Allison Addicott

Some thoughts on Haiti:  How to give, where to give…what kind of support do you want to provide?

It has been over a week since the devastating quake in Haiti.  The size of Haiti as a nation state alone – small – has rendered the need for a particularly global response. As the world “shrinks” ever more we can observe the future of global emergency services in the Haitian rescue models.  Non-governmental organizations, governmental organizations, worldwide services, and faith-based emergency services have come together in the attempt to care for the victims of the natural disaster in that tiny island.

Hundreds of organizations now clamor for our attention, from Hope for Haiti to the bloom of dozens of start-ups on Facebook alone. At the genesis of this effort, those of us outside Haiti received warnings to be cautious about where and to whom to direct funds for Haitian relief.  Few of us are truly knowledgeable about the fiscal health, administrative efficacy, and on-the-ground strength of most charity organizations. So, does one just pony up to the loudest voice, give through faith-based services via one’s local faith community, log onto Facebook and pick and choose? How to make this decision?

While Haiti is still in the initial stages of basic recovery, many of us are thinking about how to sustain the re-building effort over the next months and possibly years. Even more importantly, with this long-term vision, one might think broadly of the variety of ways one can support the Haitian aid effort. Perhaps, for example, one is particularly concerned about women and girls in Haiti. Consider contacting the Global Fund for Women – find out what they are doing for women. Further, issues of human trafficking and slavery – particularly with girls in Haiti rise up already. Leaders of anti-slavery groups have begun to sound a high-pitched alarm on the devastation the global sex trade may bring upon this generation of young Haitian girls.  Visit Abolish Slavery or Not for Sale Campaign to learn how each has begun to work on the ground in Haiti to address this ever-increasing problem.

If one considers more focused giving streams … one must have solid information from reputable sources. One place to start is with the analysis provided by organizations such as Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator generates lists of various “charities” according to a variety of measurements. The organization pulls together these lists from across a broad swath of philanthropic endeavors…from the Clinton Foundation to Habitat for Humanity to small more locally-based charities.  Basic analytics, such as pie charts, show up within a few clicks.  The pie charts, in theory, represent funding levels and the ratio of program expenses to administrative costs. Charity Navigator also allows for comment threads on specific charities and the strengths or weaknesses of each.

Another organization endeavoring to sustain and improve the efficacy of charitable organizations through analysis and accountability is the American Institute of Philanthropy. Founded by Daniel Borochoff in 1992, AIP describes itself as “fiercely independent.” Borochoff serves as a nationally-recognized voice in the assessment and analysis of charitable organizations and the actions of such organizations. One of the first tools AIP offers is a listing of what it considers “top” or “best rated” charities – classifying charities by purpose and then assigning a grade, such as “A” or “B”.

These two clearinghouse organizations are just basic starting points for you and your household to plan a long-term strategy. Do the research until you feel ready to commit.  This is your money. In this way, if humans can begin to quilt together a plan that a.) works now and on the ground, followed by b.) a second round of more articulated giving, the effort to rebuild Haiti might be realized through the combined skill sets of organizations doing what each does best.  Working together carefully but with intention, we can set up the relief effort for the long-term.

Readers:  Please leave a comment if you would like to share some of the results of your personal research.  I will compile your gathered wisdom into a future post. Thanks!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/4290740190/

from flickr user Soldiers Media Center

Greetings in the New Year

The state of religion, politics, and global affairs continues to shift in powerful ways. In some of my recent posts, I have given space to issues of “religious freedom”. Part of this analysis continues the original thread established with Faith: The Flip Side’s initial post, “Do We Live in a Post-Secular World?” Thus, the essence of that question continues to be examined. Not seeking to be inflammatory, but rather thoughtful, it is the very fact of how religion — and freedom to exercise public and private freedoms, is consistently under various forms of challenge. As such, religious “tolerance” or “intolerance” shapes public discourse, whether one is a “believer” or “non-believer.”

In late December, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life released a lengthy and meticulously crafted study.  Weighing in at a good 72 pages, the title is: Global Restrictions on Religion. The authors and research associates claim it to be the first of its kind.  Whether it is or not, my take is that this study is not only good, but it is important.  And I will share with you just a few reasons why I think it is groundbreaking.

1)      It establishes benchmarks for future studies of all kinds.

2)      The researchers and authors took the time to think through some of their own blind spots and assumptions.

3)      A panel of respected folks in this field agrees on its strengths, weaknesses, yet overall validity.

1.) The authors and researchers, while culling, recording, and analyzing data, used a variety of governmental sources.  They claim that the data represents over 99% of the world’s population as present in 198 countries from mid-2006 to mid-2008. Further, they decided to give weight to two primary forms (or sources) of restrictions on religious action/expression/behavior. Governmental and authoritarian “top-down” limitations form one half of the measures.  The other half of the method looks at social hostilities. This thus recognizes not just governmental requirements, but also the kind of intra-societal behaviors like “sectarian” violence, hate actions/crimes…expressions that measure those manifestations of a society’s unwillingness to tolerate difference within the population.

Quoting directly from the study’s Executive Summary they summarize this portion of the methodology:

“The goal was to devise quantifiable, objective measures that could be combined into two comprehensive indices, the Government Restrictions index and the Social Hostilities index. Future editions of the indices will be able to chart changes and trends over time.”

Thus, this study will enable less comprehensive studies to wield greater insight and information based upon the breadth of this work.  Future analysts will benefit from the possibility of comparing changes and charting similarities through time and political/cultural shifts.

2.) Much of  the clarity of the Pew report is, again, based in the questions and method. Recognizing that “freedom” defies a definition and cannot be quantified within a culture, let alone cross-culturally, they jettisoned the attempt to measure “religious freedom”. Defining what restrictions exist in a country is a measurable goal, and that is the path taken here. In addition, the researchers make clear that the study does not attempt to explain the restrictions, to judge how justifiable restrictions might be, or to determine any kind of origin, cultural or otherwise, of restrictions or hostilities.

They also re-affirm the commitment to a sole quantifying goal. “[This study] does not capture the other side of the coin – the amount of religious dynamism, diversity and expression in each country.” Similarly,  the Pew study does not include North Korea. All forms of information were apparently too difficult to locate or verify, let alone confirm.  Lastly, the study recognizes the US’s cultural bias in the very crafting of the questions.  Our culture values “freedom”. The entire study recognizes that this is the analytical lens through which it examines the data. Thus, while the study will set forth benchmarks, it does not claim to acquire “evidence” or “wrongdoing” as a goal.

Once released, the Pew Forum held a seminar and panel discussion with various thought leaders and media folks.  The authors were able to respond to a variety of inquiries, to further explain their methods, the outcomes, as well as problems – expected or unexpected – in producing this important study.

In my next post I will look at two things: the questions posed by those professionals, and the basic findings of the study itself.

Photo by Plum Village - walking in support of religious freedom in Vietnam

A  number of human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are closely monitoring a difficult situation in Vietnam at present. Monks and nuns who lived in Bat Nha Monastery in Lam Dong province were, according to numerous sources including the AP and UPI, forced out of their home by Vietnamese authorities in a police attack on the compound in September. Reports of abuse and injury abound. Tension continues to mount as the international scale of the drama unfolds.

Hundreds of members of the Bat Nha Monastery now face an expulsion deadline of December 31 from what has been a temporary shelter in a pagoda, Phuoc Hue, located in the same region. Police raided the group again at Phuoc Hue in mid-December. The group’s leaders now call on French authorities to grant them temporary asylum in France. On December 21^st representatives from a sister monastery in Paris and other delegates from the Buddhist community of Thich Nhat Hanh in France near Bordeaux, met with French officials including Francois Zimmeray, France’s Ambassador for Human Rights, to request the temporary asylum for the persecuted group in Vietnam.  The officials vowed to support the group, and to work with the Vietnamese government to provide a solution.

After the raids in September, the European Union, a large source of aid for Vietnam, has monitored the problem. Released November 26^th , a lengthy statement from the European Parliament criticized the violence of the Vietnamese government in forcibly attacking the approximately 400 members of the peaceful community at Bat Nha. Further, the resolution sharply requested Vietnamese authorities to end their attempts to suppress freedom of religion. The initial points of the resolution outlined the EU’s assessment of the situation:

C. ”Whereas on 27 September 2009 hundreds of young Buddhists from Bat Nha Monastery were violently attacked and beaten and their monastery vandalized, while the State authorities and police ignored their plea for help; whereas other monks who found refuge in the Phuoc Hue Temple were subjected to physical violence and harassment by the police; whereas the monks are facing the risk of expulsion by the government on the grounds that they have been occupying Bat Nha Monastery without permission or prior registration.”

D. “Whereas the assault on the monastery is considered by many to be linked to the 10-Point proposal for religious reform which Thich Nhat Hanh presented to Vietnam’s President Nguye Minh Treit in 2007;

E. “Whereas all religious groups must be authorized by the Government and overseen by a government-appointed management committees, and whereas many religious organizations face a ban and persecution of their members if they wish to remain independent of the government.”

Further points of the resolution call upon the Vietnamese officials to completely end the violent harassment and persecution of the group.  Further, the EU pointed out the numerous forms of international law, and the United Nations Security Council fundamental agreements to abide by such laws that protect freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom to gather. In point 4 the resolution states:

4. “(The EU) Calls for the cessation of all persecution and harassment, and for monks and nuns to be allowed to practice Buddhism in the tradition of the Thich Nhat Hanh Buddhist community in Bat Nha and elsewhere”, and lastly,

7. “Calls on the government of Vietnam, in view of Vietnam’s role as a member of the UN Security Council, to issue a standing invitation to UN special rapporteurs, particularly those on freedom of expression, religious freedom, torture, human rights defenders, and violence against women, and to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.”

With regard to the Bat Nha community, it maintains close ties with Thich Nhat Hanh’s community in Bordeaux. Vietnam and France are historically intertwined from the colonization of Vietnam by France in the 19th century.  Thich Nhat Hanh, widely-recognized author and teacher, honored for bringing Buddhism to the West, has lived in exile in France since the late 1960’s. Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1967,  Hanh’s work in non-violence and peace developed during the Vietnam war. Since that time, he has written hundreds of books, and has taught at major American universities. In 1993 his visit to New York compelled the mayor to call for that day as a “Day of Reconciliation” for the city. He travels extensively to teach and lecture.

For futher information about the current situation, you can visit the website for the members of Bat Nha, including a video.

photo by flickr user channai 166

Recently released, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life offers up a “quantitative analysis”  that reviews many sources in its attempt to configure a review of religious restrictions by both governments and private actors on global expression and practice around the world.

This study is welcome but also a bit unwieldy…and it openly addresses some of the fundamental methodological weaknesses of its effort. At first glance, this study will need to provide a sound definition of “restriction” itself.

Prior to offering more analysis and comment, we simply want to let you know where this column is leading in the next few days. Restriction itself is such an unwieldy term. By the study’s own measure, the example of North Korea, however, places that country among the most repressive in the world. Paradoxically, again, access to real information is almost impossible to attain for that nation-state.

Because we seek to provide a well-conceived and good analysis, this post stands as but an introduction to addressing more of the complications of Pew’s extensive study.

Launching again into a vibrant  discussion of globalization and its worldwide waves, here we can simply outline  the long and important story of Rebiya Kadeer.  Anyone with an interest in the  freedom of religion,  issues of autonomy and self-determination will find Kadeer a compelling  figure.  Along with such charismatic leaders as  Aung San Suu Kyi, in Burma, and the Dalai Lama, in July of this year Kadeer rose to a higher level of notoriety on the international stage.  During July, her story and that of the Uighur people appeared in numerous places. One of the most recent was an interview in Foreign Policy (July 2009 by Anne Lowery).

Rebiya Kadeer by flickr user European Parliament

During the month of July riots exploded in the western part of China (Urumqi) between the majority population (Han Chinese) and the Uighur (wee-gur) minority. The level of violence and the number of deaths remains a highly disputed figure. Both Chinese officials and representatives of Uighurs abroad indicate that many hundreds of people either lost their lives or were wounded in the clashes.

How does Kadeer fit into the current discussion about religious freedom and human rights? In this case, Kadeer is considered to be an international leader, as the President of the World Uighur Congress, with its most central concern as that of Xinjiang, a Western region of China. Uighurs are a both an ethnic and religious Muslim minority, and they seek freedom of speech, religion, and autonomy under the current rule of Beijing.

Formerly a highly successful business woman in the Xinjiang region of China, Kadeer spent more than 5 years jailed in China. Many in the US, including Congress, called for her release. Kadeer was granted her freedom in 2005 as a result of the international attention given her imprisonment.  She now lives in exile on the East Coast. Still, many in the West remain unfamiliar with Kadeer. In her self-penned piece that appeared in the July 8th, 2009 issue of  The Wall Street Journal, Kadeer explicitly spoke out to U.S. authorities,  “The US has a key role to play in this process. It has always spoken out on behalf of the oppressed; this is why it has been a leader in presenting the Uighur case to the Chinese government. At this critical juncture, the US must condemn the violence in Urumqi and establish a consulate in Urumqi. A consulate can act as a beacon of freedom in an environment of fierce repression and monitor the daily human rights abuses perpetrated against the Uighhurs.”

Kadeer is also the subject of a documentary, Ten Conditions of Love by Australian filmmaker Jeff Daniels. She has also written an autobiography.

We encourage all readers to be well informed and to draw his or her conclusions based upon personal research. Many resources are available for further information about Rebiya Kadeer.  Wikipedia offers an extensive bibliography. For purposes of balance we provide a link to one China-based report from that week in July.

We are global.

GettyImage by Erlend Robaye - copyright, not for use without express permission

Today I am going to be just a bit self-referential.  The goal here is to examine globalization, communication, politics, and religion. The project of Faith:The Flip Side at The Washington Times Communities, as with The Future: Religion, Politics, and Culture, is to speak to an audience that can and does access information anywhere in the world.  I presuppose the global audience as my audience.  Well, the year-end stats prove that I am achieving that goal.

Thus, in approaching the end of 2009, I want to share a kind of celebratory roll-call of those visitors who have made this project work…in a very short period of time. We have created a community that includes readers from these diverse points:

United Kingdom…Trinidad and Tobago…Canada

Republic of Korea…Sweden…Malaysia…Slovenia

Australia…Denmark…Poland…Grenada

Turkey…India…Netherlands

Russian Federation…Brazil…Germany

and cities?

Berlin…New York…San Francisco…Washington DC

Vancouver BC…Mountain View, CA…Etc, etc.

Thanks again, to you…to all my readers…I appreciate your contribution to this conversation.  It is an important one and it is critical that we engage these issues together, now and in the future.  Here is to a great New Year, 2010.  The future looks better all the time.

After watching Tom Friedman of the New York Times discuss with Charlie Rose the updated version of Friedman’s book, “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” I have been thinking more about the tension between the ideas of “The Decline of the American Empire” and “The Rise of China”.  President Obama’s recent trip abroad to seemed to bring these two entirely separate conversations into one coalescing stream.  Indeed, as Friedman noted, the media lens cast upon much of the US diplomacy was one invoking that specific power-balance gaze. An attractive and simple contrast to support reporting, over-simplifying the rise or fall of either power into a winner-take- all kind of dualism fails to account for the vast spectrum of issues each nation addresses at both domestic and foreign policy levels.

Similarly, Josef Joffe’s recent article, “The Default Power: The False Prophecy of America’s Decline” in Foreign Affairs (Sept/Oct 2009) reminds us that the declaration of the death of “US” primacy on the global level may be too loud and strident when compared to the statistics at hand. He, further, gives a kind of historiography of this myth, with hard and fast stats to back up his doubts as to this most recent iteration of the death knell.  Thus, as Friedman responded to Charlie Rose with a “maybe” when asked whether or not China was going to jump onstage as the “next great superpower,” Joffe provides further supporting evidence to question the assumption that the US is incontrovertibly on the way down as “China rises”.

Without laundry-listing the various terms and political circumstances to which Joffe points, he sums up this attitude and its variants with the notion of “declinism” and “declinists”. One  might add another concept here as a reason the US culture tends to engage in such self-abrogating woes. The word? “Apocalypse”.  Or, an even better eyeball twister: “eschatological” (the end of times). Both terms gain much of their current meaning from strains of Judeo-Christian theology.  Let’s face it, it is common for folks in the US to somehow backload reason with a haunting notion one day all will come tumbling down as it so often does in nursery rhymes from London Bridge to Humpty Dumpty.  Thus, even if we consider the evidence before us today in the United States of financial shifts and economic stress, “declinism”, according to Joffe, remains part of the very mythic fabric of our national self-image.

What might we call into question when talking about the global balance of power? Beyond the immediate financial and military issues, we must also look a bit further at those freedoms  related to political expression, religion, and the access to well-being for those who are not among the most elite. For, when we begin to think about which powers may or may not increase their relative “gravity” on world affairs, we simultaneously crack open the door to that power’s motivations, beliefs, etc.  We do well to consistently assess, as humans have for centuries, the nature of both the positive and negative aspects of any culture. To the extent that any nation can be viewed in three dimension, not simply as an “enemy” all parties involved benefit.

In forthcoming posts, we will pull this thread further, taking a look at how globalization affects human rights, freedom of expression, and faith practices.

c. Allison Addicott 2009

flickr photo by aussiegall

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiegall/759309122/

After watching Tom Friedman of the New York Times discuss with Charlie Rose the updated version of his book, “Hot, Flat, and Crowded” I have been thinking more about the tension between the ideas of “The Decline of the American Empire” and “The Rise of China”.  To opine on this topic one must first make a “boilerplate-ment”, and it must read:  that which you will read is my opinion, and to actually hit every factor or variable in this complex situation would result in a text too long to read.

Josef Joffe’s recent article, “The Default Power: The False Prophecy of America’s Decline” in Foreign Affairs (Sept/Dec 2009) reminds us that the declaration of the death of “US” primacy may be too loud and strident when compared to the statistics at hand. He, further, gives a kind of historiography of this myth, with hard and fast stats to back up his doubts as to this most recent iteration of the death knell.  Thus, as Friedman responded to Charlie Rose with a “maybe” when asked whether or not China was going to be a kind of “next great superpower” I have found further supporting evidence (other than my own) to question the assumption that the US is incontrovertibly on the way down as “China rises”.

For my purposes, I am interested in digging deeper into the political relationship as it may have consequences for other tangential freedoms flowing from those “sensibilities” of power.  And those freedoms are related to political expression, religion, and the access to power for those who are not among the most elite.

More soon.

While President Obama met with Chinese leader Hu Jintao this week, the Dalai Lama flew to Europe. Perhaps a symbolic itinerary for His Holiness, he visited regionally autonomous areas of Italy, the same status the Tibetan leader seeks to establish for Tibet within China.  In an exclusive online interview, China analyst Ming Wan of George Mason University gave his insight about the results of President Obama’s key meeting with China’s leader Hu Jintao to Daniel Sagalyn, a producer with The NewsHour on PBS.  

Speaking of a “rising China”, a “confident China” Ming traced a silhouette that included the nuances of the nascent relationship between China and the United States.  He offered that people in China do indeed “like” President Obama, and that most people find his background “interesting”.  Still, how will these positive indicators begin to guide the growth and thus determine the form of the next four years of relations between the US and China?  The government strives to present a forward-looking face even while many aspects of its domestic policies possess the traditionally strong authoritarian guidelines they have exercised for decades.  Thus, foreign policy may or may not be swayed by popular affirmation for the new US President.

 Overarching policy goals for China, according to Ming, would be for the US to declare an embargo on delivering arms to Taiwan, and to turn down the volume on concerns for Tibet and the Dalai Lama’s quest to negotiate a unified voice for Tibet – as well as regional autonomy. From the side of the US, he suggested that one primary goal would be a shift to balance the value of the yuan to correct current imbalance, and make trade more equitable.  Ming further suggested that these “core” goals would most likely be set aside in the interest of simply setting a “tone” for the next four years of relations.

by flickr user katarina 2353

 Human rights concerns are always at the forefront of US relations with China, but as the two countries continue to be intertwined by financial binds and corporate interests, taking on delicate issues of Tibet or other areas of religious or human rights were not necessarily the focus of this round of talks.  As reported on the Dalai Lama’s website in an article posted by Guy Dinmore of the Financial Times, the Dalai Lama expressed thanks to President Obama for his “support” and stated that he hoped to resume talks with Beijing in the near future.  Leaders from Tibet and China engaged this past July in Geneva in hopeful but closed sessions hosted by the Fellowship for Reconciliation. 

 Finally, the Office of His Holiness reports that the postponed US-Tibet meeting may take place as soon as next month.  As noted by Dinmore and the Office of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama expressed once again from Rome his perspective that peace and stability cannot flow from “the barrel of a gun” (a Maoist saying) but rather the kind of non-violent approach to a settlement the Tibetan government-in-exile embraces is the best hope for the future.

 copyright Allison Addicott 2009 

Q. Jason, please describe what you do at the Islamic Cultural Center of Northern California.

A. I’m helping to develop our expanded arts and culture program.

Q. Would you mind taking a moment to define “secularism”? To discuss the use of the term we need to define what we mean when we use it.

A.  A difficult question. The following represents my own view, not necessarily that of ICCNC.

I would define secularism as the exclusion of any reference to a transcendental reality from the public square. There has been much discussion about secularism excluding references to God or other religious beliefs or practices from public life. What hasn’t been talked about as much, but may be just as important, is secularism’s exclusion of all references to anything that might smack of metaphysics or spirituality.

Every culture establishes certain disciplines as being authoritative for policies that have a real-life, public impact (governmental decisions, business, health care, etc). In Western societies, the tendency is to look to science, not religion or traditional philosophy. The scientific method provides the basis for the legitimacy of political or business policies.

This epistemology has a cultural impact. Holidays such as Christmas or Easter have very little religious content outside of home, church or private school. Changing the focus from baby Jesus in the crib to Santa Claus by the chimney is a good example of how much the West has secularized religious traditions.

The most important aspect of secularism is in connecting ethics with society. What are we, as a people? Are we a community pursuing a common good, or a collection of individuals pursuing our own subjective views of reality? We talk about human rights, justice and freedom. What are their foundations? What distinguishes a good that’s a right versus something that’s just desirable? How do we balance competing and contradictory claims about rights? As individuals, we may consult religious or spiritual traditions to answer personal ethical questions. But in public life, we don’t have a common religious, spiritual or philosophical reference frame for answering questions of public ethics.

Some people are tempted to adopt fundamentalism. That’s not a realistic or humane option, in the light of modern science and America’s cultural diversity. On the other hand, science seems to provide, at best, an inadequate foundation for public ethics and culture. Values and meaning escape the scientific method. We can’t analyse them like frogs or water molecules.

This is a problem that all societies–and all religions–are struggling with. After 9-11, people have been asking, “Is Islam compatible with modernity?” But before 9-11, writers, scholars and artists were asking that same question about Christianity, Judaism and other religions. Writers as diverse as Friedrich Nietzsche, T.S. Eliot, Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Carl Jung, Russell Kirk, and Thomas Merton gave very different answers. And if we look at contemporary internal discussions within Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or other traditions, we see they are all hashing out similar problems about tradition and modernity, faith and reason. As a convert from Christianity to Islam, I see some fundamental similarities in the challenge of secularism for both religions. The in-house debates are surprisingly similar.

Q. Could you address how your work does or does or does not operate with this understanding of secularism?

A. An awareness of the influence, strength, and limits of secularism forms the backdrop of my work.

At ICCNC, we’re setting up programs to make all of the different parts of Islamic culture accessible to the SF Bay Area. We’re interested in the full range of arts—theater, film, calligraphy, poetry and spoken word, etc-and all presented in classical or contemporary forms, or a mixture of both.

Current discussions on Islam overemphasize politics. Politics is only one small aspect of any religion or spiritual tradition. Islam, like other religions, seeks to engage all of the various parts of the human personality, especially the imagination and the sense of beauty. Modernity has many advantages, but secularism has left many people hungering for a deep appreciation of the aesthetic and mystical sides of reality. By addressing that desire, we hope help bring more of a balance between secularism and spirituality.

Our arts and culture program also addresses ideas, mainly through Islam and Authors (Van Boom’s newest programmatic brainchild) . “I and A” creates a space where we can freely hash out the problems of modernity and tradition, science and spirituality, and freedom and community. 

Q. Do you think that conflict between the world of Islam and contemporary communities of differing faiths has been entirely a negative thing?  In other words, how might conflict actually support the transmission of knowledge that in the long-run will be a benefit to all cultures involved?

A. Actually, the lines of conflict are not between a unitary “world of Islam” and non-Muslim religions.  In the Balkans and Lebanon, religious alliances and conflicts are complex, shifting and fluid. India is also complex–Sunnis, Shias, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and Christians. In Russia, the government is against Wahhabi radicalism, but is friendly to traditional forms of Islam that have deep roots in the lands of the Russian federation.

Many pundits, journalists and politicians are allergic to this real-world complexity. It’s just human nature–we all like to split the world into simple dichotomies.

Still, there certainly is conflict between non-Muslim and Muslim groups. But that’s part (although the most dramatic part) of a larger story of encounter and interaction. Westerners are doing business in Muslim lands, and Muslim businesspeople and professionals come to the West. Rumi is a bestseller in the US and Turkey. There are Muslim immigrants in Sweden, and Catholic Filipino migrant workers in Saudi Arabia. There’s curry-wurst in Germany, and McDonald’s in Egypt. The four things that traditionally bring people together–food, business, school, and marriage–are still in operation.

What conflict does is make inter-faith understanding urgent. Even if someone thinks religion is a fairy tale, he or she must admit that its a fairy tale with big, secular consequences. There is a huge demand by Westerners for information about Islam. Likewise, the pressures of modernity, the lingering aftermath of colonialism, and the West’s military interventions in the Middle East, have created a big interest among Muslims about understanding the West.

Q. Going back to your own work, when you think about launching an “Authors’ Series”  what hope do you have for the project at the local and global level?

A. Islam and Authors is designed to stimulate awareness and discussion about new and important books and plays on Islam. In the media, we often see sweeping generalizations about Islam and what Muslims think, but very little reporting on developments in Muslim thought and research by specialists on Islam. Islam and Authors aims to correct that.

Our primary focus is the local level. We publicize Islam and Authors throughout the San Francsico Bay Area, and our invitation is to anyone who has an interest in Islam or Muslims. We don’t just have an author read a chapter from his or her book. We have an on-stage conversation to explore the book’s issues in a lively and dramatic way. Our questions-and-answer session afterwards promotes full audience participation. In these two ways, we really want to engage people’s minds. And when people are regularly coming to Islam and Authors events, it creates an opportunity for networking and meeting other people with like interests. We would like to see this spark a chain reaction of discussion and awareness in the Bay Area, and stir people to break with stereotypes and see things in a new way.

 We also hope this will have a similar effect on a national or even global level. That’s why we’re videotaping the on-stage conversations and making them available on YouTube and other media.