My Word: One step closer to freedom from fear
(Orlando Sentinel, May 15, 2013)
By Navtej Singh Khalsa
Years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed four fundamental freedoms that all people everywhere ought to enjoy: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Of the four, freedom from fear is the most difficult to deliver.
This is true for society as a whole, as the recent terrorist bombing in Boston demonstrated. Crime in general creates fear. But fear is even more prevalent among any minorities whose appearance, accent or attire makes them stand out.
I’m a Sikh. I’m a member of the world’s fifth-largest religion. I’m easily identifiable because, as part of my spiritual commitment, I wear a turban. Ninety-nine percent of those with turbans in America are Sikhs. Sikh males stand out as a ready-made target for those who wish to instill fear.
Four days after the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, a hate-filled man in Arizona killed a Sikh store owner, assuming the turban meant he was associated with the perpetrators of the 9-11 terrorist attack.
While being arrested, the killer said: “I’m a patriot and an American.” He misunderstood the identity of his victim as well as his own identity — because hate-engendered vigilantism is neither American nor patriotic.
Last year, a gunman entered a Sikh gurdwara (temple) in Wisconsin, killing six worshippers and critically wounding others. In February, a Sikh businessman in Port Orange had six bullets fired at his vehicle from a pickup. He was injured severely.
I could cite hundreds of such examples of attacks on Sikhs and other minorities. But there’s also good news. Although hate-filled people will always exist, they represent but a small fraction of an otherwise compassionate society.
My heart was touched recently when I attended a hate-crimes-prevention forum in Daytona Beach. Attendees included representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, the Florida Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, local law-enforcement agencies, educational institutions, civil-rights and other community organizations and many concerned citizens.
To a person, those present were committed to solving the hate problem.
There’s no simple answer or quick fix. But what took place in Daytona is an encouraging step toward realizing Roosevelt’s dream.
Navtej S. Khalsa is regional director of the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund and is on the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Don’t allow proselytizing at public schools
(Orlando Sentinel, May 5, 2013)
By James Coffin
On Thursday, while people across the United States were collectively praying for a divine blessing on our nation, volunteers from the Central Florida Freethought Community were disseminating atheistic materials to students in Orange County public high schools.
As a Christian clergyman and the executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida, I’m clearly on the opposite side from the literature distributors when it comes to belief in God. I don’t want atheistic materials distributed in public schools.
But here’s the paradox: The organizers of the distribution argue that public schools shouldn’t be the venue for their — or anyone else’s — handouts. They contend that whether the proselytizers are Christian, Muslim, a snake-handling sect or atheists, public schools should be off-limits for all such activity. And they think the majority agree.
If you’re a Christian, do you want your children to be proselytized at their public school by other religions or by atheists — even if it’s done passively and the promotional materials are simply made available?
If you adhere to a non-Christian religion, or you’re an atheist, do you want your children proselytized at their public school by Christians, even if done passively?
If you’re a public-school administrator, do you want your already-overflowing schedule to become even fuller because you’re having to decide which materials from which spiritual ideologies should or shouldn’t be distributed?
If you’re a teacher, do you want to referee the disputes engendered by the presence of such materials? Especially when you have to be so careful not to promote or denigrate any specific faith.
Chief organizer David Williamson says the literature distribution was to make a point: While people may not object to having their own religious materials distributed, many don’t want to grant the same privilege to everyone. It’s a valid observation.
Fairness, equal access and the nonestablishment clause of the First Amendment all suggest that students in public schools should be accessible to all proselytizers or to none.
Making public schools off-limits to all officially sanctioned proselytizing would have the decided advantage of allowing educators to focus on the prime educational objectives for which they receive their tax-funded salaries.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Prayers from diverse faiths for our nation
(Orlando Sentinel, May 1, 2013)
By Muhammad Musri
Thursday is the National Day of Prayer. It’s not a public holiday. We won’t get a paid day off from work. The mail will still be delivered. And banks will be open as usual. So what exactly is this special day?
The National Day of Prayer is merely an invitation from the U.S. president to pray for our nation, its leaders and all our fellow humans who make this remarkable country what it is. Granted society’s diversity, the prayers offered will reflect a rich array of faith traditions.
The prayers I will lead as a Muslim imam won’t employ the same words, postures and rituals as those prayers offered by my brothers and sisters of the Jewish, Christian and other faith traditions.
But the same gratitude for the privilege of being part of such a great nation, and our desire to see it become an even more perfect union, as our Constitution calls for, will be a sentiment contained in every petition, whatever the religion or ethnicity of those praying.
Such positive sentiments, I hasten to add, don’t belong exclusively to people of faith. Thus, I would encourage those who don’t pray to nevertheless join in contemplation and reflection, pondering how we might more effectively live out the dream of our nation’s founders, acknowledge the dignity and worth of every human and ensure equality and justice for all.
The process of prayer involves at least three layers of reaching. First, we reach upward to that which is beyond and above what we ourselves are. We seek a level of wisdom and insight that transcends our normal perceptions. We seek clarity, vision and a higher ideal.
Next, we reach inward, testing our beliefs and prejudices against that higher ideal. Where are we falling short, both individually and collectively? What viewpoints and attitudes need to change? What specific actions have we failed to take?
Finally, we reach outward, seeking to put into practice the ideals we’ve come to see as essential to personal fulfillment, community-building and human survival.
Each layer of the prayer process is important. But the most important is putting our prayers into practice.
Imam Muhammad Musri is president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida and a member of the advisory board of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Emotional closeness makes a difference
(Orlando Sentinel, April 1, 2013)
By Bryan Fulwider
Recently, I read several articles lamenting the slaughter of horses. I understand the concern.
A lot of people like horses. I do. We like dogs and cats, too. So, understandably, we want to ensure humane treatment for these creatures. The notion of killing them for human consumption is abhorrent to most of us.
However, what about cows, sheep and chickens? Why are certain species viewed so differently from others?
The same week I read the articles defending horses, I read that one of the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act, Sen. Robert Portman, had come out in support of gay marriage. Why? Because of the epiphany he experienced in dealing with a gay son.
He appraised the situation in the context of someone he loved dearly. Someone whose joy brought him joy, and whose pain brought him pain. Someone who was far more than a mere abstraction or statistic.
In more than 30 years of Christian ministry, I have seen many dogmatists’ views soften when their daughter, son or much-loved friend acquires a label that would once have elicited vociferous denunciation. Pregnancy outside of marriage, divorce, substance abuse — many behaviors that were viewed as a fast track to destruction — suddenly seem less deserving of blanket condemnation.
The difference? Our emotional closeness to the one involved. Race, religion, ethnicity — a long list of definers that separate us as humans — begin to melt away when we get to know the people behind the labels.
Now, back to where we started: The idea of killing and eating horses, dogs and cats is abhorrent to Americans because of our attachment to these animals. They’re like family. We know them. But what if we got to know cows, sheep and chickens?
And what if we got to know all the humans against whom we’re prejudiced? I think we’d discover they’re like us. They have strengths and weaknesses, insights and blind spots, good qualities and bad.
Moving beyond long-established prejudices is daunting. Over the centuries, various sages have advocated a simple, ingenious approach: “You know yourself, right? They are like you. So treat them the way you would want to be treated.”
It’s the Golden Rule. Maybe it should even apply to cows, sheep and chickens.
The Rev. Bryan Fulwider is co-founder of the nonprofit Building Us and president of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Rollins College versus religious liberty?
(Orlando Sentinel, March 19, 2013)
By Robert J. Ray
The headline was jolting: “Rollins boots religious group, says it violates anti-bias policy” (Orlando Sentinel, March 8). The article said the group was kicked off campus “for requiring its student leaders to be Christian and promote certain conservative beliefs.”
What? An on-campus organization, founded to promote conservative religious values, gets the boot just because it requires its officers to adhere to those values? Something’s wrong with this picture, right?
So I went to Google. I discovered that similar issues have arisen at other schools, triggered by similar anti-discrimination policies. In fact, on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the University of California Hastings College of the Law was within its rights to withhold funding from a Christian group that discriminated against gays.
Justice John Paul Stephens wrote in an opinion concurring with the majority that student organizations were free to embrace discriminatory values, but the law school “need not subsidize [such groups], give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, noted that all students at UC Hastings pay a mandatory fee that’s used to fund registered on-campus student organizations. Students shouldn’t be forced to contribute to the funding of any group that would deny them membership, she contended.
The anti-discrimination policies of Rollins College state that every on-campus student organization must allow all students to be eligible for both membership and leadership. No exceptions.
Such rigid anti-discrimination policies may be good or bad. They potentially create bizarre scenarios, such as an atheist leading a Christian club. But according to the high court, schools have the right to articulate the values and set the policies that govern their resource allocation. Student organizations can comply or operate off campus on their own dime.
It’s a problem many faith-based organizations likewise face in dealing with state and federal government. They like government money. They don’t like the strings that are attached.
But be it the government or Rollins College, requiring compliance to policy is neither persecution nor discrimination. It’s simply proof of the truism that “the one who pays the piper calls the tune.”
Robert J. Ray, a risk-management consultant, is a member of the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Shared humanity as prime identity
(Orlando Sentinel, March 13, 2013)
By James Coffin
On March 3, a bomb blast in Karachi, Pakistan, killed at least 45 people and wounded some 150 others as they exited a Shia mosque after evening prayers.
On Feb. 16, a bomb exploded in the main bazaar in the Shia section of the Pakistani city of Quetta, killing about 90 and wounding more than 200. On Jan. 10, multiple bomb attacks targeting Shias in Quetta and the Swat valley killed more than 130 and wounded about 270.
Add to these numbers hundreds of Shias killed in Pakistan during 2012, and a clear pattern emerges: Pakistan’s Shias are being systemically exterminated by what is probably a small but ruthless group of Sunni radicals.
I’m neither Pakistani nor Muslim. So it’s all too easy for me and those like me to simply turn to the next page of the newspaper or switch the TV channel when such horrors are reported. Actually, that may not even be necessary because events that are far away in terms of geography, culture and religion often scarcely rate a mention in the U.S. media.
Despite the labels we wear because of where and to whom we were born — and despite the allegiances we’ve intentionally chosen — our prime identity should be our shared humanity. Every victim in Pakistan is not just someone’s sister or brother but my sister, my brother, because we’re all humanity’s children.
Yet for the whole of recorded history, we’ve arrayed ourselves against each other on the basis of the labels we wear. Nation against nation. Culture against culture. Religion against religion. Sect against sect.
Despite advances in human knowledge, blood, death and mayhem remain our source of woe and our weapon of choice. Like a pendulum, we swing back and forth between victimhood and villainy. Today the persecuted; tomorrow the persecutor. No group can claim clean hands.
But we can do something. At the very least, we can speak up.
In today’s world of mass media and the Internet, an avalanche of condemnation of such barbarism can make more impact than we might think. We can also respond to the plaintive cries from other areas of the world where similar persecution is equally rampant.
And we can all work to counteract ignorance, bigotry and hatred right here.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: 2nd Amend.: What were framers thinking?
(Orlando Sentinel, February 10, 2013)
By Bryan Fulwider
This week Congress will begin debate on gun control. However, when we can’t even agree about the original intent of those who framed the Second Amendment, how can we determine what today’s right to keep and bear arms actually entails?
Were the framers thinking about hunters? Probably. After all, many frontiersmen survived by hunting. Were they also thinking of personal protection? Quite likely. The frontier was a dangerous place. Were they thinking of community protection? Certainly. That’s what a well-regulated militia does.
By opting for regional militias rather than a standing national army, were the Founding Fathers seeking to allay fears that a strong federal government might undermine state sovereignty? It’s probable.
But here’s the catch: Did the framers intend that ordinary citizens should employ lethal force against the government itself if they felt the government had run amok? That one’s hard to swallow — because governments just don’t make such provisions. Yet much of the gun-control debate is predicated on that assumption.
So, let’s assume that the Second Amendment is indeed based, in part, on the right of citizens to arm themselves for insurrection. Just how well has the government honored that right? Ever read about John Brown’s Raid? The Civil War? Waco?
My point is: No citizen — or group of citizens — has ever taken up arms against the U.S. government without paying dearly. It’s not a right. Never has been. Never will be.
The U.S. spends more on its military than the next-highest 15 nations combined — plus we have a vast array of law-enforcement agencies. It’s delusional to believe that privately held arms stand a chance against such unparalleled kill power.
It spits in the face of democracy to tout insurrection as a viable government-accountability mechanism. Such a perspective makes nuanced discussions about gun control impossible. It leaves millions of Americans in a perpetual state of suspicion and fear. Government itself becomes the great enemy.
The Second Amendment isn’t a veiled right to prepare a revolt against government. Clearly, however, the Constitution protects free speech, free and fair elections, and other essential democratic rights as the tools to keep government accountable and to make our imperfect but great nation even greater.
The Rev. Bryan Fulwider is a fellow at the Winter Park Institute at Rollins College and president of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Model gun discussions on religion
(Orlando Sentinel, January 17, 2013)
By Rabbi Steven Engel
“Rabbi, the debate on guns — for or against?”
“That’s the wrong conversation,” I say.
Why? Because a valid conversation would include certain agreed-upon absolutes. Simply put, the discussion on violence and guns has thus far focused on the wrong principles.
As opposed to this, religion done right has been an effective and ongoing conversation for millennia. A good religious conversation has two absolutes: the greater good and the common good.
The greater good is our highest value, and in religion this means life itself. In my tradition, virtually every Jewish rite, ritual and even commandment can be disregarded in order to protect and save a life.
The common good means that each participant enters the conversation agreeing to give up something that he wants or needs for the good of the community.
The conversation on violence and guns should go the way of religion, beginning with the Second Amendment and the freedom to bear arms. This freedom is not absolute, as no freedom is. We have freedom of speech, but we cannot cry “fire” in a crowded movie theater or slander another person.
The freedom of assembly is not absolute either. A permit is often required to assemble, and it is prohibited to assemble in certain places. Even freedom of religion has limits. Individuals are protected to practice their religion freely, but government cannot promote any one religion. There are myriad Supreme Court cases that validate that no freedom is absolute, including the right to bear arms.
Imagine, if the conversation on guns and violence went the way of religion. When talking about violence and guns, we would agree that to protect and save life is paramount, trumping all other values. We would enter the conversation willing to give up something we want for the betterment of our society, realizing that we are all affected by what happens in society no matter how much we want to cloister ourselves away.
These are the absolutes that would make it a truly productive conversation. Perhaps the same religious principles should be applied to all of our political discourse. Who knows, we may actually be able to get something done.
Rabbi Steven Engel is senior rabbi of Congregation of Reform Judaism in Orlando and a member of the advisory board of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: We need to remember King’s legacy
(Orlando Sentinel, January 13, 2013)
By James Coffin
Forty-five years ago this spring, the most high-profile figure of the U.S. civil-rights movement was cut down by an assassin’s bullet.
At the time of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s death, about 60 percent of our current U.S. population hadn’t yet been born. Millions more were too young to have any personal recollection of the man or his mission. So keeping his legacy alive requires effort.
We would do well to remember that …
For the first 300 years of sustained European activity in North America, blacks were slaves. That ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, 150 years ago this month.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, gave citizenship to all freed slaves, and the 15th Amendment, adopted in 1870, gave voting rights to black males. (All women were given the right to vote in 1920.) Tragically, the discriminatory legal doctrine of “separate but equal” soon emerged, holding sway for decades.
In its 1954 watershed decision, Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court finally acknowledged that separate is, by definition, not equal. That decision opened the floodgates of opportunity for civil-rights advancement. Fortuitously, that same year, King made his public debut by becoming pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala.
The next 14 years witnessed the convergence of King’s talent and tenacity, the mood and momentum of the times, and the determination and dreams of thousands of activists, many of whom had been working quietly but resolutely for decades. The result was an unprecedented and unparalleled period of civil-rights progress.
But King didn’t advocate just for his own race. He sought justice for all. He fought against poverty wherever it existed. He decried war. For his efforts, he became, at age 35, the youngest recipient (to that point) of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. He lost his life at age 39.
As a society, we face the challenge of appropriately celebrating the great advances that have been made without losing sight of what remains to be done. To their credit, an array of organizations in Central Florida use the MLK holiday each year, Jan. 21, as an opportunity to reflect on and recommit to MLK’s vision for a more equitable world for all people.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida. For a schedule of events today through Jan. 26, go to mlkorlando.com.
**********
My Word: We need harmony in our national house
(Orlando Sentinel, December 12, 2012)
By Bryan Fulwider
Recently, a crowd gathered to dedicate a new Habitat for Humanity house in Altamonte Springs. It was a first — a joint project involving Christian churches, Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques, appropriately called Harmony House.
At the dedication, spiritual leaders from participating congregations shared blessings from their sacred texts and offered prayers. When Congressman John Mica handed the Miller family the key to their new home, he assured them that it must be the most “blessed” house in the region.
Penny Seater, executive director for Seminole-Apopka Habitat for Humanity, suggested to the congressman that if people from diverse faith traditions could work together to accomplish such a task, polarized legislators in Washington needed to follow their example. I agree.
The philosophy statement of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida provides an approach that serves as a road map for interfaith ventures. I believe it has positive potential for politics, as well. The statement begins with these words:
“The United States is a nation of great diversity. Our population represents nearly every region and religion of the world. Such differences can erect barriers, stir up prejudice and create social tension. But such differences can also endear and enrich. The Interfaith Council of Central Florida seeks to harness the positive potential.”
The statement goes on to acknowledge that we often have sharp differences in our beliefs, and that we even explain life’s ultimate realities in vastly different ways. Sometimes, not unlike the political world, our claims may be mutually exclusive — yet, we agree to disagree, respectfully, as friends.
We acknowledge that despite our disagreements, we share a significant array of core values. The key is the commitment to highlight and rally around such values that are socially, morally and spiritually important to us all. The new Harmony House is but one example, and I believe an important symbol of what needs to be done in the national house of our country.
Whether it’s religion or politics, agreeing to disagree isn’t a problem when we choose to do it respectfully, as friends, always careful to safeguard our prime goals. In politics, these goals are to ensure that this great nation is truly indivisible and that it does indeed provide liberty and justice for all.
The Rev. Bryan Fulwider is a fellow at the Winter Park Institute at Rollins College and president of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Does morality demand a minimum wage?
(Orlando Sentinel, November 30, 2012)
By Robert J. Ray
A friend of mine likes to say, “We all agree there’s such a thing as too hot, and such a thing as too cold. The challenge is to agree on what temperature the room should be.”
But when it comes to a legally established minimum wage, not everyone agrees that there’s too high and too low. Instead, an increasing number are calling for the minimum wage to be abolished. Wages, they argue, should be based on what the market will bear.
From a purely capitalistic perspective, I find that argument appealing. The only problem is that my parents, my pastors and other influential people instilled in me the idea that all human conduct should be morally governed.
Now I’ll admit that the ancient holy writings of the world’s various religions don’t address the issue of a minimum wage. But they do show deep concern for fairness and compassion in employment. Let me cite just one example.
The Hebrew Torah states: “Pay [your employee] his wages each day before sunset, because he is poor and is counting on it. Otherwise he may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin.”
Guilty of sin? Just for not paying a cash-strapped employee on the day he did the work? Such strong words certainly suggest a deep divine concern for the employee. But back to the minimum wage.
Suppose corporate profitability is good, but the job market is unbelievably bad. Suppose large numbers are willing to work 14 hours each day without a break just for the after-work privilege of scavenging in the company’s Dumpster for the food scraps thrown out from the executive dining room.
Granted the level of desperation, that’s what the market will bear. But is it moral? Especially if the company is earning good — or even unprecedented — profits.
Virtually nobody would think it moral for any employees to work such long hours for the paltry compensation described above. Likewise, virtually nobody would think it reasonable for every employee to expect the same paycheck as the CEO.
So deep down we all have some sense of too high and too low when it comes to wages. The challenge is deciding what’s fair and compassionate. Clearly, what the market will bear isn’t a dependable indicator of what’s moral.
Robert Ray, a risk-management consultant, is a member of the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Should all free speech be exported?
(Orlando Sentinel, October 30, 2012)
By Jasbir Singh Bhatia
As the dust settles following the international furor caused by the posting of the movie trailer “Innocence of Muslims” on YouTube, it seems a good time to ask: Should all free speech be exported?
In the United States, unfettered freedom of speech is a cherished right, and the making of this deplorable trailer is seen merely as part of that freedom. But does the right of free expression in our national context — which includes even hate speech — justify the export of such material to countries where norms are so different from ours?
Clearly, the goal of those responsible for making this trailer was to inflame the religious sentiments of Muslims. It worked. The result was mass demonstrations, property destruction, senseless violence, death to protesters themselves and at least “cover” for the murder of four innocent Americans.
Do Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other electronic-communication vehicles have any obligation concerning the global exportation of free speech when it’s so likely to incite violence and endanger the property and lives of locals and Americans overseas?
Twitter has said yes — at least in some circumstances. Thus it recently blocked the messages of a neo-Nazi group that has been banned by German authorities because of its extremism. Twitter officials say it’s the first time it has withheld content in a specific country, and it was done because of a German government request. But do companies have any obligation to self-regulate even without such requests?
The freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment has consistently been interpreted by the courts to mean that government, under most circumstances, won’t prevent you from saying whatever you want to say. But the Constitution does not say the commercial middlemen who convey an individual’s speech to a larger audience are obligated to transmit anything and everything someone might express.
Freedom of expression is an important right. But technology and our global community have complicated the playing field. Do we as Americans — as corporations and as individuals — need to seriously consider the advisability and our moral responsibility before indiscriminately exporting certain types of expression, even though such expression may be fully protected by law within our own national setting?
Jasbir Singh Bhatia is a past president of the Sikh Society of Central Florida and a member of the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Does God choose football’s winners?
(Orlando Sentinel, October 10, 2012)
By Robert J. Ray
In the little town of Kountze, Texas., the high-school football cheerleaders have been carrying banners bearing biblical messages. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has objected. Now the case is in the courts (“Biblical banners banned under Friday night lights,” Orlando Sentinel, Friday).
The banners bore such motivational slogans as “If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans 8:31.” And “Thanks be to God which gives us Victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 15:57.”
Much as I commend creativity, I think the cheerleaders should dispense with the banners. First, the third commandment (Exodus 20:7) says, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.” While the Ten Commandments come to us via the Hebrew scriptures, almost all religions see them as at least wise admonitions.
I don’t believe the commandment is talking solely about the words that escape our lips when we smash our thumb with a hammer or get splatter-bombed by a bird. Rather, I think the commandment prohibits attaching the name of God to anything that doesn’t deserve such an honor.
I don’t think God should be blamed when their team is having a bad night. Nor should he be credited for their victories.
Second, don’t the banners suggest to the teams that lose that God has abandoned them? Or that they’d better shape up spiritually if they ever hope to win? Or does God just not like them as much?
Third, what about the Jew, Muslim or Hindu who’s playing for Kountze? At every game, the banners claim that the victory has come through Jesus Christ. Yet the better the student plays, the more the credit will go to a religious figure he doesn’t believe in.
Think how a Christian might feel if playing on a predominantly Hindu team where the cheerleaders’ banners all say, “Our victory comes only through Vishnu.”
From a purely religious perspective, I think the cheerleaders’ banners are fraught with far more problems than they’re worth. They should be abandoned voluntarily.
Finally, we have the arguments of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I strongly support the right of free religious expression But the more religious expression becomes intertwined with tax dollars, the more everyone has the right to question its legitimacy.
Robert J. Ray, who lives in Longwood, is a member of the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
Sharing information without understanding can be deadly
(Orlando Sentinel, Guest column, September 22, 2012)
By Bryan Fulwider
We call it the Information Age. And in one sense, it is. Words and pictures can be transmitted to the entire world in seconds. And that’s on a slow day.
Our technology is impressive. But it has limits. For one thing, information and understanding aren’t the same thing. Information can be transmitted readily. Understanding is much harder to acquire. And information without understanding can be deadly.
Only days ago, millions of Muslims in some two dozen countries around the globe saw a trailer for a movie that made their blood boil. The movie mocked what to them is sacred. And in their social, political and religious contexts — unlike in the United States — profaning what’s sacred is more than just a sacrilege; it can be a crime.
Some of those offended by what they saw on the Internet responded with more than mere anger. Not only did they destroy property, they became vigilantes, murdering people solely on the basis of their national identities — people who had nothing to do with the offending movie. In fact, they killed the Americans who, in all of Libya, probably best understood and most cared about the Muslim perspective.
As images of out-of-control mobs flashed onto TV screens back in the United States, American viewers judged the mobs’ actions to be indefensible by any standard of morality, be it religious or secular. But what many Americans didn’t realize is that a great array of Muslims — both as individuals and as organizations — were likewise strongly denouncing the violence.
The movie, offensive as it was, in no way justified the mob’s response. As the Universal Muslim Association of America said in a press release: “No legitimate goal can ever be accomplished by harming innocent people, and no such behavior can ever be tolerated by the Holy Religion of Islam.”
The challenge for both overseas Muslims and non-Muslim Americans is to understand the complicated dynamics of this tragic saga.
Overseas Muslims, most of whom have limited understanding of the philosophy upon which the U.S. legal system is based, simply can’t comprehend such an unbending commitment to freedom of speech that a handful of radical Christians would be allowed to revile a religion that’s sacred to nearly a quarter of the world’s population.
Americans typically have a different viewpoint. We recognize that freedom of speech has its downside. And it can be badly misused. But we feel the positives of free speech far outweigh the negatives. Nothing could be more foreign to many overseas Muslims.
Now to keep things in perspective, let me remind my fellow Christians (and Jews) that our own holy writings are strident concerning disrespect for the sacred. When an ancient Hebrew reached out merely to steady the ark of the covenant … Bam! … Struck dead! By God, no less!
That’s how our Bible describes it. Only the priests were supposed to touch the ark. And I could cite a long list of biblical stories in which humans themselves responded violently to real or perceived spiritual disrespect.
As a born-and-bred American, I understand and support our freedom-of-speech perspective. And as one who has been involved in interfaith dialogue for some three decades, I understand and respect Muslims’ concern for the sacred. I also understand the chagrin mainstream Muslims feel when radicalized elements within the faith foment actions that (as my long-time friend Imam Muhammad Musri of the Islamic Society of Central Florida puts it) are “not representative of Islam, and do not represent the vast majority of Muslims.”
I want neither government officials nor religious clerics telling me what I can and can’t say. But we all need to remember that with freedom comes responsibility. I like the Rotary Club’s Four-Way Test: “Of the things we think, say or do: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned?’
Had those principles been followed, there would have been no violence and murder. In fact, there would have been no movie.
The Rev. Bryan Fulwider is a fellow at the Winter Park Institute at Rollins College and president of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Religion can fit into the workplace
(Orlando Sentinel, September 6, 2012)
By James Coffin
A Muslim woman in California sued her former employer last month, alleging discrimination, workplace harassment and unfair termination because of her religious beliefs. The proper interface of religion and the workplace is an ongoing challenge — and not just for Muslims.
For example, are employers obligated to give employees their “sabbath” off? What about other holy days? Do employees have an inherent right to schedule breaks so they coincide with religion-mandated prayer times? How much should other workers be inconvenienced to accommodate such practices?
What about attire? When does religion-mandated attire become distracting or disruptive? How free should an employer be to require a specific corporate image?
Do religiously committed employees have the right to proselytize on the job? What are the rights of those who don’t appreciate such overtures? Do the same standards apply for private and public sectors?
Such issues arise frequently. Sometimes they’re resolved quickly, amicably and satisfactorily for everyone. At other times, they end up in court, and all parties lose. The employer doesn’t need the adverse publicity and the added cost. And being in litigation doesn’t help the plaintiff’s job prospects.
U.S. courts have consistently upheld certain religious rights for employees. But there’s an even larger field of uncertainty where the outcome is anybody’s guess. Here are a few approaches that may heighten the chance of win-win outcomes:
A workplace atmosphere that promotes respect and dignity for everyone goes a long way toward pre-empting tension.
When both the employer and the employee who’s requesting religious accommodation are committed to honoring the world’s most basic behavioral code — the golden rule — positive outcomes increase.
While all human groups include examples of both virtue and villainy, I would like to think that adherence to religious values increases the statistical probability of an employee providing conscientious service. If that’s the case, then a reasonable degree of employer inconvenience to accommodate religious practice in the workplace is a sound business decision.
Religious employees deserve to have their workplace rights honored. And one of the best ways to ensure it happens is for them to have a commitment to their responsibilities that goes beyond the call of duty.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
Thimbleful of truth, bucketful of balderdash
[Holocaust Center of Florida Blog, August 30, 2012]
By James Coffin
Mark Twain contended that there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damned lies and statistics.” I’d suggest that the three could also be: lies, damned lies and cliches.
Cliches are succinct, pithy summaries that appear to have cleverly captured the essence of an issue. They imply that the last word has been said. Counter arguments would be futile. No need for further discussion. QED.
Unfortunately, cliches become beliefs. Beliefs lead to actions. And if the original assertion was off the beam, the resultant actions may be devastating. Let me cite an example.
Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the 32nd President of the United States, made a statement that people have fawned over since it first escaped her lips: “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Certainly, parents need to help their children learn to shrug off, as much as possible, life’s slings and arrows, insults and putdowns. It’s not a gentle world out there. Not even for adults. So learning not to wear our feelings on our sleeves is an important lesson in real-world survival. This is where the thimbleful of truth in Mrs. Roosevelt’s cliche comes into its own.
The problem is, in today’s world the emotional/psychological assaults faced by many young people–and even by many more adults than we’d like to believe–are intense, incessant and inescapable. Someone would have to be truly super-human not to be dragged down by such an unrelenting onslaught. And often from such a large number of assailants.
As if the taunts and jeers of the bullies haven’t been bad enough, the dismissal by the smug-and-preachy crowd adds to the pain. It “re-victimizes the victim,” as those who understand the issue of bullying describe it.
The original taunts centered on the alleged flaws of the victim. And the purveyors of advice likewise highlight the victim’s alleged flaws. In essence they say, “You’re really the problem. A strong person, a worthy person, would be able to withstand such onslaughts and not be fazed. Remember, ‘no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.’”
If Mrs. Roosevelt’s much-quoted cliche is true, there’s no such thing as bullying or abuse. There are only strong and knowledgeable people or weak and stupid people. Based on her statement, the problem isn’t really the perpetrators; the problem lies in the inability of the recipients to withstand whatever life’s villains happen to dish out.
I’d suggest that even the most insensitive among us should recognize Mrs. Roosevelt’s cliche as the destructive bucketful of balderdash that it is.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Sikh killings: Where is true freedom?
(Orlando Sentinel, August 8, 2012)
By Jasbir Singh Bhatia
Another senseless shooting. This time in a place of worship near Milwaukee.
What a tragic loss of innocent human life at the hands of one who wanted to violently express his hate-filled ideology before the American public. Had it not been for the brave police officer who was badly injured, this tragedy could have been much worse.
The attack on the Sikh temple has caused pain to Sikhs throughout the world. However, it wasn’t an attack on just one social-spiritual community but on the very essence and definition of the United States of America. A small but increasingly powerful and ruthless group is trying to define our nation in a different way from what our founders envisioned.
Sikhs have been immigrating to this country since 1899. A high percentage of the farming development in California’s central valley and the lumber industry in Northwest Canada owe their strength today to the hard work of those early Sikh immigrants.
Since then, Sikhs have participated in fields such as economics, science, technology, medicine and education. And they’ve done it for the well-being of our nation. Yet we as a people are still not accepted — at least not by some sections of society — as the integral and beneficial component of the American mosaic that we are.
Is it simply because we’re too passionate about some of our cultural traditions and spiritual values?
Since our arrival, individual Sikhs have been subjected to discrimination and hate crimes — but particularly so after 9-11. The attack on a Sikh temple may be the first. But is it only the first? I fear a trend. What’s next? And what’s next after that?
Our nation has suffered for the past 11 years because a small group of people from outside our country violently expressed their extreme view of life and religion in a manner contrary to our value system as Americans. In response, thousands of our brave men and women have sacrificed their lives. In addition, we’ve expended an enormous amount of our nation’s resources.
Now one of our own Americans has violently expressed his extremism. How are we as a nation going to respond? Should we all just barricade ourselves behind ID scanners and other machines? Or is there a better solution? Where is true freedom?
There are too many guns in the hands of too many out-of-control people. It’s our responsibility as a nation to find some form of control.
Jasbir Singh Bhatia is a past president of the Sikh Society of Central Florida and a member of the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: We must change nation’s hateful tone
(Orlando Sentinel, August 7, 2012)
By Bryan Fulwider
The hate-monger who on Sunday killed six worshippers in the Sikh temple near Milwaukee got his 15 minutes of fame, though he didn’t survive to bask in all his deluded, blood-soaked glory. Unfortunately, the ripples from his actions will go on long after his name is forgotten. That’s why hate crimes are so insidious.
Certain aspects of this tragedy are quantifiable. We can count the bodies of those killed. We can determine the number injured. Doctors can provide percentage probabilities concerning recovery.
What we cannot quantify is the heartache, the devastation, the anguish experienced by those who had a loved one murdered. And we can’t quantify the pall of fear — already present, but now greatly exaggerated — that will hover over Sikh communities throughout the U.S. for years to come.
By no means are the Sikhs the only group who are left feeling that danger lurks around every corner. If it can happen to them, it can happen to any minority whose skin color or accent or religious attire draws the attention of those who view violence as the way to settle some imaginary score. All perpetrators’ 15 minutes of fame come at a high price, not only for the victim group but for society as a whole.
A huge price of which, this atrocity reminds us, is the danger of fatalism. Inevitability. Resignation. After all, what can we do to prevent a few deranged humans from engaging in such appalling acts?
I would suggest we can do more than many think. We can individually and collectively work to change the nation’s tone. Let’s start by honoring the “self-evident” truths our Founding Fathers put into this nation’s first document, the Declaration of Independence.
Let’s daily remind ourselves that all people “are created equal,” that all human beings “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” that for every person those rights include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Let’s stop slandering. Rather, let’s refuse to circulate unsubstantiated claims that sound good to us simply because they make some person or group we don’t like look bad.
Let’s remove the hateful words and violent tones that characterize too much of our discourse — because Sunday’s actions suggest that someone with a sick mind may be only too willing to take the tone of our discourse to what seems to him its logical conclusion.
The Rev. Bryan Fulwider is a fellow at the Winter Park Institute at Rollins College and president of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Is the United States a Christian nation?
(Orlando Sentinel, July 10, 2012)
By James Coffin
The Orlando Sentinel on Wednesday published a full-page advertisement featuring highly selective quotations from historic Americans declaring the United States to be a Christian nation. The content should have been right up my alley.
You see, I believe in God. Strongly. I’m also a Christian. A clergyman. I’ve spent a lifetime trying to strengthen the faith of Christians and trying to portray Christianity in such appealing terms that others will check it out. So when it comes to God and Christianity, I don’t need convincing.
But I still felt uneasy when I read the collection of quotations — because I happen to know quite a few highly moral citizens who subscribe to a non-Christian faith, or to no faith at all. I’m trying to figure out how they fit into the Christian-nation picture painted by the quotations.
Undeniably, our Founding Fathers were Protestant. Of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, only one was Catholic. He was privileged to be included, because when the colony of Georgia received its charter in 1732, Catholics, and Jews, were excluded from its territory.
Irish immigrants weren’t mistreated in the Northeast just because they were Irish. It was because they were Catholic. So if we label the U.S. a Christian nation, should we treat Jews, Muslims and Buddhists the way Catholics were treated by those who considered it a Protestant nation? As recently as 52 years ago, we were still engaged in a national debate about whether any Catholic should be president.
What was the purpose of the page of quotations? Was it to make non-Christians feel unwelcome? Unworthy?
What are the practical implications of claiming to be a Christian nation? Should we keep non-Christian immigrants from entering our country? Should they not be allowed to build houses of worship?
Should non-Christians not be able to run for public office? Should all children be required to study Christian doctrine in public schools? Should all private schools be forced to teach Christianity?
No one is arguing about our nation’s having been founded primarily by Christians or our current national statistics regarding religious adherence. But there’s a huge difference between being a nation with a super-majority of Christians and claiming to be a Christian nation. One merely describes demographics; the other plays footsie with theocracy.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Protecting the ‘stand your ground’ myth
(Orlando Sentinel, June 17, 2012)
By Bryan Fulwider
My heart goes out to the parents of Trayvon Martin concerning the tragic loss of their son on Feb. 26. In the instant it took for a trigger finger to move less than an inch, life for Trayvon’s family became an unrelenting nightmare.
But their lives weren’t the only ones effectively destroyed that night. No matter what our view concerning relative guilt and innocence, three facts remain: A 17-year-old died, a man’s life was changed forever, and the lives of those closest to Trayvon and George Zimmerman, the shooter, were also shattered.
It doesn’t take a sensitivity specialist to imagine the pain Zimmerman and his family are going through as he sits in jail and his wife is free on bond, charged with perjury. This isn’t the life they dreamed of. But the foregoing is just background.
On Tuesday, a 19-member task force appointed by Gov. Rick Scott met in Longwood to hear testimony about the “stand your ground” law (which the Sanford police cited as the reason for not arresting Zimmerman the night of Trayvon’s killing). More such hearings will be convened. My concern is what may not be heard at those hearings.
Orlando Sentinel columnist Beth Kassab writes that the Tampa Bay Times “reviewed 200 cases and found that nearly 60 percent of the people who claimed the [stand your ground] immunity either weren’t charged by prosecutors or were freed by a judge.”
I hope justice was done in the 120-some cases thus dismissed. But I’m equally concerned about the 80-some people who were charged. To what degree did the stand your ground law embolden them to use lethal force unnecessarily? To what degree did the law itself encourage them to take the actions that have now turned their lives upside down in ways they could never have imagined?
When watching cop shows on TV, I’ve always been amazed at how the good guys are depicted as being able to take a human life and then head home to a hot shower and a good night’s sleep. It rarely works that way. Not at the procedural level. Not at the psychological level. Not at the spiritual level. It’s bad enough that TV promotes such myths. It’s even worse if our duly voted statutes do.
I already know the feelings of Trayvon’s family and other bereft families like them. I’d like to hear what George Zimmerman and 80-some other killers who have been charged think about this law now.
Bryan Fulwider is senior minister of First Congregational Church of Winter Park and president of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Persecution in Iran doubly disturbing
(Orlando Sentinel, May 24, 2012)
By Imam Muhammad Musri
At the Holocaust Center in Maitland this past Sunday, representatives of Orlando’s Baha’i community described the persecution their fellow believers face in Iran, which is the birthplace of the Baha’i faith.
A similar travesty deals with the death sentence Iran’s Supreme Court has issued concerning Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. His crime? Leaving Islam as a teenager and converting to Christianity.
As a Muslim imam, I’m appalled and outraged. In fact, such actions and attitudes are doubly disturbing to me. Not only does my heart go out to the victims of such blatantly unjust and inhumane treatment. I’m also incensed that the perpetrators use my religion as their justification for such atrocities.
The religion I believe in, that I daily seek to live by, that I commend to others, is a religion of peace. The word “Islam” derives from the same Arabic root as the term generally used for peace: “Salam.” Islam is about peace.
One of the difficulties faith traditions face in interpreting their respective holy writings is that some adherents focus on only certain passages. Too often admonition that was given for specific and often unusual circumstances is universalized. As if that’s not bad enough, passages that are universally applicable are often ignored or downplayed.
In the Quran, some of the divine mandates are delivered in strident language, particularly when viewed from our modern perspective. However, these same holy writings promote peace, love, justice, mercy, freedom, service and other values that have played major roles in uplifting humanity and refining society.
The tragedy is that some fail to see the big picture and focus almost exclusively on the most strident, most extreme, most time-bound and place-bound scriptural commands. Such interpretations have resulted in religious wars, pogroms, persecution, discrimination, hatred, suspicion and other undesirable behavior.
Chapter 2 of the Quran clearly states that “there shall be no compulsion in religion.” Chapter 18 says: “This is the truth from your Lord; then let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.”
I particularly like the Prophet Muhammad’s version of the Golden Rule: “None of you has faith unless you love for your brother what you love for yourself.” Regimes like the one in Iran need to grasp the deep spiritual significance of that statement.
Imam Muhammad Musri is president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida and a member of the advisory board of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Religions agree on safeguarding the poor
(Orlando Sentinel, April 30, 2012)
By James Coffin
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan says his budget, passed by the House, is based on his Catholic faith. A series of letters sent to legislators and other government entities makes clear that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn’t share Ryan’s perspective.
Ryan’s budget fails the test, the bishops argue, because the poor, the disadvantaged, the vulnerable constitute a moral obligation. Most of the world’s religions would concur.
Islam is based on five pillars, the third being zakat, or almsgiving. This pillar of the faith describes our human responsibility to the poor, the orphan, the widow — to any who are in need. “This is an obligation from Allah,” the Quran declares.
Sikhs subscribe to the principle of wand chhakna — the obligation to give liberally to the sick, the needy, the poor. Humans are to emulate the generosity of the divine example: “The unique Lord is … the Giver to all. In His giving, there is no stint.”
In the Rabbinic writings, charity is enjoined through the word tzedakah, which means righteousness, justice, fairness. It encompasses all social justice. Judaism calls for giving not only to meet the material need of the disadvantaged, but to fill a spiritual need in the giver. In outlining the ancient safety-net provisions for the poor, the Hebrew scriptures repeatedly say: “Remember that you were slaves in Egypt.”
Buddhism likewise emphasizes the spiritual blessing to the giver. Such acts produce good karma. The Buddha is said to have once told a group of monks, “Whoever serves the sick and suffering, serves me.”
Christianity echoes a similar sentiment. Jesus said concerning humanitarian acts: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these … you did for me.”
M.K. Ghandi, perhaps Hinduism’s most high-profile proponent of the 1900s, taught that everyone is a part of God. And we all share the same world. Therefore, we have an obligation to care for one another. Moreover, service to others is the best avenue to understanding self and discovering God.
Good people may differ concerning which mechanisms can most efficiently deliver the morally mandated help and which approaches are the most effective in the long run. But people of all major faiths need only look to their own holy writings and their own faith’s proponents to discover a universally shared understanding of the spiritual/moral obligation to take seriously the plight of the disadvantaged.
If we’re going to substantially alter the way this moral obligation is met, we must ensure that an alternative method is in place before we dismantle or dramatically alter the existing structures and safety nets.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Sharing burden is just good religion
(Orlando Sentinel, April 24, 2012)
By Bryan Fulwider
When I read that some Seminole County School Board members accepted pay raises for themselves while denying pay raises to the county’s teachers, I understood why the teachers organized a protest.
Granted, giving an annual pay raise of $1,647 each to a handful of board members is scarcely a drop in the bucket compared to the $9 million it would cost to give the teachers the 3 percent increase they’re requesting. But, morally and symbolically, the $1,647 is huge. It brings to mind an aphorism I learned in childhood: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
I understand the need for belt-tightening during an economic downturn. My staff and I have been there and done that. But we’ve borne the pain together. We don’t have a favored few who, by virtue of their rank, are shielded from the economy’s vicissitudes while others must bear the full brunt.
Which brings me to my reason for writing: Too often today’s owners and managers, in looking out for their own interests, lose sight of their moral and social responsibilities to their workers. And this problem is nothing new. It already existed millennia ago when the various holy writings of the world’s great religions were penned.
“Look!” says the Christian Bible writer James. “The wages you failed to pay the workmen … are crying out against you. The cries … have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived in luxury and self-indugence …”
A few centuries earlier, Moses told the Hebrews not to forget the responsibility that comes with being an employer: “Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien. … Pay him his wages each day before sunset, because he is … counting on it.”
The Quran declares that fair treatment of others is the true test of religion: “None of you has faith unless you love for your brother what you love for yourself.” Sikhism has at its very core the fair treatment of everyone. And I could cite many more such examples.
School-board members and public-school teachers are your employees and mine because we pay their wages through our taxes. I want all my employees treated fairly. When the economy is robust, I want all to benefit. When the economy falters, I want all to share the burden.
In short, what we need is simply sound management and good religion.
The Rev. Bryan Fulwider is senior minister of First Congregational Church of Winter Park and president of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
Trayvon Martin, justice and the Golden Rule
(Winter Park-Maitland Observer, April 4, 2012)
By James Coffin
The world’s great religions espouse a principle we’ve come to call the “Golden Rule.” It’s a universal call for all humans to treat others as they’d like to be treated. It’s not a complicated concept. Yet it’s sometimes difficult to carry out in practice because in any given situation we may have a number of values competing for prime consideration. Ethicists refer to it as having to “stack our imperatives.”
The case of Trayvon Martin provides a classic example. A young man is dead, and his killer, George Zimmerman, has walked free, not charged with any crime. Zimmerman says it was self-defense. Trayvon’s parents find that hard to believe. Impossible, in fact.
How can it be called justice when an adult, who’s been told by a police dispatcher to back off, continues to pursue, confronts and shoots an unarmed youth? As a parent, I can relate to the angst of Trayvon’s parents. And so can millions of other onlookers around the world who are watching news reports and making comments via social media. But it gets trickier.
Collectively, we Americans believe in “justice for all,” which includes a value we’ve labeled “innocent until proven guilty.” We believe in “due process” and “being tried before a jury of one’s peers.” So no matter how irate we may be about what has happened, George Zimmerman deserves the right to make his case before a court of law. It’s only there that all the competing facts and allegations can be appropriately assembled and evaluated.
But there’s a problem. For the past seven years we’ve had a law on the books in Florida — the “Stand Your Ground” law — that not only gives amazing liberties to any who simply “feel” threatened by someone else, but that also puts severe limits on the ability of law-enforcement officers to bring charges. In the absence of credible on-the-scene evidence to the contrary, a killer’s testimony may be all that’s needed to keep the case out of the courts altogether. In Zimmerman’s case, those ultimately responsible claim they couldn’t arrest him and still uphold the law.
In an ideal world, the ideal citizens would sit back and let the wheels of ideal government turn at the ideal speed and produce ideal justice. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Experience has taught us that for a variety of reasons, government doesn’t always deliver on its promise of justice for all.
Recognizing the ability of government to get it wrong, our Constitution’s First Amendment (in what we call the “Bill of Rights”) grants freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. Since mid-March, these constitutional provisions have increasingly been invoked in Sanford and throughout the nation.
With all of the foregoing in mind, on March 28 the Interfaith Council of Central Florida (whose members include representatives from the Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faith traditions) issued a statement that “calls upon officials at every level to move quickly and transparently in seeking justice in the case of Trayvon Martin. We call upon all citizens to continue, in a decidedly determined yet respectful and peaceful manner, to demand that government decision makers not rest until justice has been served and until trust has been restored. We urge our governor and legislators to expeditiously revisit the law that allowed this terrible tragedy to occur.”
In other words, the Interfaith Council has asked that everyone follow the Golden Rule as we seek justice for all.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: It’s time to remove profiling plague
(Orlando Sentinel, March 26, 2012)
By Kathy Schmitz
Surrounded as we are by a veritable blizzard of news reports, commentaries, rallies and protests, it’s crucial that we not lose sight of the core issues in the Trayvon Martin tragedy.
• First and foremost, a 17-year-old has been robbed of his future. Why? Because someone thought he didn’t fit an acceptable profile.- Trayvon’s extended family will never be the same. Even the good memories will forever be tinged with sadness and anger. An inescapable ache has taken up residence in that part of the being where joy should reside.
• Even onlookers can’t remain unaffected. Righteous indignation, a sense of vulnerability and a loss of faith have pervaded every nook and cranny of the community’s collective soul. “This can’t happen,” we say. “Not in 2012. Not in the nation of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ Not in the country of ‘liberty and justice for all.’” But it has happened.
• There’s a concept called evenhanded application of the law. It’s vital. Especially when a human life has been taken. Even more so when the allegations stretch credulity. George Zimmerman claims that he is the victim and Trayvon Martin the aggressor. But consider: Martin was young; Zimmerman is an adult. Martin had no record of violence; Zimmerman does. Martin was unarmed; Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher he was pursuing Martin – despite the dispatcher’s attempt to dissuade him. Martin can’t tell his side of the story; Zimmerman was believed by the police and the investigating officers let him walk away. A community — and a nation — that sees something wrong with this picture is neither crazy nor unreasonable.
• Unwise laws, such as “stand your ground,” inevitably yield undesirable results. It’s a little late for hand-wringing when predicted negative consequences become tragic reality. “Better late than never” certainly applies in the repeal of such laws.
• Two things are critical for the family and our nation to move toward healing in the face of this tragedy. First, for the appearance of justice, Zimmerman must face a jury. Second, we must recognize the plague that stereotyping and profiling continue to visit on our nation.
We must commit ourselves to removing this plague from our society and from our own hearts. Too many lives have been destroyed. Out of this tragedy, let us demand and ensure that it happen no more.
The Rev. Kathy Schmitz is pastor of First Unitarian Church of Orlando and a member of the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Liberty, justice, anti-Semitism don’t mix
(Orlando Sentinel, March 11, 2012)
By James Coffin
Sixty miles west of Orlando is a beautiful, tree-shaded cemetery. It’s the final resting place of thousands of patriots — men and women who have served in theU.S. military. Their choice of burial grounds wasn’t accidental. They wanted family and friends to know what an honor it had been to serve their country.
The Florida National Cemetery at Bushnell is hallowed ground. The people buried there understood duty, honor, commitment. They put others ahead of self. Simply walking past those silent gravestones should evoke reverence and gratitude. But, as recent news reports reveal, there are some who fail to understand that the United States is all about e pluribus unum. Out of many, one. Out of diversity, unity. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
But where’s the unity, the liberty, the justice when bigots invade such sacred space and desecrate the gravestones of true patriots simply because those memorials bear a star of David rather than a cross? Are patriot Jews, or patriot Muslims, or patriot atheists any less deserving of our individual and collective gratitude than patriot Christians?
Certainly, those who would engage in such deliberate acts of hate deserve to be prosecuted. But punishment and the fear evoked by it aren’t the solution. Understanding is.
It may well be the work of misguided youth. Such destructive behavior is deplorable. And, if it was youth, something even more deplorable is at work here.
Somewhere — at home, in the public square or (I hate to even suggest it) in some house of worship — the perpetrators were given to believe that Jews are less worthy than Christians.
Mere punishment —though appropriate — won’t fix the underlying problem. The solution involves education. It’s a task of the home. Of the school. Of the media. Of the community. And certainly of our houses of worship, whatever our faith tradition.
I like the words of a public-service announcement drafted recently by the Interfaith Council of Central Florida: “We aren’t first and foremost Anglo or African-American, Hispanic or Asian … Catholic or Protestant, Sunni or Shiite, Buddhist or Hindu, Jewish or Sikh. These are all secondary to the universal brotherhood and sisterhood of all humankind. Only as we appreciate our oneness as humans will the walls of suspicion, alienation and bigotry give way, allowing us to have unity in the midst of our diversity.”
That’s what needs to be understood.
James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Prayer bill a nightmare in the making
(Orlando Sentinel, March 6, 2012)
By Bryan G. Fulwider
Let me start with what I’m not saying: I’m not against religion, I’m not against prayer, and I’m not against free speech, youthful expression or inspirational messages.
But I believe in the wisdom of the Apostle Paul: Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s beneficial. However, in the case of the school-prayer bill, which was passed Thursday, it’s questionable that the statute is even constitutional, let alone beneficial. Rather, it’s an administrative nightmare.
Although the bill never uses the word “prayer,” it’s understood. The bill states: “A … school board may adopt a policy allowing an inspirational message to be delivered by students at a student assembly.” Further, the “students who are responsible for organizing any student-led portion of a student assembly” will decide if there will be an inspirational message and which students will present it.
School-district personnel “may not participate in, or otherwise influence … whether an inspirational message is to be delivered” or “review the content.”
So if a designated student decides that a passage from, let’s say, Song of Solomon would be inspirational, school officials would be breaking the law if they said, “Not a good idea.”
Now consider how such a policy might impact minority faiths and those of no faith; or, how the student organizers would be chosen; or, the risk of religious bullying; or, a host of other complications.
An old sermon illustration tells of a rich man who lived near a precipitous mountain road. Three drivers applied when the wealthy man advertised for a chauffeur. Pointing toward the chasm on one side of the road, the rich man asked, “How close to that edge can you drive safely?”
The first said he could drive safely within six inches of the edge. The second said he could drive safely with half the width of the tire hanging over the edge. The third said he would stay as far from the edge as possible. He got the job.
Unfortunately, Florida’s legislators seem determined to risk millions in tax-payer dollars to defend the lawsuits their bill will inevitably trigger. And there are sure to be divisive battles erupting in many communities and distractions from educating Florida’s students.
And why? Just to see how close they can get to reinstating school prayer without the Supreme Court saying, “No way.”
The Rev. Bryan G. Fulwider is senior minister of First Congregational Church of Winter Park and president of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: King turned a light on the darkness
(Orlando Sentinel, January 15, 2012)
By Gus Davies
The Martin Luther King holiday, on Monday, is special for me as an African-American. Exceptionally so.
You see, I’m African-American in the fullest sense of the term. I was born in Africa, but now my wife, Jeneba, and I are naturalized U.S. citizens. We feel privileged to be here. But for my African countrymen of a few centuries ago, there was no destination more feared.
It was from Sierra Leone, my country of birth, that one of the first English slave ships sailed to the New World in the 16th century. Over the next three centuries, millions of Africans were packed into cargo holds and shipped across the Atlantic to a life of slavery. Many didn’t survive the voyage. And they may have been the lucky ones.
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln declared slavery on U.S. soil to be over. But a presidential proclamation doesn’t automatically change the prevailing values and attitudes that fostered slavery.
Nearly another 100 years elapsed before light really began to shine through the darkness — in great measure because of men and women of principle who were determined to make it happen.
Martin Luther King Jr. arrived at the right time, with the right message and the right approach. His words and example were compelling. Though we lived an ocean away, King was a hero to many of us in Africa.
I was only 14 when MLK was assassinated. But his speeches, his fearlessness and his refusal to be distracted had inspired me. Directly or indirectly, his efforts improved the lot of blacks, the poor and other disadvantaged groups in the United States. Moreover, King’s dream sent ripples worldwide.
Today at the annual Candlelight Vigil and March (Orlando City Hall, 6 p.m.) and Interfaith and Multicultural Service (Shiloh Baptist Church, 6:45 p.m.) honoring King, the theme will be “Turning Darkness Into Light.”
King’s goal of turning darkness into light wasn’t fully realized during his lifetime. Neither has it been fully realized since, despite much commendable progress. So the greatest tribute we can pay to those who’ve worked so hard is to continue their quest for a more just and equitable society.
Martin Luther King’s dream and determination helped create a much-improved adopted country for my family and me. And we feel honored to call it home.
Gus Davies is on the pastoral staff of Northland, a Church Distributed, and is on the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Respectfully agree to disagree
(Orlando Sentinel, June 01, 2011)
By Hatim Hamidullah
As a Muslim imam, I greatly appreciated Leonard Pitts’ comments concerning the furor caused when Muslims applied to build a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn. (“Band of bigots lives in a place beyond reason,” Sentinel, Thursday). It’s a sad story.
Unfortunately, however, interfaith tensions and misunderstandings have existed for milennia. And, tragically, most faiths — if not all — have been the recipients and the dispensers of bigotry and violence. There’s plenty of guilt to go around. But there are alternatives.
For several years, I have served on the Executive Committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida. There I have become friends with a diverse group whose spiritual allegiances range from Buddhist to Christian (both Catholic and Protestant), Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh.
We definitely have different explanations for life’s ultimate realities. And we’re all proud of and committed to our own spiritual heritage. We also recognize that we can’t all be right. So we agree to disagree. But we do it as friends. We respect each other.
Whatever religious labels we may wear, we seek to celebrate our shared humanity. We recognize our common need to strive toward ever-higher moral and social ideals. We realize that at the core of our being, the differences aren’t as great as they might appear when viewed only superficially.
Regardless of our ethnicity or religion, we all have hopes and aspirations. We all fall in love. We all laugh. We all cry. We all bleed when cut. Our similarities far outweigh our differences. And when we take time to become acquainted with those of other faiths, suspicion and hostility usually give way to understanding, respect and friendship.
A core value of every major world religion is some form of the Golden Rule — the responsibility to treat others as we would want to be treated. Every religion has adherents who live out that value. And every religion has adherents whose behavior is so far from that value that they’re an embarrassment to the mainstream of their faith.
The Interfaith Council’s position is that candid, rational discussion of our spiritual differences is appropriate. Beliefs should be able to stand up to investigation and analysis. But some forgo discussion, engaging instead in intense verbal denigration of religious groups with whom they disagree, even staging ritual desecration of things considered holy by other faiths.
Whatever our religion, when we hurl invective, destroy or deface property, deliberately desecrate things considered sacred by others, or physically assault, maim or kill those with whom we disagree, we’re violating the spirit and ideals of every major religion — especially when we do it in the name of religion.
Hatim Hamidullah is the imam of the Masjid Al-Haqq mosque in Orlando and a member of the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: King championed all rights
(Orlando Sentinel, January 16, 2011)
By Bryan Fulwider
As Americans celebrate the legacy of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. this month, most of the speeches in his honor are focusing on his achievements in the realm of race-based civil rights.
And so they should. King was the right person, at the right time, with the right message and the right approach to advance the cause of African-American equality further and faster than many would have dreamed possible.
In great measure, this happened because of his vision, tenacity and wisdom. To borrow imagery from another writer: He struck while the iron was hot. He made the iron even hotter by striking. And he had an uncanny sense of how to harness momentum.
As impressive as King’s civil-rights legacy is, there’s still work to be done. Overt discrimination is far less apparent these days. But a variety of prejudices still simmer beneath the surface. We likewise need to remember that King’s vision of a just society didn’t stop with civil rights.
One example: The legal right for a black person to eat at any restaurant — granted by the civil-rights acts of 1964 and 1965 — was essentially useless if economic factors placed ordinary eating establishments outside the reach of many blacks. And abject poverty was by no means limited to blacks. Large numbers of poor whites were equally desperate for a leg up.
King became an increasingly outspoken critic of the war in Vietnam. As long as money was being thrown at the war, he reasoned, there would never be appropriate funding to help the downtrodden at home. He decried a government that would appropriate “military funds with alacrity and generosity” but that appropriated funds to help the most needy “with miserliness.”
He argued that “true compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.” Part of that restructuring, King contended, must include equal treatment of women. His social vision was more far-reaching than many realize.
This evening when the Interfaith Council of Central Florida, in cooperation with the office of Orlando’s mayor, hosts the city’s annual interfaith candlelight march and celebration to honor King’s legacy, the theme of Imam Muhammad Musri’s speech at Shiloh Baptist Church will be: “The time is always right to do what is right.”
King spoke those words. Moreover, he gave substance to them by fighting not only for the cause of those with whom he had a racial affinity, but by fighting for justice and equality for all humans, in all circumstances, everywhere — because it’s the right thing to do.
That’s a quality worth celebrating. And emulating.
Bryan Fulwider is senior pastor of the First Congregational Church of Winter Park and chair of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Earth care a spiritual duty
(Orlando Sentinel, September 23, 2010)
By James Coffin
Forty-eight years ago this month, Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” helped launch our modern environmental movement. Scientists, politicians and the public continue to debate just how serious the risks are, how great a role humans actually play, and how the negative consequences might best be mitigated.
Far less debatable is the fact that the world’s major religions all recognize our human responsibility for Earth stewardship. Belief in a creator obligates us to appropriately care for what the creator has entrusted to us.
Buddhism emphasizes the interconnectedness of creation in its entirety: “The health of the whole is inseparably linked to the health of the parts, and the health of the parts is inseparably linked to the health of the whole.”
Hinduism recognizes a similar symbiotic relationship between humans and nature. The Bhagavad-Gita states: “Propitiate the Elements of Nature (Devas) and let the Elements of Nature (Devas) support you. Together, both of you prosper.”
Guru Granth Sahib, the Holy Scriptures of Sikhism, declares: “With the Will of God the Supreme Being, earth was created –– a place for dharma, duty, and action. It is the Temple of God Himself. Where created were the air, water, and soil –– the complete environs to nourish all the beings. It is God’s abode as well…”
The Quran says that Allah “created everything,” and “it is He who has appointed you guardians on the earth…” In fact, humans will be judged on how well we execute this responsibility, because Allah will “try you in what He has given you. Surely your Lord is swift in reckoning…”
Jews and Christians draw much of their earth-stewardship understanding from the Torah. There God instructs Adam and Eve to oversee (literally, to serve) his creation. The Torah also includes environmental regulations such as prohibiting the cutting of fruit trees even for use in besieging enemy cities. For millennia, rabbinic tradition has interpreted this as a general prohibition against wanton destruction, wastefulness and environmental degradation.
Good people may disagree concerning the nature and extent of our environmental challenges and the most effective ways to respond. But the unanimity of the holy writings of the the world’s great religions suggest that every believer in a supreme creative power should take seriously the universal undergirding principle that humans have a spiritual obligation to care for our Earth.
At the time this was published, James Coffin was senior pastor of the Markham Woods Church of Seventh-day Adventists and a member of the executive committee of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
**********
My Word: Faiths must counter Islamaphobia
(Orlando Sentinel, September 05, 2010)
By Bryan Fulwider
In Gainesville, a church called the Dove World Outreach Center plans a Quran-burning on Sept. 11, the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States. In Manhattan, protesters and politicians denounce plans to open a mosque and community center two blocks from ground zero. In Tennessee, local and federal authorities investigate a fire at the site of a mosque being built by the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Preliminary evidence indicates arson.
Ignorance and intolerance are not values espoused by any of the great religions of the world, including Islam. Yet, as a Christian pastor, I’ve become increasingly disturbed by the attitudes of many otherwise reasonable people who profess to believe in freedom of religion and to follow the teachings of Jesus. How did we reach this point?
We’re living in an age where there’s more information, more readily available, than at any other time in history. Yet, ignorance is rampant. We’re living in a world where we’re able to interact with a greater variety of races, creeds and colors than ever before. Yet, intolerance is rising.
In the story of Jesus, there is not one book burning, not one protest against a house of worship, education and peace. Our greatest enemies, in fact, are not loving people who seek to live in accordance with their beliefs, be they Christian, Islamic or Buddhist. Our greatest enemies are extremists who seek to harm those whose faith differs from their own. Too often such acts are carried out in the name of religion. But it’s nothing more than hate, brokenness and sinful behavior.
The day following the tragic events of nine years ago, I met with the Islamic community in its house of worship for prayer. The Rev. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, and I were the only Christian pastors there that day.
I also convened the Interfaith Council of Central Florida to discuss ways of responding while offering support to the entire community, including our Islamic friends. Through the years, I’ve served on numerous interfaith panels promoting peace and understanding, and led many trialogues with Imam Muhammad Musri and Rabbi Steven Engel.
In June our church sponsored a series of films and discussions led by members of the local Islamic community. Attendees learned that those who follow the true tenets of Islam — the majority of Muslims — are people of peace who clearly reject any notion of violence against others.
Islamaphobia must be countered by Christians and people of other faith traditions ready to engage in the hard work of faithful dialogue and relationship building. Otherwise, as the cliché goes, the terrorists truly do win.
The Rev. Bryan Fulwider is senior minister at First Congregational Church of Winter Park/United Church of Christ, and chair of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.