Christopher Hitchens, on Slate.com, has written a piece on Guantanamo Bay and the current Presidential policies that has made me re-consider my understanding of tolerance (at least for a time). After much consideration, though, I have to say that this Hitchens article is not very compelling. He basically argues that the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camps are madrassahs in disguise because they are “dedicated to the fervent practice of the most extreme version of just one religion.”

Obama’s administration is supposedly “taking the extreme as the norm.” The reason given by Hitchens is that Obama is referring to the idea of the Muslim world as a whole – a complete entity. Hitchens reminds us that it is the extremists who are fighting for this concept of a new Muslim world. He says it is precisely the aim of the jihadists to bring it all under one rulership. I highly doubt, though, that Obama was referring to the Umma in the same way, for example, that a group such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir does. Perhaps we need to differentiate between the Umma of the radicals and extremists and the world of the vast majority of Muslims, who certainly do not first and foremost reject the concepts of citizenship and good governance by secular and democratic authorities. In being tolerant of certain practices among Muslims, such as hejab for women, Obama is certainly not adopting the reactionary policies of extremists and rejecting the secular concepts behind democracy.

I recently discussed this article with a colleague from the Institute for the Science of Religion (Central Asian Studies) in Switzerland. He didn’t reject the Hitchens thesis in this article but instead said that Obama was taking the same approach as the most extremist Muslims by quoting the Quran the way he did. If the President accepts that the basis for authority and decision-making must be based on the Quran then he is waging the battle with the extremists in a literary and text-based manner. He says that it is the most fundamentalist Muslims who only rely on the words of the Quran (while most Muslims only know small fragments of the text), and therefore, the President should have been making more logical arguments based on conflict resolution and peace-building tactics.

Last week U.S. President Obama directly spoke to the Muslim world (again), and it seems that this time everyone has taken notice. In the President’s historic address from Cairo – supported by Al Azhar and Cairo University, there was great humility presented in order to try and ease the current tensions between the Muslim world and the United States. Here, in Tajikistan, various religious figures went to the U.S. Embassy to hear the address of the President. There was much surprise and delight that President Obama started with the traditional Arabic language greeting. In general, though, the positive reactions here were no different than the standard responses which the U.S. President receives for his generally outstanding oratory. He is indeed a great public speaker who knows his audience very well and almost never makes a mistake. But what do such great words mean to your enemies?

The words coming from Cairo were very similar to previous speeches (Bush administration) – with the exception that they were delivered by a person who has managed to earn more trust from extraordinary numbers of people around the world. This trust may only have been gained on account of his international background and upbringing – or the fact that he has not started any wars (merely continued them).

The speech included great historical quotes – such as from John Adams: “The U.S. has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Muslims.” But what was President Obama’s own best line? It may have been that “Islam is a part of America” – as this fact in itself reflects a bridge which connects two worlds and continues to strengthen the relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. Or, it may have been in what was not said – such as the word terrorism. The real goal of such grand speeches is to alienate extremists (terrorists?) from the vast majority of moderate Muslims. However, that segment of radical Islam will not be persuaded by oratory and historical brilliance. They certainly do not respect religious diversity of the kind President Obama praised.

President Obama is apparently working hard to keep his campaign pledges. He has now had his first interview with Al Arabiya, while repeating his promise to give a speech in a Muslim capital in the first 100 days of his administration. In some ways, President Obama's approach to the presidency feels like the campaign season is still in full swing. After eight years of President Bush's foreign policy, Barack Obama appears to still be campaigning , albeit now for his own approach to politics and an updated vision of a multilateralist foreign policy. As the U.S. President said in his interview: the most important element is to be "engaged" and "right away." Of course, the Bush administration was fully engaged on the issue of Israel/Palestine , but to no avail. The intention now , and this is the most remarkable part of the President's interview , is to "listen" as opposed to "dictating."

President Obama repeated his calls for mutual respect and interest, which we have heard about regularly and noted in his inaugural address. Referring to those who call for peace, however, may be ignoring the reality of practical dead ends in the substantive peace process. Listening can only go so far , especially when the political issues end and the religious issues begin. Sacrifices will be key, and so far the substance of the debate has yet to show how much the Muslim world will give on account of the U.S. alliance with Israel. At the same time, President Obama said, "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect."

To quote in full, as you can find in the transcript as well: "My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."

(His job seems to be focused on communicating!)

On the issue of terrorism, President Obama referred to the historical reality that extremist organizations using the tactic of terrorism have surfaced with roots in numerous religions (clearly not just Islam). The key is that the groups use religion and faith as a justification for their acts of violence and destruction. In a well-worded statement (essentially in legalese), the President derived a new rule of art, "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name."

I watched the inaugural address of Barack Obama at a packed auditorium at New York University School of Law. When Obama said, "America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity" the room broke out into applause. In fact, there were about a dozen occasions when nearly everyone was clapping. The news commentators, though, were not sure whether the speech would have a lasting impact because there was no one catch phrase that immediately stuck out. The importance of the speech, however, was really in the occasion (a history-making day) rather than the individual words. Obama's message of peace was based on the "patchwork heritage" of the country, emphasizing that "we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers." It is for this reason that the content was so much more dramatic than catchy phrases and poetic language. Obama spoke not just about patriotism and courage in the U.S. but also about the world's common humanity. While addressing the diverse religions of the world, he said to the Muslims: "We see a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." The images brought to our minds today show a new America with a tremendous spirit and strength that can defeat any challenge. There may not be one catch phrase from Obama's inauguration, but I understood that America is now "ushering in a new era of peace." America is ready to lead once more - multilaterally and through the rule of law.

Photo from Reuters

 salvador valldeperas md residency program Buy Full UK Postcode X.Y Longitude Latitude MySQL Download

 free web pages enhancements download Buy For Dummies Google SketchUp For Dummies Jul 2007 EBook Download

 free motorola mobile tools 4.0 download Buy Adobe CS3 Master Collection Corporate Final (1 Dvd) Download

 spacebattle trainer download software gratis Buy Arcgis Desktop 9 SP3 (3 Cds) Download

 vanderbilt nursing program Buy COSMOSWorks 2006 Download

 panda antivirus 7 crack Buy Keil RealView Microcontroller Development Kit 3.20 Download

 clay aiken downloads Buy Macromedia Freehand MX 11.0.1 Download

 hardrive dupiclate software Buy Quicken Premier 2008 Download

 ubuntu frozen program Buy Adobe Creative Suite 3 Master Collection 7-12 (6 Dvds) Download

January 16 was Religious Freedom Day (the news was dominated by the miraculous landing of an airplane on the Hudson). Various religious organizations issued statements and press releases, while the Day itself even has its own website.

The White House, on January 14, issued a press release to commemorate the annual recognition of the 1786 passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (authored by Thomas Jefferson). 

It is the "stubborn endurance of religious repression," which has formed the basis of Religious Freedom Day. At the same time, we remember our First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the legal rights provided to U.S. citizens.  Actually, when looking at the issues connected to religion and politics, it is the highly political and partisan documents, which reveal the trends and make such a Day interesting.

For this reason, on Religious Freedom Day, I found it worthwhile to visit the website of the Heritage Foundation, which published in a WebMemo that same-sex marriage can erode religious freedom - "troubling signs that the ability of people to express their religious beliefs without fear of penalty is eroding." To understand the trends of conservative belief about religious freedom, the Memo gives a good breakdown of current court cases and institutional deficiencies, which may lead to religious discrimination in the name of same-sex marriage. Indeed, it is a day to reflect “on the religious freedom our nation enjoys.”

Time has listed the top ten news items connected to religion in 2008. The first article was about the economy and how the recession turned out to be far more important for voters in the presidential election than the politics of religion. David Van Biema wrote about how many incidents in the campaign centered on the faith of the candidates (particularly Obama and the Wright scandal), but in the end, far more religious voters (13% more Catholics for example) decided to vote for Obama than Kerry in 2004. Those voters were expressing their positions on other issues not central to the typical religious hot topics. He also noted that "a late October poll showed that only one in 10 Americans regarded the country's moral and spiritual condition as their foremost electoral criterion." In reality, though, religion and ethics were the driving forces in the election and were factors behind voters' other priorities. The war in Iraq, healthcare, and even the slowing of the economy in general had appeals of urgency with foundations in the concept of ethical government. For this reason, there were significant attempts by the Democrats to appeal to religious voters.

Two of the other top ten articles are directly connected: the first is "The Birth of the New Evangelicalism," and the second , "The Challenge of Recession." 2008 was a political season for Evangelical leaders to move "beyond classic issues of individual sin to questions like economic inequality, material aid overseas, and the environment." Moreover, because of the recession, people have been increasingly turning to religion and faith for answers. The New York Times, for example, at the end of December had an article that discussed the evangelistic opportunity for the churches during the economic downturn. The author mentions a recent study that has looked at U.S. recession cycles and the rate of growth in evangelical churches. Protestant and Catholic churches also see increases in memberships but not at the same rate.

As Barack Obama makes history by becoming America's first African-American president, the election took other more conservative turns. Same-sex marriage bans were passed in California, Florida, and Arizona. Arkansas also passed a measure that would bar homosexual couples from adopting children. (South Dakota did however reject an abortion ban for the second time in two years, 55 to 45.) It was precisely the black and Hispanic voters coming out to vote for Obama, who supported the bans on same-sex marriage. More specifically, the New York Times has reported that 70% of black voters in California supported the ban. California has been marrying couples since June. Now, the marriages will stop, but couples and the city of San Francisco (as well as other cities) have filed lawsuits to challenge the bans (particularly the famous Proposition 8). One of the legal questions is the status of marriages, which have been conducted since June. The San Francisco Chronicle has reported that "sponsors of Proposition 8 say the measure was intended to invalidate those marriages" but 18,000 couples have been married there already since the June 16 California Court ruling. An interesting question is whether Proposition 8 is an "amendment' or a complete revision of the Constitution and its basic provisions. Bob Egelko wrote for the Chronicle, therefore, that "the plaintiffs argued that the measure offends constitutional principles by taking important rights away from a historically persecuted minority , gays and lesbians , while stripping judges of their power to protect that group." In a very expensive election year, it has also been reported that over 73 million was spent on building support for the ban. In fact, the support for the ban has been reported to be based on "deep religious feelings" particularly among ethnic minorities. It was remarkable to see that Proposition 8 had significantly more support than John McCain. In any case, election day turned out to be a victory for both conservatives and liberals. Those people caught in the middle , African-American gay couples (for example) probably don't know quite what to think about the country's direction. In sum, thirty states have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Eric Gorski has written a fascinating article about religion in the 2008 elections. The main premise is that this year's politics has unfortunately used religion as a weapon to divide and mock. The country really became obsessed with the ideas of fringe religion and what the mainstream set of religious beliefs ”should” be.

On this election day, it is worth reflecting on how religion has been front and center during the campaign, while substantive political issues and platforms that can be informed by religion have been missing. The American people were clearly preoccupied with the faith of their candidates but not about how religious beliefs would shape their specific policies over the long term. In fact the implications of the debate over Obama's connection to Islam were never honestly revealed as problematic to the whole concept of separation of church and state.

There were two events during the campaign season that allowed the country to inspect the beliefs of the candidates: The Saddleback Civil Forum was the most recent (between McCain and Obama) and the Compassion Forum between Obama and Clinton. After a two year marathon of campaigning, the real questions about religion in United States politics remain unresolved. Abortion may not be one of those “real” issues, but it was nevertheless relatively absent from the debate this year. Today, there is a Newsweek article that looks at why the abortion rhetoric has been missing. The reason given: "Real war abroad and recessionist anxiety at home." 

Gorski says that exit polls will “provide a glimpse into what role religious voters played in electing the next president” but there will probably not be too much post-election consideration or reflection on why Jeremiah Wright's words were so important for people's judgments about Obama and his religious beliefs. Gorski quotes two scholars - both of whom were completely accurate about the results of the campaign - the first was that the ”public have gorged themselves on religious issues of almost complete irrelevance while the country, deeply divided by everything from the Iraq war to how to control the price of gas, has spiraled toward economic downturn.” The second is the idea of Martin Marty (a religion scholar) that “the rancorous campaign has been bad for religion.” Religion became the scapegoat for a country that refuses to look intellectually at its structural and governance problems. Remember when Obama made the mistake of saying that people cling to their guns and religion? Just because people have genuine faith doesn't mean they don't also cling to it when they want to avoid temporal problem solving or nation-wide introspection.

Actually, it seems that the campaign was particularly bad for Muslim Americans, who were somehow targeted by continual insinuations that Obama would be un-American and unqualified for the Office of the President were he actually Muslim. Perhaps the public did focus on the Wright scandal because it would have been too difficult to have simple ‘faith’ in Obama's credentials. McCain, on the other hand, was clever enough to leave his personal faith out of the issues and to not discuss extensively his views on religion. But then again, there were no accusations that he might be a Muslim in disguise. (He did seemingly get less criticism for his endorsements from Hagee and Parsley.) Either way, McCain did a good job of convincing religious issues voters that he was on their side without continually vocalizing his position on tough religious topics like abortion. In sum, Gorski was right: "With a few exceptions, whatever seemed odd or fringe trumped serious discussion about how candidates' religious beliefs shape their approach to governance."

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal looks at how the American workplace accommodates religious differences. Phred Dvorak specifically addresses events in Colorado and Nebraska last month when meatpacking plants "fired about 200 Muslim Somali workers who walked off the job over prayer disputes." Dvorak writes that the United States is seeing is a "surge in workplace disputes over religion," with claims of religious discrimination doubling over the past 15 years and a 15% increase in 2007. There were 4,515 claims of religious discrimination filed with federal, state, and local agencies last year. The number of claims related to religion is also growing faster than claims based on race or gender. The article quotes Reed Russell, counsel for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who says that this increase "reflects greater religious diversity and openness about faith in the workplace." The rule generally appears to be that the employers are supposed to accommodate religious requests by employees if they don't pose any "undue hardship" on operations. In reality, the tensions at the meatpacking plants are often disputes , not with the management or employer , but the result of perceptions from coworkers of different religions. For example, immigrant workers from South America have been walking out as well , arguing that the Somali prayer requests have meant "their complaints had gotten a special hearing." As far as the religion is concerned, Muslim prayers typically take less than five minutes but the timing of the prayers vary each day with the sunrise and sunset. Therefore, prayer breaks would have to be expressly timed for each day, which could in face disrupt assembly line work. Back during Ramadan, the disputes were particularly sensitive because the workers were fasting and the break time was needed both for praying and breaking the fast. The Omaha World Herald back in September (during Ramadan) looked at the problems both in Grand Island Nebraska and the JBS Swift & Co plant in Colorado. As Christopher Burbach has accurately written for the Omaha paper: "The controversy is a complicated on involving religion, culture clashes, refugee resettlement, immigration, union contracts and factory demands in an increasingly diverse American work force."

Picture Source: The Independent

Nicholas D. Kristof wrote an interesting editorial recently about the "sleaziness of this presidential campaign." His point was that the political campaign was transforming Obama into a Muslim after all, but only because "religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice." Actually, this column by Kristof is really scary, and if it's true that a sizeable part of the country has "otherized" Obama, then there will be lasting ramifications for the dialogue between Christianity and Islam. He concludes by saying that journalists have a responsibility to "blow the whistle" if the campaign is magnifying "the ugliest prejudices that our nation has done so much to overcome."

The underlying statistic (from Pew): Only half of Americans know that Obama is Christian.