Ground Zero for Political Gain

We have become accustomed to referring to the site for the former World Trade Center as Ground Zero since the attacks in 2001. However, it seems that the area has become ground zero for new attacks, aimed, for whatever reason, at the American Islamic community. There is a plan afoot to renovate an existing building near the World Trade Center site and create a community center for the Muslim community in Manhattan. At first blush, one can understand that some folks may have to think twice about that. After all, the attacks of 2001 have forever changed the way many Americans think about the Muslims in general. It is understandable, but it is not alright to use the fears and misconceptions for political gain. Our Constitution promises religious freedom for all who choose to practice such traditions, and that includes members of the Muslim community. Isn't there a way to look at an Islamic Cultural Center near the World Trade Center as a positive sign that we are moving beyond the horror of the attacks without forgetting them? There are churches and synagogues in the area, so why not a place for the building up of the Muslim community in that neighborhood. I cannot help but think that such a center would take it upon itself to educate the public about true Islam, and not the radical fundamentalist kind that brought the towers down. I have the joy of working with students from many religious traditions, including Muslim students. I believe that good, kind and peace-loving people like them would populate the center, if it is built. When some choose to decry such a center for political gain, they wound all devout Muslims, including the students who are a part of my extended family. There is an opportunity here to write a new chapter in the book of the American experience, a chance to promote healing and an opportunity for dialogue. Let's not miss it because we are too busy trying to show how patriotic we are.

Cool Atheism

Last year some posters appeared on our campus, advertising a group for those who were tired of the "lies and delusions" of religion. It caught the attention of some students who are active in the religious life program, and they were angry and felt that they had been insulted. They did some investigating and discovered that the group, which had created a Facebook page, had just three members. We never heard anymore about the group after those posters appeared, but I know for a fact that a significant number of students harbor, or think they harbor, the sentiments expressed on that poster. That is not a new phenomenon. I remember my freshman year of college, when I had pledged a fraternity. We had to interview all of the active brothers, and one of them was a philosophy major. Since I was a Bible/Religion major, he seemed to take special delight in asking me why I had such a strong faith, and then constructing well-reasoned arguments to show why I was foolish. As a first year student, I had not yet developed the skills necessary to at least stay away from the trapdoors that a philosopher could set for me. I left the interview feeling angry, foolish and defensive. The "new" atheism that seems to be all the rage appears to have much the same effect on people of faith. They can be made to feel defensive, or, at the very least, stupid and gullible. I have even heard this new phenomenon referred as "evangelical atheism." Daniel C. Dennett, a Tufts University philosophy professor has just published a study, "Preachers Who Are Not Believers," published in the journal "Evolutionary Psychology". It includes interviews with five anonymous Protestant ministers who no longer believe in God in the traditional sense. Though he uses that as fodder for calling them at least agnostic, not all of his subjects agree with him.
One of those interviewed "came out" in the press and released his name. He serves as a campus minister at a well-known university. He says he still believes in God, but not the God who sits on a throne in the sky. To him, God is a process of mysterious cosmic creativity that makes for greater love and justice. He thinks of God as a force working within human beings and nature, and he sees his role as trying to imitate that divine character whose greatest exemplar is Jesus. I think there are many Christians who agree with what he says about his own beliefs. Those on the right would call such people agnostics, and those on the far left would welcome them as fellow non-believers of a sort. When I was in divinity school, we used to joke that we could never preach what we learned in our Bible and theology classes. People in the pews would simply pass out, or worse! Dennett plans to interview many more clergy and publish a larger study about clergy who, to his way of thinking, have ceased to be believers. But does admitting that one's faith is not so simplistic as it once was mean that one has ceased believing? In the coming year, I hope to facilitate discussions between those who consider themselves people of faith and those who define themselves as atheists or non-believers. It's the only way to move past the name-calling and misunderstandings. And perhaps people on both sides will come away with a broader understanding of what "faith" means.