Islamic Flexibility

In his book, Acts of Faith, Eboo Patel demonstrates his return to giving Islam a continuing important role in his life which fuels his attempts to promote understanding and unity across religions through his Interfaith Youth Core. Reaching the point in having the confidence in his religion within the US was an often difficult process. After the terrorist events of September 11th, 2001, Muslims have had a difficult time finding a place in American society. Yet it is clear that they desire a place and make concerted efforts to do so. Mr. Patel is making great strides not only because he chooses to work for religious understanding between the many religions, but mostly and self-servingly, to promote an understanding and accepting of his own faith of Islam in America.

There is an obvious anti-Muslim section of our society. After 9/11, fear fuelled these sentiments from a lack of understanding as to what actual Islamic beliefs are like. The media was partially to blame but Christian Conservative leaders led a tremendous backlash against Islam. Their prejudices were passed onto many who follow them. People make decisions about how they feel about Muslims based on how Muslims have been presented or what people have been told about them (Wuthnow 68). Unfortunately, this has often been negative mainly because being Muslim has such a connotation with being “foreign” and as such, being an outsider.

Although Islamic practices are rigid, it appears that because of the pluralistic nature of American culture, they are changing to better fit in with the values of our culture. Women are included in leading roles, prayers are translated and presented in English, and the unbendable rules are being gently bent to accommodate those Muslims now accustomed to more flexibility in the US. Muslims often come to the United States to study and learn about our culture. For the most part, this demonstrates the open-mindedness involved in assimilating into American society and the temporary putting aside of certain values to accomplish this.

Churches dealing with the diversity of faiths in the US often tend to simply avoid the issue and rarely talk about how to relate to their neighbors (Wuthnow 244). Eboo Patel is attempting to create and search for common ground between religious communities. By speaking with religious leaders and finding ways for youths of various faiths to come together and discuss the values they have in common, he is promoting a future understanding that will lead to religions acknowledging each other and the important role each has in our society. More importantly, he is allowing others to explore his own faith. He is also continuing to search for a place in American culture and his success is as much for himself and other Muslims as for America itself. With hard work by people such as Mr. Patel supporting the understanding of religion and diversity, our culture will be more ready to tackle the moments in the future when there will be other difficulties to overcome.

Works Consulted

Patel, Eboo. Acts of Faith The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation. New York: Beacon, 2008. Print.

Wuthnow, Robert. America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2005. Print.

Catholic Church and Diversity

The Catholic Church is having a problem with diversity in its higher ranking positions. Although there may be a diverse following, there is not a lot of diversity among the Bishops. In the past twenty years Catholic services or Masses had only been in English in America. There are some churches where the language is the one that the followers speak, like Polish or Portuguese. However, those churches are few and far between. Many churches have changed in the past twenty years to incorporate Spanish speaking Masses. There are still many churches that need more diversity and broad ranged of different ethnicites. An article by Frank Ponce for the New Catholic World written in 1980 addressed this problem and set out several solutions to fix it. He points out that while many parishes are diverse the people in power are not. “The conclusion: few dioceses have – or are willing to involve – Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Asian Americans, or other minorities in responsible, diocesan decision-making positions” (Mathisen, 756). He recognized the need for the Catholic Church to be more diverse and give credit to its followers.

Ethnicity is not the only thing that the Catholic Church needs to look at to be more diverse. Women have almost no high ranking positions in the Church's infrastructure. Women can never be priests, they can only be nuns. In Chile, women are taking on roles where they have more power and can do more for the Church. “They are doing many of those tasks traditionally reserved to priests: conducting paraliturgical ceremonies, Catechetics for adults and children, the formation of Mother Catechists, home visiting, the development of primary communities, parochial administration, and even a limited participation in the administration of the Sacraments” (Gillfeather, 39). Women are beginning to find a bigger roles within the church, but they are still not allowed to become priests. Vatican II made a lot of differences in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. “Vatican II itself revealed a degree of pluralism withing the institutional Church that hitherto had not been seen publicly” (D'Antonio,382). This helped the church to modernize some of its old policies and make the Church a friendlier and more accessible venue. “That is, the traditional leaders of the Vatican, with their opposition to just about everything Vatican II stood were confronted by a Pope (John XXIII) who insisted on opening Church windows to let in some fresh air, and by bishops from around the world , eager for a chance to modify at least some aspects of life in the Roman Catholic church” (D'Antonio,382). The Catholic Church has come a long way in terms of being more accepting and welcoming of diversity, however, the Church still has a long way to go to be more accepting of gender and sexuality.


D'Antonio, William V. "Autonomy and democracy in an autocratic organization: The case of the Roman Catholic Church." Sociology of Religion 55.4 (1994): 379-396. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Dec. 2009.

Gilfeather, Katherine "The Changing Role of Women in the Catholic Church in Chile." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 16.1 (1977): 39. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Dec. 2009.

Mathesin, Robert, R. Critical Issues in American Religious History: A Reader (2nd Revised Edition). Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Print.

Religious Freedom

(Old post on the Separation of Church and State)

The endless debate of the Separation between Church and State has always been insignificant to me. After reading Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, this debate was still insignificant to me. Why was this separation so important when it didn't change anything? The Prop Eight results were infuriating; if this separation ignited so much freedom, then why is it that non-Christians are still the minority here in America? Shouldn't there be equality between the religious and the non-religious?

Then I realized what life would really be like without the separation between Church and State. All non-Christians would be in the minority, not just homosexuals. American culture would be drastically different. Without the separation of Church and State, America might not be the melting-pot it is now. All the cultures that are able to thrive so well here wouldn't exist in America. The Jewish community I belong to wouldn't exist, and the Hebrew classes that have brought me closer to my culture probably wouldn't be offered in the state school system.

The facts that intelligent design can still be taught in schools and that homosexuals still don't have equal rights make it seem like true separation between Church and State is far from complete. Yet, to have religious freedom means that all religions have equal rights. If Prop Eight had had different results, it would've meant that there wasn't a separation between Church and State--because there is a Christian majority here in the United States.


Greenberg, Paul. "Praise the Lord: Church and State are still Separate." Los Angeles Times Syndicate. July 3, 1992.

Religion as a Cure for Suffering

(Old post on Weber)

A major component of religion that Max Weber examines in "The Social Psychology of the World Religions" is suffering. The masses wonder about why they suffer, why other people suffer, and why some people don't suffer at all. To explain this phenomenon, Weber examines the time line of suffering. The first sufferers were thought to be possessed by a demon--or otherwise afflicted by the wrath of a god. Because of this thought process, the sufferer would be cast out of society in order to save others in the society from the same fate. The lone sufferer would then seek the removal of his supposed evil, to ease his suffering. In need of a spiritual adviser, he goes to see a magician. The magician grants the sufferer good will, and in turn the sufferer--who is no longer suffering--brings a patronage to the magician.

Later, the explanation of suffering is updated from a god's wrath to the natural human disposition to sin. Because we sin, we deserve to suffer. According to this logic--if we are saved from our sins, we are saved from suffering. Thus, if we have a savior, we have a 'cure of the soul.' If we believe in a savior, yet still suffer, then we are given hope that we will be free from suffering in the afterlife. The idea of a savior ties into Weber's theme of social strata. The savior is typically not a figure from a depressed class, but is a figure from the ruling strata. These saviors are ethical divinities--they punish bad behavior and award the good. To deserve awards, a follower must pray, pay penances, and abstain from certain activities. If a follower doesn't do such things, he is punished by suffering. Hell is reserved for those who don't work for their repentance. But the loyal sufferers, those who prayed, paid penances, and abstained, will be rewarded in Heaven.

This idea of salvation continued to develop, eventually leading to 'rebirth' and 'redemption.' The more the masses needed an explanation for suffering, the more rituals and ideas the religion created to satisfy its followers. Because societies continue to expand and develop, religions will keep expanding and developing to accommodate their followers. This is easily seen in many modern sects of religion, such as reform movements.

The Ever Changing America

Pluralism in America makes for a very unique society to be a part of. Not only does it allow a number of cultures to coexist, but it allows people to practice both American traditions as well as traditions from other cultures they identify with. By having this unique mixture of traditions America has become a place with an ever changing identity.
“In the United States the climate of tolerance and engagement of pluralism emerge not from an authoritarian central regime, but from a democratic experiment as an immigrant nation, a nation in which, at our best, we our motivated by ideals and principles” (Eck, 335). Because America has a constant inflow of immigrants the culture of America is in constant transformation. By sheer virtue that America in known as an “immigrant nation” it has a level of pluralism unlike much of the world. With a nation built by immigrants the United States has come to be a nation of change. One cannot simply say being an American means that you eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch or on a higher note that to be American one has to be Christian. In fact, being American is now something in which people eat food from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and where two religions build their facilities next door to one another.
In the chapter “Bridge Building: A New Multireligious America, author Diane Eck, suggests that religious institutions are a place in which many immigrants gain insight into American culture. For example, Eck refers to Dr. Havanapola Ratanasara, a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk, who encouraged Buddhist immigrants to embrace the American culture by observing the popular holidays. “Americans as a people celebrate several major religious holidays regardless of their own personal beliefs” (340). By encouraging immigrants to take part in religious holidays other than their own, Dr. Havanapola Ratanasara models the level of tolerance Americans have or should have for one another.
As we can see, for many immigrants religious institutions become a place that not only allows them to preserve cultural traditions from their original culture, but also help them to assimilate into the American culture. This can also work the other way around; in many cases religions in America have to be willing to make accommodations or changes to attract immigrants. According to Cecilia Menjivar, “to reach out to new comers, churches also incorporate popular religious practices that are culturally essential for the immigrants” (25). This idea of incorporating different practices is a clear example of American pluralism. As suggested by Eck this willingness to bend from both the receiving society as well as the immigrants “means to be American is constantly being expressed in new ways as the fabric of America’s peoples change” (338).
Because of American pluralism the culture of America is always changing some way or another. It is one of the great qualities of American culture, in which we are not only able to interact with in such a diverse society, but also have the “freedom to grow” and become a model for the rest of the world.

Eck, Diane L. A New Religious America. San Francisco: Harper, 1997.

Menjivar, Cecilia. "Religion and Immigration in Comparative Perspective: Catholic and Evangelical Salvadorans in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Phoenix." Sociology of Religion, 64.1 (2003): 21-45.

Religion and Pluralism

The belief in Pluralism involves the cooperation and respect from religions and their beliefs that differ from your own. Great controversy arose after the September 11 events in the United States. In the holy book of Islam, Muslims are taught pluralistic ideals. Many people cannot understand how a religion that promotes peace and acceptance amongst diverse, religious communities. Without Pluralism you have Nations that “experience conflict as a result of one religious, ethnic, or tribal groups being unable to respect and value the essential equality and humanity of groups different from itself”. The dispute between the terrorist attackers of 9-11 and the American west, is associated to the lack of pluralism. The holy book of Islam, the Quran, teaches respect and tolerance of all diverse human beings.

The Quran acknowledges the importance of tolerance amongst diverse communities and their beliefs. The Quran accepts that there are different people that hold their own truths. Judgment and salvation can come to anyone that has a true belief in their own God. The true meaning of any ancient text is hard to decipher, since translation and interpretation can often be subject to biased views. Due to some political interpretation the term Jihad now represents has a negative connotation associated with violence as “a general military offensive against nonbelievers and as a means of legitimizing political dominion” (Asani 46). To those that study the Quran and seek to understand its true meaning believe that a Jihad is instead, a moral struggle, in response aggression against them.

The Pluralist beliefs must be shared by the two opposing nations, such as Islam and the United States, in order to promote true peace and equality, and remain in a neutral state. Yet Pluralist debates to not simply happen amongst nations, conflicting beliefs on the subject of pluralism can be witnessed amid people of the same nation that hold different religious and political values. In the article, “Religious Diversity and Democratic Institutional Pluralism”, author Viet Bader argues that institutions and laws that govern the separation of church and state, and uphold the theories of pluralism have not been properly dealt with in the United States. He believes that a plan should be created and implemented to promote a “pluralized prospective on public reason for mutual understanding, decision making and democratic legitimacy” ( Bader 266).

The Issues that have been presented in the understanding of Pluralism will continue to occur if people to not reach a general understanding. Different cultural experiences will generate different cultural beliefs and values, yet the core of most religions is to find a deeper understanding of the world in which we cannot easily interpret and understand.

Asani, Ali S. “So That You May Know One Another”: A Muslim American Reflects on

Pluralism and Islam”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 588, Islam: Enduring Myths. Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Web.

JSTOR. 3 December 2009.

Bader, Viet. “Religious Diversity and Democratic Institutional Pluralism”. Political

Theory, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 265-294.Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Web. JSTOR. 3 December 2009.

Moving Mountains: John Dewey

Humanism does not worship the power of a superhuman; it requires faith in human power. John Dewey, an American philosopher, knew the direction the world needed to go. Dewey was one of the original signers on the 1933 humanist manifesto, and was involved in several other humanist projects during the thirties and forties.

John Dewey was born in Vermont in late 1859, just prior to the Civil War. Dewey was one of four children born to Archibald Dewey, a merchant and participant in the Union Army in Virginia, and Lucina Artemisia. Dewey’s mother was a strong believer in Calvinism, and influenced him through her belief of strong moral behavior and good acts. Dewey learned about various cultures through near by settlers in Burlington, such as the Irish and French-Canadian. He developed his formal education at through the University of Virginia, where he excelled in the sciences. “Dewey became aware of the world of ideas during his senior year. Courses on psychology (the science of mind and behavior), religion, ethics (the study of moral values), and logic (the science of reasoning) interested him more than his earlier training in languages and science.” [Encyclopedia of World Biography. John Dewey] Dewey graduated and tried to go in to teaching, but soon returned to school at the University of Michigan to receive his Doctorate at the age of twenty-five. He began teaching at the University and started following a thought pattern similar to the one his mother had raised him with, which was to think in constructive ways that would lead to progressive change and problem solving.

Dewey and his wife moved to New York for teaching opportunities, which opened the door to a diverse concentration of American cultural influence during the 1920’s. Here Dewey made connections, which resulted in the development of the League for Independent Political Action, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Association of University Professors. Dewey was widely criticized for his forthright opinions in philosophical interventions, however he had traveled the world and developed his ideas based on what he saw happening around him.

In his travels he had viewed human actions, which had been taken to extremes due to their overwhelming power, such as Adolph Hitler’s. Dewey wanted to create a universal education, which promoted the people to think creatively about their world, and develop ideas together. Dewey used his own teaching in the University in order to inspire his own thoughts and express his new ideas. In 1931 Dewey had a series of writings published in the New Republic, about creating a third political party. He involved himself with groups that would listen to what he had to say, and stuck his foot in the door with groups who would publish his ideas. By directing himself toward a left winged group his views were heard. He worked at gaining participation from political figures who would help him develop a third party to build a controlled system that could benefit all people. For Dewey, the change he wanted to see could not be accomplished by the either of the two parties, and he felt a deep need to get support in this third party idea. After retiring from teaching in the 1930’s Dewey joined the American Humanist Association who created the first Manifesto. The group wanted to create a standard set of ethics, which the world could agree upon and still hold religious beliefs. Dewey passed away in June 1952, before the second manifesto was produced.

Finnegan, Cara A. Elastic, Agnostic Publics: John Dewey’s Call for A Third Party. EbscoHost Access 8 Dec 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=9318869&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live

Encyclopedia of World Biography John Dewey . Access 9 Dec 2009

http://www.notablebiographies.com/De-Du/Dewey-John.html

World Wide Community

Cosmopolitanism speaks much more to a person’s character and willingness to see the world with an open mind. Religion seems to be so close-minded to the world around us. Christianity for example puts its theology and its scriptures above all other religions. Worshipping anything other than Christianity’s version of the “True God” is viewed as “idolatry, itself an offense against divine law…” (Appiah 10). But who decides what is true? Cosmopolitanism goes way beyond just religions. It serves to set a model of world wide community that looks beyond race or religion to see everyone as human beings.
Appiah brings the question of truth to light in chapter one of his book. He uses the example of the Catholic and Muslim religions. Each has its own practices, rituals, each believes their form of religion is “True”, and each believes the other is wrong. In contrast cosmopolitans are people who stand back and allow each group to pratice what they believe is true. There are two basic strands associated with cosmopolitism; first they have a high regard for art and literature from many different places. They also are very interested in the lives of the people who created the art and literature. Second they recognize that “…human beings are different and that we can learn from each other’s differences” (Appaih 4). Yet cosmopolitans do not have to agree or even approve with practices of other religions or cultures. Engaging with different religions or cultures has nothing do with approval; it has everything to do with respecting the group’s customs and beliefs. Without the beliefs the acts of a certain group have no meaning.
The main focus of cosmopolitism has to do with culture and how culture changes
over time. In Samuel Scheffler’s essay Conceptions of Cosmopolitanism he discusses the way people influence cultures around the world. He believes that cultures are in constant flux, constantly modifying, updating, and altering. He see this as a, “normal condition of living cultures” (Scheffler 256). This change is needed so the human race can progress. In his view there is no difference between Christians and Muslims or white and black. We are all citizens of the world and such we have an obligation to the world wide community of human beings to except and embrace our differences.
It is important to state that cosmopolitism does not believe that everyone has the right to do as they please just because they believe it is right. Shared values are needed to protect the world from anarchy. The key is to understand each others cultures. This makes for a more cultured society and one that can learn from each other.



Scheffler, Samuel "Conceptions of Cosmopolitanism." Utilitas 11.3 (1999): 255. Religion and Philosophy Collection. EBSCO. Web. 8 Dec. 2009.

Appiah and Pluralism

I found Appiah’s views of cosmopolitanism to be very intriguing. His views remind me of religious pluralism, where people are willing and able to accept one another despite religious differences. He makes some very good points about how Muslims and Christians have very different views about who should be worshiped, and what is important in religion, whether it be going to Mecca or going to mass. The real issue is if we as a human race can learn to let people believe whatever they feel works for them, without judging them and forcing our beliefs, whatever they may be, upon someone else. This is what I understood Cosmopolitanism to be.

Appiah states in his first chapter that human beings are different, and we should learn from one another. I agree with him whole-heartedly. If we, as a humans, could learn to break down the barriers of religion and learn to accept each other on a human level and see that we all have something in common, then we would not have all of the problems we have today. Appiah also says that real disagreements often arise from religion, which supports the reason why religious pluralism is a good concept to embrace.

According to Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad in her essay, Claiming Muslim Space in America’s Pluralism, she says, “The mission for Muslims in the world is to combat un-Islamic orders and not to compromise with them.” This puts the idea of religious pluralism in a tough and awkward position. According to this quote, religious pluralism and the act of accepting other people and cultures that believe anything other than the Muslim faith is against the Muslim religion. How do we embrace religious pluralism when it can force a particular group of people to go against what they believe?

This is what makes this topic such a difficult one for us to figure out here is America where people have religious freedom. People have the right to believe whatever they want, and it is unconstitutional for us to force people to be pluralistic. In my opinion, the best way to go about this is to educate the masses about acceptance and tolerance. We do not have to force people around us to agree with what we believe, but we can teach people about tolerance.

Works Cited:

Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck. "Claiming Muslim Space in America's Pluralism." Critical Issues in American Religious History. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2001. 785-795. Print.

Cosmopolitanism and Responsibility

Appiah begins Chapter Two by discussing the responsibility of cosmopolitans. He explains that the nature of a cosmopolitan is to feel responsible for the well-being of other cultures. That, because of the universal morality cosmopolitans experience, cosmopolitans consequently feel the need to help those that suffer. Appiah also discusses the anthropologists' aversion to such intervention. The anthropologist encourages us "to leave well enough alone" (Appiah, p 14). Much of this aversion is because of what anthropologists have seen throughout history. Even the best of intentions, as proven from witnessed history, can destroy cultures that could have otherwise survived.

The article I read, by Eduard Jordaan, explores world poverty and the lack of cosmopolitan support. Jordaan begins the article by arguing that if cosmopolitans did have the morality they claimed to, then they would be aiding those in poverty. Consequently, the lack of financial aid proves a lack of morality. This is a complex issue. Firstly, I don't agree that helping others is proof of morality. I think that the anthropologist thought of conserving other cultures shows more of their morality than trying to save other cultures would. To "save" a culture is very subjective. This subjectivity seems very counter intuitive to the cosmopolitan's thought process. How does a cosmopolitan know when to help a culture in need? When a culture doesn't have adequate food or clothing? Or when a culture is starving? Prevention of death from starvation seems like a good place to start. But wouldn't such help eventually infringe upon the culture of the society in need? Also, to financially aid those in need is not always a possibility, as Jordaan discusses.

As politics function today, there will always be poverty, and death by starvation. So what should an altruistic cosmopolitan do? They could take advice from the anthropologist, and conserve other cultures just as they are. They could drain their own finances trying to help a small portion of those who are starving to death, thus reducing their own quality of life without helping many others. They could intervene on a larger scale and risk destroying cultures in need. Or, they could realize that they can't change the world and give off the air of passivity that caused Jordaan to write his article in the first place.

It appears that Jordaan is displacing his ill feelings by blaming cosmopolitans for their seeming passivity. Shouldn't Jordan write to an audience who doesn't care about such matters, and attempt to educate that audience about their need to give financial aid? Instead he takes cosmopolitans, who feel morally responsible already, and basically tells them that they should be doing more. There really isn't much one can do besides giving time and money, which on a personal scale doesn't change much. A cosmopolitan could get into politics, and try to change things that way. But our country alone is in too much debt to save the world from starvation. Convincing those to do more than what is possible is like beating a dead horse. So many people do so much to help those in need, and it just isn't enough.


Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web

Jordaan, Eduard. Cosmopolitanism, Freedom, and Indifference: A Levinasian View. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. Jan-Mar 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p83-106, 24p.

Caste and Class in India

When reading Patel's chapter, An American in India, I remembered past travels that I took to Bolivia as a teenager. The younger I was the more I hated going back to Bolivia every summer. I hated the smell of the dirty streets riddled with beggar's and the fact that I had to brush my teeth with bottled water and I especially hated the nonexistence of American food. It was not until my later teen years that I began to appreciate the culture and sympathizes with the poverty. Similar to Patel's experience, I saw the unjust treatment of people and the acceptance of that treatment and I saw the importance of a class system and wealth. Patel realizes his early resistance to his Indian culture was due to what he was subjected to in America. He pinpoints America as a nation that, "seduced me [him] into adopting its styles and its scorn, forced me [him] to sacrifice my [his] true heritage in a devil's bargain for acceptance, and then laughed viciously when it slowly dawned on me that I would never be anything but a second-class citizen there".

Patel's later visits to India opened his eyes to the inequality people suffered and the different values of his American culture to those of Indian culture. The different identities people had in Indian seemed unchangeable. His grandmothers servants had been in the family for over fifty years and were considered part of the family by Patel's grandmother but they would still be nothing more than servants. India has an easily distinguishable class system while Americans class system is much more fluid because of most of the population can be classified as middle class. The different values placed in America oppose those of many different cultures. Patel classifies those values as, "the dignity of labor, the fundamental equality of human beings, mobility based on drive and talent, the opportunity to create and contribute". The fundamental value of humans being equal is not one accepted by all in America let alone other countries that place high value on a class system.

The Harijans (better known as the "untouchables") are an example of how the Hindu caste system oppressed people based on their occupation. Before 1949, Harijans were subjected to discrimination and had social restrictions because they were viewed as the absolute bottom of the Hindu caste. They were seen as pollution to others. This type of discrimination has been seen in most parts of the world and is reminiscent of the different types of discrimination in America. In past years, Harijans have been given more rights. They have been granted the right to an education and to vocational opportunities but are still discriminated against. Although the government in India has given them more rights many people still view them as the bottom of the Hindu caste. Similar to figures that Patel draws insight and inspiration from (Douglass, Malcolm X, Gandhi) he sees the injustice in the creation of a caste system.

Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition; 10/1/2009, p1-1, 1p

Khare, R.S. The Untouchable as Himself. New York, NY. Cambridge University Press 1984.

Idealistic not realistic

Cosmopolitanism is an idealistic way of perceiving how the world should and could be by means of creating a community that shares similar values. Although the idea of creating a global community that shares the same beliefs and values may sound ideal, there come many issues caused by contradictions. According to Appiah, intervening with another society and trying to influence it with one’s own culture is not seeing the similar values one may have, but instead, it is pushing another belief or value that the “outsider” may see as a cure or value that will make the society better. Outsiders of one society make look at a culture and see that something is wrong with it because it goes against their personal or religious views. In seeing this, there are people who feel the need to intervene and push forth their beliefs, or the right belief (in their mind), and attempt to create a global community with the same values and beliefs that they find are true. The problem with this is simply that many cultures and religious beliefs and values clash and so there is no way to create a global community with shared beliefs without disrupting and possibly destroying cultures and religions because a new and “shared” belief system would be ultimately forced onto people. Appiah gives examples of how different cultures have practices that many outsiders would find atrocious but the people within the culture see no wrong or harm in what they do. Appiah also describes what he calls Positivism which consists of beliefs and desires. “Beliefs are supposed to reflect how the world is. Desires reflect how we’d like it to be” (Appiah, p 18). According to an article by Bohman J. he states that “It is no longer possible to assume national or cultural sovereignty over publicity: the de facto principle of one culture, one public sphere' hardly holds true for any society around the world.” I believe that although this idea sounds great to some, it can be scary for others in the sense that many people will be pressured to follow the one view and belief system of one global community which can also create tension with people who may not agree. The mix of beliefs and desires seems to conflict with one another in that we see the world the way we want it to be and how we need to go about changing it in order to make it that way. Because there are so many different beliefs and values in this world there is no way that all of them will simply blend together without some disruption.

Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web

BOHMAN J. Philosophy & social criticism.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998, vol. 24, no2-3, pp. 199-216.

Cosmopolitanism

The ideology of cosmopolitanism is, the entire human race is connected together and creates one community, which has a shared morality. Someone who is cosmopolitan is described by many authors as, a person with a widely defined position of openness toward other people with origins that are not similar to their own. When individuals show cosmopolitan openness toward others, it is demonstrated in political, cultural, or aesthetic domains. This attitude is expressed by ethical and emotional dedication toward universalism, selflessness, worldliness and communitarianism. To be a cosmopolitanism is to have a perspective, or state of mind that involves particular modes of managing meanings, and varieties of mobilities.

The word cosmopolitan derives from the Greek word cosmos, which refers to the universe. People in a cosmopolitan society are connected across this universe, different states, nations, or continents, and they have a shared respect with each other based on morality, political structure, or a shared economic connection. Cosmopolitanism thinkers’ believer that all borders should be broken down and everyone should unite as one.

Cosmopolitanism recognizes that depending on location, economics, and culture, humans are different (in their beliefs, politics, morals, etc) and we can learn from the differences that we have. According to Richard Burton, a cosmopolitan openness to humankind across the world is entirely consistent with picking and choosing among the options you find in your exploration. No nation can be self sufficient, so all nations should work together to supply each other with what we need to make this world turn smoothly. It is the responsibility of every cosmopolitan to watch over and care for every other human being on the planet.

There is an ongoing debate whether cosmopolitanism literature has a class bias. Some authors think that cosmopolitanism is only for the privileged elites who have a higher education level, income, and capacity for mobility. This came from the late Victorian England era, when the cosmopolitanism belief was most common among the educated upper classes. Higher education, whether formal or informal, when examining cross ethnic lines without bias, expands a person’s cultural awareness. The same is true for the financial ability to travel globally, experiencing other societies (their religious, political, and cultural differences) first hand, can give a person an openness to humankind.

Works cited:

Kwame, Appiah. Cosmopolitanism, Ethics in a world of strangers. New York: Norton & Co, 2006. Web

Woodward, Ian. and Skrbis, Zlatko. "Strategic cosmopolitanism: Investigating the limits of cosmopolitan openness" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 11, 2006

The meaning of finding the same language of values

It is mentioned in the Cosmopolitanism by Appiah that the meanings of things are not in our heads, that we can talk about things that we don't even know what they are, and yet the reason that we can use those words and mean something by them is that people in our language community do have the relevant expertise (Appiah 28). It is quite interesting in that way that language was created, just as a means of communication; however, if an individual has no need of communicating to others around them, language doesn't even have to exist. The reason language became necessary is because there is a shared public need among a group of people to be able to share thoughts, ideas and as the matter of fact be able to come up with values. Values therefore are shaped out of interactions between human beings. It is thus imperative that the language of values is influential and discussable among human beings.

Toward the conclusion of his discussion, Appiah pointed out that relativism about ethics and morality gives reasons to fall silent more than encouraging conversations. That in fact goes against the original purpose of language, or language of values to be specific. Stories told through the language of values were to be convinced who ever the stories were told to to accept the values communicated or at least should be open for discussions in order to find shared values among people. Through examples of stories, it opens a certain concerned set of values that give people the opportunity to express their opinions toward the situation. To understand why different people think differently from you allows you to discuss your way of adjusting their thoughts to the current environment and vice versa. It is in the end the target of finding the middle ground where certain values of different people meet each other and can be tolerated so that the people are able to live together in the same place regardless of where they came from originally.

As values change from culture to culture, the share values is more essential when individuals start sharing the same environment through migration, globalization, etc. Yet, is is then important that not only a shared language of values is used to communicate, but also to find ways for a shared point of view of the same world that people are living in together. For if we all live in different world, have different world views, and never have to see each other, again, there will be no need for discussions using languages of any sort. As the matter of fact, the meaning of finding the same language of values has become crucial due to the development of economy, sociology during the time of globalization when human beings from everywhere in the world are trying to fit their language of values with each other in order to live in the same world.

Source: Appiah, "Cosmopolitanism"

The Complete Picture

Can it really be said that identity is what we see in the mirror? How else, then, do others see other individuals? The problem with living in such a diverse society is that there is no guarantee of tolerance and acceptance; indeed, it is quite the opposite, in that the world has contradicting faiths that hold different belief systems. Appiah describes "belief" as the means to the end that is "desire" (Appiah 19). Despite these contradicting beliefs, Appiah argues that one aspect that humans can find common ground in is shared values that people of different faiths can agree on (Appiah 29).

The thing I find interesting about this argument is that those who promote civil religion in the United States can use this very same argument. For example, those who advocate the term "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance will point to the fact that they are not singling out Christianity; after all, Muslims, Jews, and other religions have a god or a deity. Also, advocates of American civil religion will argue that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of other religion all agree in the sanctity of marriage, the bonding importance of the family, and instilled patriotism. However, this does not really address, nor does it help strive for a truly accepting society of all religions and belief systems.

Jeff-Spinner-Halev calls true toleration "liberal" in the sense that it should not just be a recognition of religious diversity; true toleration is an acceptance and (to a degree) appreciation from individuals of others' beliefs (Spinner-Halev 32). A mere recognition of diversity from the state, while it is a very positive step, does not change the hearts and minds of those who are not willing to accept the beliefs of others.

As Appiah described faith as a "shattered mirror", one that shows individual truths all coming together to complete the mirror. The human race is a mystery, and all of those who belong to a religious faith want to see a better world. The problem is, they do not all agree on how to get there. Dialogue within faiths is the only way we can truly understand each other. Only then will we get the complete picture. Unfortunately, this is a goal that seems to far from a narrow-minded society.




Works Cited
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. Norton, W. W. & Company, Inc. New York, New York. 2006.

Halev-Spinner, Jeff . Hinduism, Christianity, and Liberal Religious Toleration. "Political Theory", Vol. 33, No. 1 , pp. 28-57. Sage Publications, Inc. February 2005

Pluralism and Islam

Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel is filled with many hopes, thoughts, and stories, among them, the author’s comparisons between himself (or what he could have been) and the terrorists behind 9/11, the 2005 London bombing, and 1996 Olympics bombing. We know what happened to make Patel a different man from the others; he was loved and guided by the right people. The nineteen 9/11 terrorists, he believes, had extreme hate instilled in them and were made into puppets of intolerance and cruelty. Despite their extreme differences, both Patel and the 19 were Muslims, and yet they had very interpretations of the same religion. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Just as religious groups have fought against each other, they have also fought amongst themselves. A popular argument is that of pluralism. Patel and the 19 held very different views on pluralism, and each man got his reasoning from their shared religion of Islam.
In his article “‘So That You May Know One Another’: A Muslim American Reflects on Pluralism and Islam,” Harvard Professor Ali S. Asani claims, “The Holy Book of Islam teaches pluralism...” Asani also contends that “Muslims and non-Muslims frequently misuse the Quranic verses for political purposes....” (p. 41). Politics, along with religion, may have been the fundamental reason for the 19s’ actions. We can never know the exact reason why the 19 were anti-pluralism, but perhaps their actions on September 11th speak for themselves. We live in a democratic, pluralistic society. The freedoms that such a name brings inevitably lead to conflict. We anticipate that when a problem cannot be resolved by evidence, “liberty of belief” will result in judgment. Therefore it would appear that some amount of pluralism is an inherent product of democratic society. The 19, we know, were thoroughly against liberal freedoms, because they felt the Quran told them so.
Conversely, Patel feels quite the opposite. He grew up in a pluralistic society, immersed in a myriad of different of cultures. His parents encouraged diversity as well as religious pluralism. Even though he was not always particularly religious, he eventually fully accepted Islam, and his pro-pluralism stance did not waver. His upbringing had a large part in this, I am sure, but I think perhaps that confirmation of pluralism came in the form of a conversation with his grandmother. When he realized that she had been aiding helpless people (of different religions) for years, he asked why she risked her life for strangers. She replied, “I am a Muslim. This is what Muslims do” (Patel, 100). Those words cemented his belief. I feel that Patel would agree with Asani’s belief that, “The Quran reveals the beauty of human diversity....and promotes the idea of pluralism for cooperation, respect, and understanding among various communities” (p. 40).
Interestingly, scholars Alasdair Corckett, Daniel Olson, and David Voas claim that pluralism does not help or hinder religious participation of any kind. In their article, “Religious Pluralism and Participation: Why Previous Research Is Wrong,” the authors assert that the belief that pluralism has any effect on peoples’ involvement in any religion is completely false (p. 221).
I don’t know if I agree with this. On page 37, Patel writes, “I wanted to be good. It was in Islam that I found the clearest articulation of this inner struggle.” Though we find it hard to fathom, the 19 wanted to be good too, and they believed they were. It is, after all, the very reason for their actions. How sad to think that if they had only grown up with Patel and seen the beauty in pluralism--as the Quran says--they made have lead very different and peaceful lives.


Works Cited:

Asani, Ali S. “‘So That You May Know One Another’: A Muslim American Reflects on
Pluralism and Islam.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 588, pp. 40-51. 2003.

Crockett, Alasdair, and Olson, Daniel, and Voas, David. “Religious Pluralism and Participation: Why Previous Research Is Wrong.” American Sociological Review, Vol. 67, pp. 212-230. 2002.

Patel, Eboo. “Acts of Faith.” Beacon Press, Boston, MA. 2007.

Interfaith Youth Core

Interfaith Youth Core

Patel had taken a family trip to India with his family while in high school and disliked everything about India. He disliked that there were no showers at his grandmothers and that they did not have Frosted Flakes cereal. Along with man y more things once he had arrived in India. But now six years later after he had matured and went to college he and his good friend Kevin were about to take a trip to India again so that he could learn to appreciate his culture. Once Patel and Kevin arrived in India one of the first things Patel wanted to do was go and buy Indian clothing. One thing that Patel had to get used to was the fact that many people in India that had some sort of money owned servants and this was a shock to him to and his friend. They didn’t understand why and felt that they could do the daily duties for themselves. But Patel learned to accept it because it was part of his culture. Patel had been struggling to learn language and had finally picked up enough to communicate with the people.

“The dream of India is the dream of pluralism, the idea of different communities retaining their uniqueness while relating in a way that recognizes they share universal values” (Patel,92). Over weeks of reading books Patel and Kevin got the chance to meet the Dalai Lama. They meet in a meeting room of his place; Kevin was the first to speak to the Dalai Lama and he identified Kevin as a Jew after her had spoken and commended Kevin for deeping his study of his religion. Now it was Patel’s turn and the Dalai Lama did not ask questions he just stated that Patel was a Muslim and suggested he visit the Tibetan Muslims and Patel replied. Patel then took the opportunity to explain the program he had developed called the Interfaith Youth Core. The Dalai Lama felt that the program was a very good project and asked if he was too old to join which left them all laughing and carrying on.

The interfaith Youth Core was started by Patel to “build mutual respect and pluralism among young people from different religious traditions by empowering them to work together to serve others” (IFYC). After Patel’s visit with the Dalai Lama he was more encourage and excited to return to the United States and progress in the development of the interfaith youth group. This group has brought together more people than could be imagined and all with different religious backgrounds and cultures. In June President Obama made a speech saying “Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.…Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster” (Kirby& Patel). With this being said it has been proven thatdifferent religions and cultures can come together and had a mutual ground with some similarities.

Patel, Eboo, Kirby, Samantha, Tikkun. Hungry for Change: Interfaith Service in Action. Sep/Oct2009, Vol. EBSCOhost. 24, Issue 5. Web. 1 Dec. 2009

Patel, Eboo. Acts of Faith. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.

"Interfaith Youth Core". IFYC. December 3, 2009. http://www.ifyc.org/about_movement.

Eboo Patel’s Acts of Faith and Pluralism

The United States, being the most religiously diverse country in the world, gives way to pluralism. Due to the fact that so many religions have existed in the United States through a long period of time, has made it possible for there to exist different types of ethnicities. Religion can be considered an aspect of ethnicity and by being so religion plays a different role with each different type of ethnicity. There is the hidden ethnicity which is when people in America believe they have no ethnicity, situational ethnicity which is found mostly in second generation immigrants who retain an ethnic fluency with parents, but are also fluent in the new place they find themselves in. Also, there is symbolic identity, with targets fourth generation immigrants who can’t necessarily recall where their ancestors came from. With all of these different ethnicities and religions many times bring conflicts rise which is why the idea and act of disestablishment came to be.
In Acts of Faith, by Eboo Patel, Patel writes about his journey through life as a Muslim in America with the vision in creating an interfaith youth movement. According to Eck, “pluralism is when people of different backgrounds seek mutual understanding and positive cooperation with one another” (Hartman 26). It is pluralism that Patel is in search of throughout his journey. Patel speaks about the different relationships that he holds with different people in different periods of his life who come from many different religious backgrounds. He states that when he was young, his family was a devout Islam family who prayed as it was expected of them from the religion, but with time, his parents became more attained to their jobs and slowly let go of the ritualistic prayers. He remembers that the prayer told from his mom before going to bed was one that never disappeared.
Patel can probably fit in the situational ethnicity because as an immigrant who was raised in the United States, he retains the ethnic fluency with his parents, who constantly remind him that he is Muslim, but is also fluent with the new place that he finds himself in, the United States. In the beginning of the story he begins by introducing a suicide bombing that takes place in London and carefully compares himself with the young men that commit the bombing. Identity is a very significant theme in this story and also the way that identity revolves around religion.
In the article, Religious Pluralism Civil Society’s Hope in a Diverse community, the author Becca Hartman states that there is a division between “inner” and “faith. She states that there are places where people from diverse religious communities gather like public schools, shopping malls, ect, and that these places are considered spaces of “inner” (Hartman 26). The spaces of “faith” are those places where people from particular religious communities gather to speak about religion and these places are churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other such places (Hartman 26). With this she states that there are very few places where people from diverse religions come together to speak about matters of religion. This is what Patel encounters throughout his journey. He finds places like the Catholic Worker house and is involved in many projects, but cannot find the pluralism that he is searching for.
It is Patel’s vision to create an interface community where people of different faith can come together and make changes in society. He, along with a group of friends come together to organize Stone Soup, a place where activists and leaders can come together and make positive changes. Throughout Patel’s journey, he makes many positive changes as he learns about different people and their religious backgrounds, although he mentions to others that he really is not religious himself. Religious pluralism is a great challenge and Patel does not give up hope in creating an interfaith community in order to have pluralism. This shows how religion plays an important role in society because Patel is not satisfied with only having a diverse group of people speak about projects, he wants to involve religion as well. To have this, people of different ethnicities must come together which is something as Hartman states, “can only happen if “inner” and “faith” come together (Hartman 27).

Patel, Eboo "Act of Faith". Beacon Press, Boston, MA. (2007): 1-76. Print

Hartman, Becca. "Religious Pluralism Civil Society’s Hope in a Diverse Community" National Civic Review. (2009):25-30. Print

Patel's Search for Religious Pluralism

In searching for one's identity, one must confront and explore their history to find where and how they fit in. Heritage, culture and traditions all reflect the experiences within an individual’s religious community. The personal story that Eboo Patel shares in "Acts of Faith”, gives way to the enormous possibilities that arise from surrounding yourself with progressive thinkers and active public servants. The light that shines on Patel's grassroots interfaith meetings arose from common ideals; the search for truth and compassion for humanity and diversity!

The interfaith programs placed value on religious harmony, sharing an open dialogue, which embraced religious pluralism. Patel's personal journey in finding his religious identity stems from his experiences in India. A subtle transformation became realized in his early adult years that getting angry and fighting the system were counterproductive. The America that shunned him could embrace him, but he just didn't know where he fit in yet. Writings of Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad played into his racial injustices and need to demonize American and it's dark past. Pluralistic writings and views of James Baldwin persuaded Patel's softer side..."saying that love between people of different identities was not only possible but necessary, and that we had to insist on it."(Patel, pg.89) As Elizabeth Plantz explains in her book “Bridging the Gap: Islam in America”, “…they may soon outnumber Jews, making them the second largest religious group in the United States.” (Plantz, pg. 1)

As leadership qualities and confidence build, scholarly readings opened Patel's eyes to a diverse religious fulfillment. Patel and his group of like-minded visionaries seek community support by human contact and connection. Patel learned of "ubuntu" while searching spiritual principles in South Africa, "people are people through other people." (Patel, 116) Throughout his travels to India, South Africa, meeting the Dalai Lama and his work in Chicago, Patel soon discovered the many layers he shared with his interfaith group/meetings and activist circles. As his friend Jeff explained to Eboo early on, "the most important thing you can learn is how to turn an idea into reality."(Patel, pg. 45)

The roots of the diverse interfaith movement act on life's injustices and bring a powerful and positive force globally. Enlightened religious groups make bridges to connect a pluralistic existence. Violence breeds violence, and if we don't change our outlooks on tolerance, democracy and religious pluralism; we will repeat the past over religious dominance and radicalism.

Patel's multi-ethnic friendships were a beneficial to his inner growth and self-realization. Mormon friends, Jewish friends, Christian friends alike found core beliefs to tap into and change the quality of life for others, a sacrifice which benefits everyone.

Patel, Eboo "Act of Faith". Beacon Press, Boston, MA.2007. pg. 77-180
Platz, Elizabeth, “Bridging the Gap: Islam in America”, www.islamfortoday.com/library.htm

Hindu Nationalism

Much like Christian nationalism, which focuses on “restoring” America to its “Christian roots”, Hindu nationalism is seen as a doctrine concerned primarily with promoting unity within the nation among Hindus, but wherein the motivation is focused on discriminating minorities, specifically the Muslims (Swami, 12). The Hindu Nationalists are neither a religious sect nor a political party, though they have a party. They are not a single organization; rather, they are a network of fundamentalists, traditionalists, anti-modernists, and right-wing conservative whose members are strong believers of the representative democracy (Bhargava, 11). They run the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), in hopes to capture state power, just like Christian dominionism. Despite the tendencies of the people to move independently, they are cemented through their belief of antiliberalism, disgust in socialism, belief of reinstating a strong Hindu nation, and antipathy to Muslims.

The origin of Hindu Nationalism started as a response to British colonialism. Uprooted from tradition, the Indians suffered because they had not defined their own identity. They had to compare themselves with others to come up with their own identity; thus, the birth of Hindu nationalism (Swami 11). Clearly, perverse comparison does not only play a major role in the Hindu-Muslim conflict; one can clearly see that perverse comparison also made possible the creation of religions, as dictated by Weber’s theory of religion. One figure important to the movement’s conception was K.B Hedgewar, who saw that the Hindus were disunited and physically weak compared to the strong, cohesive Muslims. He made a notion that if the Hindu were to unite and become strong, they would have gained political power, which was threatened by the growing numbers of Muslims and Christians. This led to the mindset of creating a pure culture focused on the “formation of a narrow, hardened, and belligerent identity-formation” (Bhargava 12).

As what I have learned from another class, the core values of Hinduism are eclecticism and diversity, yet “stigmatization and emulation” defined the strategy used by the nationalists to attain the goal of defining a national identity (Bhargava 14). An example would be the protection of the holy cow, the symbol of upper-caste Hindu identity. They had clearly defined themselves from the Muslims, the barbaric cow-slaughterers. They had missionaries to spread their dedication to “Mother India,” while mainly servicing people of upper-caste families. They put up schools, money-lending agencies, and youth associations, not for social service, but to spread the “conflictual, violent engagement with the ‘Other’” (Bhargava 14). Would the contradiction between the religion’s core and the strategies only nullify the belief and the system?

Extreme Hindu nationalism cannot survive without an enemy. Until today, perverse comparison propels extreme Hindu nationalism. Only 11 percent of the population is Muslim, British imperialism can only be found through the traces it left behind, and self identity has grown strong, yet the upper-case Hindus still dominate all political institutions. Hindu nationalism has only grown stronger since the 1980s, and the BJP has heavily influenced the elections (Bhargava 14). Why does the majority still feel and behave like a persecuted minority?



Bhargava, R. (2003). The cultural nationalism of the new Hindu. Politics Abroad. 11-17

Swami, A. (2003). Hindu nationalism: What’s religion got to do with it? Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. 1-17.