ReligionDispatches.org

Sorry... But you really don't seem to know what you are talking about:

Americans don't even have to "fear God"... This is because "Freedom of religion" includes "Freedom from religion". Therefore, "Freedom from fear" includes that as well.

In America, we can deny the central tenant of Islam...repudiate it, in fact...and still be "good" Americans. Atheists, agnostics and polytheists are not second class citizens; they have all of the civil rights and responsibilities that you may have. Therefore your argument fails and your calling FDR a "Muslim" president amounts to an ethnocentric misappropriation...

The sort of apologetics you are advancing doesn't really help matters. It makes you seem disingenuous...and untrustworthy. Thus it fails to build the necessary trust for engaging in dialog with people of good will.

Please reconsider your stance...

All the best,

Emyth@mindspring.com

Dear Emyth,

Thank you for your comment.

Specifically regarding FDR's vision of the second freedom, which is what I am referencing, he says: "The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world."

You are quite correct that in general freedom of religion does include freedom from religion. However, my narrow point and audience was with respect to FDR's speech and geared towards a religious audience, where belief in God is a sin qua non.

The broader point is that Muslims have been vilified in this election, a point I have argued here and on my own blog. President-elect Obama has been called Muslim as a smear. I am attempting to demonstrate that Muslim values are not just values of Muslims, but also of Americans, and I would hope people of faith, or with no faith.

I am unsure how this argument makes me disingenuous and untrustworthy. While you raise a valid point - albeit somewhat outside the scope of my argument - the ad hominem seems to undercut your own desire to "dialog [sic] with people of good will."

Rather than say "God bless" for fear of insulting you, I will instead say "good night and good luck."

Dear Hussain Rashid,

First of all, I must say that it is a deep pleasure and a true blessing to have a civil discussion about religious differences in a conversation from disagreeing perspectives…

This is one of the greatest benefits of our American society… It rises directly out of our long, hard-won tradition of the separation of Church and State. It is Constitutionally guaranteed. And it is very precious to me, for it is a benefit in short supply in the world in which we live - and is much threatened.

True dialog is a difficult thing to start - one is never sure that the other is interested in carrying on a conversation. Then it is even harder to nurture for there are all sorts of impediments: Horizons that do not match; mistaken presumptions about backgrounds that must be exposed and corrected; different experiences and assumptions that need to be shared… all of this before one can get around to exploring common ground and the potential agreement that allows for a developing consensus. That said, as Community, Communication and Conversation can be said to be my “Holy Trinity”, I am willing to commit to the arduous task and the hard work in hopes of realizing those Ultimate Values…

Never fear, “God bless…” said with true sincerity and goodwill, will never, ever insult me. And if anything you say does insult me, I will not start a riot or issue a fatwah; I will continue to talk with you to make sure that I understand what you intended, to hear if I misunderstood and to see if I need to broaden my understanding to make room for your perspective. If I end up realizing that you indeed intended to insult me… Well, we’ll cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Suffice to say that at this point I don’t think that it’s likely that you’d do that…and at worst, I’d just agree to disagree.

Regarding the alleged ad hominem nature of my response:

It actually isn’t a classic ad hominem attack... If I’d said “You are obviously an ignoramous and a scally-wag who cheats on his exams and has scammed your way to wherever you have gotten…” that would be an ad hominem attack. Instead, I included a response and critique of your actual argument, calling attention to a larger context which falsifies your conclusion. Your argument may seem valid, but it is not sound for it relies on faulty premises. A true ad hominem argument would not have addressed your argument seriously at all.

[Continued - "Ad hominem" a compliment...]

You seem to suggest that an alleged ad hominem nature of my response is a problem: Actually, it is one of the highest compliments you could be paid. It means that I am taking you seriously and find you worth the work of responding. It means that I believe that there is a real person there behind the text and the argument…a person who is a candidate for true dialog...a potential conversation partner... However, I am concerned that by using Edward R. Murrow’s signature sign-off you may be dismissing me before our conversation is well off-the-ground. This leads me to fear that my opening invitation to conversation may not have been too inviting… I didn’t wish to resort to emoticons, but the stark nature of short web postings has it’s drawbacks. But how does one offer an engaging, genuine invitation to dialog without flaming or fawning?

Please note that I did not say that your argument “makes” you disingenuous and untrustworthy… Rather than making that judgment, I just reported that the sort of apologetics that you are advancing “makes you seem disingenuous…and untrustworthy” (emphasis supplied.) Perhaps it would have been clearer if I’d more directly owned the apprehension/misapprehension and said “makes it seem to me that…” But that would have be a bit too arch and prissy.

Anyway, to return to my opening point, your civil response to my albeit imperfect (and perhaps too prickly) critique of your original essay gives me hope that true dialog is indeed possible and goes far to assure me that you are a person of good will.

Let’s talk… There is much to be learned from one another - and I have been at something of a loss finding a person with a strong, liberal, Muslim perspective on Islam and the world who is willing to engage in the hard work of dialog. Perhaps this could work...

All the best,

Emyth@mindspring.com

P.S. - I do have further responses and questions regarding issues involved in your apologetic and argument… However, issues of process and engagement needed to be addressed first… ;-) Emyth

Dear Emyth,

First, let me apologize for the delay in responding. I shall attempt to be more prompt.

Second, let us get to the substantive issues you wish to raise. Please ask away. However, some responses may not fit into the comments forum, as you've discovered, and I may need a separate entry for a good discussion.

Regards,
Hussein

Thank you for accepting my invitation to dialog... I hope that we will begin to understand each other's perspectives, refine our own - and move towards consensus in the process.

Where to start? My impulse is to share biographies and speak of our interests in and understandings of the issues at hand...but that would take us far, far from the argument at hand. So I shall simply address the argument implicit in your piece and hope that enough of the background will glimmer through to help avoid some of the common pitfalls and misunderstandings.

If I had to pick one and only one thing that I find problematic about your initial argument and the follow-up defense you forward, it would involve your narrowing of your focus: You narrow the audience to which you are speaking; you narrow your focus on FDR's speech; and you narrow your focus on human values so to more readily match your own Islamic values... By narrowing your focus you are leaving out, ignoring and dismissing any and all people, beliefs, values, facts and situations that are not congruent with your own particular Muslim world view.

Theologically speaking, this is impious - You are not acknowledging the value of the things that you are dismissing and leaving out for who and what they are in-and-of-themselves. More specifically (in a traditional Abrahamic context) you are not appreciating the multifarious and manifold works of the Creator. Impiety is a sin, a short-coming - You have "missed the mark." I'm sorry that I cannot more specifically frame my criticism in traditional Islamic values complete with the Arabic terminology as I am still only a beginner where that's concerned...but I trust that you can make the appropriate translation and supply the necessary concepts.

When I, who and what I am in-and-of-myself, am one of the things that you are dismissing, ignoring through the intentional narrowing of your focus, I am offended. I do not appreciate being left out, written out or in any manner put out of anyone's world view. Why? Because if I am devalued in this manner, I am in danger. I, and who and what I am in-and-of-myself, am liable to be hurt, destroyed if the one who has devalued me finds that I am in their way...that I am perceived as a threat to their world view or way of life.

In other words, you are doing to me and mine, exactly what you are complaining is being done to you and yours.

I hope that you are not put off by the hortatory genre in which I am writing: There are those who object to this as being too "preachy". But it is honest, earnest and sincere; for that is what I am...a preacher, a minister, a priest, a rabbi, an imam...an ordained Teaching Elder in my American religious tradition. I speak according to the strictures and conventions of my calling. Again, I must trust your civility, the integrity of your mind and the greatness of your heart - and hope that our conversation will continue.