Religious Freedom USA » Religious Freedom USA |

A panel discussion: Justice, Tzedek, Sadaqah: Pursuing Social Justice in Multi-faith Communities

Admin1 — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:34:04 +0000

Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013, 7:30 p.m.
Jewish Theological Seminary

3080 Broadway (at 122nd St)
New York City

This multi-faith panel of “elders” will discuss how multi-faith
communities have influenced social justice over the past two
decades, what are the current issues being addressed, and what is
still to be accomplished. They offer insight as to how young activists
can play a pivotal role in accomplishing some of these key objectives
and what it will mean for the future of this country and our place in a
global society.

Joshua Stanton, moderator, has solicited questions via the Journal
of Interreligious Dialogue and State of Formation. Come add your
voice to the conversation with these renowned leaders in multi-faith
social justice.

Panelists:
Rev. Julie Johnson Staples (Interim Minister with Education, Riverside
Church, NY; Moderator of the New York-New Jersey Regional Association
of the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches),

Rabbi David Saperstein (Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center,
Union for Reform Judaism)

Dr. Azizah Y. al-Hibri (Professor Emerita, University of Richmond School
of Law; Founder and President of Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for
Human Rights)

Moderator:
Joshua Stanton (Associate Director, Center for Global Judaism at Hebrew
College, and Director of Communications: Coexist Foundation; Founding
co-Editor, Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue).

Admission is free with reservations. A photo ID is required. Please plan to arrive
15 minutes early to clear security.
To reserve a seat, please click: http://www.jtsa.edu/socialjustice

Co-sponsors: Milstein Center for Interreligious Dialogue at the
Jewish Theological Seminary and the Nelson Mandela Center at the
Museum for African Art.

For more details click here: JEWISH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PANEL

Religious Tolerance Wins Big in the Elections

Admin1 — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:07:05 +0000

By Saadia Faruqi

Last week, after a fortnight of legal wrangling, House Republican Allen West finally conceded defeat in the race against Democrat Patrick Murphy in Florida. Despite spending (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/07/top-house-islamophobe-allen-west-falls.html) $17 million in his campaign as opposed to Murphy’s $3.6 million, it seems that the people of Florida have spoken. They no longer want an Islamophobe representing them in Congress.

That it took West two weeks to accept the inevitable can be surprising only to those who haven’t been following his war of words against Islam and Muslims for the time he’s been in office. Earlier this year, in a public forum, his offensive and inaccurate remarks (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/18/113874/allen-west-islam/) about Islam have been clear indications of his belligerent leanings: “[Islam is a] very vile and very vicious enemy that we have allowed to come in this country… Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, it is not a religion.” At another time he has bashed (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/24/140385/west-ellison-antithesis/) Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) solely because of his religious beliefs, saying Ellison “really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established.” Whatever happened to public discourse, freedom of religion and all that new-age rubbish?

West isn’t the only politician who just lost a race to more moderate newcomers – although fellow hard line Islamophobe Michele Bachmann held on to her seat by a thread – but his position as a Tea Party favorite and the media coverage he gets everywhere he goes lends his political defeat a huge impact on the future of religious tolerance in the United States. Hate mongers like West and Bachmann realize that united we stand, divided we fall. And these days it seems that Islam is the scapegoat everybody loves to hate. But by voting against him despite his expensive negative campaigning, we the people gave him and his kind a simple message: the very “coexistence” (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/18/113874/allen-west-islam/) West hates so much is preferable to the religious divide he had been trying to promote. For every person like West spouting hatred, there are dozens of young people across college campuses choosing to share their religious traditions and their meals with others. For every mosque vandalized, there are hundreds of men and women of all faiths getting together to rebuild it. For every politician who calls Islam the enemy, there are many others who respect it as one of three Abrahamic faiths providing enrichment in the lives of millions of Americans. And for that reason, West’s defeat two weeks ago may be a signal of better times ahead – more tolerance, more bridge building, and less spewing of hate for the sake of votes. God Bless America.

Saadia Faruqi is an Interfaith Liaison for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and a published author. She writes as a freelance reporter for various news publications including the Observer Newspapers in Greater Houston. She can be reached at saadiafaruqi@yahoo.com.

Where’s The Line Between Church And State… Literally?

admin — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:25:01 +0000

Today is Election Day: a day when millions of Americans of all colors, religions and ethnicities are taking pride in standing in line waiting to cast their vote. For those like myself – who come from countries where voters are intimidated, entire groups are not allowed to vote at all, and multiple generations live under military rule without seeing even one Election Day – today is a great day indeed! Immigrants from all parts of the world who now call America home proudly and seriously consider voting not just a right but an obligation.

What can mar this beautiful picture of American pride and duty… not media or politicians, but pastors? Politics is indeed a dirty game, but most consider religious institutions above such petty differences. Most people know the IRS rules against political campaigning by religious entities.
For those who may not be aware, here’s a summary: while churches, mosques, temples and synagogues may help in voter registration or other forms of election encouragement programs, they may never actively canvass on behalf of any politician. A religious leader of any faith cannot tell his flock to vote for a certain candidate, period.

But in a political climate when well-known personalities talk negatively against entire faiths, it’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and express your feelings too. In Texas recently, it seems that a preacher didn’t get the memo about these very IRS rules – or perhaps he thinks he’s above the law as a man of God. Pastor Ray Miller of the Church in the Valley is vocal about his support of Romney over Obama, not because of what each promises to bring to the country over the next four years, but because of their supposed religious convictions. The church marquee reads: “Vote For The Mormon, Not The Muslim! The Capitalist, Not The Communist!”

Where do I begin pointing out the problems with this statement? Forget the fact that Obama has stated time and again that he is a Christian, and also that Mormons consider themselves Christian as well. Leave aside the incorrect reference connecting Islam to communism. Let’s not debate whether the statement would be more or less palatable if Obama were indeed a Muslim. My biggest problem with the pastor’s statement is that he has clearly overstepped his boundary and role as a religious preacher. According to news reports, many Christians in the Texas community where this church is located have vocally expressed their disgust at this type of political campaigning. But others have supported it. I cringe at how the Muslim residents of the town must be feeling. At a time when Islamophobia is already at an all-time high, and mosques and temples are being targeted by arsonists and killers, how would it feel to see a pastor of a local church incite your neighbors and colleagues to religious intolerance? What does it say
about local faith relations, when people who live in small communities can be so divided over their faiths?

This election year, Muslim candidates have no doubt felt the unfair treatment meted out to them by their opponents due to their religious affiliation, the latest case being that of a congressional candidate in Michigan being accused by a right wing super PAC of planning to bring “Muslim power to America”. Much as I hate this type of political attack, that’s what super PACs are for. But that is definitely not what a pulpit is intended for. A pastor, an imam, a rabbi – these are all in my opinion the last bastion of hope for the ideals of religious harmony, tolerance and understanding which make this country so great. The precepts, of religious freedom on which America was created, demand that we treat everyone with respect. If the leaders of our religious institutions cannot follow these simple etiquettes, what hope do we have of the general public doing so? Take an immigrant’s word for it: voting is an essential part of a free society, and assigning non-political labels to political candidates can have a disastrous impact on overall voter confidence and the future of religious freedom in this country. Let’s keep those lines between church and state from blurring.

By Saadia Faruqi

Islamophobia Is Not Pro-Israel

Admin1 — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:00:45 +0000

by Joshua Stanton

At a moment when I would otherwise be reviewing Yom Kippur teachings and preparing spiritually for the most sacred day in the Jewish calendar, I instead feel called as an American Jew to respond to the abominable, Islamophobic advertisements in the New York City subways.

Islamophobia is an ideological threat to the State of Israel. It dims the ultimate hope for Israel’s future: peace.

Anyone who claims to be “pro-Israel” must by definition yearn for peace between Israel and its neighbors. Those who do not cannot possibly want what’s best for Israel. It is simply an irreconcilable contradiction. How could someone who claims to want what’s best for Israel want for it anything but peace? I would like to see the rationale of anyone who suggests that peace is somehow suboptimal for any state, much less one that we care for deeply.

Where conversations often become more complicated, however, is when discussing what a just peace means and how best to achieve it. Given the state of conflict between Israel and some of its neighbors, working toward peace has become mired and enmeshed in competing visions for each group involved. The peace process (alternating, tragically, with ongoing bouts of violence) has become more than simply a matter of international relations; it now relates to the internal identities of Israel and its many neighbors.

While many ambiguities about the peace process remain, one element is certain: false dichotomies hurt the prospects for peace in such a complicated region. The idea of condemning a single group for all of the pain and suffering caused by a multi-lateral conflict is morally bankrupt and politically foolhardy. Doing so creates fissures where there could be bridges and pits people against each other in arguments of little value. It undermines moderates and bolsters extremists. It looks for simple answers to complex problems that require greater nuance.

Islamophobia is an ideology that can create such false dichotomies.

Beyond the evident harm that Islamophobia could bring to the prospects for peace, it now holds the potential to bring the pain of the Middle East conflict more extensively overseas, allowing the hurt to ricochet around the world.

It May Be Free Speech, but It’s Still Hate Speech

Admin1 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:00:56 +0000

By Nicole Marie Edine

Much has been said in defense of the constitutional right to free speech this past week and a half. Free speech defends the controversial ‘Innocence of Muslims’ YouTube movie that sparked the violence against U.S. Embassies in Egypt and Libya resulting in the death of four. Free speech also defends the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket military funerals and for millions to eat chicken sandwiches to protest marriage equality. Each of these controversies have rallied the cry of free speech. Yes, you are free to each chicken sandwiches collectively and say whatever you’d like at another’s funeral, but just because you can, does it mean you should? Yes, this is free speech, but this is also hate speech. Hate speech has unforeseen consequences. Hate
speech hurts others at the core of their being: by rallying against who they are as people.

Tuesday, the New York Times reported that the New York City subway system will soon be host to this vein of free speech. Pamela Geller and her American Freedom Defense Initiative , whom you may remember from the protests against Park51 (the infamous “Ground Zero Mosque”, have purchased ad space from the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to advertise against Islam. The AFDI’s ads would posit Islam as “savage” and Muslims as a “jihadist” threat. The ads claim that, “It’s not Islamophobia, it’s Islamorealism.” While the city attempted to battle these hateful advertisements, Ms. Geller’s right to post them was defended on the grounds of free speech.

In recent correspondence, the New York Times article quotes Ms. Geller as saying, “Freedom must be vigorously defended.” For once Ms. Geller and I agree on something. I also am interested in defending freedom. The freedom for people to practice their religion in peace, to live without fear of being persecuted based on lies and hatefully drawn conclusions, and yes, even for you to say what you will. My desire for these ads never to be posted is not because I think that AFDI doesn’t deserve free speech but because I understand that baseless hate speech is not productive. It does not help us towards the goals of living in this world together. If Ms. Geller would like some “Islamorealism”, my recommendation is that she takes the time to meet with the thousands of New York Muslims who will see these ads everyday, whose children will get relentlessly bullied and whose lives have also been forever changed by 9/11.

Perhaps dialogue will not stop the baseless hate speech. There will always be another Pamela Geller, Fred Phelps, or Jim Cathay, but we don’t have to be like them. We are never going to get anywhere by standing on the sidelines screaming at each other and waving our chicken sandwiches around. It’s time we start talking to each other instead. Lately, it’s been easy to forget that free speech can also move us forward.

Follow Nicole on Twitter

Admin1 — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:00:08 +0000

The highly-debated birth control mandate, under which religiously-affiliated institutions like hospitals and universities may have to provide birth control coverage in employee health plans, has drawn attention and responses from religious and non-religious leaders alike. This issue reveals the need for more critical conversations within religious institutions and points to a deeper concern at hand — the limitations and boundaries of religious freedom in a changing American cultural and societal landscape.

While I, as a young Catholic, agree that the Catholic conversation around birth control, sexuality and contraceptives (among other issues) has stagnated and does not fully address changing current realities, I also agree with Catholic and other religious leaders who say that this mandate encroaches on the religious freedoms of Catholics and of other faith communities who may hold similar views.

Diverse voices from all camps have come out against this proposed mandate. The issue at hand is not healthcare policy, but the government’s incursion into the sphere of religious life, the division of religious communities and institutions, and declaring what is, or is not, “religious enough” in relation to secular policies. Healthcare reform is needed, but are we willing, in the process, to sacrifice religious freedoms and ignore the moral objections of religious communities?

This mandate has moved to the center of nationwide concern due to the possibilities it opens up regarding the involvement of secular institutions in questions of religious identity. A similar blurring of divisions and authority can be noted in a recent controversy at Manhattan College in New York and St. Xavier University in Chicago, in which the National Labor Relations Board ruled these institutions were not sufficiently religious to fall outside of the agency’s jurisdiction.

While the issues of labor laws and the complex reality of the state-federal political relationship need to be navigated responsibly, these actions reveal a growing involvement of secular institutions and rulings in religious affairs. This affects not only Catholics, but all religious communities in the United States. If these mandates and rulings succeed and set precedent, what are possible further consequences? How far can the government go in setting boundaries on religious identity?

These threats to religious freedom have also come from elsewhere, most recently in the news of theundercover NYPD investigation of Muslims in New York. All of these developments point to the need for our discourse to evolve. Just because we as a nation have struggled with questions of religious freedom and religious pluralism and identity for over two centuries does not mean that we have come close to fully engaging the reality of pluralism, secularism, and democracy. As a society, we are uncomfortable with questions of religion and pluralism, and we are afraid to challenge established, constructed boundaries. We must find ways to critically address issues of religious freedom in an evolving world. Young leaders must be central in encouraging this societal shift.

The interfaith youth movement offers a vehicle for this changing discourse. At DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the United States, we have provided state-mandated birth control options for students and staff for years, but we have also carved out critical spaces in and out of the classroom to have engaging, respectful conversations on these issues. In growing together in these questions, we are committed to common action for the common good, and religious freedom is a necessary component of this communal welfare.

The interfaith youth movement and organizations like Religious Freedom USA and Interfaith Youth Core are working to promote new spaces for this discourse on issues of religious freedom, and these conversations must continually move forward. Young leaders, religious and non-religious, must work together to catalyze change that is needed in our society and discourse.

Faith communities must address these critical questions — contraception and birth control, interfaith and intrafaith relations, LGBTQ inclusiveness, among others — in succeeding years and decades, but secular incursion into these spheres and conversations is not the way to achieve these shifts. We must accept this as a call to action, a call to revitalize the conversations in our own communities and work together to promote positive, holistic change in our world. Faith communities must begin to creatively and critically address these issues, and only then can we responsibly engage the pressing questions that demand our reflection and attention.

Originally posted on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dziedzic/engaging-the-birth-contro_b_1373436.html

State of Formation – Fall 2012 Call for Contributing Scholars!

Admin1 — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:00:35 +0000

Greetings,

State of Formation is pleased to announce it is accepting applications for Contributing Scholars!

State of Formation is a community conversation between young leaders in formation. Together, a cohort of seminarians, rabbinical students, graduate students and the like – the future religious and moral leaders of tomorrow – will work to redefine the ethical discourse today, particularly as it is used to refract current events and personal experiences. This initiative is supported by a partnership between the Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions (CPWR), Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue (JIRD), Hebrew College, and Andover Newton Theological School.

Over the past two years, emerging religious and ethical leaders from around the country and the world have engaged each other and readers by sharing their stories and views on State of Formation. Conversations once dominated by established leaders are now readily embraced by the up-and-comers, and accessible to contributors from many different moral, faith, political, economic, and social backgrounds.

Contributing Scholars to State of Formation will be able to take advantage of the numerous benefits to participating in the State of Formation Contributing Scholars Fellowship. In addition to being recognized as a Contributing Scholar by JIRD and CPWR, they may be eligible for travel grants and may have their work featured in articles on additional platforms like CPWR’s website, PeaceNext, The Huffington Post, Interfaith Youth Core, Pluralism Project, Interfaith Observer, and Tikkun.

Nominees should be currently enrolled in a seminary, rabbinical school, graduate program, or another institution for theological or philosophical formation — or up to three years out of their graduate program in a professional setting. (On rare occasions, exceptions will be made to these guidelines in order to increase the diversity of the writers.) Contributors should be able to commit to post monthly on the forum while showing respect others from different traditions.

Does this describe you or an emerging leader you know? Please take a moment to fill out our brief nomination form. Nominations for the fall are due September 30, 2012 and will be accepted on a rolling basis.

Sincerely,
Honna Eichler, Managing Director of State of Formation at the Journal for Inter-Religious Dialogue.

Originally posted on: http://www.stateofformation.org/2012/08/fall-2012-call-for-contributing-scholars/

Joplin’s Eid Gift

Admin1 — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:37:58 +0000

By Randa Kuziez

When Ramadan began, I called my sister and said, “This year, I want to feel like I really earned Eid!” Eid is the Muslim holiday following Ramadan, the holy month of fasting from dawn to sunset daily. She assured me that with the 16 hour fast in Kansas this summer, that wouldn’t be a problem. For a Muslim in Ramadan, this means fasting the entire month, but also increasing one’s worship and good actions, such as reading the entire Quran, praying the daily Taraweeh prayer (an extra prayer in Ramadan that takes about 2 hours every evening), and giving much in charity, be it money, time, or even a smile.

Aside from spiritually enriching ourselves, we need to step up to challenges as they arise. From the tragic shooting at the Sikh Gurdwara in Wisconsin to the burning of the Joplin mosque, we knew we needed to come together. We often discuss the importance of interfaith cooperation and this was a clear example of necessary action.

The day of the Joplin incident, I received a call from a friend who had read a blog I wrote about my visit to Joplin after the devastating 2011 tornado. I wrote about how the Islamic Center of Joplin hosted volunteers who came to do relief work.

America after the Sikh temple shooting

Admin1 — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:00:13 +0000

By Valarie Kaur

Oak Creek, Wisconsin – On Friday, I participated in a memorial for the victims of the 4 August shooting in a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. I am a third-generation Sikh American, and as the ceremony drew to a close, I tweeted, “May this not be the last moment the nation watches and mourns with us. May this be the start of lasting solidarity.”

Now is the time that we, as Americans already embroiled in an increasingly bitter election year, must curb the rise of hate, fear and discontent in our communities and on the airwaves. We must call on our elected officials, media, educational institutions and faith leaders to renew their commitment to a nation where all can live, work and worship without fear.

Hope can come out of tragedy. In the past week, an untold number of Americans learned something about the Sikh religion. People of all ages, races and religions came together at memorials, in numbers far surpassing expectations. Politicians like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg renewed the call for stronger gun control. Police officers who put their lives on the line to stop the shooting were hailed as heroes.

A new generation of Sikh Americans step up

Admin1 — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:00:07 +0000

By Valarie Kaur

On Friday morning, I arrived at a conference at the White House to speak on the future of the Sikh American community. On a panel, I reported on a rising generation of Sikhs who are reinterpreting their faith and finding innovative ways to serve their country. As I spoke, I caught students in the audience, listening and nodding. Afterward, they swarmed me and shared their brightest new ideas. I was moved, energized, and filled with hope for the future of our community.

Forty-eight hours later, a gunman opened fire on a Sikh congregation in Milwaukee in the single bloodiest attack the community has seen on U.S. soil.

In this time of mourning and grief, it would be easy to fall into despair. Sikh friends lamented to me in private that in more than a decade since Sept. 11, 2001, little has changed. Our community still suffers from acts of brutal violence and the larger public knows little about our history, religion, or values. However, this act of violence should not cause us to lose hope.

A whole generation of Sikh Americans has come of age in the shadow of Sept.11, and we are now stepping up into new leadership for our community. With the support and blessing of our elders, we are using 21st century tools to organize, educate, and serve. In the wake of this particular tragedy, you can find us organizing vigils, working with law enforcement, using social media and speaking on the airwaves.