario. In just the past week, the former president of Shell Oil Company projected 5 dollar per gallon gas by the end of 2011. For those who really like to worry, try Gartner's picks for the coming year--sabotage, terrorism, labor jobs lost to more automation.

  
  Pass the antacids, please.

  
  So it shouldn't surprise ministers that Gallup picks this week to announce that religion's influence is waning. Nee, all but ready to fall off the face of the earth. 70 percent of Americans say religion's influence is declining--the highest percentage in 35 years.

  
  So shall it be!

  
  Or will it?

  
  What is it that people are really telling us? That America is rushing headlong to the death of the American congregation? The truth is, it's hard to know what the Gallup survey is telling us. Perhaps Americans don't sense religion's influence in politics any longer, so they answer the Gallup question accordingly (and this could well be it).

  
  Perhaps they listen to reports of declining membership and assume this foretells the beginning of the end for houses of worship. If this is the case, then the perception is quite wrong. While the recession has certainly hurt coffers, we have not witnessed the mass closings for houses of worship. Further, research out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln demonstrates that church attendance levels are basically unchanged, even if the make up of those in the pews is changing significantly. (See also this CNN story.)

  
  Those interested in pursuing ministry as a profession remain stable. Though down slightly from 2005, seminaries continue to attact individuals interested in pursuing pastoral ministry as a career.

  
  Do respondees feel that religious discussion is waning? That, too, would be hard to sell. The demand for books about spirituality has never been higher, and publishers are looking to fill readers' desire for still more by recruiting scholars to write more books for the general market.

  
  If the idea of congregations sliding into oblivion is greatly exaggerated, what is the influence that people feel is missing?

  
  Unfortunately, we're not soothsayers here at Congregational Resource Guide. But I do have a hunch. This year's blockbuster religion book, American Grace (read the excellent synopsis by Tim Shapiro) has observed that what has happened to faith in America is that we have become more tolerant of other religious traditions, and more diverse in our practice. This radical restructuring of how we approach faith requires people to adjust, and think anew about faith. It may seem less influential today because we're in flux, but we're really just re-inventing.

  
  And as the dust settles, it is to America's congregations that people will return (and in fact, already are) for clarity. My year end prediction is hardly sensational. The coming year is one of great promise, and great opporunity for America's congregational leaders.

  
  You won't find this prediction on the being bantered on the daily talk shows, or splashed on the cover of Newsweek. But it is one that should give all of us great hope.

  
  Happy New Year.

  This article was originally published by the Alban Institute.

• December 28, 2010
• 12:00

  “In Face of Conflict: Religion as a Force of Peace,” By Dr. William F. Vendley

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article originally served as the guest introduction for Issue 5 of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue

  The contemporary Estonian composer, Arvo Pärt, has developed a compositional system that—reduced to its sparest minimum—consists of the dynamic interplay of two musical lines in a field of silence.

  The melody, which proceeds mainly in steps up and down the scale, might be compared to a child tentatively walking.  The second line underpins each note of the melody with a note from a harmonizing triad (the fundamental chord of western music) that is positioned as close as possible to the note of the melody, but always below.  You could imagine this accompaniment to be a mother with her hands outstretched to ensure her toddler doesn’t fall.[1]

  This simple, but elegant musical metaphor can be helpful when we struggle to think of how religion can be a force for peace.   It invites us to ponder two fundamental contributions.  One, referring to the way we find ourselves concretely in the present, invites us to think of how religious actors can contribute their assets, skills, and comparative advantages to the emerging field of conflict transformation.  Viewed from a modern secular paradigm of peacemaking, these religious assets are seen as “instrumental” to resolving conflicts, even if the religious actors themselves retain their intrinsic religious motivations.  The other contribution is more foundational in religious terms, and refers quite directly to visions of peace, rooted in religious experience, which go beyond contemporary secular models of reality.  For many religious people, these two modes are complementary even if at times in tension.

  Let me focus first on the second musical line noted above, the one that is “holding and taking care of us,” and let me call it the “Gift of Peace.”  As a religious believer and in my capacity as the Secretary General of Religions for Peace, I have grown ever more convinced that it is precisely religious communities’ respective experiences of Transcendent Mystery—the Holy; the Supremely True, Good, and Beautiful; the Supremely Merciful—that is at the heart of their capacities to build peace. To speak of these respective religious experiences requires sensitivity, solid principles, and care in our use of words, as I—like the religious leaders with whom I work—am firmly committed to respecting the genuine differences of belief that are present among our respective traditions.

  Nevertheless, in place after place, I have seen people turn to their faith and find strength when everything seems at an impasse. Ordinary people in the midst of conflicts and gross injustices often show us that—despite their sufferings, despite injustices that cry out to be addressed—they are not separated from what might be termed by each of our religious traditions in its own way as the Gift of Peace.  Often, it is a dark night of affliction, gross injustices, or withering losses that—like an x-ray—disclose the hidden strengths of spiritualities. This is worth pondering deeply by each believer in the terms of his or her respective religious tradition.

  And what a mysterious Gift: in Sierra Leone, I worked with Muslim and Christian amputees, victims whose limbs had been chopped off, but who also said they were willing to forgive. During the formal peace talks in Lomé, Togo, I spoke with a man who lost his beloved wife and daughter, his house, his job. His loved ones could not be returned to him.  Yet, he ended his story with the words:  “Thank God for peace. I forgive them all.”

  To acknowledge that the living link with Transcendent Mystery remains in the midst of social brokenness is not a license to exonerate us from our moral responsibilities.  It does, however, help center our attention on what is uniquely religious.  It can invite each to open to his or her tradition’s most original religious experience of the Gift of Peace.  A Gift that is—however mysteriously—positive, holistic, harmonious, compassionate and a summons for justice.  The Gift of Peace is alluded to in various religious traditions by fecund words such as Shanti, the Pure Land, Shalom, the Kingdom of God, Dar el-Salam and others.

  Today, in my own organization, Religions for Peace, religious leaders are working together from over 100 countries to transpose their basic symbols of peace into a public notion of “Shared Security” that tries to give modest public expression to what is shared among diverse religious communities’ visions of peace.  This notion of Shared Security recognizes the profound reciprocity of all of existence, its fundamental vulnerability and the moral imperative to care for the other.  Perhaps it can be understood as an invitation for collective creativity to forge a new public political paradigm resonant with the deepest shared wisdom of religious traditions.  Such religious creativity can extend contemporary secular discussions of peace by focusing on its positive, inter-related, and normative characteristics.  It is work for the long haul.

  But we live in the rapidly changing present, so let me return to the musical metaphor, shifting attention away from “the one who is holding us,” the Gift of Peace, to the toddler, to us as a fragile and collectively “battered” child trying to go forward.  This pole of the musical metaphor calls us to face squarely the extremely difficult concrete situations that confront us and the challenge of taking next steps.  It calls us to clarify for ourselves how religious people can contribute concretely to the emerging field of conflict transformation.

  The fact that religious intolerance and extremism are real factors in some conflicts, including those in fragile states, makes it all the more important to identify genuine religious potentials for helping to transform conflict.   How, then, can religious people, contribute to the emerging field of conflict transformation?

  While no two conflicts progress in the same way, there is an emerging method of multi-religious conflict transformation.  At its simplest, this method involves assisting religious communities to join in a multi-stakeholder dynamic analysis of a given conflict to identify the needed roles (education, advocacy, mediation, reconciliation) essential to the resolution of that conflict.  In a second step, religious communities inventory themselves to discover if they have assets—at least potential assets—to serve the roles identified as essential to resolving the conflict or a dynamic aspect of it.   In a third step, the potential religious assets are mobilized, equipped, and engaged in the needed conflict transformation roles.

  The engagement of the method often takes place in a multi-religious context, which can align different communities around similar goals, capture the complementary strengths of such communities, and provide efficiencies in training and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships between the religious communities and other essential actors.  This is difficult, hard work, and it is typically chronically underfunded.  It can often work best when it is carefully aligned, and sometimes softly linked, with governmental and or United Nations peacemaking processes.

  But what, then, are the assets that religious communities can bring to resolving conflicts?  The first class of religious assets might be called “spiritualities.”  People do find hope when there appear to be no grounds for ordinary hopes.  People do sacrifice themselves out of care for others. And people do forgive the unforgivable. Spiritual strengths, such as these are cultivated in each religious tradition in its own way. These spiritualities can provide the strength to engage in roles essential to conflict transformation such as countering messages of hate and calls for violence, and advancing reconciliation and healing among and between conflicted persons and communities.

  Building on the power of spiritualities, there are the related moral heritages of each tradition that can provide to their believers a compass for dealing with the extremely complex situations encountered in conflicts.  Our moral heritages are not simply catalogs of “do's” and “don'ts,” although these are important. They are shapers of character and conscience and cultivators of virtue.

  Think for example of the great Emir Abd el-Kader, who won the praise of fellow 19th-century luminaries as diverse as President Lincoln, Queen Victoria and Pope Pius IX. Abd el-Kader, you may recall, mounted military resistance against the bungled French occupation of Algeria in 1830. During the time that he led the resistance, he was known for his courage and tenacity, but equally for his exacting moral standards. He demanded, for example, that prisoners receive humane care— indeed, exactly the same rations as his own soldiers. He surrendered to French generals in 1847, lived under house arrest in France, and was exiled to Damascus in 1852. There he saved thousands of imperiled Christians. He had a moral compass, and struggled to use it consistently, most tellingly in his comportment with those with whom he differed. When he died in 1883, the New York Times hailed him as “one of the few great men of the century.”[2]

  Finally, religious communities have unique social assets.  Hundreds of thousands of mosques, churches, synagogues, and temples dot the four corners of the earth. These local congregations are linked by districts, and organized on national and often regional and global levels. They constitute a tissue of connection that unites each congregation with the others associated within the same tradition. Every local congregation in the vast webs of religious networks is potentially a local center for advancing peace.

  In short, we have spiritual, moral, and social assets that can be engaged in today’s emerging field of conflict transformation.  It is these assets that can concretely be harnessed for the needed roles of education, advocacy, mediation, and reconciliation essential to transforming conflicts.

  In pragmatic terms, we can see the added value of multi-religious cooperation in situations that are extremely difficult for nation states or the United Nations to manage.  Increasingly we are forced to recognize the link between religion, conflict, and failed or fragile states.  One in four countries is defined as a “fragile state,” according to a Foreign Policy focus issue (August 2010).  Fragile states often cannot provide even the most basic of services for their citizens, including minimum security for their inhabitants.  These fragile states can too easily become breeding grounds for radicalization and a refuge for extremist groups, compounding the miseries of innocent civilians and multiplying instability.  The international community faces difficulties in addressing violent conflict in these places not least because it does not know with whom to engage to set things on the right track.  Religious communities provide an important entry point.  For example, even an extremely difficult situation such as Somalia makes clear that religious channels can remain open when diplomatic ones are blocked.

  In this special edition of the Journal of Inter-religious Dialogue, you are invited to ponder how religious assets need to be engaged to create an environment of trust in the Middle East and Sri Lanka, to be deployed in efforts to protect women in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and to support youth with a healthy alternative to the callings of radical groups.  These, and the other fine examples in this edition, point to an ever fuller engagement of religious people in peacebuilding.

  As more and more religious people around the world work together for peace—cooperating with one another as they work to marshal their spiritualities, moralities, and the living networks of their faith communities in concrete peacemaking roles—we can also take heart in the chord that arises out of silence and supports every tentative step forward.  People hear it and interpret it in different ways.  Yet, they find in their hearings comfort in the hardest of times, hope when nothing seems clear, and acceptance of one another as part of the Gift of Peace.

  Dr. William F. Vendley

  Secretary General
  Religions for Peace
  

  
  

  [1] Arthur Lubow, The Sound of Spirit, New York Times Magazine, October 17, 2010, p.  38.  The composition under discussion with the composer, Arvo Pärt, is Fűr Alina.

  [2] See John W. Kiser, Commander of the Faithful: The Life and Times of Emir Abd el-Kader (Monkfish Book Pub. Co, Rhinebeck, NY, 2008).

• December 27, 2010
• 12:00

  “Religion as a Force of Peace”: Special Issue of JIRD

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  In Face of Conflict: Religion as a Force of Peace

  Guest Edited by Dr. William F. Vendley, Secretary General of Religions for Peace

  
  

  Table of Contents

  “Bury the Bloody Hatchet: Secularism, Islam, and Reconciliation in Afghanistan,” by Dr. Eric Patterson

  “A Fatwa against Yoga: Mitigating Conflict in the Face of Increasing Fundamentalism in Indonesia,” by Dr. Martin Ramstedt

  “Until the Violence Stops: Faith, Sexual Violence, and Peace in the Congo,” by Ms. Kayla Parker and Ms. Amanda Winters

  “Inter-Religious Dialogue as a Method of Peace-Building in Israel and Palestine,” by Rabbi Dr. Ronald Kronish

  “Going beyond the Rhetoric: The Muslim Aid/UMCOR Partnership in Sri Lanka,” by Dr. Amjad Saleem

  “Fear Beyond Fright: Jewish Responses to Tragedy,” by Mr. Joshua M. Z. Stanton

  “Response to Fear in the Muslim Tradition,” by Hafsa Kanjwal

  "Raimon Panikkar, John Hick, and a Pluralist Theology of Religions,” by Madhuri M. Yadlapati

  Call for Submissions, Issue  7

• December 26, 2010
• 15:24

  “Interfaith Learning as Online Process for Seminarians,” By Joshua M. Z. Stanton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  In Rabbinic Judaism, Torah is considered as much a process as a sacred text. By studying, analyzing, and debating the significance of its contents, rabbis and their disciples are said to make Torah.

  If respectful debate and engagement enliven our own sacred texts, we must similarly work to make interfaith learning in seminary rather than view it as a passive undertaking. By its very nature, it seems meant to be made, not simply learned cold and dry in a course on comparative religions. This is not to say that such courses should be discounted, but rather that they should be supplemented or structured so that seminarians can engage, struggle with, debate, and thereby gain a fuller respect for other religious traditions.

  But how can interfaith studies be made? If everyone in a seminary is of the same denomination (as in many cases) or at least the same umbrella religion (as in most others), with whom can seminarians engage in the creative, tense process ofmaking interfaith learning?

  Some seminaries have answered offhand that you simply cannot do so without a multi-faith student body. Hebrew College andAndover Newton Theological School cohabitate the same campus to ensure the creative tension necessary to make interfaith learning happen daily. The now-interfaith Claremont School of Theology similarly brings students in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian programs under the same roof. But for the majority of seminary, divinity, and graduate school students, deeper interfaith learning cannot be found on campus - and sometimes not even nearby.

  Yet such learning must continue to take place. Without it, an entire generation of clergy may enter congregations and positions of leadership with notions of other traditions that resemble cardboard cutouts rather than refined, detailed pictures wrought by intensive study and full-hearted grappling.

  Clergy will be less able to collaborate with other religious communities if they do not understand their own traditions in relational terms - terms forged through intensive discourse. Yet even American seminaries devoted to a single denomination can encourage students to make interfaith learning - in this case online.

  Current seminarians are expected to be versatile online - and in time even use online resources to teach and help make their traditions come alive. A number of websites, notably this very online publication, have worked to foster quality dialogue between readers and commentators of different traditions. Yet few have enabled seminarians to actually guide the conversation and contribute a majority of articles.

  As Chris Stedman, Managing Director of State of Formation, a new forum for emerging religious and ethical leaders, notes in a recent article, "The current American discourse on religion and ethics is primarily defined by established leaders... While their perspectives are invaluable, this leaves an entire population of importantstakeholders without a platform: the up-and-comers.'"

  For future clergy to truly make interfaith leadership, they must first find a conversation that they can join as equal partners. When we are willing to allow it, this may readily take place online.

  This article was originally published on the Tikkun Daily and then re-featured on the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue's State of Formation website.

• December 22, 2010
• 1:13

  In Face of Conflict: Religion as a Force of Peace

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Issue 5: Winter, 2010: In Face of Conflict: Religion as a Force of Peace

  

  © Rick Nahmias Photography/Golden States of Grace

  Guest Edited by Dr. William F. Vendley, Secretary General of Religions for Peace

• 0:25

  “Bury the Bloody Hatchet- Secularism, Islam, and Reconciliation in Afghanistan,” By Eric Patterson

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  When the US negotiated peace with American Indians just a few years after the American Revolution, they used religiously-inspired, culturally relevant symbols to “bury the hatchet.” However, the secularist approach to contemporary Western foreign and security policies has largely overlooked, or contemptuously disregarded, the highly religious context of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, it is time to consider a religious approach to peacemaking in Afghanistan based on Islamic concepts of arbitration and mediation (sulh). This paper argues that the larger secularist bias in Western foreign policies have made the West blind to the religious aspects of contemporary global affairs and reports on the one-size-fits-all Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) programs instituted in Afghanistan following the Tokyo Donor conference of 2003. Finally, this paper articulates Islamic religious concepts that could be the basis for establishing reconciliation between warring parties in Afghanistan.

• 0:20

  A Fatwa against Yoga- Mitigating Conflict in the Face of Increasing Fundamentalism in Indonesia,” by Martin Ramstedt

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article focuses on efforts at mitigating conflict that arose between the Indonesian Council of Muslim Scholar (MUI) and the Bali-India Foundation (BIF) in the wake of the former’s issuance of a fatwa against yoga in January 2009. These efforts occurred in the framework of an international yoga festival that was held in Bali in March 2009, attended by large numbers of Muslim yoga practitioners and teachers. The article explores the historical background and local context of the fatwa in order to provide a sound basis for the examination of the strategies employed in the actual mitigation of the conflict.

• 0:20

  “Until the Violence Stops: Faith, Sexual Violence, and Peace in the Congo,” by Kayla Parker and Amanda Winters

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Although many of the world's religions are thought to debase women, progressive faith traditions and practices empower females as a means of attaining justice and thereby, peace. The brutal violence experienced by the women of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has summoned many religious people to come together in the pursuit of peace and justice. The Religious Institute's Congo Sabbath Initiative is one such instance of faith traditions allying to advocate for an end to the sexual violence in the DRC. The success of the Congo Sabbath Initiative can be replicated as people of faith continue to forge the path to peace.

• 0:15

  “Inter-Religious Dialogue as a Method of Peace-Building in Israel and Palestine,” by Rabbi Dr. Ronald Kronish

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Inter-religious Dialogue is understood as a method of peace-building—bringing people together to learn to live in peace -- which is different than peace-making, whereby politicians and diplomats develop peace treaties between governments. In Israel and Palestine, we are engaged in interreligious dialogue in the midst of conflict, which means that we are not “resolving” the macro conflict, but are mitigating and managing it through our dialogue and educational programs. In recent years, we have embarked on pioneering programs which engage youth, young adults, religious leaders, women and educators in this process. Through our grass-roots educational work, we have developed a four-part model which combines personal encounter and interreligious learning, with discussion of core issues of the conflict and action projects. We believe that this model can resonate with many people in this field in Israel and Palestine and around the world.

• 0:10

  “Going beyond the Rhetoric: The Muslim Aid-UMCOR Partnership in Sri Lanka,” by Amjad Saleem

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This paper highlights practical examples of dialogue and collaboration between Muslim Aid and UMCOR showing how different faith communities make natural allies for the promotion and success of cross border linking and play a part in making humanitarian work more efficient and effective whilst showing that inter-faith cooperation means something practical as well as spiritual.

• 0:06

  “Raimon Panikkar, John Hick, and a Pluralist Theology of Religions,” by Madhuri M. Yadlapati

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Although many Christian pluralist theologies of religion have been advocated in different forms to promote the real value of many religious traditions, critics most often target the classic pluralist proposal advanced by John Hick, one which explains the many religions as separate paths toward one transcendent goal. This paper traces the ways in which Raimon Panikkar’s pluralist theology departs from Hick’s by adopting a different response to Kantian epistemology. By relying on relational ontology and religious dialogue that exercises deconstruction of one’s own presuppositions, Panikkar’s pluralism better meets certain stated goals of pluralism like peace, cooperation, and increased mutual understanding among different religious communities. This paper in large part framed the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue's panel discussion at the American Academy of Religion's annual meeting.

• 0:05

  “Fear Beyond Fright: Jewish Responses to Tragedy,” by Joshua M. Z. Stanton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This paper seeks to provide a preliminary investigation into how Jews respond to fear-inducing experiences. In particular, it will focus on two of the most harrowing experiences of Jewish history: the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans and the Holocaust. What terminology has been used to describe these experiences? How has the memory of these events evolved over the generations, and can the process of adapting to the more ancient experience predict how Judaism will evolve as a result of more recent experiences? Each of these questions would take a book to answer. But even initial discoveries may yield practical outcomes; the best predictor of future responses to fear is most certainly the past. This article was written for the "Managing Fear through Faith" conference, sponsored by Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church, U.S. in the World Initiative and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and co-hosted by Bethesda Jewish Congregation, Idara e Jaferia Mosque, the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and the New America Foundation.

• 0:02

  “Response to Fear in the Muslim Tradition,” by Hafsa Kanjwal

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This paper explores the role of fear in the Muslim tradition and the religious or historical sources to which Muslim can turn to in order to manage fear on both a communal and individual level. The paper begins with an analysis on the varied references to fear in the Quran and traditional Islamic scholarship and then focuses on the life of the Prophet Muhammad and the experiences of the early Muslim community in regards to moments of fear that they experienced and their response. This article was written for the "Managing Fear through Faith" conference, sponsored by Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church, U.S. in the World Initiative and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and co-hosted by Bethesda Jewish Congregation, Idara e Jaferia Mosque, the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and the New America Foundation.

• December 20, 2010
• 6:54

  “New Neighbors, New Pluralism?” By Jenny Replogle

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article was originally published on State of Formation.

  During hevruta with a fellow seminarian, I encountered the depths of my own Christian faith in a new way.  This was my first experience of hevruta, the study of the Torah with a partner, but it was familiar for my partner, Gideon, a rabbinical student.  He had never read the text we studied, Luke 10:25-37, but I knew it as both a foundational story of my religion and a favorite Christian justification of interfaith relations.  After reading the text aloud, Gideon asked me what I thought it meant.  Reeling through years of Sunday school explanations to seminary theology, I offered the common explanation for the parable: the Samaritan demonstrates the command to love one’s neighbor in a way which we are to emulate.  Gideon responded, “But that’s not what it says.” I do not remember the conclusion to our discussion that day, but I realized that Gideon might be right.  Surely Jesus calls us to love everyone and to care for the needs of all as the Samaritan did, but my familiarity with the text blinded me from seeing other meaning.

  The common explanation that confused Gideon is not necessarily incorrect because Jesus concludes by saying, “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37 NRSV).  However, the question which provoked the parable, “Who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29), was asked to identify who the second greatest Christian commandment calls us to love, and the answer is the Samaritan.  He certainly demonstrates an admirable way to behave, but the story is told from the perspective of the man in the ditch. This man is not in a position to discriminate based on the labels of class and religion given to the hearers.[1] Perhaps the point of thisparticular parable is not to render assistance to all others, but a call to take a perspective in which we recognize each person who walks by as a possible neighbor, one I must love as myself.

  This reversal of perspective illuminates the centrality of the religious other for my own faith and belief as a Christian. The original question of this discourse is “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25).  If part of the answer is to this question is to love your neighbor as self, and the helping Samaritan is my neighbor, then could this parable suggest that my eternal life depends on seeing myself in need of the other to the point that each who I encounter is my neighbor?  We prefer to read this story in a way that the other’s life is in my hands, but actually my life is at stake in my ability or refusal to recognize my neighbor.

  Prior to my conversation with Gideon, I assumed that this pericope meant that I should recognize people all over the world who were different from me as my neighbor, but the command to love the Samaritan was not surprising because Samaritans were different religiously and ethnically, but because they were living in the same land.  Rabbi Jonathan Sacks points out “the Hebrew Bible in one verse commands, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’, but in no fewer than 36 places commands us to ‘love the stranger.’”[2] This was surely known by the expert in the law questioning Jesus.  Were the Samaritans too strange to be a neighbor, and too near to be a stranger?

  The ambiguous nature of the Samaritan is particularly significant to us today. In her description of A New Religious America, Diana Eck explains, “Adherents of other faiths are no longer distant metaphorical neighbors in some other part of the world but next-door neighbors.”[3] The religious other is now one among us, like the Samaritan, and our very lives and faith depend on our ability to recognize them as our neighbor.

  This phenomenon is relatively new for Christians in the West, many of whom experienced their entire lives in predominantly homogenous religious cultures.  This provided the context for much Christian theology and practice in Europe and America over many centuries.  Since religious others were ‘metaphysical neighbors,’ or strangers depending on perspective, they could be treated conceptually along with their religion, and perhaps this accounts for the prevailing understanding of pluralism.  In Christian theology, pluralism has usually meant the claim that all religions and religious truths are valid, taking part in a conversation which explores the relationship between the Christian religion and sweeping treatments of other religions, i.e. Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim.  Our daily realities, however, consist of specific persons whose religion might be different from ours yet is also distinct within their own tradition.  A theology that is not divorced from living its reality daily now calls for a revitalized understanding of pluralism.

  The need to re-examine what my faith says about my new neighbors can lead to clarifying who is in and out of the bounds of a religion, or it can be done by drawing on the sources of a tradition to more fully live out one’s faith.  Sacks contends that the imperative for religious people is “to search – each faith in its own way – for a way of living with, and acknowledging the integrity of those who are not of our faith.  Can we make space of difference?... Can we see the presence of God in a stranger?”[4] The embrace of the religious other is not acquiescence to demands for tolerance or even wise and well-intentioned calls from religious or political leaders.  It is not defended by scouring the crumbs of theology, faith, and history for resources that suggest it as a viable alternative.  A revitalized understanding of pluralism will come from wrestling anew with the depths of our own tradition.

  [1] R. Alan Culpepper, The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 229.

  [2] Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations, 2nd ed. (London: Continuum, 2003), 58.

  [3] Diana L Eck, A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Now Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation, 1st ed. (New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 23.

  [4] Sacks, The Dignity of Difference, 17.

• December 13, 2010
• 7:40

  “Future Religious and Ethical Leaders Ask The Hard Questions — Together,” By Chris Stedman

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.

  "'Thou shalt not' might reach the head, but it takes 'Once upon a time' to reach the heart." So said Philip Pullman, author of The Golden Compass, in a 2007 interview with The Atlantic. He might be right, but I can't help but wonder: What if we could reach both the head and the heart?

  It's a question I asked myself many times over while writing my Master of Arts in Religion thesis on narrative and religion last year. Now, as the Managing Director of State of Formation, a new online forum for emerging religious and ethical leaders founded by the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue and run in partnership with Hebrew College, Andover Newton Theological School and collaboration with Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, I am so excited about the content that has flooded the site in its inaugural week -- and how our religious and philosophical academics are using both their minds and their hearts to enter into dialogue.

  Our initial group of nearly 70 contributing scholars contains Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant (among them Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian and others), Hindu, Secular Humanist, Sikh, Agnostic, Greek Orthodox, Unitarian Universalist, Mormon, Evangelical Christian, Atheist and Lindisfarne participants. Some were born in the Bible belt; others grew up in places like Jamaica, Singapore, Japan, and Germany. They are gay and straight, liberal and conservative, religious and secular.

  There is also a wide range of experience among them. Some have been engaged in interfaith dialogue and social action for years -- others are brand new to it. There are Ph.D. students, people in Master of Arts in Religion, Master of Divinity, and Master of Education programs, some fresh out of graduate school, community organizers and activists, and even a recent Master of Fine Arts graduate and current professor of creative writing who is at work on a memoir about growing up as an Evangelical Christian. Many live in various parts of the United States of America, and there are several in England, Israel, Australia and other parts of the world.

  It's an eclectic cohort, to be sure, and already their dialogue is rife with questions, disagreements and attempts at answers. The singular consensus among these religiously varied emerging leaders? This dialogue matters.

  Jason A. Kerr, a doctoral candidate in English at Boston College and a lifelong Mormon, has high hopes for this project. "I'm hoping that State of Formation will enable its contributors and readers to forge a new community, one that can amplify the capacities for good now present in those communities to which we already belong," wrote Kerr in his first post. "We're undertaking a very difficult sort of dialogue here, but also a very necessary one."

  Kari Aanestad, a Master of Divinity student spending a year in Oxford, England, where her husband is a Rhodes Scholar studying the history of science, agrees. "Interfaith work ... is absolutely crucial, and as a Lutheran I could not be more committed to this dialogue. One of the primary tenets of my faith is that I am free to love and serve my neighbors, which challenges me to go beyond my local culture and hear the stories of those outside, to meet new people (yes, even non-Lutherans!) and learn from them," Aanestad wrote in her first post, a reflection on what she is discovering about interfaith dialogue by living in a context dramatically different from the Midwest, where her Lutheran heritage was commonplace. "While I have ultimately learned that my spiritual identity is not synonymous with Minnesota culture, perhaps there's room for a new potluck where everyone's dish is welcome."

  Every contributor comes from a particular religious or philosophical background, but this difficult and enriching dialogue also enables each to be an individual, not just a representative of her or his tradition. "While I hold no illusions that my contributions to this space represent the Islamic perspective on any particular issue," wrote Garfield Swaby, a student working towards a Masters in Islamic Studies and Muslim-Christian Relations at Hartford Seminary, "I hope only to blog new reflections into existence informed by my understanding of Islam, or by any of my other commitments, for that matter."

  By engaging with one another's commitments, they are already getting to know one another and making their dialogue more about mutual understanding than about academic knowing. "As young scholars, practitioners, and activists, our intellectual lives, our spiritual lives, or our careers might be in states of formation, but the public conversations about religion and ethics in the United States are also in a state of formation," wrote Joshua Eaton, a Buddhist and recent Master of Divinity graduate from Harvard University. "My hope is that State of Formation can help put some meat on the bones of that conversation by giving voice not just to the what of religion, but also to the who, when, where, why, and how. Religion could not be more important to our public life; we cannot afford to be uninformed."

  This is a new and exciting endeavor for all involved, but perhaps maybe for none more than Brandon Turner. In his first post, Turner explored why an online forum may be an ideal platform for this challenging and transformative dialogue.

  "Why did an individual who has never blogged, tweeted, or facebooked (is this the term?) decide to apply to a new interreligious initiative that will exist almost exclusively in the online world?" asked Turner. "I believe that ... those who are a part of this ever growing community are truly embarking on something unique. As we get to know each other over the next few months, I believe we will be, in many ways, defining what 'interreligious dialogue 2.0' will look like in the future."

  To see the future religious and philosophical leaders of tomorrow begin to redefine the discourse on religion and ethics together today, please take a look at the website. We invite you to weigh in; as our diverse group of Contributing Scholars can attest, this is a conversation that not only needs everyone -- it needs everyone's heart and mind.

• December 10, 2010
• 21:51

  “The Presbyterian-Jewish Divide that Need Never Be,” By Joshua Stanton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.

  Simon Wiesenthal was an inspiration to me as a Jewish kid growing up in America. Who in my place wouldn't have been inspired by him? My large European-based family lost something on the order of fifty members during the Holocaust, and Wiesenthal hunted their killers -- or at least those who had gotten away.

  When I learned about the center that bears his name, I was equally impressed. How couldn't I support an organization "that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism, promotes human rights and dignity, stands with Israel, defends the safety of Jews worldwide, and teaches the lessons of the Holocaust for future generations"? It brought together the hard-nosed fight for justice with a love for teaching and an investment in the future of Judaism.

  I still profoundly admire Wiesenthal and the Wiesenthal Center. But I worry that a recent op-ed written by two of its leaders, Rabbi Marvin Hier and Rabbi Abraham Cooper, goes against the very pursuit of justice that the center so firmly embraces. Entitled "Presbyterians Against Israel: Liberal Protestants are engaging in historical revisionism concerning Jews and the Holy Land," its strong suit is certainly not understatement. But by labeling an entire Christian denomination "anti-Israel," it may prove far more damaging.

  The Presbyterian Church has over 2.3 million members in the United States. Its members are diverse, as are its leaders. To claim that "Presbyterians" -- and all the more so "liberal Protestants" more broadly -- are "against Israel" is provocative, unconvincing, and even ironic.

  One of the worst dichotomies propagated by Israel's critics (and an unfortunate number of its supporters) is the very idea that you can be "anti-Israel." Besides undermining any hope for nuanced discussion, it suggests that you can be against the very existence of a country, rewrite history, and should devote time to counterfactuals rather than peace-building.

  If there is a lesson to be derived from problematic and disproportionate criticism of Israel, it is not to oversimplify. It is appropriate to criticize the policies of a given country and support alternatives; it is unacceptable to tarnish the image of an entire country based on policies that only some support.

  Something similar may be said of denominational bodies and their policies, as well.

  Most tragically, we find that Israel's staunchest supporters within the Presbyterian Church are those most hurt by Hier and Cooper's piece. They are now seen as being in bed with true opponents of the Presbyterian Church -- rather than simply holding different aspirations for its internal policies. By contrast, those most critical of Israel in the Presbyterian Church -- some of whom may even venture into the self-defeating ether of counterfactual history -- will gain momentum and political stature from this article.

  Just last summer, the Wiesenthal Center and its representatives witnessed the Presbyterian Church vigorously reaffirm its historic commitment to Israel's right to exist, turn down divestment proposals and amend many other proposed Middle East policies. By criticizing an entire denomination, rather than a particular faction therein, Rabbis Hier and Cooper can expect more, not less, criticism of Israel.

  Israel stands to lose from a lack of nuance on all sides. So does the future of Presbyterian-Jewish relations in America.

  (Full Disclosure: While I am primarily a rabbinical student at Hebrew Union College, I also serve as Program Director of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue at Auburn Theological Seminary, an institution affiliated with the Presbyterian Church -- notably one whose leaders have opposed divestment.)

• December 06, 2010
• 20:45

  Press Release: Leading Interfaith Organizations Launch “State of Formation” Forum for Emerging Leaders

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Monday, December 06, 2010

  Contact: Christopher Delos Stedman, www.stateofformation.org
  612-750-1661; chris@irdialogue.org
  

  Leading Interfaith Organizations Launch "State of Formation" Forum for Emerging Leaders

  Current American discourse on religion and ethics is primarily defined by established leaders—ministers, rabbis, academics and journalists. There is an entire population of important stakeholders without a platform: the up-and-comers.

  To remedy this, the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, Hebrew College, Andover Newton Theological School, and the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions have joined forces to create State of Formation, a forum for up-and-coming religious thinkers to draw upon the learning that is occurring in their academic and community work, reflect on the pressing questions of a religiously pluralistic society, and challenge existing religious definitions.

  State of Formation is a community conversation between leaders in formation. Together, a cohort of seminarians, rabbinical students, graduate students, activists and the like—the future religious and moral leaders of tomorrow—are working to redefine the ethical discourse today.

  Writers for State of Formation will demonstrate candor and respect, and State of Formation's content will reflect the diversity of budding religious and ethical leadership in America and the particular learning that only occurs in religious and philosophical education. Above all, its contributors will address the pressing ethical issues of our pluralistic world.

  The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, the parent publication of State of Formation, is a program of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City.

  State of Formation: www.stateofformation.org
  Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue: www.irdialogue.org

• December 02, 2010
• 2:23

  Religious Photography of Rick Nahmias

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue
  

  ©Rick Nahmias/goldenstatesofgrace.com

  

  ©Rick Nahmias/goldenstatesofgrace.com

• 2:02

  “A Changing Encounter,” a Response to the Photography of Rick Nahmias by Anna DeWeese

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue
  

  © Rick Nahmias/goldenstatesofgrace.com

  (C) Rick Nahmias/goldenstatesofgrace.com

  "What's going on in this picture?"

  This was the seductively simple question posed to me when asked to respond on the included image. This picture comes from a collection of images, published together in the work Golden States of Grace: Prayers of the Disinherited by Rick Nahmias. I have not had the privilege of exploring the entirety of these images, the book, or to have viewed the project at an exhibition showing. This project tells the stories of 11 communities, and the ways in which they practice and live out their respective faiths. The common thread between the communities in this work is that they are groups on the margins of society. For various reasons, these groups have been cast aside, overlooked, or otherwise disregarded by the majority.

  This image, “Yajahira With Her Altar”, represents a community of transgender sex workers who pray to La Santisima Muerta (Holy Death). This figure, like St. Jude, watches over those in risky professions, and these sex workers see Santisima Muerta as one who helps them avoid death on the streets by evoking her form, which is the symbolism of death. I found this image compelling for many reasons: the particular icon of Jesus Yajahira has on her altar; her posture as she sits and smokes; the look in her eyes as she stares at the icon; the composition of the photograph; the particular story of this woman, which I can only imagine; the power of her story and her beliefs that is invoked by this image.

  What is going on here is a lot. The question is not simple, nor should it be.

  Stories from the margins are often ignored or assumed as simplistic, and therefore not worth the attention of the rest of society. Yet my faith compels me to ask certain questions when faced with such images, stories or encounters: Whose voice is not being heard? Who is in need? How are they interpreting God’s message? Is my interpretation of that message making it impossible for me to see them, hear them, help them? Sitting with this image I think, how would I react to meeting someone with Yajahira’s story?  Would I react, or would I respond, after sitting with her, listening to her? Would I judge her, or otherwise compare myself to her? Would I think that my faith was in some way better of greater than hers, or less?

  Nahmias’ work brings us into contact with stories of faith – stories of survival, stories of living, stories of the other, stories of our neighbors – and into contact with something greater than our selves.

  As a person who has encountered a small piece of one of these stories, I am changed. And because I am changed, through this encounter, I must rethink my own faith.

• 1:03

  “A Golden State: the Fine Balance of Working and Trusting in the Unknown,” an Interview with Photographer Rick Nahmias by Stephanie Varnon-Hughes

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue
  

  © Rick Nahmias/goldenstatesofgrace.com

  Rick Nahmias is a photographer inimitably willing to come into relationship with his subjects, so willing that his own work and spirit is irrecovably changed by the making and sharing of his art.

  Golden States of Grace: Prayers of the Disinherited reveals startling portraits of worshippers, their landscapes, and their objects of worship, along with written prayers, oral histories and academic essays.

  Yet, turning through the pages is more than merely examining beautiful photographs. It became clear to me within a few minutes with the book that the book itself revealed a community, an outpouring of spirit, and an accumulation of grace.

  I had the opportunity to speak to Nahmias about his work, and I asked him to begin by talking about the project. With the goal of “capturing community,” he begins with meeting the individual in person, in their community, and presents the project and his portfolio.  In a sense, he is courting them as a co-participant, co-creator in the project. Nahmias shares,  “I had no qualms in saying—I need to be invited into the most sacred areas of your life.” He describes this process as, “A certain partnership of trust.--.”

  I have never heard an artist or writer discuss his subject in a way that connotes equality on the part of the subject—it struck me that Nahmias was in a way giving up part of a perceived power in a willingness to come into relationship with his subjects. Nahmias said, “After that, my goal is just to remain open to what happens.” He continued,

  “I have learned no project of mine can begin with anything but a blank canvas - It may seem like a given, but it is with great excitement I greet that, and more than a tinge of sadness when something solid begins to form, because it is then that all the other possibilities about what that project ‘Can Be’ then melt away. Thus, as exciting as it is, there is always this ambivalence as I move forward - and forms and ideas become clearer. But that is part of the process and must happen.

  Now, being well-acquainted with the labyrinth one must maneuver when taking on a large scale photo project, film, anything with multiple moving parts, I am always amazed that things come together in the end. I feel very lucky to be able to go on these journeys and have the trust there will be something at the end - though I really don't want to know what that is till I get there.”

  It seems to the viewer that there is a twinship here--just as the artist is committed to portraying his subjects with honesty, he seems honest about the possibility of himself being changed or affected by the work.  Neither leaves the project unchanged; each is forever affected by the other.  By ceding control to “the possible,” the art that is made is a charged space.

  Nahmias continued, “…trusting ‘the unknowing’ of the creative process is something you cannot do without.  It's the alchemy, the way art is made.

  That said, there have been plenty of times during a three day shoot, that after day one I sense I have nothing worthwhile and begin to sweat and see doubts materialize, which if I let them could take down a whole project quite easily.  Again though, even the intense doubt which also comes along with every project I have done - or will ever do - is all part of the journey.”

  To the reader/viewer, the authentic fruit from the journey is powerful—Nahmias himself was struck with how powerful the prayers written by the subjects, and his own growth along the way. He said, “One thing I was struck with—how articulate the subjects were, [they gave a] great deal of thoughtfulness to the prayers.”

  The prayers—making a new American prayer book—reflect a true and previously untapped spirituality. The voices Nahmias amplifies come from the margins—the margins of society as well as the margins of religious communities. I was troubled by my own reactions to some of these voices, and asked Nahmias about including potentially difficult subjects. He said that it is important to include the struggles of our brothers and sisters,“…even if it’s a struggle that is distasteful.” He notes that “Everyone pictured in this book shares something that you and I share: a genuine spiritual quest.”

  Perhaps one reason I feel uncomfortable is because it is easier to live and pray in a world where things are right and wrong, good or bad, black or white. Nahmias identifies this element in his work, noting, “There’s so many shades of gray in there—that I hope we can all see something of ourselves in their struggle. Allow ourselves to live in the grey.”

  He posits that we seem to have lost track of our connection with people who don’t look like us, worship like us, act as children of God like us.  He said, “We all have something marginalized within us whether we want to face or access that. This is a complete body of work – each part, each community, is intregal to the whole. You can’t throw out the works you don’t like. You can’t remove [photographs of a halfway house] because you don’t like addicts. What [the work] says is—put your judgment in check…it’s only about understanding, that each of these people, like you or I, can and must come to a deep personal understanding about their connection to a higher power.”

  By creating a prayer book – and its companion multimedia exhibition which is now traveling - that includes these powerful calls to prayer for all of us (perhaps accentuating facets of God’s presence that we would otherwise miss), Nahmias gives us a way in. That is, I cannot resist entering that which draws me in, first by inviting my gaze, and then by inviting my voice, to share in prayer.

  Late in the process of editing the book, having found himself drawn to particular phrases in the prayers, he began one last creative act. In ransom note style, or like a mosaic-maker, he literally cut up then positioned these resonant phrases on a table. Just as the writers of the prayers took their own time and spiritual energy to share their prayers, Nahmias allowed himself to enter a process of spiritual reflection and felt his way into creating the final prayer. The final prayer, which Nahmias calls “An American Prayer,” is made up completetly of the resonant phrases, the phrases from the prayers which acts as a connective tissue to the images, essays and stories throughout the book.

  Within the book, Nahmias notes, “Images and prayers are contrasted and placed in their specific order for a specific reason of illustrating and broadening themes shared by different faiths and communities.” For the reader/viewer, paging through the book allows one to find images and text, to gaze or to pray, and to hear a circling of voices rise and fall.

  Upon hearing Nahmias describe his willingness to enter into relationship with his subjects, the way he honors them by facilitating their own acts of co-creation, the way he reflected on the resonant phrases to create a new prayer---I noted that his actions sounded pastoral, and asked if he was religious. He demurred that he was not, and laughed when I said he sounded pastoral.  He said that he had not considered himself “religious,” but went on to describe the many experiences he has had, particularly in the creation (and now through delivering it through talks and presentations) of Golden States of Grace, which touched him and others, making him realize that something indeed religious was happening.

  Nahmias talked about one of the strands of grace that ran through this project. He said, “I would say that grace comes through openness and compassion - it finds you and not the other way around - in that way, I feel incredibly lucky that the work turned out well, and from what I am told, reflects a number of themes I saw developing as I shot it.

  My publisher, University of New Mexico Press, trusted me as the manuscript came together, and then as I guided the design and art direction in a very hands on way. They went along on this journey with me from the beginning – allowing us to adhere to the mantra-like three words that I planted in our heads at the start: reverent yet contemporary.”

  Golden States of Grace closes with "An American Prayer;" the prayer begins with the line, "Take refuge, dear children, in the changes in your life."  It takes courage to be willing to enter a place of change, a place where one's values and hopes can be altered and change. When we hear the voice of another, and allow her experience to touch and change us, we are engaged in holy work--work truly gilded through with numinousness.

  Too frequently in my religious life, I do what is commonplace and comfortable, allowing routine to numb me to the experiences and voices of my brothers and sisters. The images Nahmias reveals, and the voices he amplifies--through photograph and word, near icons of portrait and text--bring me to a close place of recognition and disequilibrium.  Gracefully, it is in such a place that prayer is most possible.

• December 01, 2010
• 0:52

  “Muslims integral to American seminaries,” By Joshua M. Z. Stanton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article was originally published on the Common Ground News Service in five languages.

  

  Photo Courtesy of JTSA

  
  

  Seminaries, higher education institutions where professors of religion and religious leaders train students to become clergy, have been present in the United States for centuries. Because seminary students are generally being trained as religious leaders who will oversee congregations, their seminary education has a powerful impact on these students’ future congregations.

  For decades, religious diversity in American seminaries meant the admission of students from different Christian denominations. Then Jews began to attend and even found prominent seminaries, notably Hebrew Union College, the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the Jewish Theological Seminary.

  Yet with the notable exception of the MacDonald Center for the Study of Islam at Hartford Seminary, few American seminaries have historically developed programmes focusing on the study of Islam. The Muslim population had been dramatically underrepresented. Only in the past decade have these trends begun to change – with a greater emphasis on both teaching Islamic studies in Christian and Jewish institutions and giving credence to the increasingly prominent idea that it is time for Muslim Americans to found a seminary of their own.

  Regarding the latter, the last two years have shown a particular flurry of growth and institution-building within the Muslim American community. First was the founding of Zaytuna College (as an outgrowth of the Zaytuna Institute) in 2009, designed to become a full-scale university for Muslim undergraduate and graduate students in America.

  Then just this past October, a landmark interfaith workshop, “Judaism and Islam in America”, co-sponsored by the Jewish Theological Seminary, Hartford Seminary and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), brought to the fore discussions about building an American seminary solely for the training of imams and Muslim religious scholars. While such a project may still be years away, excitement surrounding the idea for a Muslim American seminary reflects a growing need to train Muslim clergy well-versed in traditional texts and with an understanding of the American context in which they would work.

  Yet even as an institution that trains Muslim American clergy remains in discussion, Muslim students are now becoming valued as essential participants in divinity and graduate programmes across the United States. In fact, a number of new partnerships have emerged in recognition of the growing presence of Muslims and Islamic studies in seminaries.

  Since 2008, for example, the Hebrew Union College and University of Southern California have partnered with the Omar Ibn Al-Khattab Foundation – a Los Angeles-based philanthropic organisation that works to support other Muslim organisations – to establish the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement. All three institutions feel that the centre holds significant potential, noting the success of its interfaith text-study programmes and existing efforts to bolster Jewish studies programmes in majority-Muslim countries while also strengthening Islamic studies programmes in North America and Europe.

  Other centres, such as the Center of Christian-Muslim Engagement for Peace and Justice (CCME) at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, have been in existence even longer. CCME has focused largely on urging Christian graduates of the seminary to be knowledgeable about Islam so they may collaborate with Muslim organisations and clergy throughout their future careers.

  Most remarkable, however, was the announcement earlier this year that southern California’s Claremont School of Theology, an institution affiliated with the United Methodist Church, is poised to add full-scale ordination programmes for Muslim and Jewish students seeking to become members of the clergy in their respective communities. It is set to become the only institution in the world that also offers parallel training programs for imams, rabbis, and pastors.

  While these profound institutional shifts may be more visible, cultural shifts in seminaries are also rapidly taking place. When I first spoke with colleagues about the potential to found State of Formation, a blog for top emerging religious and ethics leaders from across America, the first question many asked was whether I would be recruiting Muslim students. This would never have happened five years ago and is an indication that Muslim students are not simply tolerated in American seminaries but actively welcomed.

  Seminaries have historically been at the leading edge of social change in America. It would seem that one of their current causes is the fuller integration of Muslims into American society – beginning in their very own classrooms.

• November 29, 2010
• 21:46

  “Making the Internet Moral,” By Chris Stedman

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Is the Internet destroying our morals?

  Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI issued a warning that the Internet was "numbing" young people and creating an "educational emergency - a challenge that we can and must respond to with creative intelligence."

  Speaking at a Vatican conference on culture, Benedict also expressed concern that "a large number of young people" are "establish[ing] forms of communication that do not increase humaneness but instead risk increasing a sense of solitude and disorientation."

  Benedict's comments created an uproar, but he has a point. Studies show that Internet addiction is linked to depression; in 2007, the comedy website Cracked offered a surprisingly moving take on this phenomenon titled "7 Reasons the 21st Century is Making You Miserable."

  It's tempting, knowing this, to suggest that we all take a step away from our keyboards, turn off our computers, and go find a field to frolic in.

  As much as I love the instant gratification of being able to download the latest Kanye West album the moment it is released and being able to stay connected to my family back in Minnesota through Facebook, I also know that the Internet has created a new kind of culture in which the rules of engagement have shifted dramatically. The rise of cyberbullying in recent years demonstrates that our more-connected world comes with new moral and ethical questions that we must respond to with creativity and acumen.

  As we saw with "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,"culture wars are born online. But I also believe that the Internet has created opportunities to open channels of dialogue that were, previous to now, next to impossible. Where culture wars are born, so too can we build bridges.

  With this conviction, I am excited by the launch of State of Formation, a new online forum for emerging religious and ethical leaders from around the world, founded by the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue and run in partnership with Hebrew College, Andover Newton and collaboration with Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions.

  My hope is that State of Formation will be just one of many attempts to use the Internet as a tool to make our world more connected, not more isolated; more informed, not less; more humane, not more cruel.

  When I stopped believing in God, I swore off religion altogether, believing that it was an inherently bad thing because it had negatively impacted my life. Today, as an interfaith activist, I recognize that religion can be harnessed for good, especially when we work across lines of religious and secular identity to uncover our common values and act in unity.

  Just as religion can and has been used as a force to commit to evil, the Internet can allow bullies to dominate the conversation. But the Internet, like religion, can also be a tool for transformation, if we wield it responsibly.

  Today's guest blogger is Chris Stedman, an IFYC alum; the Interfaith and Community Service Fellow for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University; and the Managing Director of State of Formation, a new initiative at the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue. This article has been featured by On Faith and Tikkun.

• 12:00

  “Shari’a and Human Rights from an Enlightened, Islamic Perspective,” By Paola Bernardini

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  "SHARI’A AND HUMAN RIGHTS FROM AN ENLIGHTENED, ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE: A Conversation with Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im," By Dr. Paola Bernardini

  

  Professor Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im

  Dr. Paola Bernardini is Russell Berrie Fellow in Interreligious Studies at the he John Paul II Center for Interreligious Dialogue, St. Thomas Aquinas University (Angelicum), Rome.

  Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory Law School, is an internationally recognized scholar of Islam and human rights. Born in Sudan, he moved to the US when his teacher, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was put too death by the Regime of the Sudanese President Gaafar Nimeiry. His most prominent publications include Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari’ a (Harvard University Press, 2008); African Constitutionalism and the contingent role of Islam (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) and Towards an Islamic Reformation: Civic Liberties, Human Rights and International Law (Syracuse University Press, 1990).

  Click here to read Dr. Bernardini's interView with Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im on Shari'a, philosophy, and the contemporary world.

• November 26, 2010
• 15:56

  Houses of Worship and Popular Art: interView with Marc Sapir

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Marc Sapir, renowned artist and publisher, met with the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue for an interview about his use of floor plans from churches and Buddhist temples to inform his work. Here are some of his insights into the intersection of art and religion.

  This interView was also featured on the State of Formation.

• November 22, 2010
• 4:03

  “Honouring those who search for common ground,” By Naazish Yarkhan

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Chicago, Illinois - The British government, the descendants of former US President Thomas Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings, the Mathare Youth Sports Association in Nairobi and the multi-media organisation Just Vision may at not, at first glance, seem to have anything in common. But on 11 November at the National Geographic Society in Washington, DC, it became clear that they have all chosen to build bridges between individuals and communities where barbed wire, darkness or ignorance had divided people.

  The non-profit organisation Search for Common Ground, itself committed to resolving and preventing conflict by understanding differences and acting on commonalities, honoured them for leading by example.

  Awardees David Works, Shay Banks-Young and Julia Jefferson Westerin – all descendants of a relationship between Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings, or Jefferson and his wife Martha – were recognised for striving to bridge the chasm between black and white America. They began by promoting racial tolerance and acceptance within their own fractured family, and it was not until Banks-Young and Westerin’s efforts to promote common ground by speaking publicly about the need for racial reconciliation had taken off that the Jefferson-Hemings descendants were acknowledged as family by the Jefferson-Martha clan.

  Divisions along racial lines are only one divide in the United States. If you read various online news outlets or tune in to radio talk shows in the United States, you know how vitriolic public discussion has become. Jim Leach, the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, was awarded for his national tour calling for the restoration of mutual respect and civility in public dialogue.

  None would agree more to such a movement than Eboo Patel, the visionary behind the Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core. Not yet 35, this Muslim American has already built a global interfaith youth movement that brings together youth with different faith traditions and beliefs for cooperative service and dialogue around shared values. In his acceptance speech, Patel drew on a story from Italian author Italo Calvino about stones being used to build a bridge – rather than walls or weapons – which was especially powerful.

  Ronit Avni, Founder and Executive Director of Just Vision and Julia Bacha, Producer and Media Director, were recognised for their new documentary film Budrus which shows non-violent resistance to Israeli occupation. According to The Boston Globe, "This film will single-handedly change how many people view the conflict. It's that good, and that important."

  The documentary brings into focus an untold tale, one unheard of both in the US mainstream press and on the world stage. It chronicles the efforts to save the Palestinian village of Budrus from being walled off by the construction of the separation barrier, by uniting local civic and political leaders with Israeli and international supporters. Americans can watch the documentary in theatres until mid-February. Queen Noor of Jordan, who is actively involved with a number of peacebuilding organisations, presented this award to the recipients.

  Before an audience of nearly 350 people, Search for Common Ground also honoured the South African 1995 Springbok Rugby Team for nurturing unity in the racially divided country. For non-white South Africans, the Springboks symbolised the nation's history with apartheid. Under then President Nelson Mandela, both blacks and whites celebrated the Boks’ and South Africa’s first World Cup title in 1995 as united citizens of one country.

  The Mathare Youth Sports Association (MYSA) in Nairobi also uses sports as a catalyst for change, crossing religious, political and tribal lines. MYSA was given an award for its inspirational work, which touches nearly 25,000 boys and girls in Africa’s worst slum every year with community-based programming, including environmental cleanup, AIDS prevention activities and leadership training.

  The British government was also recognised for apologising earlier this year for its role in Bloody Sunday, a tragic 1972 incident in Northern Ireland in which 13 unarmed civil rights protestors were killed and several more injured by the British army.

  Last but not the least, the Pennsylvania-based manufacturing company, Center Rock, Inc., received an award for having committed itself to providing innovative equipment that led to the rescue of the 33 Chilean miners from their recent ordeal. It was their persistence in finding a solution to a seemingly intractable problem that reunited these men with their loved ones – and served as an inspiration to us all.

  The awardees themselves crossed borders to be honoured for their achievements. Each one demonstrated that conflicts and divisions do not have to be permanent, and that no matter the odds, there is hope.

  ###

  * Naazish YarKhan is an editor, social media/content strategist, NPR commentator and Huffington Post blogger. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

• November 15, 2010
• 11:00

  “Atheist Students Find Their Place in the Interfaith Movement,” By Chris Stedman

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.

  Atheists are leading the charge for interfaith cooperation. If that sounds contradictory, allow me to confirm: I just saw it with my own eyes.

  Last weekend, more than 200 college students and 100 faculty and staff from across the United States converged in Washington, D.C. for five days of interfaith training. Students and campus staff participated in two consecutive Interfaith Leadership Institutes, planned and run by the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC), where they received intensive training that prepared them to take the lead in a national movement for interfaith cooperation and social action.

  The Interfaith Leadership Institutes, co-hosted by the Georgetown University Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, consisted of a series of trainings, speeches and events intended to equip hundreds of student leaders and campus allies with the vision, knowledge and skills necessary to lead interfaith and community service initiatives on their campuses. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships hosted a session for each institute, and then participants spent two days at Georgetown being trained and equipped.

  I was honored to join these students and their staff and faculty allies as a speaker and volunteer IFYC Alumni Coach for the institutes. I was amazed by the enthusiasm and compassion modeled by everyone I met, but as a secular humanist and interfaith activist, the number of nonreligious participants present is perhaps what excited me the most.

  Lyz Liddell, Director of Campus Organizing at the Secular Student Alliance, was one of the student allies in attendance. Liddell believes the institutes were a watershed moment for nonreligious participation in the interfaith movement.

  "This institute changed perspectives for both theists and nontheists," said Liddell. "Hearing repeated language specifically including nonbelievers -- such as 'people of all religions and no religion' -- made it clear that atheists and other secular worldviews are welcome and needed at the interfaith table. Likewise, having nontheists represented helped religious attendees really understand that nontheists want to be involved and are willing and eager to be included."

  As an Alumni Coach, I am working with 20 other IFYC alumni to serve as mentors to the institutes' budding student leaders. One of the students I am mentoring is Michael Anderson, a junior at McKendree University. Anderson sees interfaith work as a pragmatic necessity. "We're all just human beings, and we have to come to a conclusion on how to live together," said Anderson.

  Vlad Chituc, a junior at Yale University, was also there to learn more about interfaith leadership. Chituc was surprised and impressed by how welcoming the institute was to atheists and other nonreligious individuals. "I found that the entire conversation stemmed around people saying, 'We really want to include nonreligious people; how the hell do we do that?' Now I don't know why I was expecting the discussion to focus more on whether or not we should even be involved in the movement," Chituc said.

  Chelsea Link, a junior at Harvard University, said that she believes that her humanist values require her to find common ground with religious people. "When I found humanism, I felt like many humanists and atheists were detached from religious communities, and many were antagonistic toward the religious," Link said. "Meanwhile, at interfaith events, I didn't see much of an invitation for atheists or humanists. The religious and nonreligious don't know how to deal with each other; I'd like to see more reaching out from both sides. We shouldn't be afraid of each other!"

  Adam Garner, a senior at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, agreed with her. "I want to make the world a better place through service and I want to fight religious intolerance. The IFYC, and especially our Interfaith in Action group here on campus, allows me to accomplish both goals in one fell swoop."

  I have been working for several years now as a secular humanist promoting interfaith and nonreligious understanding, so I was honored to receive an invitation to share my story and my message at a reception following the White House session, hosted by the El-Hibri Charitable Foundation in celebration of the launch of the Interfaith Leadership Institutes. Speaking before a group of policy and philanthropic professionals, I explained that there are many atheists, agnostics, humanists and other nonreligious individuals like Anderson, Chituc, Link, Garner, Liddell and others at the institutes who wish to seek understanding, respect and collaboration with their religious neighbors.

  After my speech, I got the opportunity to talk with many of the policy and philanthropic professionals at the reception, and they affirmed my belief that the nonreligious are an essential asset in this movement.President Obama has spoken frequently of the role that the nonreligious play in American pluralism, so I was both pleased and unsurprised to hear that those involved in the current administration's efforts to ensure interfaith cooperation agreed.

  The IFYC Interfaith Leadership Institutes proved that the interfaith movement has hit a critical mass. The student-led, national Better Together" campaign is at the forefront of an emerging societal shift toward inter-religious tolerance and cooperation. Including the nonreligious only strengthens these efforts. Atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and the like have a vital stake in ensuring that America's promise of pluralism is realized, and it is exhilarating to see more of us decide that collaboration is more important than division.

  "Some of the best interfaith leaders I know are not people of faith, but their understanding of secular humanism inspires them to create bridges of cooperation between people from different backgrounds," said IFYC Founder and President Eboo Patel. "They recognize that religious tolerance is a 'public good,' which benefits everybody, including the nonreligious. They also recognize that perhaps the greatest interfaith divide in our society is between 'believers' and 'nonbelievers,' and that they have a special role to play in bridging that divide. And from what I have experienced myself, I believe that as well."

  With more than 300 students and staff equipped to make interfaith cooperation through social action a reality on their campuses and in their communities, they now know that the nonreligious will be there working and engaging in dialogue alongside them for the public good.

  When I first started doing interfaith work, I didn't see many other nonreligious people involved. Now we're impossible to miss.

  Chris Stedman is the Managing Director of State of Formation, a new initiative at the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue. Chris received an MA in Religion from Meadville Lombard Theological School at the University of Chicago, for which he was awarded the Billings Prize for Most Outstanding Scholastic Achievement. A graduate of Augsburg College with a summa cum laude B.A. in Religion, Chris is the founder and author of the blog NonProphet Status. His writing has also appeared in venues such as The Washington Post On Faith, Tikkun Daily, The New Humanism, and more. Previously a Content Developer and Adjunct Trainer for the Interfaith Youth Core, Chris is a secular humanist working to foster positive and productive dialogue between faith communities and the nonreligious. He is currently writing a book on this topic and speaks on it regularly both by invitation and as a member of theSecular Student Alliance Speakers Bureau. Chris also serves on the Leadership Team of the Common Ground Campaign, a coalition of young people standing up in response to the recent wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence in America. Portland, Oregon's GLBT newspaper Just Out called his work "brilliant" and labeled him an "emerging... vibrant and youthful queer voice for the secular humanist movement."

• November 08, 2010
• 15:57

  “Tending a Cooperative Spirit: Reflecting on a Workshop on Judaism and Islam in America,” By Jessica Marglin, Arnold Eisen, and Ingrid Mattson

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Report on “Judaism and Islam in America,” Convened by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the Islamic Society of North America, and Hartford Seminary

  This fall, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders from North America gathered at the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) to begin an unprecedented conversation.  On October 25 and 26, JTS, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Hartford Seminary convened a workshop on “Judaism and Islam in America.”  Participants discussed the ways Jews and Muslims could learn from one another about the experience of religious minorities in the United States.  Although political questions affecting relations between Jews and Muslims worldwide helped form the background of the meetings, all present agreed that there was a more productive kind of discussion to be had—one that focused on how American Jews and Muslims could see one another as partners instead of enemies.

  Arnold Eisen, Chancellor of JTS, and Ingrid Mattson, immediate past president of the Islamic Society of North America and professor at Hartford Seminary, organized the workshop with the goal of initiating honest exchanges about what Muslims and Jews in America share—as well as what they do not.  To this end, Eisen and Mattson decided to close the workshop to non-participants, limiting the group to twenty-five professors, religious educators, and presidents of seminaries. Eisen and Mattson wanted to ensure that people in the room felt comfortable speaking their minds with the reassurance and understanding that the conversation couldn’t be hijacked for personal political purposes by outsiders less committed to the work and dialogue. A number of participants noted how glad they were that Eisen and Mattson had created a space that was safe enough to bring all of the issues onto the table.  The intimate setting encouraged participants to bring up complicated and often difficult issues that too often get swept under the rug in other avenues of inter-religious dialogue.

  

  In addition to the closed sessions, workshop participants attended a panel discussion held at JTS which was free and open to the public.  The roundtable included Chancellor Eisen, Professor Sherman Jackson, who teaches Islamic studies at the University of Michigan, and the Reverend Doctor Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary; Mattson served as moderator.  Over five hundred people attended the event, and many more saw the webstream on the JTS website (www.jtsa.edu).  The audience included Muslims, Jews, and Christians ranging in age from college students to retirees.  The public event’s success testifies to the burning urgency of the question of Judaism and Islam’s future in America.

  An important feature of this workshop was the commitment to starting a conversation, rather than arriving at solutions.  The hope was that honest conversations would open up possibilities for further cooperation, and that relationships begun in October 2010 would flourish into partnerships in the coming years.  The palpable excitement among participants during the concluding discussion around considering next steps suggested that Eisen and Mattson successfully planted seeds in fertile ground.

  During the two days of sessions, discussion ranged from questions of law and scripture to gender and assimilation.  The workshop was divided into six panels including: the history of Judaism and Islam in America, interpretation of scripture, adaptation of law, assimilation and authenticity, Christian perspectives, and the education of Jewish and Muslim clergy in America.  Each panel was structured as a discussion; panelists gave short introductory remarks, after which the floor was open to all participants.  Although the organizers allotted an hour and a half to each topic, there was never enough time to finish the conversation or to even come close to exhausting the issues that had been raised.

  

  The first panel sought to ground the workshop in a discussion of history that introduced the arc of Jewish and Muslim experiences in America.  In outlining the often very distinct evolutions of Islam and Judaism in America, a number of unexpected points of common interest arose.  Participants wondered together about the importance of Jewish and Muslim causes outside the United States in the formation of the American Jewish and Muslim communities.  Navigating the balance between investment in religious life at home versus solidarity with coreligionists abroad was one of the many challenges that Jews and Muslims had both faced (and continue to face) in America.

  In subsequent panels, a number of issues arose repeatedly in different contexts.  Issues such as gender equality and women’s role in public religion proved to be common challenges for Jews and Muslims.  Jews discussed how questions of gender equality had caused deep divisions among Jews, resulting in significant differences among denominations.  Muslim scholars noted the challenges Muslim women faced in becoming accepted as religious authorities in America.  Even though there are few legal barriers to women’s assumption of religious authority in Islamic law—in fact, much less than in Jewish law—some Muslims said that many of the informal channels through which Muslim men acquired authority were closed to women.  Other Muslim participants disagreed with this analysis, however, arguing that the majority of American Muslims were open to accepting women as authority figures.

  Related in many ways to the issues of gender was the question of assimilation into the surrounding American society and the fine line between “assimilation and authenticity,” as Eisen and Mattson put it.  A number of Jewish and Muslim participants voiced their strong desire to be part of American society, and yet expressed fears that doing so would mean losing touch with their religious and cultural beliefs.  Timur Yuskaev, professor and director of the Islamic Chaplaincy Program at Hartford Seminary, suggested that Muslims’ authenticity enabled their assimilation into American culture.  On the other hand, David Myers, professor of Jewish history at the University of California at Los Angeles, questioned whether such a thing as “authenticity” even existed in Judaism, an historically diaspora and minority religion that absorbed elements of whatever cultures Jews lived among.

  One topic that ignited a fascinating conversation on the limits of assimilation—or acculturation, as many participants preferred to think about it—was the timely question of trick-or-treating on Halloween.  Was it a betrayal of Judaism or Islam to allow one’s children to trick-or-treat?  Sherman Jackson mentioned the difference between whether an American custom like trick-or-treating was technically allowed under religious law, and whether one would actually allow one’s children to take part in such a custom.  Riv-Ellen Prell, professor of Jewish studies at the University of Minnesota, noted that the topic of assimilation and authenticity was rich enough to merit a conference of its own and suggested such a meeting as a way to continue the conversation in the future.

  

  Although the workshop focused on Judaism and Islam in America, Eisen and Mattson made sure to include the voices of Christian leaders with long experience of inter-religious dialogue.  In addition to Serene Jones, Heidi Hadsell, president of Hartford Seminary (a co-sponsor of the workshop), and Katharine Henderson, president of Auburn Seminary, joined the workshop and provided insight into the role of Christians in facilitating Jewish and Muslim cooperation.  Hadsell noted the importance of Christians working within the Christian community to promote the importance of inter-religious dialogue, something which often involved helping the majority religion to “see” non-Christians in the first place.  Echoing Hadsell’s call, Henderson described the need for a “conversion to multi-faith.”

  Something that Jewish and Muslim participants reached consensus on early in the workshop was the fact that it was impossible to talk about Judaism and Islam in America as if each religious community were a monolith.  Rather, American Jews and Muslims came from a wide range of cultural, social and religious backgrounds, and these differences had to be taken into account in discussions about convergences and divergences of Jewish and Muslim experiences.  One of the topics that arose in the concluding conversation asked participants to consider who had been left out of this dialogue, and how those voices could be included in the future.  Participants seemed to agree that they came from a relatively narrow range of viewpoints—since they were all interested in dialogue in the first place—and that this was a good place to start the conversation.

  In the concluding discussion, participants suggested ways in which they could build on the foundation laid at JTS.  One suggestion for practical cooperation between Muslims, Jews, and Christians addressed issues raised during the last panel on education.  Safaa Zarzour, the secretary general of ISNA, emphasized the need for founding an Islamic seminary in America.  Zarzour and others expressed how helpful it would be to talk to Jewish and Christian leaders of seminaries as preliminary plans for a Muslim seminary were laid.  Eisen emphasized that such a conversation would equally helpful for Jewish seminaries, noting how much he had already learned from hearing about the experience of Muslim educators in North America.

  Another idea about how to continue the conversation was to hold a conference on contemporary interpretation of Jewish Law and Islamic Law.  Jonathan Brown, professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University, noted how much Jews and Muslims in America had in common when faced with adapting their respective legal systems to modern phenomena.  He proposed a topic of mutual concern, such as bio-ethics, around which Jewish and Muslim legal scholars could discuss the process of contemporary legal interpretation.

  Other participants suggested how helpful it would be for Jewish and Muslim clergy and educators of clergy to meet on a more regular basis to talk about the challenges of shaping the next generation of religious leaders.  Benjamin Sommer, professor of Bible at JTS, noted that the opportunity to spend longer periods of time with clergy and educators of the other faith would enable the development of deeper ties across religions.  A number of participants echoed Sommer and expressed their interest in having more time to engage with one another as partners committed to a number of shared goals.

  Perhaps the most unusual element of the workshop was the spirit of excitement and openness which reigned from the first moment to the last.  Participants repeatedly remarked on how different this workshop was from others they had attended; most said they had learned an enormous amount, and that the workshop had made them hungry for more.  The palpable excitement in the room reflected the urgency of these issues.  Faced with increasing hostility between Jews and Muslims not only in America but in the world, the organizers and participants affirmed how crucial it was to build alliances across religious lines.  All present expressed the hope that the energy and cooperative spirit of the workshop will translate into a continuation and deepening of the conversations started there.  If the discussions about next steps are any indication, this workshop was truly just the beginning.

  As many participants put it: God willing, in sha’ Allah, b-ezrat Hashem.

  Photos: The Jewish Theological Seminary

• 15:56

  interView with Safaa Zarzour: Reflection on “Judaism and Islam in America”

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This fall, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders from North America gathered at the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) to begin an unprecedented conversation.  On October 25 and 26, JTS, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Hartford Seminary convened a workshop on “Judaism and Islam in America.” Mr. Safaa Zarzour reflects on the event in his interView with the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue.

• 15:52

  interView with David N. Myers: Reflection on “Judaism and Islam in America”

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This fall, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders from North America gathered at the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) to begin an unprecedented conversation.  On October 25 and 26, JTS, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Hartford Seminary convened a workshop on “Judaism and Islam in America.” Professor David N. Myers reflects on the event in his interView with the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue.

• 15:47

  interView with Deborah Dash Moore: Reflection on “Judaism and Islam in America”

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This fall, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders from North America gathered at the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) to begin an unprecedented conversation.  On October 25 and 26, JTS, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Hartford Seminary convened a workshop on “Judaism and Islam in America.” Professor Deborah Dash Moore reflects on the event in her interView with the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue.

• 15:43

  interView with Serene Jones: Reflection on “Judaism and Islam in America”

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This fall, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders from North America gathered at the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) to begin an unprecedented conversation.  On October 25 and 26, JTS, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Hartford Seminary convened a workshop on “Judaism and Islam in America.” The Rev. Dr. Serene Jones reflects on the event in her interView with the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue.

• November 06, 2010
• 12:00

  “‘Good and Evil,’ the Graphic Bible, Considered With Dismay,” by Stephanie Varnon-Hughes

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  I am torn, completely torn, while watching the YouTube clip advertising an upcoming project from No Greater Joy Ministries.

  Michael and Debi Pearl gained widespread media attention earlier this year on the anniversary of the death of an abused child—his parents claimed to be following “child training” practices espoused by the Pearls, and taught to parents through their ministry.

  As a Christian also committed to the education and training of children, I followed this story with interest and some dismay. My heart went out to abused children, but I also have positive associations with homeschooling, with Bible-based education, and with Christian families who might use these teachings. I grew up with and went to church with many such families.

  No Greater Joy Ministries recently caught my attention with another pair of projects. They have teamed up with a former Marvel cartoonist, and created a graphic “novel” version of the Bible.  Additionally, they are seeking to—and gathering funds to—turn the finished novel into a feature film in the style of anime and Hollywood successes based upon comic books.

  This, I have no problem with. In fact, in the short clip of the film I was able to view, I did have a powerful reaction, and the subject matter resonated with me. Personally, my Christian relationship with God has shaped who I am, and how I move in the world, and I believe that God is real and good in my life.

  I also believe in evil, so it would seem that I might be a natural audience for this project.

  The No Greater Joy website provides both a video available on YouTube documenting the creation of the book, it’s dissemination, and the feature film goal.

  They also provide a narrative describing the importance of funding and spreading this particular ministry.

  Within thirty seconds of beginning the video, I began to get a sinking, creepy sensation. To use Christian language, I began to discern that the fruits of this film advertisement might not be… good.

  In the first thirty seconds of the video, I count five references to religions other than Christianity.  With the sound muted, the video montages of people of different faiths, in different geographical locations look lovely. The landscapes and religious imagery are beautiful, and inspiring.  With the sound on, though, one hears the voice over, which includes commentary about places in the world  “…in need of hope.”

  We are given the immediate impression that there are some of “us” (those who agree that this project needs to be translated, and might be willing to fund such an empire-based project) who understand what is “good,” and there are “those” who are in need of truth and revelation.

  Certainty of one’s own righteousness has never been a Christ-based tenet, as far as I can tell. Since I was a girl, I was taught to refrain from saying my prayers loudly in the marketplace, and to instead freshen my face and pray to God in my own room.  To not judge, to focus on the beam in my own eye.  And… to believe in the power of God.

  That’s right: I do believe in the power of God. If you ask me, personally, about my faith journey and my relationship with God, I am happy and gratified to evangelize in that way. I do believe God changes my life. I do believe the message of the Gospel has the potential to offer great hope and peace.

  And yet. I live in a multi-religious world, in a community with many, many other points of view, profound experiences, and possibilities for truth and peace.

  So many parts of the video are offensive to me.

  The way a young female voice with a Southern accent from the US (so homespun!  So Christian?) translates the words of a Lao woman (not “girl”).

  The way images of people worshipping [in apparent non-Christian religions] are used as foil to “the good” that needs spreading: Christianity.

  The following description of the potential missionary power of the graphic novel:

  “You can walk up to a Muslim or Buddhist street vendor and give him a box of these books and he will sell them, not caring that they advocate Christianity. After all, profit first,” my emphasis.

  The many threads of tensions strain for my attention. I could watch the video a few more times, but it’s upsetting. It reminds me of the worst, most empire-driven aspects of Christian history. It reminds me of how tricky it can be to sort out “my truth” (or even, “my Truth”) from my openness (a God-created openness, I believe) to the passionate experiences of others.

  How can I live as a child of God in community if I secretly—or openly—behave as if I’m the right one, and I pity those around me who haven’t had access to “the Good”?  Does No Greater Joy Ministries believe everyone else is “evil”?

  How can we Christians reconcile this aspect of our community (our brothers and sisters, as it were) with pluralism and the increasingly diverse communities in which we live, work, and serve?  Why do Christians so frequently feel compelled to sell/send/share/insist on their message and experience to others?

• October 31, 2010
• 20:04

  “Seminal Moment at JTS for Muslim-Jewish Relations in America,” By Stephanie Hughes and Joshua Stanton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  You’ve seen it before: Jews and Muslims sitting together, with diverse headgear and big smiles, showing that life for both communities in the United States need not be defined by the Middle East conflict. Photo-op after photo-op; one Kumbaya moment after the next.

  For leaders of the American Muslim and Jewish communities, the past week was different.

  Instead of posing for pictures together, they got down to business. Meeting behind closed doors at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, at a two-day workshop organized by the Jewish Theological Seminary, Hartford Seminary, and the Islamic Society of North America, they discussed real and significant challenges taking place within and between their communities.

  Those proceedings were intentionally kept off the record in order to avoid the platitudes that preclude action-focused dialogue and meaningful collaboration.

  But even in a public session, held on October 25, participants dug deep in addressing the struggle of gaining acceptance within the broader American society without losing one’s roots. Clichés common in too many interfaith forums—pleasant and nonthreatening calls for peace, recitations of shared values—were missing. Instead, the panelists spoke frankly and urgently about misperceptions, dangers, and concerns facing Jews and Muslims in America.

  An all-star panel included Arnold Eisen, Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary, Sherman Jackson, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Michigan, and Ingrid Mattson, the immediate past president of the Islamic Society of North America, who served as the panel’s moderator.

  Each brought to bear their tremendous knowledge and experience of Judaism and Islam—with the inclusion of a voice from a majority Christian tradition—and delved into the tensions that underlie “Assimilation and Authenticity” for the former two. They pulled no punches and made clear that, even in public, the gathering at the Jewish Theological Seminary was about planning for the future of both Islam and Judaism in America, rather than mere overtures.

  Each panelist frequently used challenging language and examples. Jones described the way the economy “commodifies our desires,” making it the market and not faith communities that inform “the character and shape of our desire and imagination.” When asked about her feelings about being part of the religious majority, she described her dismay, sharing the frequent sensation in today’s media climate that “My own religion has been absconded with and is doing harm.”

  Jackson noted that we have become sensitized to the problematic dimension of Muslims in America, which keeps us from realizing the cooperative properties inherent to our faith traditions. He implored religious leaders to keep from thinking of potential collaboration as a zero sum game. Further, he commented that this is “a crisis of relevance—the same voices that seek to shut down Muslim voices would do the same for Jewish or other voices.”

  Eisen illuminated old worries about Judaism being considered an ethnicity, and declared that pluralism must never equal relativism. He continued, underscoring that pluralism is “not just a nice thing, but a religious imperative,” particularly given the very real challenges faced by religious minorities, and the necessity of those groups to share experience and work together.

  Mattson shared questions from the audience, all of which were answered with immediacy and frankness. To a question about what Jackson thought of Muslim extremists who promote violence, he first pointed out that he personally lives in Michigan—a challenge to us to reconsider our easy idea that all Muslims are from particular regions—and then shared the story of those who had attempted to assassinate Anwar El Sadat: some of the assassins continued in their study of the Qur’an in prison and later said that they were wrong to have done such violence. Jackson ended his response by asking if those of us in the audience knew that Muslim story—the audience spoke in unison, answering, “No.”

  The session ended, with the public thrilled to have taken part in a meaningful interchange, unencumbered by fluff. But the real work of planning collaboratively for the future of Judaism and Islam in America continued in earnest the next day; leaders left the conference with tangible commitments for collaboration.

  After the conference, many privately noted that such conversations had not taken place before, and described a powerful sense of hope that the historic meeting would cultivate a movement for Muslims and Jews previously unseen in America. Now the work begins.

  Stephanie Hughes and Joshua Stanton are the Founding Editors of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue. Hughes is a graduate of Union Theological Seminary, and Stanton is a Schusterman Rabbinical Fellow at the Hebrew Union College.

• October 27, 2010
• 2:23

  Auburn Seminary’s Panel Discussion, “Take the Bully Out of the Pulpit”

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  As a proud partner of Auburn Theological Seminary, the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue is pleased to feature video footage of this month's "Take the Bully Out of the Pulpit" event, which Auburn held in response to recent acts of religious intolerance -- and as a guide to religious leaders who want to use their pulpits to increase social cohesion. For a full rundown of the event, click here and watch Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Sikh leaders -- from their 20s to 70s -- put their hearts and heads together to answer the question of how religious leaders are being called to lead in new ways through this difficult moment of American history. Three of the video segments will be featured in subsequent articles, here on the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue's "interViews" column.

• 2:22

  Take the Bully Out of the Pulpit: Remarks By Katharine Henderson and James Forbes

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  The Rev. Dr. Katharine Rhodes Henderson is President of Auburn Theological Seminary in the city of New York, an institution founded in 1818 with a long history of commitment to social causes such as abolition of slavery and women’s rights. Author of God’s Troublemakers: How Women of Faith are Changing the World (Continuum, 2006), Henderson is an international leader in theological education. She has pioneered programs for excellence in religious leadership of all faiths and progressive moral leadership in the public square.

  Henderson has spearheaded innovative educational programs, ranging from convening CEOs of major American corporations to review the ethics of their business practice; to multifaith women’s organizing; to infusing mainstream media with responsible engaging religious voices; and the gathering of young leaders from war-torn countries to practice conflict resolution and multifaith understanding through Auburn’s flagship youth leadership program, Face to Face/Faith to Faith.

  Among her many affiliations, Henderson serves on the boards of the New York Women’s Foundation and the Ghost Ranch Camp and Conference Center. She is a Parish Associate of The First Presbyterian Church in New York City. A native of Louisville, Kentucky, Henderson is a graduate of the College of Wooster (Phi Beta Kappa) and Union Theological Seminary (NY).  Henderson also holds a doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City.

  The Rev. Dr. James Alexander Forbes, who was installed as the fifth Senior Minister of Riverside on June 1, 1989, and retired on June 1, 2007, was the first African-American to serve as Senior Minister of this multicultural congregation. He is an ordained minister in the American Baptist Churches and the Original United Holy Church of America.

  Before being called to Riverside’s pulpit, Dr. Forbes served from 1976-1985 as the Brown and Sockman Associate Professor of Preaching at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. From 1985-1989 he was Union’s first Joe R. Engle Professor of Preaching. Union named him the first Harry Emerson Fosdick Adjunct Professor of Preaching in 1989, when he accepted the pastorate at Riverside. Dr. Forbes also serves on the Core Teaching Staff at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York.

  In national and international religious circles, Dr. Forbes is known as the preacher’s preacher because of his extensive preaching career and his charismatic style. In their March 4, 1996 issue, Newsweek magazine recognized Forbes as one of the 12 “most effective preachers” in the English-speaking world. This Pastor, Educator, Administrator, Community Activist and Interfaith Leader was designated as one of America’s greatest Black preachers by Ebony magazine in 1984 and 1993. He won the Alumni Charter Day Award of Howard University for Distinguished Post Graduate Achievement In Ministry. In 1995 he emerged in the Baylor University Survey as one of twelve remarkable and most effective preachers in the English-speaking world.

• 2:19

  Take the Bully Out of the Pulpit: Remarks By Valarie Kaur

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Valarie Kaur is an award-winning filmmaker, public speaker, and writer who has advocated on behalf of communities swept up in hate crimes, racial profiling, and immigration policies since September 11, 2001. A third-generation Sikh American, Valarie has been called “a woman of extraordinary courage and vision,” an “inspiring millennial,” and“one of the most exceptional speakers/thinkers“ in the next generation of public intellectuals.  She takes all as compliments that reflect a superb team of collaborators and thinkers in each of her projects.  Valarie studied religion at Stanford University and Harvard Divinity School.  Now at Yale Law School, she harnesses multiple tools – speaking, writing, filmmaking, and lawyering – in order to help raise people’s stories in service of justice.  She invites you to engage her blog as a forum for authentic reflection on race and religion, hate and healing in America.

• 2:16

  Take the Bully Out of the Pulpit: Remarks By Haroon Moghul

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Haroon Moghul holds a B.A. from NYU in Philosophy and Middle Eastern Studies and an M.A. from Columbia University in Middle Eastern Studies. He is a Ph.D. Candidate at Columbia. Mr. Moghul is Executive Director of The Maydan Institute, a consulting and communications project devoted to enhancing understanding between Muslims and the West. His first novel: The Order of Light (Penguin 2006; French by Cherche Midi, 2007). His work has appeared or he has been otherwise featured on CNN, The History Channel, The New Yorker, Dawn, The Friday Times, and Tikkun. Through the Islamic Center at NYU new media services, his sermons reach 30,000 listeners per month in about 125 countries.

• October 24, 2010
• 16:18

  “Talks should go beyond Mideast crisis: scholar,” By Ramesh Mathew

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Joshua Stanton, co-Editor of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, was honored to take part in the Eighth Doha Conference for Interfaith Dialogue, co-sponsored by the Foreign Ministry of Qatar, Qatar University, and the Doha International Center for Interfaith Dialogue. While a number of the below quotes appear not to be accurate (notably the one stating that the Journal's name is Auburn -- rather than a program of Auburn Seminary), we felt it would be valuable to share the following interview, published in the Gulf Times,in order to promote a greater international focus in our online discourse.

  
  

  Inter-religious conferences should go beyond issues linked to the decades-old crisis in the Middle East, says a Jewish scholar attending a meeting being hosted by the Doha International Center for Inter-Faith Dialogue.

  
  Speaking on the sidelines of the 8th Doha Conference on Inter-Faith Dialogue at the Doha Sheraton Hotel yesterday, 24-year-old Joshua Stanton said some of the participants seemed to be wholly overlooking issues identified by panels for discussions at the three-day meeting.

  
  “There is no doubt that the Middle East is an issue for those staying closer to the areas of physical conflict and others closely watching the developments for several years. However, it is doubtful if the linking of discussions here to Jerusalem is of any use to the conference participants,” said Stanton, one of  the youngest participants at this year’s meeting.

  
  The conference has already shortlisted some key topics having a bearing on the next generation, he added. The Doha conference would go a long way in promoting mutual faith and understanding between people of different cultures and faiths, he said.
  

  
  

  “However, some speakers seem to be too Jerusalem-focused and are overlooking issues chosen by the panels like the roles of family, media, educational institutions and places of worship in shaping the fortunes of the next generation,” Stanton said.
  “I know it too well that being physically and geographically closer to the areas of conflict influences the region’s population considerably,” Stanton said.

  
  

  He is the co-founder and director of Auburn, a New York journal for promoting inter-religious dialogue. Specialising in what he referred to as “creative media”, Stanton said the real issue at the conference is how to achieve peace at different levels and how youngsters like him could contribute to it.

  
  

  A third-generation of German descent, Stanton is studying at the Hebrew Union College’s New York Campus.  “More than any formal diplomatic dialogue, I feel carefully-facilitated real dialogues could yield better results,” he said. “Youngsters these days are trying to speak what and how the next generation should feel while facing real situations in their life,” Stanton said.

  
  “With conferences like this being held at regular intervals, there is enormous scope for establishing a peaceful global order. So it calls for the inclusion of representatives of many other numerically larger faiths in the deliberations to be held in the coming years. It will help the region’s people understand the followers of more faiths better,” he said.

• October 20, 2010
• 23:02

  Issue 4, Part II

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue
  Issue 4, Part II
• October 18, 2010
• 23:11

  Issue 4, Part II: Summer 2010

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Issue 4, Part II: Summer 2010

  
  

• 19:31

  “The Tennessee Mosque and the Struggle for Religious Freedom,” By Frank Fredericks

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article was originally published on the Huffington Post.

  Murfreesboro, a small city you'd pass in a few minutes while taking Interstate-24 out of Nashville to Chattanooga, has never been a town of much interest to the rest of the country. Other than temporarily being Tennessee's capital (1818-1826) and hosting the bloodiest battle of the Civil War, the Battle of Stones River in 1862, it has remained largely out of the limelight of American affairs.

  But Murfreesboro made national attention recently when a local mosque announced a plan to build a new Islamic center to tend to the needs of it's growing community. Despite being in the community for 30 years, the plan led to large protests, a 20,000-person petition to stop construction, vandalism and, most recently, an arson attack that has frightened the Muslim community throughout middle Tennessee. The rise of anti-Muslim sentiment has revealed itself through the region, with a mosque being rejected for a building permit in Brentwood, Tenn., and another suffering vandalism in Nashville.

  Murfreesoboro is also where my mom and a significant portion of my family live, many in the neighboring small town of Shelbyville ("Shebvull" in local parlance). I recently took a weekend to visit family, but was intrigued by the issues surrounding the Islamic center. During the weekend of relaxing with family, I trekked to Murfreesboro to meet with some key activists addressing the issue.

  It turns out that while I was in town, many residents of Murfreesboro, including various religious leaders, joined together to demonstrate in support of the Islamic center. The media, unfortunately, failed to report this. Some of the activists who I spoke with lamented this fact, because they, much like the Muslims they are standing with, wish to challenge the stereotypes of their community. The group Middle Tennesseans for Religious Freedom is mobilizing to continue supporting the religious communities that comprise their neighborhoods.

  I also had the opportunity to meet with a documentarian who has been capturing the story as it unfolds. Eric Bell, who moved to Murfreesboro two years ago, was struck by the nature of protests. "A chilling wave of anti-Islamic sentiment is sweeping the country and seems to be hitting Murfreesboro especially hard," he shared. "What this documentary seeks to do is to learn more about the fears, concerns and objections people have and to discern fact from speculation." He hopes to reveal the fear and illuminate the interfaith support that has engulfed the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.

  As I returned to New York, I thought about how the issue of Muslim Americans has become central to the American family. If we as Americans can't expand our social fabric to include Muslim Americans, it won't be an issue that only touches cities like New York, but communities like Murfreesboro. Failing to spread religious literacy won't only lead to uncomfortable work environments. It will also cause rifts in the increasing number of interfaith families. From the classroom to the workplace, from both coasts to Middle America, the shift towards inclusion is already happening -- even if headlines fail to catch it.

• 12:00

  “Hindu-Muslim Dispute Over Holy Site,” By Elsa J. Marty

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article was originally published on Sightings.

  Last week a high court in India announced its verdict on a disputed holy site in the city of Ayodhya. There is perhaps no place in India that better symbolizes contemporary Hindu-Muslim tension. Many Hindus believe Lord Ram, the hero of the Ramayana, was born there. But the exact site now considered his birthplace, Ram Janambhoomi, has been home to a mosque, Babri Masjid, since the early sixteenth century. Hindus and Muslims have been in a legal battle for the property for the last sixty years. In 1992, however, Hindu extremists destroyed the mosque, and riots erupted throughout the country, killing more than 2,000 people. A commission spent seventeen years investigating the course of events and finally released a report last year indicting leading members of the BJP, the Hindu nationalist political party, for their role in planning the demolition of the mosque. But the report was tabled in Parliament and has not affected the proceedings of the criminal case.

  So on September 30, 2010, when the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court issued its judgment on the civil suit for the property title of the contested site, Indians were paying attention. The country had braced itself for the worst, and 200,000 security personnel were deployed in northern India to prevent rioting. The judges' ruling came as a surprise to all parties: they ruled that the land should be divided equally between the Muslims, Hindus, and the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect of ascetics devoted to Lord Ram.

  Their decision to split the property three ways has been heralded by many as a brilliant compromise and as an opportunity for reconciliation among Hindus and Muslims. Most of the press has focused on the absence of violence, citing the public's response as though it were a litmus test for the worthiness of the legal decision.

  But not all are content with the verdict. Both sides have vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, hoping to obtain full possession of the land. While few people have read all 8,189 pages of the court's ruling, it is clear that the case sets an alarming precedent for the role of religion in legal matters. The two main issues at stake in the case were: whether Lord Ram was actually born at the disputed site, and whether the mosque had been built upon a demolished temple.

  On the first question, despite the fact that belief in his historical existence is purely a matter of faith and cannot be legally or historically verified, the three judges ruled unanimously that Lord Ram was indeed born at the disputed site, beneath the central dome of the mosque. The place of his birth was treated as both a juristic person (not a natural person) and a deity, because, the judges ruled that the “spirit of [the] divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.”

  On the second question, the judges were divided 2-1. Basing their conclusions upon a controversial archaeological study, the two Hindu judges ruled that the mosque had been built upon a destroyed temple, although the third judge, a Muslim, dissented on this point. Thus the majority decision stated that “the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.”

  The general consensus among analysts is that political considerations affected the judges' decision more than the legal framework. An editorial in The Hindu, a leading Indian newspaper, called it “a compromise calculated to hold the religious peace rather than an exercise of profound legal reflection.” But will it lead to improved Hindu-Muslim relations and a lasting peace? Romila Thapar, a distinguished historian of early India, well-known for her criticism of Hindu nationalist politics, says no. “The verdict has annulled respect for history and seeks to replace history with religious faith. True reconciliation can only come when there is confidence that the law in this country bases itself not just on faith and belief, but on evidence,” she wrote in The Hindu. The court's ruling may have prevented an immediate outbreak of violence, but at what cost to the rule of law?

  References

  Editorial, “Intriguing compromise could work,” The Hindu, October 1, 2010.

  Romila Thappar, “The verdict on Ayodhya: a historian's perspective,” The Hindu, October 2, 2010.

  The full text of the Ram Janmbhoomi Babri Masjid Judgment from the High Court of Allahabad is available here. 

  Elsa J. Marty is a third-year Masters of Divinity student at the University of Chicago Divinity School and has studied interfaith relations in India.

• 10:58

  “The International and Interreligious Dialogue to Counteract the Distribution of Drugs Among Youth,” By Novinsky Feodor

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Currently, we see an imperative to both change existing priorities of the younger generation in Russia, as well as foster a path of morality.  There must be a strict barrier between young people and the advocacy of those involved in a “con game”, that is, the inculcation of criminal subculture and a consumer attitude. It is also important to encourage the activity of those organizations which support a healthy lifestyle, including first of all youth and religious organizations, in every way possible, as well as carrying out a proper communications policy in the mass media that celebrates good health and denigrates drug abuse.

• 10:57

  “Faith, Rebellion, Disbelief: The Bible on American College Campuses,” By Stephen Butler Murray

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  A few years ago, Alan Wolfe, the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, wrote a provocative opening paragraph for his essay, “Faith and Diversity in American Religion,” which appeared in The Chronicle Review of The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Wolfe states: “One would be hard pressed to find a private college or university in the United States that cannot trace its founding to a religious denomination.  One would be equally hard pressed, at least as far as America’s elite universities are concerned, to find one that would identify faith as central to its current approaches to teaching, research, and student life.  That is to say: No aspect of life is considered so important to Americans outside higher education, yet deemed so unimportant by the majority of those inside, as religion.”

• 10:55

  “How to Train a Teacher of Spiritual and Moral Education,” By A. Y. Grigorenko

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Andrey Grigorenko is chief of Religious Studies Department of the Herzen State Pedagogical University, director of the North-West Department of the Russian Branch of the International Religious Liberty Association. He organizes the annually International Scientific Conference “The Religious Situation in the North-West of Russia and in Countries of the Baltic Region” with the annually collection of scientific articles titled «Materials of the International Scientific Conference “the Religious Situation in the North-West of Russia and Baltic Region”» (2002-2010). The main topics are: religious liberty, religious pluralism, religious minorities, etc. Andrey Grigorenko is the author of many methodic and educational materials about multireligious education, religious tolerance, liberty of conscience, etc. Andrey Grigorenko organized tolerance courses for secondary and specialized secondary education teachers (2008 – 2010).

• 10:41

  “Religious Identity and the Educational Sphere: International Legal Standards and the Russian Practice,” By Dorskaya Alexandra Andreevna

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Alexandra A. Dorskaya is doctor of law, associate professor, head of Department of International Law at Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia (St.Petersburg), a member of Russian Association of International Law. Organizer of several international conferences on the law and religion problems.

  In 1993 graduated from the Faculty of Social Sciences at Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia (St.Petersburg).  History PhD (1997),  Law PhD (2001), Doctor of Law (2009). Author of more than 130 scientific works among which there are three monographs “Freedom of conscience in Russia: destiny of the legislative proposals of the beginning of the XX century” (2001), “The public and the church law of the Russian Empire: problems of interaction and interference” (2004), “The Influence of church-legal norms on the developing of Russian law's branches (2007)”.

• October 11, 2010
• 12:00

  “Bonhoeffer’s Theological Drive to Protect Jews from Nazis,” By John Shellito and Joshua Stanton

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  

  "He was never what one might today term a culture warrior, nor could he easily be labeled conservative or liberal," claims Eric Metaxas in one of many pungent lines from his groundbreaking new biography of Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Yet Bonhoeffer, has often been pigeonholed as a courageous radical, working secretly for the assassination of Adolf Hitler during World War II. At times this story of Bonhoeffer the assassin has become so prominent in popular memory as to occlude another important aspect of his life: his work to formulate a theology that both embraced Christ and defended the Jews as the chosen people of God.

  Bonhoeffer began threading together his theology of the Jews over the course of many years. But his beliefs came to a head during the events of Kristallnacht - the Night of Broken Glass - on November 9, 1938. Throughout Germany, Jewish shops lay razed in the start of a long path to the destruction of European Jewry. Bonhoeffer felt Kristallnacht personally, its devastation reverberating through his mind and his faith life. The next day, as he was reading the Psalms, he made a connection that permanently altered his conception of Judaism and anti-Semitism. As Metaxas elucidates,

  Bonhoeffer was reading Psalm 75. This was the text he happened to be meditating upon. What he read startled him, and with his pencil he put a vertical line in the margin to mark it, with an exclamation point next to the line. He also underlined the second half of verse 8... "They have burned all of God's houses in the land"... Next to the verse he wrote 9.11.38. Bonhoeffer saw this as an example of God speaking to him, and to the Christians in Germany. God was telling him something through his Word that day, and as he meditated and prayed, Bonhoeffer realized that the synagogues that had been burned in Germany were God's own.

  Kristallacht reshaped Bonhoeffer, pushing his theology to its logical ends. Bonhoeffer named the "sheer violence" of Kristallnacht a result of the "godless face" of Nazism. For Bonhoeffer, Christians were called to "share in God's suffering at the hands of a godless world." In 1938, God was suffering due to the destruction of God's chosen people. In his unfinished Ethics, Bonhoeffer wrote "An expulsion of the Jews from the west must necessarily bring with it the expulsion of Christ. For Jesus Christ was a Jew."

  Bonhoeffer's path to this decisive moment began years earlier with the anti-oppression theology he found and celebrated at Abyssinian Baptist Church during his year at Union Theological Seminary in 1930 and 1931. In 1933, just days after Hitler's installation as Chancellor, Bonhoeffer spoke so provocatively against the idolatry of the cult of the Führer that his radio station was cut off in the middle of his presentation. By 1935, he was prevented from teaching at the University of Berlin and declared a "pacifist and an enemy of the state".

  As the Nazis continued to abuse the language of the Christian gospel in their party politics, many clergy and laity were led astray. It was in the context of profound misinformation and complacency that Bonhoeffer warned churches and Christians against a theology of "cheap grace" in his seminal work, The Cost of Discipleship. For Bonhoeffer, "we are not to simply bandage the victims under the wheel, but jam the spoke in the wheel itself."

  To help Bonhoeffer escape the draft in 1939, Union Theological Seminary offered him a position. However, he stayed only a few weeks, eventually writing to Reinhold Niebuhr, "Christians in Germany have the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that the Christian civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying our civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose; but I cannot make that choice in security."

  Bonhoeffer returned to Europe, joining a secret network of Germans in the German intelligence agency plotting the assassination of Hitler. They narrowly missed succeeding in their objective: Hitler was spared from an exploding briefcase by a large oak table. Hitler responded by executing almost five thousand individuals suspected of participating in the resistance. Although Bonhoeffer escaped that fate, he was arrested soon after, when the Gestapo found documents connecting him to a network of individuals helping German Jews escape to Switzerland as fake German intelligence agents. As the evidence connecting him to the assassination plots came to light, Bonhoeffer was condemned to execution.

  Bonhoeffer was tortured and killed for his Christian theology and his willingness to sacrifice himself for the sake of the Jews, whom he understood to be God's people.

  This article was originally published on the Tikkun Daily. John Shellito is a student at Union Theological Seminary, interested in how faith communities can resist oppression in economic, ecological, and social spheres. He graduated from Dartmouth College in 2008 and is currently pursuing ordination in the Episcopal Church. Joshua Stanton is co-Editor of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue and a Schusterman Rabbinical Fellow at Hebrew Union College.

• October 08, 2010
• 18:43

  Event: “Judaism and Islam in America Today: Assimilation and Authenticity”

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue is pleased to inform you about "Judaism and Islam in America Today: Assimilation and Authenticity," which will take place at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America this October.

  

• 1:35

  “Hidden in Plain Sight: Pleasures, Policy and Politics of Muslim Women and Their Bodies”

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue would like to pass along to its readers information about the upcoming event, "Hidden in Plain Sight."

  
  

• October 05, 2010
• 4:01

  “Giving Emerging Ethical Leaders a Voice,” By Chris Stedman

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article was originally published on the Tikkun Daily.

  

  "What qualifies you to do this?" I asked myself as I rode the train home one day to write my first contribution to the Washington Post's On Faith last year. I listened to the wheels rumble beneath me, looked at those sitting around me, and knew I was headed in a new direction.

  I was 22-years-old, an atheist, and a seminary student. Though I don't believe in God, I decided to go to seminary because I wanted to find a way to bridge the divide between religious and secular communities. The summer after my first year at seminary I began interning at the Interfaith Youth Core, an organization that aims to mobilize a movement of young people positively engaging religious pluralism. The organization's founder, Eboo Patel, maintained a blog for On Faith and invited me to submit a guest post for it.

  At the time, I was beginning to recognize that the organized atheist movement often talked about religion in ways that created more division instead of less. As an atheist, I was frustrated by what I saw as a total lack on interest from my fellow atheists in respectfully engaging religious identities. So I sat down and wrote about it.

  As I was working on my essay, I began to browse the rest of the site. On Faith features a panel of contributors that are among the most respected and knowledgeable experts in the fields of religion and ethics. But I didn't see many blogs on their site by people who weren't already established as authorities. I wondered if I was actually qualified to write for the website.

  After my submission was posted, I started getting some unexpected feedback. "This is exactly what I think, but I didn't know anyone else agreed with me," wrote one reader. "Thank you for saying something our community really needs to hear," wrote another. These readers happened to be young people.

  I hadn't thought that there were others who felt the same way I did, let alone other young people. I talked to a friend who maintained a blog of his own, and he suggested I create a blog to continue sorting through this issue.

  I started NonProphet Status, and suddenly became a part of a larger conversation on the issue of religion and atheism. The blog quickly began to get traction in interfaith and atheist circles, and soon I was being asked to speak at conferences, received invitations to write in other venues, and watched my blog views grow from week to week. I, a young seminary student with a small but growing vision for respectful engagement across lines of secular and religious identity, suddenly had a platform.

  Emerging leaders in formation, especially young ones, deserve to have a voice. In a time defined by deep political and religious divisions, we need to hear from those who will shape our ethical future. The current American discourse on religion and ethics is primarily defined by established leaders - ministers, rabbis, academics and journalists. While their perspectives are invaluable, this leaves an entire population of important stakeholders without a platform: the up-and-comers.

  To remedy this, the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue (JIRD) has engaged with the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions to establish State of Formation, a forum for up-and-coming religious and ethical thinkers to draw upon the learning that is occurring in their academic and community work, reflect on the pressing questions of a religiously pluralistic society, and challenge existing definitions and assumptions.

  State of Formation will be a community conversation between emerging leaders in formation. Together, a cohort of seminarians, rabbinical students, graduate students, activists and the like - the future religious and moral leaders of tomorrow - will work to redefine the ethical discourse today.

  In a recent Wired interview about his book Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, author Kevin Kelly said that the best settings for creativity and innovation are diverse and collaborative. "Ideas aren't self-contained things,"said Kelly."They're more like ecologies and networks."

  Let's cluster our ideas and make an ecology for emerging leaders.The idea that got me writing - that the religious and secular can find common ground and work together - is just one of many out there that addresses the ethical dimensions of our pluralized society.

  If you are interested in applying to become a contributing scholar, please apply here.

• October 04, 2010
• 12:00

  “Should the Nonreligious Join in Interfaith Work?” By Chris Stedman

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  This article was republished, with permission from the New Humanism.

  

  We start with our stories.

  My name is Chris Stedman. I have an indiscriminate love of tattoos, a couple degrees in religious studies, and don't believe in God. I am also an ardent advocate of interfaith cooperation.

  The idea that interfaith cooperation is necessary to advance social progress was not a conclusion I came to overnight. In fact, after I stopped believing in God, I spent some time walking about decrying the "evils of religion" to anyone who would listen. I wanted nothing to do with the religious, and was sure they wanted nothing to do with me.

  After reflecting on several episodes where I neglected to engage the religious identities of people I otherwise respected and admired, I realized that I had been so busy talking that I wasn't listening. I was treating "religion" as a concept instead of talking to people who actually lived religious lives. And when I started listening, something interesting happened. I realized that my approach to religion was lazy and distorted: I'd been thinking of the texts, not the practices; the stereotypes, not the people. It was only once I observed the actual practices of religious communities—and, more importantly, engaged with religious people and their stories—that I was able to see the benefits of collaborating across lines of ideology and identity differences.

  Now I see interfaith cooperation as the key to resolving the world's great religious problems. All the more, I want my secular community to join me, to share their stories and learn from those of the religious. And, more importantly, I want us to join with the religious in working to resolve the problems that afflict our world. Together, we will accomplish so much more.

  But if we are to participate in interfaith endeavors, there are some important things we must account for.

  State of Affairs: Potential Problems and Unpacking Pluralism

  Looking at the shouting match in our culture, between the forces of aggressive atheism (The End of Faith, God is not Great) and the armies of belligerent belief (James Dobson, Pat Robertson), it looks like the widest part of the faith divide is between religion and secularism.

  Eboo Patel, Secularism Good for the Soul

  Before considering why the nonreligious might engage in interfaith work or how we may approach such endeavors, it is important to take the temperature of the community on this issue and explore the idea of religious pluralism.

  A Community Divided

  Most self-declared nonreligious people have little in common, save one thing–that we do not believe in God. There is, however, a growing population of nonreligious individuals united by another belief: that religion is the root of all evil. By positioning themselves in stark opposition to religion and the religious, the so-called New Atheists have managed to dominate the public discourse on nonreligiosity. They have succeeded in making atheism more publicly known, but at what cost? Nonreligious identity remains hugely unpopular, with recent polls showing we are the least electable group in America, behind lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals, Muslims and African Americans.

  Contemporarily, narratives of secular identity are being popularly defined as anti-religious. This isn't necessarily problematic; an integral aspect of secular identity is understandably rooted in the idea that "we are not religious." But in recent years secular identity has taken this a step further in the form of "New Atheists" who have been quite successful in marking nonreligiosity as being equivalent to anti-theism.

  When the majority of prominent secular thought leaders name the end of faith as one of the movement's top priorities, the idea of participating in organized interfaith efforts can seem contradictory. Even Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist and author of I Sold My Soul on eBay, has expressed conflicted feelings on the subject, saying that though he believes religious-secular coalitions are possible in certain cases, he feels torn on how to approach such projects. Writes Mehta: "I don't want to just 'let our differences slide' or 'agree to disagree.' I want to persuade religious people that they are mistaken when it comes to their mythology… I want people to lose their faith just as much as the New Atheists do."

  It is clear when reading contemporary secular writing on religion, then, that engagement with the religious in interfaith work is a highly contentious issue for many in our community. But a new brand of nonreligiosity is growing: one that prioritizes interfaith collaboration over inflammatory rhetoric. This has understandably created some division among Humanists, with labels of "Angry Atheist" and "Accomodationist" bandied between camps.

  A Community in Transition

  What all of this suggests is that nonreligiosity is undergoing a sizable transformation and is experiencing some accompanying growing pains in which we are asking how to expand our community and engage with the world.

  Indeed, there are some who now argue that there is no such thing as secularism—that "religious" and "secular" represent a false dichotomy. The claim that atheism is a religion unto itself is now quite popular, and even has a good deal of legal precedence. While perhaps an issue of semantics, this shift is also an indication that nonreligiosity is moving toward a more affirming framework.

  This may be the result of a growing recognition that the defensive positioning of nonreligious identity as directly opposed to religious narratives is unsustainable, and that Humanism ought to establish independent moralistic narratives of its own.

  In Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, James Fowler argues for the necessity of religious narratives but offers a caveat: "The fact that one images the ultimate conditions of existence as impersonal, indifferent, hostile or randomly chaotic, rather than as coherent and structured, does not disqualify his or her image as an operative image of faith. The opposite of faith, as we consider it here, is not doubt. Rather, the opposite of faith is nihilism, the inability to image any transcendent environment and despair about the possibility of even negative meaning."

  Humanism represents a radical move away from nihilism, and Fowler's model emphasizes this distinction. Thus, in its attempts to narrate nonreligiosity, Humanism employs a close cousin of religious narrative pattering.

  There will continue to be disagreement about the benefits and limitations of both the "Angry Atheist" and "Accomodationist" approaches, but in a time of transition among those who do not identify with traditional religious identities, Humanism provides an alternative identity marker for those who wish to define nonreligious ethics. It may also be an especially fertile ground for those who wish to prioritize pragmatic approaches to interfaith engagement instead of confrontation.

  In Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, Harvard Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein writes of the growing nonreligiosity identity marker Humanism: "It's the melding of a comprehensive philosophy with a world tradition and deeply practical ethical and social commitment." In this sense, it is a bridge between traditional religious narratives of steadfastness to tradition and modernity's melding model of pluralism.

  A Community Pluralized

  Pluralism, according to the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC), is "neither mere coexistence nor forced consensus, but the conviction that people who believe in different creeds can learn to live together with, in the words of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, 'mutual trust and mutual loyalty.' It surpasses mere tolerance of diversity and requires that people of different religions affirm their distinct beliefs while making commitments to one another and the world we share. Three components which hold true for a pluralist society are respect for religious identity, mutually inspiring relationships, and common action for the common good."

  Of course, engaged religious pluralism will make some people very uncomfortable. Similarly, Greg Epstein acknowledges that secular expression "can make some theists feel that their humanity—tethered as it is to belief that they are God's children—is called into question." The growing secular narratives understandably make some religious individuals uncomfortable—and this has been used by "New Atheist" narratives to advantage their claims that the nonreligious are the lepers of a primarily religious society. But by asserting our own Humanist ethics and narratives, we will find ourselves well equipped to engage in interfaith efforts. The best way to assert these ethics and narratives is by embodying them.

  A Community of Stories

  Religious pluralism is realized primarily through the personal stories of its practitioners. The Interfaith Leader's Toolkit declares that storytelling aids dialogue because it is non-threatening, because it prompts a mutual exchange of stories that help people bond, and because it allows people talk about their identities in a way that feels safe. By grounding dialogue in individual experience, the listener is less likely to be offended by that which is alien to her or his own experience. Their understanding of storytelling also underscores story's capacity to engender community and its ability to establish individual and communal empowerment, suggesting it would be useful for the transitioning nonreligious community.

  The IFYC also proposes a method for dialogue that addresses the question of what happens when narratives themselves come into an act of encounter. Instead of clashing or reacting against one another, the IFYC suggests that they can result in mutually-inspiring relationships and common action:

  In interfaith dialogue, it is far too easy to discuss topics that may put as at odds with our conversation partners... If, however, we encourage participants to begin with a story from their own lived experience, it is often less threatening for listeners. While they may not have lived the same experience as the storyteller, it is unlikely that they will challenge the veracity of his or her own story. Instead, the storyteller is inviting the listeners to share in a piece of his or her own experience, even if it is grounded in different beliefs or values. The dialogue is therefore inclusive rather than exclusive and allows for a mutually appreciative encounter.

  Like Humanism, religious pluralism widens and opens the canon of acceptable ideas to suggest that what is authoritative for one may not be for another. At this point it would be tempting to suggest that religious pluralism represents a disintegration of particular religious identity. However, as the above selection from the IFYC toolkit indicates, before one can become an active agent of engaging religious pluralism, the individual needs to be grounded in her or his own particular identity. To return to the toolkit: "Identity is important because religious pluralism is all about the interaction of multiple identities, respecting the diversity of others' identities, and forming relationships across them."

  This presents an intriguing question: How might secular individuals participate in a movement encouraging engaged religious pluralism that is rooted in particular religious identity? And why should we?

  Why We Should Join Them

  The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them—the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status.

  Carl Sagan, "Wonder and Skepticism"

  There are four primary reasons that engaging in interfaith work will benefit the nonreligious, which I will expand on below: we're outnumbered; we want to end religious extremism and other forms of oppression and suffering; we have a lot to learn; and we have a bad reputation and are discriminated against.

  1. We're Outnumbered

  Whether we wish to or not, we are forced by proximity to engage with the religious—it seems implausible that any nonreligious person in America has strictly secular relationships. We're outnumbered; though Americans who do not identify with any religion now make up fifteen percent of the population—making us the third largest cohort behind Catholics and Baptists—we are still a minority perspective. More interestingly, American religious communities are undergoing some radical shifts that, try as some secular thinkers might, make it impossible for us to approach them as a monolithic and inert community that is strictly problematic.

  Data from the most recent Pew report on Millenials reflects previous findings about the dynamic, changing face of religiosity in America, echoing a study by Harvard University's Robert Putnam that came out last year and declared that "young Americans [are] losing their religion." That study reported that young Americans are significantly less likely to claim religious membership or attend a religious service regularly than older generations.

  Yet, though religious identification is changing, the numbers in the Pew report demonstrate that religion isn't going away anytime soon. While the report found that people aged 18-29 are "increasingly open-minded" and "considerably less religious than older Americans" (one in four Millenials "are unaffiliated with any particular faith") and that more religious Millenials believe that there is more than one way to interpret their own religion, there are also indications that young religious people are moving in some key ways toward greater religiosity. Pew found that not only is "the intensity of [religious Millenials'] religious affiliation… as strong today as among previous generations when they were young," but that "levels of certainty of belief in God have increased." And while there are more religious people who believe that any religion can lead to eternal life than those who don't overall, religious Millenials are "more inclined than their elders to believe their own religion is the one true path to eternal life."

  These numbers are both encouraging and demonstrate that we still have a lot of work to do in convincing the American public that nonreligiosity is a legitimate and viable life stance. In light of these statistics, we must enthusiastically endeavor to stake our claim in the American religious milieu and make a concerted effort to come together as a community so that our perspective is not ignored in an increasingly fundamentalist society. And if America is indeed moving toward its next great "burst of religious innovation" as Putnam suggests, shouldn't we at least be involved, if not near the forefront of such efforts?

  How we might do that is an important question, and I think that this data affirms that respectful and engaged dialogue with people of faith is one such way for us to advance the discourse on American religion. Many young people distrust established religious narratives, but with engaged pluralism's moves toward a more empathic set of narrative interchanges, they are also less inclined to subscribe to radically anti-religious narratives. In this window, the nonreligious may find interfaith dialogue with the religious majority rewarding.

  If the religious are to be our neighbors, we ought to know them and their motivations. In capitalizing on the increasing open-mindedness of Millenials and giving them an opportunity to get to know us and the stories of our experiences as nonreligious persons—and, perhaps more importantly, not forgetting to reciprocally tap into our own open-mindedness in listening to theirs—we will begin to erode some of the divisions between the secular and the religious. By doing so, we are likely, as the IFYC suggests, to identify some shared values upon which we can act in interfaith solidarity.

  2. We want to end religious extremism and other forms of oppression and suffering

  One such common goal shared by the interfaith cooperation movement and the secular movement is a proactive aim to end religious extremism.

  The religious pluralism movement is inherently rooted in an anti-fundamentalism framework. The IFYC founder Eboo Patel writes that "the twenty-first century will be shaped by the question of the faith line. On one side of the faith line are the religious totalitarians. Their conviction is that only one interpretation of one religion is a legitimate way of being, believing, and belonging on earth. Everyone else needs to be cowed, or converted, or condemned, or killed. On the other side of the faith line are the religious pluralists, who hold that people believing in different creeds and belonging to different communities need to learn to live together."

  We ought to see ourselves as having a lot in common with religious pluralists; likewise, they are likely to see themselves as having more in common with us than with the extremists who also claim their tradition. In allying our efforts to combat religious extremism with like-minded campaigns occurring within religious communities, our efforts will be more effective. A Muslim speaking out against religious extremism will be better received by Muslim communities than a Humanist; if we combine our resources, our reach will be greater.

  This model is both reactive and proactive. In Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India, political scientist Ashutosh Varshney theorized that the likelihood that inciting events would lead to widespread or long-term violence was significantly less in communities where civic ties across lines of identity differentiation were present. In populations where such ties were nonexistent, inciting incidents provoked extensive inter-identity violence. Thus, as interfaith cooperation asserts, invested relationships across lines of identity difference are essential for avoiding conflict.

  One of the top priorities of organized secular communities is combating religiously-based oppression, and pluralistic religious communities can be among our strongest allies in this work. However, if we adopt a broadly negative approach to religion and religious communities, we will burn this bridge and lose the opportunity to count these communities as allies. We must be considered in our approach to religion rather than combative; in the words of Abraham Lincoln:

  If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one. On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and tho' your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and tho' you throw it with more than Herculean force and precision, you shall no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.

  If we wish to convince more religious individuals of the justness of our cause and bring an end to conflict rooted in religious fundamentalism and anti-atheist discrimination, we must identify our religious pluralist peers, approach them with respect, and ensure that they are invested in our mutual best interests. Once this is done, we can move into identifying other shared interests to end oppression and suffering in the world.

  3. We have a lot to learn

  These mutual interests can never be identified if we fail to recognize that religious communities have a lot to teach us. In "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century," Putnam wrote that diversity is important to build strong and sustainable communities. But, at least at first, people tend to "hunker down" with those very similar to themselves and gaze upon newcomers with suspicion. For diversity to flower, individuals must meet and learn from one another. By using storytelling and dialogue, we can introduce secular narratives into this new stage of cultural evolution.

  We can also pick from the best religion has to offer. Some nonreligious individuals engage in so-called "religious practices"—for example, the Harvard Humanist Contemplative Group runs well-attended meditation sessions. There are Humanist chaplains. We perform invocations. Some of us lift heavily from religious traditions, even if it is just looking to the best practices of successful religious communities. It will benefit our movement to shift our focus away from critiquing the non-intrusive elements of religious belief and refocus that energy toward advancing the discourse on our own ethical claims and establishing Humanist practices and communities.

  All the more, many religions are whistleblowers to injustice and we will benefit if we pay attention. Many of history's greatest advocates for the disenfranchised—Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, Msr. Oscar Romero, and many others—cited their religious convictions as the primary impetus for their social justice work and launched their efforts in interfaith coalitions. And though many secular individuals cast religion as an inherently bad thing, it is not difficult to make a case that aspects of religion are a force for good in the world. There is a storied history of religious social justice, and we would do well to learn from it; religious-based social justice continues in great force today, and we would do well to join with it. This will require humility and a willingness to learn from people, even if we think some of their beliefs are incorrect.

  4. We have a bad reputation and are discriminated against

  Another thing we will learn by cooperating with religious communities is that engaged diversity breeds the idea that all people's rights must be protected. Through relationships, we learn that another has value, worth, and the right to dignity. If we do not allow others to know us by intentionally engaging diversity, we lose an opportunity to ensure that our rights are protected. More generally, the respectful relationships we establish with religious communities will also help us reinforce a positive public image for Humanism.

  A recent Gallup poll demonstrated something the queer community has known for some time: people are significantly more inclined to oppose gay marriage if they do not know anyone who is gay. Similarly, a recent Time Magazine cover story featured revealing numbers that speak volumes about the correlation between positive relationships and civic support; per their survey, 46 percent of Americans think Islam is more violent than other faiths and 61 percent oppose Park51 (or the "Ground Zero Mosque"), but only 37 percent even know a Muslim American. Another survey, by Pew, reported that 55 percent of Americans know "not very much" or "nothing at all" about Islam. The disconnect is clear—when only 37 percent of Americans know a Muslim American, and 55 percent claim to know very little or nothing about Islam, the negative stereotypes about the Muslim community go unchallenged. The same logic can be extended to nonreligious individuals—the fewer positive relationships we have with people of faith, the worse our image will be.

  We will also have an easier time defending our own rights if we align ourselves with other maligned communities. We have already done this with the queer community, and can do this with other religious minority communities. Such partnerships are civically important for the secular community. As we well know, surveys show that the nonreligious are among the most marginalized groups in this country. So too is Islamophobia all too common and increasingly potent in contemporary American culture as demonstrated by some of the violence and vitriol in response to Park51, violence that preceded it, and recent claims by the Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee that he is not sure if the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to Muslims and his suggestion that it is a "cult." Though it is not Islamophobic to critique particular Islamic beliefs or practices, we ought to differentiate between legitimate criticisms and the widespread anti-Muslim fear-mongering occurring in America at this time. Such inflammatory rhetoric should sound very familiar to our community, which is often accused of being a cultish and immoral outlier in a religious nation.

  Joshua Stanton and Frank Fredericks, the founders of Religious Freedom USA, an initiative in defense of Park 51, said in an article announcing their initiative that "more extreme voices want [freedom of religion] to apply only to their own religious communities, and not to others. But when one group's freedoms are threatened, the religious freedom of all Americans is at stake… [We must protect] the civil rights assured to all Americans in the Constitution."

  It is in our community's best interest to defend religious freedoms for all Americans. This is not merely a civil imperative: it is a moral one. Our Humanistic values call us to act on behalf of the oppressed. The first Humanist Manifesto states that Humanists should "endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow."

  By forging alliances with similarly-maligned groups in interfaith solidarity, we will strengthen our critique that hierarchical religious dismissal by the majority is unfair and unethical. By building coalitions and letting ourselves be known by the religious, we will deconstruct the stereotypes imposed upon us and ensure our protection and respect from others.

  Why They Should Welcome Us

  "Those of us trying to bridge the faith divide would do well to welcome the nonreligious. Several of the most skilled practitioners of interfaith work that I know are not particularly religious."

  Eboo Patel, Secularism Good for the Soul

  The reasons the interfaith movement would be wise to invite Humanist participation echo the reasons secular individuals might engage in interfaith endeavors: we exist, they want to end religious extremism and other forms of oppression and suffering, we have a lot to teach, and we're a religious minority that experiences discrimination.

  The truth is that many segments of the interfaith movement already explicitly welcome and highlight secular participation. My personal experiences as a leader in the interfaith movement have shown me firsthand that leaders in the interfaith movement celebrate nonreligious participation.

  Though they have been infrequent, I have experienced some episodes of resistance to my participation in interfaith communities. They usually come in the form of questions like, "Why would you want to do interfaith work if you're an atheist?" Some of this is likely a reaction to the actions of some of the more radical anti-religion atheists; some of it may be based in anti-atheist stereotypes. But I've found time and again that once these doubters have the chance to hear my story and learn about my Humanistic values, they celebrate my participation.

  This concern—the still significant wariness among religious individuals in a culture that increasingly mocks religious piety—is one that we can work to disintegrate by engaging in interfaith efforts. Fr. John Shea, a Christian storyteller, frames the dilemma some religiously-minded individuals face in the context of an increasingly secular culture in the introduction to his Stories collection: "Despite the secular cast of my mind that comes unsolicited as a gift of American culture, I have never been able to shake the intuition that a spiritual dimension permeates who we are and what we do." Just as many Humanists see ourselves as a minority perspective in our larger culture, many religious people feel countercultural in their beliefs.

  And Shea is right in one respect—contemporary America is undergoing a process of secularization even as it is also becoming more evangelical. And he is also correct about stories as a personal practice. But that he has cast these claims as two poles represents a false dichotomy that Humanism can reconcile. Humanism takes this so-called "spiritual" component of life—an innate human inclination toward imagination and moralism—and articulates it in a distinct way that is well-equipped to add richness and complexity to the interfaith movement. This new expression of nonreligiousness is not dismissive like the so-called "New Atheists;" and can take religious identities seriously without needing to agree with all of their beliefs.

  As America is indeed becoming more secularly-rooted, narratives of pluralism will allow secular-minded individuals to establish relationships that do not dismiss the religious stories of their peers outright. A more empathic articulation of nonreligiosity can consolidate the encounter between religious and secular narratives and hold the two in a tension that does not elicit anxiety but allows them to cohabitate a shared space. One that the religious might even term a "sacred space," if we'll allow it.

  Conclusion

  "The truth about stories is that that's all we are… Want a different ethic? Tell a different story."

  Thomas King, The Truth About Stories

  We end with our stories.

  When I first started at the IFYC, I partnered with a group of young interfaith leaders to volunteer for a summer in a Chicago soup kitchen. All of us served together and followed each shift with a conversation on what motivates us to do interfaith work. I learned a good deal about Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant ethics, and got to share about my Humanist notions of giving back to the community.

  As a Humanist, I want to work to bring an end to all oppression and suffering. That is an already demanding task, and it is rendered impossible if I endeavor to do it alone or only alongside like-minded peers. I know that tackling the world's many problems requires the broadest network of resources, so if that means I have to "accommodate" another's disagreeable religious belief at times, it is a worthy sacrifice.

  More importantly, by engaging the rich calls to justice and empathy of my religious peers, my own social justice ethic has matured. I still have a lot to discover, but I have already learned so much from people with stories that radically differ from my own.

  Sociologist Marshall Ganz writes that "stories are what enable us to communicate [our] values to one another." Psychologist Dan P. McAdams elaborates on this idea, suggesting that the values we exemplify through story move into action and vision: "Narrative guides behavior in every moment, and frames not only how we see the past but how we see ourselves in the future."

  What future will we imagine for ourselves and for the world? Is it a pessimistic narrative in which the religious and secular will continuously come into conflict? Where religion is nothing more than a problem to be eradicated? In the words of Patel: will we make of religion a "bomb of destruction, a barrier of division"; or will we make it "a bridge of cooperation"?

  Perhaps we can, if we listen to more stories and act—together—on the shared values they communicate.

  For additional resources on participating in interfaith work as a nonreligious individual, see Best Practices for Interfaith Work.

  Christopher Stedman is the Managing Director of State of Formation for The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue™. Chris recently received an MA in Religion from Meadville Lombard Theological School at the University of Chicago, for which he was awarded the Billings Prize for Most Outstanding Scholastic Achievement. He is also a summa cum laude BA in Religion graduate of Augsburg College. A writer who has been published in many venues, he is the founder and author of NonProphet Status and was previously a Content Developer and Adjunct Trainer for the Interfaith Youth Core.

• September 24, 2010
• 14:45

  Panel Discussion: When is it okay to mix prayer and politics?

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Panelists responded to two videos interweaving prayer with political discourse and responded to the overarching question, "When is it okay to mix prayer and politics?"

  "Stop the War on Prayer" Campaign

  "Restoring Honor Rally"

  Response by Jen Bailey:

  Religion is the most powerful force in the world. For billions of people around the world, religious practice provides meaning, purpose, and direction to their lives.  I should know. There is no aspect of my personal, professional, spiritual, or political life that has not been influenced by my faith. The day I gave my life to Christ everything changed. I chose to follow in the path of a faith tradition I believe to be defined by love, grace, and reconciliation. READ MORE HERE.

  Response by Anthony Paz

  Here we have videos that approach the question of prayer's place in politics from two different sides. In one, the focus is on the political right for people to pray as they wish, without interference from either the government or private individuals. In the other, we have a prayer that contains highly political content, like positions on war and veterans affairs. . If we ask whether its okay to mix prayer and politics we have to look at these two different ways of mixing: one makes a political issue, a human right, out of prayer, the other uses prayer to communicate and attempt to further a political interest. READ MORE HERE

  Response by C. Nikole Saulsberry

  It’s a well known fact that in polite conversations you do not talk about faith or politics. The two are such heated, deeply-seated beliefs that when crossed can cause confrontation amongst the closest of friends and family. With such social norms, one would expect to find a society whose politicians shy away from, or even ignore faith. Instead we have faith charged politics—Politics so powerful they appear as if to invoke the blessing, power and even wrath of God. READ MORE HERE

• 14:44

  Response to Prayer and Politics, By Jen Bailey

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Response to "When is it okay to mix prayer and politics?"

  Religion is the most powerful force in the world. For billions of people around the world, religious practice provides meaning, purpose, and direction to their lives.  I should know. There is no aspect of my personal, professional, spiritual, or political life that has not been influenced by my faith.   The day I gave my life to Christ everything changed. I chose to follow in the path of a faith tradition I believe to be defined by love, grace, and reconciliation. My commitment to social justice is derived directly from a scripture in Matthew 25 where Christ states, “As you have done to the least of these so you have done to me.” I am convicted to act on the political issues I care most about—food insecurity, poverty, immigration reform, the achievement gap— because I believe that is what Christ would do.

  As the videos show, I am not alone. Faith moves people to act. Problems arise, however, when individuals on all sides of ideological spectrum use religion as a tool to advance personal political agendas at the expense of others. What disturbed me most about the recent debate surrounding Cordoba House, dubbed by the media as the “Ground Zero Mosque”, was the willingness of some pundits and politicians to exploit it as a campaign issue. What should have been a local conversation became a polarizing national issue in which fear used as a tool to isolate communities and create an “Us versus Them” narrative.

  History has shown us positive and negative examples of what can happen when religion and politics mix. As a nation, we are at a pivotal moment where religion and politics are once again front and center. The question is, what path will we choose—a path of conflict or respect?

• 14:43

  Response to Prayer and Politics, By Anthony Paz

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Response to "When is it okay to mix prayer and politics?"

  Here we have videos that approach the question of prayer's place in politics from two different sides. In one, the focus is on the political right for people to pray as they wish, without interference from either the government or private individuals. In the other, we have a prayer that contains highly political content, like positions on war and veterans affairs. If we ask whether its okay to mix prayer and politics we have to look at these two different ways of mixing: one makes a political issue, a human right, out of prayer, the other uses prayer to communicate and attempt to further a political interest. I would say that in either case it is not only okay to mix them, but necessary.

  Whether we can make prayer into a secular political issue hinges upon a conviction that the option of prayer is a universal human right. If it is, then a just government must create policy to secure it as a right for all people to choose whether and how to pray. The voices in this video express this desire. They recognize that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center at Park 51, they are defending their own right to choose to pray as they see fit. This is the responsibility of all conscientious citizens, even those who choose not to pray at all.

  In the other video, we see a sincere believer imploring his God in prayer to help him achieve what he believes to be a just and correct reality, with all its political content. In few religious traditions are the needs of humans considered so vulgar as to eliminate all political content from prayer. Perhaps I disagree with David Roever's concept of a just political reality, but is it his responsibility to bring that concept and desire before God? Absolutely.

• 14:42

  Response to Prayer and Politics, By C. Nikole Saulsberry

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Response to "When is it okay to mix prayer and politics?"

  It’s a well known fact that in polite conversations you do not talk about faith or politics. The two are such heated, deeply-seated beliefs that when crossed can cause confrontation amongst the closest of friends and family. With such social norms, one would expect to find a society whose politicians shy away from, or even ignore faith. Instead we have faith charged politics—Politics so powerful they appear as if to invoke the blessing, power and even wrath of God. In the 234 years America has been a nation, it has yet to have a Commander in Chief who was not a self-proclaimed man of faith.

  I would be lying if I said that my faith did not play a role in my political persuasions, in fact in many cases it is hard for me to distinguish which belief came first. Thus, it stands to reason that politicians with deeply held faith values would find it hard to distinguish between the two as well. The question really is; are they expected to? At what point does freedom of religion mean politicians have to check their faith practices (which might have very well been their motivation for social change) at the door?

  There are serious ramifications to utilizing prayer in politics. It makes many people uncomfortable while simultaneously comforting others (just like proselytizing both makes sense and sounds outrageous). My argument is not that faith and politics are an inherently bad combination, but rather that this combination is often misunderstood. Yes, politicians praying can be a PR stunt, but what if it really is genuine prayer? If someone believes in a higher power that has the ability to intercede on the behalf of others, for good, how can I in good conscience want to suppress that?

  I would rather have fervent prayer for well being than empty rhetoric.

• September 23, 2010
• 14:08

  “The artist formerly known as Molly Norris,” By Christopher Stedman

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Last week the atheist blogosphere lit up with reports that Molly Norris, the Seattle cartoonist who inadvertently inspired "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" (EDMD), had been forced to change her identity and go into hiding due to death threats she received from extremists. How did these same bloggers who promoted EDMD respond to this news? They expressed sadness and frustration. And who wouldn't? Poor Norris - imagine having to give up everything you knew because your life was in danger. They are right to condemn those who have targeted her.

  
  However, many also used it as yet another opportunity to take broad swipes at Muslims.

  
  For example, popular atheist writer P.Z. Myers addressed Islam as if it were a single entity, writing: "Come on, Islam. Targeting defenseless cartoonists is your latest adventure in bravery? That's pathetic. It's bad enough to be the religion of hate, but to be the religion of cowardice ought to leave you feeling ashamed."

  
  I'm disappointed at such assessments, and I have a feeling Norris would be too. After EDMD took off, she insisted that she did not wish for it to become a movement. In a post on her now defunct website, Norris asked people to try to find common ground with others instead, adding: "The vitriol this 'day' has brought out... is offensive to the Muslims who did nothing to endanger our right to expression in the first place. I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off."

  
  Unfortunately, Norris was ignored and the campaign continued. Around the time of EDMD, the Council of American-Islamic Relations issued a statement asking that, instead of reacting negatively, "American Muslims - and Muslims worldwide - should use that and every other day as an opportunity to reach out to people of other faiths and beliefs to build bridges of understanding and respect. The best and most productive response... is more communication, not less communication - including not restricting the free flow of ideas."

  
  I applaud them for taking the high road, and I am sorry that my fellow atheists did not do the same. Instead, prominent atheists like Hemant Mehta said: "If you get offended by [EDMD], no one should be taking you seriously."

  
  I've spoken with my friend and Interfaith Youth Core founder Eboo Patel, a man whose beliefs I take seriously, many times about EDMD. He wrote a piece about EDMD that got him some flack from atheists because he took a strong position against it. And though like me he disagreed with EDMD, he has also publicly condemned the extremists who reacted to it with threats of violence. The extremists who forced Norris to go into hiding do not represent his faith, and he and other Muslims do not deserve to have their identities maligned - by those extremists or by people calling Islam "the religion of hate."

  
  We must bring an end to such generalizations. They serve no purpose but to advance a narrative that says all religions will inevitably come into conflict. Sure enough, Terry Jones cited EDMD as the inspiration for his infamous "Everybody Burn a Koran Day." They really aren't all that different, and they both infuriated extremists around the world. Yet few conflate Terry Jones with all Christians. Why do so many struggle to similarly distinguish the extremists who targeted Norris from all Muslims?

  
  So often I hear from other atheists that Muslims aren't speaking out against extremism, but they are. The problem is that they're largely ignored because many would rather believe that Islam is inherently violent. By ignoring Muslim voices of peace and building up "Islam" as a malevolent straw man, we play right into the hands of those we aim to condemn. Extremists thrive on the narrative that the West hates Islam.

  
  Let's not give them any more ammunition. Want to make extremists irrelevant? Disprove their theory. Show that in America, we embrace diversity of thought. Do what Norris did in the wake of EDMD and visit a local mosque. Build coalitions to stand in solidarity against extremism and in favor of tolerance and pluralism. The first step to combating threats of violence is not to incite more. We must respond with our best selves; retaliate with threats of cooperation and kindness.

  
  The Quran says that we ought to "support each other in kindness and piety and do not support each other in sin and in attacks" (5:2). Perhaps we could learn something from Islam instead of calling it the "religion of hate." Let us do what the artist formerly known as Molly Norris asked and find common ground with one another - for her sake if not our own.

  This article was originally published on the Washington Post's On Faith blog. Today's guest blogger is Christopher Stedman, the Managing Director of State of Formation for The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue. He is the founder and author of NonProphet Status. Follow him on Twitter.

• September 22, 2010
• 2:11

  JIRD Board Member Eboo Patel Launches “Better Together” Campaign

   » ‎ Inter-Religious Dialogue

  Below is a letter from Eboo Patel, JIRD Board Member and Executive Director of the Interfaith Youth Core.

  

  Dear friends,

  
  

  As a leader in interfaith cooperation at your institution, we wanted to let you know about an exciting upcoming opportunity from the White House and Interfaith Youth Core!

  On October 22-24, 2010, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will host a two-day intensive training facilitated by Interfaith Youth Core for 100 interfaith student leaders and 50 campus staff allies in Washington, D.C. The program is designed to equip interfaith student leaders with the skills to lead IFYC’s campaign for interfaith cooperation on campus, “Better Together.”  Student participants will learn how to speak out on the importance of interfaith cooperation on their campus,mobilize their communities to take action, and sustain their efforts to create a lasting impact on campus.  In a concurrent training track, campus staff will be equipped launch new or build on existing interfaith programming on campus as well as support student leaders in these initiatives.

  Click here to apply for the program today! Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis with final decisions being released on September 27th, October 4th, and October 11th.  Preference will be given to early applicants.

  We would love to have you involved in this program.  Please feel free to circulate this opportunity widely!  The White House is hosting this training precisely because they believe in the power of interfaith leadership.  Your contribution to this program would continue to demonstrate to the White House the strength of this movement.

  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at leadershipinstitute2010@ifyc.org.

  
  

  Sincerely,

  Eboo Patel

  Founder & President

  Interfaith Youth Core

  P 312.573.8941 • www.ifyc.org

  Twitter: @EbooPatel