The interfaith agreement on the ‘errant weeds’ of Christianity, Islam and Judaism

2014/04/29 Leave a comment

Interesting piece by Marc Ellis on extremism in all Abrahamic religions – “errant weeds” as he calls it:

But terror in the name of religion – and religious and ethnic identity – is widespread historically and today. Since most believers are not involved directly in the violence that some partake in, we shouldn’t paint with too broad a brush. The September 11th museum video may indeed walk this disturbing fine line. But to hold Islam as a religion, in its expression and in some of its core principles, innocent of violence historically or in the present is absurd.

It’s like pretending that violence in the name of Christianity contradicts Christianity and some of Christianity’s core values as they developed. Thus any violence done in the name of Christianity represents the “hijacking” of Christianity. Taking this perspective, then, through much of Christian history, Christianity has been hijacked. Perhaps we should distinguish the Christianity many Christians want today from – shall we call it – Hijacked Christianity?

Rather than pretending to an innocent tradition, call it Innocent Islam and Innocent Christianity, perhaps it is better to think of a desired separation from Hijacked Islam and Hijacked Christianity. But then how does religion support itself, go global and play its part in the affairs of the state in a way that benefits them and their followers without being hijacked?

To preserve the sense of innocence, religion’s collusion with power is unannounced and behind the scenes. To put it bluntly, you don’t get mosques or churches in the town square without being fully corrupted and embedded in the state while pretending to innocence.

Nor do you get Passover Seders in the White House without being a power to be reckoned with.

Which means we can’t leave out Hijacked Judaism.

The interfaith agreement on the ‘errant weeds’ of Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Filed under Radicalization, Religion Tagged with , , ,

David Cameron’s ‘Christian country’ remarks fuel mini media frenzy

2014/04/26 Leave a comment

David Cameron’s faith and politics statements and the predictable controversy. Had he talked about Christianity’s influence on Britain’s development and values, and linked to the openness to other faiths, likely would have been a non-issue.

Of more interest is the much higher percentage of British who state they have no religion (51 %), likely one of the higher percentages in the world (Canada is about 24 %):

In last year’s British Society Attitudes Survey, 51 per cent of those polled described themselves as having no religion. And the number of those who say they are members of the Church of England continues to fall year by year.

British Attitudes Towards Religion:

No religion: 48 per cent

Church of England: 20 per cent

Other Christian: 17 per cent

Source: British Social Attitudes Survey, 2012

Campbell refers to Cameron as a “bog standard middle England churchgoer.” During his reign as Tony Blair’s chief spin-doctor, Campbell managed to curb any talk of religion with an imperious command delivered from the plinth, telling reporters: “We don’t do God.”

Cameron’s critics accuse him of deciding to “do God” now in a bid to prevent an exodus of more traditional members from his governing Conservative Party to the UK Independence Party or UKIP, running on a staunchly anti-European, anti-immigrant platform.

Also amusing to see former PM Blair’s spin doctor, Alistair Campbell, comment on Cameron without disclosing just how much he suppressed any evidence or news about Blair’s deep religious faith (Blair only “came out,” so to speak, when he left office)

David Cameron’s ‘Christian country’ remarks fuel mini media frenzy – World – CBC News.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Zero-tolerance on FGM doesn’t have to be an attack on multiculturalism

2014/04/14 Leave a comment

A reminder that change works best from within, and the role that governments, organizations and people can play in making these kinds of cultural changes. Much more productive than just labelling cultures and religions. How best to encourage such dialogue in a way that engages, rather than dismisses, is the challenge:

The problem is that many on both sides of the debate feel they have to pick a side. That supporting multiculturalism is somehow inconsistent with supporting rights for minorities – including women. But we know that cultures are not as fixed and unchanging as powerful advocates within them may like to make out – they shape themselves to the conditions around them, to social and economic imperatives, and they often liberalise rapidly in new worlds and environments by combining a healthy recognition of traditions, backgrounds and cultural practices with new and modernised interpretations of what it means to belong to that culture in a globalising world.

We also know that change within cultures can only happen when advocates and allies within those cultures are empowered to change minds and hearts around them – and this is where governments must focus their efforts when tackling such problems. The most powerful voices are always those on the inside, not the outside – and governments would do well to work with those voices in order to amplify them.

That has been the real success of the campaign on FGM – its increased visibility in the past two years, and the way in which it has made voices more prominent. Campaigners such as Leyla Hussain, an FGM survivor from the campaign group Daughters of Eve are so important for this very reason, as are political advocates such as Jennette Arnold AM and Diane Abbott MP – who have campaigned on this issue and taken a strong position of leadership for some years. All three of these speakers were present at a meeting of the Fabian Women’s Network last week. Abena Oppong-Asare, who chaired the discussion spoke eloquently about the role FGM has played in regulating women’s bodies, desires and self-expression in different cultures.

It is in this direction (of leadership, advocacy and dialogue with communities) that governments must look – if they are to reconcile protecting rights of individuals with the objection that cultural practices are a no-go area for policy makers because those policy makers “just don’t understand”.

New Statesman | Zero-tolerance on FGM doesn’t have to be an attack on multiculturalism.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Ontario Catholic schools grapple with court’s no-religion ruling: Walkom | Toronto Star

2014/04/14 Leave a comment

One of the historic anomalies in Ontario is a publicly funded separate Catholic school system that was part of the initial bargain of Confederation. A recent court decision allows students to opt-out of religious instruction. Tom Walkom of the Star:

The public sphere is inclusive. Religion is not. With religion, you are either in or out. You are either part of a body of believers or you are not.

Some religions, including Christianity, welcome converts. Many preach tolerance toward other faiths.

But in virtually every religion, there is a fundamental distinction between those who accept certain precepts as true and those who do not. And non-believers are — by definition — wrong.

Ontario’s Catholic schools have already found it hard to navigate the tricky path between church orthodoxy and public acceptability, most recently over the issue of gay-straight student clubs.

Thanks to a 1997 court decision, they have managed to retain the right to discriminate in employment. Catholic schools need not hire non-Catholic teachers.

But if they can’t make their students experience even a little bit of Catholicism — if, in order to qualify for government support, they are simply public schools with a dress code — why bother?

Ontario Catholic schools grapple with court’s no-religion ruling: Walkom | Toronto Star

Chris Selley in the National Post:

The Progressive Conservatives at least tried to address this bizarre inequality: Leader John Tory proposed extending funding to schools of other religions, and was trounced for his efforts by an electorate that then instantly forgot about the issue. They won’t go down that road again. That the Liberals and New Democrats can live with a single, publicly funded religious school system that considers homosexual acts “objectively disordered,” and buses students to pro-life rallies, only gets more astonishing every year.

One might thank Mr. Erazo for shining some light on this absurdity. But alas, nobody’s paying any attention. You can’t stop Ontario’s march of incoherent progress.

Get on your knees and opt-out

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

Brandeis University rescinds planned honorary degree to outspoken critic of Islam

2014/04/12 Leave a comment

The latest polemic around Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Clearly, Brandeis did not do its research and background checks and should have anticipated this controversy. While many of the specific criticisms she makes about aspects of Islamic and related cultural practices are valid, she, like many critics (e.g., Pipes) go too far in painting Islam and Muslims with the same brush, rather than recognizing the diversity within Islam and among Muslims. Just imagine substituting Christian, Jewish or Sikh in any of her quotes below:

She has come under criticism for remarks about Islam. In a 2007 interview with Reason magazine, Hirsi Ali was quoted as saying “there is no moderate Islam” and that Islam needed to be defeated.

“Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful,” she said. “It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.”

That same year, she told the London Evening Standard that Islam is “the new fascism.”

She also characterized Islam as “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.” she was quoted as saying, “It legitimates murder.”

Her selection by Brandeis sparked an outcry by students, faculty, and national advocacy groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“We believe offering such an award to a promoter of religious prejudice such as Ali is equivalent to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites,” the group stated.

An online petition signed by students and other critics condemned Hirsi Ali’s “extreme Islamophobic beliefs.”

Brandeis University rescinds planned honorary degree to outspoken critic of Islam – Metro – The Boston Globe.

Two opinion pieces on opposite sides of the argument, starting with Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, defending the decision made by Brandeis:

Ms. Hirsi Ali’s statements on Islam are not incidental to her activism and her life’s work. They stand at the very center of her concern. It goes without saying that Brandeis blundered by not doing its research before making the announcement and embarrassing everyone involved. Still, the only issue for the critics of Brandeis is whether they affirm Ms. Hirsi Ali’s prejudicial and deeply offensive views on Islam as a violent and fascistic religious tradition. If they do, let them say so. And if they don’t, they should acknowledge that Brandeis was right in the decision it made.

Andrew Sullivan takes a very different take:
The rescinding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not exactly an act of punishment. No one has a right to any such degree and Brandeis is fully within its rights to breach basic manners and fail to do basic research about an honoree’s past work. And Ayaan has indeed said some intemperate and extreme things at times about Islam as a whole. But to judge Ayaan’s enormous body of work and her terrifying, pioneering life as a Somali refugee by a few quotes is, I’m afraid to say, all-too-familiar as an exercise in the public shaming of an intellectual for having provocative ideas. There seems to be an assumption that public speech must seek above all else to be “sensitive” rather than provocative, and must never hurt any feelings rather than tell uncomfortable truths. This is a terrible thing for liberal society as a whole and particularly terrible for a university campus, where freedom of thought should be paramount (although, of course, the hard academic left every day attempts to restrict that freedom).
Where The Hard Left Says No
I am more with Rabbi Yoffie on this. Yes, one should consider the life work and not just selected quotes. However, the quotes are consistent in Hirsi Ali’s overall writing and public remarks, and are central to her arguments against Islam in general, not just particular aspects of Islam.
Find it a bit surprising that Sullivan defends her position when his own views on religion are nuanced thoughtful and reflective, unlike the overly broad brush approach of Hirsi Ali.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , ,

A bad month for diversity-focused fear-mongers | Toronto Star

2014/04/11 Leave a comment

Good piece by Natalie Brender on the fear mongers, citing the defeat of the PQ and its values charter, the Mosaic Institute’s study on imported conflicts (Do new Canadians leave old conflicts behind?) and the Pew Research study on how increased diversity tends to correlate with lower levels of violence (Countries With Less Religious Diversity Have More Faith-Based Violence):

Fear-mongers keen on stirring up angst about the increasingly diverse nature of Canadian society have had a bad month of it, on the whole. That’s because three recent sets of evidence suggest that really there’s not that much to worry about in face of a blossoming patchwork of religious headgear being worn, languages being spoken and national soccer teams being cheered for across the land. Such reassurances are relatively undramatic to report on — but it’s worth taking some sedate pleasure in a trio of dogs that didn’t bark alarms of warning in the past month.

A bad month for diversity-focused fear-mongers | Toronto Star.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , ,

Countries With Less Religious Diversity Have More Faith-Based Violence

2014/04/07 1 Comment

Interesting study with the caveats below:

Of course, these findings come with some limitations. The diversity study doesn’t account for different denominations within religions, like Sunnis and Shiites in Muslim countries or Protestants and Catholics in Christian countries; apparently it was too difficult to gather enough data to make those distinctions. It’s also impossible to make conclusions about cause and effect: Pluralism itself might help reduce violence, or countries that tolerate high levels of diversity might attract people less inclined to violence. And these trends may be related to overall patterns of violence and political instability in the world—in the past several years, some of the countries with the highest levels of religious affiliation have been hit hard by war, especially in the Middle East.

Still, the two studies reveal an interesting pattern: Spiritual consensus is not the key to peace or stability. And this seems to be true across faiths: The most violent, homogenous places include countries that are primarily Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian. It may not be true everywhere, but these data suggest something remarkable: Religious pluralism can be, and often is, compatible with peaceful societies.

Countries With Less Religious Diversity Have More Faith-Based Violence – Emma Green – The Atlantic.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

The Muslims Are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror

2014/04/05 Leave a comment

Worth reading for an alternate view on the “root causes” of extremism and terrorism by Arun Kundnani, and some of the missteps in the “war against terror.”

It does not answer why people in some communities are more drawn to extremism and violence than others. This is not unique to Muslims as other examples, such as previous patterns of violence among some Sikhs or Catholics in Northern Ireland. And many of the people implicated in terrorism and extremism are not the most disadvantaged or excluded in their communities:

This failure to engage with the real roots of violent alienation has ramifications going far beyond security. Both culturalism and reformism neglect what Kundnani calls “the basic political question thrown up by multiculturalism: how can a common way of life, together with full participation from all parts of society, be created?” Those British Muslims who “ghettoised” didn’t do so by choice but as a result of industrial collapse, discriminatory housing policies and the fear of racist violence. Identity politics was promoted and funded by local government in response to a 1970s radicalism (for instance the Asian Youth Movements, modelled on the Black Panthers), which linked anti-racism to anti-capitalism. Home secretary Willie Whitelaw supported “ethnic” TV programming on the grounds that “if they don’t get some outlet for their activities you are going to run yourself into much more trouble”. Multiculturalism, then, was not a leftist plot but a conservative move bringing together the state and community “uncles” against a much more subversive alternative. And in the last decade, while “anti-terror” resources have flowed into Muslim communities, benefiting the usual gatekeepers and provoking the envy of equally deprived non-Muslim communities, young, alienated Muslims, as likely obsessed by the Illuminati as the caliphate, are deterred from speaking – and being challenged – in public.

The Muslims Are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror – review | Books | The Guardian.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Radicalization, Religion Tagged with , , , ,

Zainab Bint Younus: Don’t speak for Muslim women. Speak to us

2014/04/03 Leave a comment

The Muslim Salafist feminist perspective on the niqab:

Muslim women who wear niqab aren’t some kind of scary “other.” We are Canadian women, as intelligent, vivacious, outspoken, and empowered as every other Canadian woman. I, for one, was raised in Canada; my childhood is complete with hiking, Tim Hortons, organic maple syrup, and hanging out at the mall with my friends (and golly, wouldn’t you believe it, my niqab didn’t do anything to stop my raucous laughter?).

The niqab isn’t a symbol of our “regressive understanding of the world,” but rather, it is primarily an act of worship to God, a symbol of identity, and finally, a conscious choice to not engage in the overwhelming, toxic environment of hypersexualization that cheapens men, women and sexuality by turning people into commodities and objects stripped of humanity.

While she has a point that Jon Kay should have spoken to niqabi women (or read the CCMW report Study dispels stereotypes about Ontario women who wear niqabs), Kay’s point in terms of the impact of the niqab on integration, and how it is perceived, is largely correct. And Younus is silent on the degree to which she interacts with others; her website suggests, as is her right, that her main focus is with respect to debates among Muslims, rather than broader Canadian issues. And her comment on the “toxic environment” illustrates an equal intolerant attitude to the one she condemns.

Zainab Bint Younus: Don’t speak for Muslim women. Speak to us | National Post.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

Baroness Warsi Speaks Out On Islamophobia, Richard Dawkins, Bingo Posters And ‘Racist’ Ukip

2014/04/02 Leave a comment

A largely positive piece on Baroness Warsi, UK Minister for Faith in the Communities Department:

The peer herself doesn’t seem bothered by the brickbats. “Politics is a pretty ruthless place and it’s not the kind of place which you’d choose for a good work-life balance,” she tells me, with a shrug of her shoulders, during our chat at Lancaster House. “If you’re going to come into politics and try not to upset anybody, and stand on the sidelines, then you might as well go off and be an accountant. I came into politics to make a difference.”

Baroness Warsi Speaks Out On Islamophobia, Richard Dawkins, Bingo Posters And ‘Racist’ Ukip.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →