The Courage to Choose A New Dialogue

– Oslo and Finding the Courage to Change — A New Dialogue (Part II)

Once again, as I write this, there are those who claim to want to threaten my hometown and America’s national capital. We have seen it many times over the past 10 years. We have seen the barriers, the security procedures, the National Guard, and the police riding our subways with machine guns.

But once again, the path to peace anywhere in the world, Washington DC or New York City, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe – begins with a dialogue of peace.

Such a dialogue requires the courage to change the dialogue of the past and embrace the opportunities that we have to work together as fellow human beings to achieve change in our societies and our world.

At the end of July, I wrote of the terrorist attack in Oslo, Norway by confessed terrorist Anders Behring Breivik. I wrote about the need to comfort those who lost their lives and families of children whose lives were lost in the July 22, 2011 terrorist attack in Norway. I wrote of the need to balance our disagreements with dignity and compassion, and the lessons that we must continuously learn and teach from such violence.

At the end of August, I wrote details about the challenges of extremists in various groups. This includes extremists in the Anti-Islam group that Mr. Breivik claimed to represent as well as the Bin Ladenists who continue to commit and threaten terrorism around the world. My Christian friends reject the oppressive message and terrorist actions of Mr. Breivik, who sought to view himself as a “Christian crusader.” My Muslim friends reject the violence and hate of the Bin Ladenist movement. I embrace the efforts of all my brothers and sisters in humanity to pursue a path of compassion and human dignity.

These terrorists do not represent us, and we must not allow them to claim that they represent the “culture” of our faiths. It is the responsibility of people of such faiths to continue to make this clear to the world, not just with their words, but more importantly with their actions.

We must find the courage to seize the opportunity for a new dialogue on our freedom of speech and responsibility, to develop a new approach to our cultural ownership, to choose a new dialogue regarding religion and human rights, and to choose love, not hate not just in our hearts, but in our minds, in our words, and in our actions.

1. A New Dialogue on Freedom of Speech and Responsibility

We cannot have any dialogue without freedom of speech. When we fear to communicate and to disagree, then people stop talking and start plotting on how to overthrow “the other” (whoever that may be). So whether we agree on someone else’s views or not, let’s remember that if we deny their freedom of speech, we undermine the ability to build any type of dialogue in the future. I talk with a lot of people that I disagree with – in many different areas. Some people may choose to view me as an “enemy.” But I have no enemies; I only have brothers and sisters in humanity. That is what all must seek, no matter how disagreeable or how difficult that may be at times.

But while we work to support the freedom of speech for all, we must also work to build a greater sense of responsibility to use our words constructively. We can use our words to build, not destroy. We can use our speech to heal, not to divide. We can use our rhetoric to hope, not to hurt. We have a choice, and we also have a responsibility to our society.

We cannot legislate responsibility or our brothers’ and sisters’ thinking. They have universal human rights to say and think what they choose. While we have laws to protect people from violent threats and danger, the real work in building responsibility is by showing responsibility ourselves. We must spend less time pointing fingers and more time extending our hands in human fellowship. We must spend less time in dialogue with those who share our views, and more time listening to others with whom we disagree. We must set an example in being responsible for both freedom and dignity.

Building responsible speech in our societies is hard, grueling, thankless societal construction work. We will win no awards, get no supporters, obtain no donations, and get no accolades for the construction work of building respect and dignity for one another in our communications.

But imagine how our society would struggle if we had no construction of roads, of sidewalks, of building, of electricity. Imagine our homes with no windows or no doors. We depend on such thankless construction for our daily lives and our daily interaction with the world.

We must make a renewed commitment to such construction for peaceful, respectful construction in communications with our human brothers and sisters. A new dialogue begins with choosing to be responsible for showing dignity towards one another.

2. A New Approach to Cultural Owners

Imagine a home with no windows, no doors. It would be a tomb, or perhaps even a cell. In many parts of the world, our brothers and sisters in humanity live in such prisons. They are imprisoned for choosing freedom, for choosing dignity, and some simply because of their identity, including their religion. We see people of all types of faith imprisoned around the world in oppressive states for their faith, or by those who discriminate and oppress them for their faith.

But the jailers are also in jail themselves.

We must seek and work towards a new approach to cultural ownership, where our homes have windows and doors, where our cultural homes allow us to see and talk to one other, where our cultural homes allow the light of day and the stars at night.

Mr. Breivik’s terrorist attack was for what he called a “Christian culture,” and the Bin Ladenist movement seeks what they call an “Islamic culture.” My Christian and Muslim friends reject both extremist views. But we must do more than just reject extremism. We must also answer the more difficult questions in our societies about our insecurities regarding our cultures.

Many are adverse to change, and the globalist movement of the 20th century has caused many great concern. They fear local and traditional views will be challenged and even lost. Some have rationalized that the answer should be found in cultural tariffs to keep people of other cultures, other races, other ethnic backgrounds, other religions, other identity groups – OUT – of a culture that they don’t want to change.

But history has shown that the effort to build such cultural tariffs and cultural walls are doomed to failure. Oftentimes, such efforts have had catastrophic and horrific results. We have seen some examples with Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, racist segregationists in the United States, Communist totalitarian nations, genocide in Darfur, and the endless waves of violence against religious minorities in the Middle East and Asia. History shows that the efforts to build walls around our cultures have many, many bad endings.

There is a great misunderstanding that comes with the closed minded views on isolated cultures. We have seen this with the manifesto of the terrorist Anders Breivik, who also used his attack (not unlike the Bin Ladenists) to reject what he calls multiculturalism. This misunderstanding comes from a basic confusion over what our responsibilities are involving multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is not about submission or surrender. It is not about sacrificing our cultures. We do not have to agree or even like other cultures. Multiculturalism is not about any of that. The important point for human dialogue is simply that we show dignity and respect for others and their differences, regardless of whether we agree or whether we like them, simply because they are fellow human beings.

Fear and doubt can be greater motivators to build walls. But if we are serious about building security not just for this moment, but also for our children and the generations to come, we must build more doors and more windows. We must not be afraid to look outside.

A new dialogue begins with the realization that we must share our Earth together. Not only do we need to be heard, but also we need to be able to listen.

3. A New Dialogue on Religion and Human Rights

People of faith must seek the opportunity to build a new dialogue on religion and human rights. We have to reject the idea that our faith does not allow human rights, human freedoms, and religious freedom for our human brothers and sisters.

To people of all faiths, I ask you to look not only to your heart, but also to your soul. We must find something other than fear, hate, anger, bitterness, and rejection in ourselves, in our thoughts, in our words, and in our lives.

We are better, we are bigger, we are more decent than what we have seen in the dialogue over the past 10 years since the 9/11 attacks. We are more courageous than to let people of faith suffer in prison cells and in oppression around the world, simply because of their faith. We have more confidence in our faith than to seek to deny our brothers and sisters their own houses of worship and their freedom of conscience – anywhere and everywhere in the world, without exception, without caveat, without condition.

We have greater voices and greater power together than the extremists among us who would denigrate others, oppress others, and even cause harm and violence to others. We outnumber even the greatest mobs with torches, with our countless masses that can choose to stand for freedom and dignity for all.

We must not let the Breiviks or the Bin Ladenists speak for us. We must not our silence ever be interpreted as apathy, or God forbid, consent.

We do not pray for fear, we do not pray for hate, we do not pray for indifference, and we do not pray for weakness. To people of faith, I say that we must be who we say we are, and take the responsibility to live as courageously as we pray.

We must lose the mask that too many wear of cowardice, indifference, and despair. We are more powerful than that. We are people of faith, blessed by a higher power to give us guidance and courage.

We are not better than our fellow human beings, but we are blessed to offer the chance to reach out to our fellow human beings. We must never let ourselves believe that blessing is a license to reject, to oppress, to demean, to hate, and to hurt our fellow human beings. Our blessing of faith must be cherished like the gift that it is.

My Muslim brothers and sisters have stood by my side many times, in many forums. They have stood by me in women’s rights events, in challenging stoning, in standing for religious freedom, in defying violence and hate, and in remembering those who have lost their lives to extremists. They have shared their heart break with me over the abuse of Christians, other Muslims, and other religious minorities in many parts of the world. They have stood with me in challenging the Bin Ladenists and their views. While this may get little reporting by the news media, I know this is true, I have seen this over and over with my own eyes, and heard this with my own ears. We need to reach out to greater numbers of our brothers and sisters on these issues.

My Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu brothers and sisters have also stood by me in these and similar human rights events, over and over again, in different parts of America, and in joint event for human rights in Europe. We still need to encourage more of our brothers and sisters to be involved in such issues.

I don’t offer a message for a new dialogue on religion and human rights based only optimism, but it is also based on years of personal experience witnessing this dialogue developing, seen with my own eyes and heard my own ears.

A new dialogue is developing and will continue to develop among people of many faiths and none at all – while we continue to remember our shared humanity, and while people of faith remember their shared blessing.

4. A Message to My Christian Brothers and Sisters

I am a Christian. Therefore, I also have a special direct message to my Christian brothers and sisters on this need to build a new dialogue of hope, respect, and dignity.

The terrorist attack of Anders Breivik and his calls for “Christian culture” was a deep insult to Christians around the world. A number of Christian commentators dismissed Mr. Breivik by stating that he was not really a Christian, but viewed himself as a “Christian agnostic” who liked what he viewed as the “cultural” traditions of Christianity, without actually having any faith.

While it is easy to dismiss Breivik, I would caution my Christian brothers and sisters not to do so too easily. While millions seek to promote a different type of “Christian culture” than the one that confessed terrorist Anders Breivik sought, he is not an “isolated incident.” There are too many others to believe this. We have seen the Hutaree, the racist “Christian Identity” movement, the African Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), Ugandan extremists, and the Westboro Baptist Church. We have seen pastor after pastor join marches to deny religious freedom, and some who have led Qur’an burning campaigns. We have seen dozens of Christian pastors joining groups that seek to deny the rights of other religions. We have seen well-known pastors on television call for violence attacks on Washington DC, and some who have called for natural disasters as religious justifications to push a political agenda.

For every one of these extremists, there have been hundreds, thousands of Christians who actively reject their views. These very vocal extremists are a small fraction of Christians. But does that diminish our responsibility to reach out to them, counter their views, and offer a different dialogue?

So yes, it is no doubt that Mr. Breivik was not really a “Christian,” as we know it. But let us not get so arrogant to ignore the plank in our own eye, and the growing climate of intolerance, of disrespect, and even of violence that continues to grow in some corners of people who seek to redefine what we view as “Christian culture.”

While I may offer advice to my fellow Christians, let me be clear that I do not suggest that I am a “Christian leader” or an authority of any kind. Hardly. I am nothing of the kind. I am a poor sinner, weak, and imperfect. I am an average person, who has made enough mistakes to fill any book. But our God gives us all a chance, even to the least of us, to make a difference. If we believe in our Christian faith, our evangelism is not what we say, it is what we do.

What we do – is not enough. Not nearly enough. That is hard is to say and it is hard to hear, when we must feel that in this difficult world and economy that we do so much.

But whenever we believe we have right to be arrogant, disrespectful, cruel, and thoughtless, then we are allowing the definition of “Christian culture” to be undermined and attacked. Even a poor sinner like me can see this.

Our Christian culture is nothing if it is not first based on humility, respect, mercy, and kindness. We may suffer and struggle. We may be abused and disrespected. But to my Christian brothers and sisters, we have faith that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins and our opportunity for eternal life. Our Christian culture is a culture of sacrifice, selflessness, compassion, and love. It is not simply enough that we Reject Hate. To the Christian culture, it is also imperative that we Choose Love.

5. Our Unity and Dialogue in Our Shared March of Life

Whatever our identity group, our religion (or none at all), our nationality, our race, our ethnic group, or our gender, we are ONE. We march together every day of our life in solidarity. Our solidarity is in our lives together in the human race that we share.

That march of life that we take every day together around the world allows us to share the dawn, the sun, the sky, the sea, the air, and the stars together. Our home. Our shared Earth for all of us.

On some days, that march of life is a struggle, for others it is an adventure. To all of us, our march of life is a constant opportunity not only for ourselves, but also for our society and the future for all.

For our shared march of life, we need more than the stones of angry words. We also need the building blocks of respect, patience, and the willingness to listen, even (especially) when we disagree. We can grow beyond the history of where we have been and where we have failed, and we can work towards our possibilities of what we could achieve by respecting and gaining faith in one another.

The march of life requires more than closed cultures with border gates that prevent us from walking together. We need pathways to see and understand one another.

Our march of life together requires that we not only have faith, but that we demonstrate that faith in showing dignity, mercy, and respect to one another.

But most of all, our march of life requires more than just the faith in our religions (or none at all) or in our ideas. We need to work to build a new dialogue with our fellow human beings so that we can trust each other more. We have don’t have to agree with each other to respect each other. We don’t have to share each other’s views to love one another as fellow human beings.

Our march of life together does not just have to have the background of rush, confrontation, and conflict. Our march of life can be to a new anthem, a new dialogue of respect, compassion, and love for one another.

This new dialogue must not just be in our words, but also must be an internal dialogue as to how we think about each other, and how we act towards one another. We have seen enough violence, we have seen enough pain, we have seen enough suffering, and we have seen enough hate.

We can make another choice, and work to build a new dialogue for future generations.

We can choose a new dialogue based on respect, dignity, compassion, and love for one another.

This year, as so many mourn the 10th anniversary of the terrible terrorist attacks in America on 9/11, let us remember more than just victims. Let us honor their lives, their joys, and their hopes. Let us honor their dreams, their faith, and their hearts.

Let us Choose Love, Not Hate. Love Wins.

Orange Ribbon for Universal Human Rights – Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)

The Challenge of the Anti-Islam and the Bin Ladenist Movements

The Challenge of the Anti-Islam and the Bin Ladenist Movements

August 22, 2011
Introduction: Responsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L.) represents a coalition of individuals that come together periodically to challenge human rights abuses and to promote human rights. To be consistent on such universal human rights, at times, we must also raise controversial issues as well. It is easy to be brave from a distance. But if we believe in the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty for all, sometimes we need to get close to issues that challenge our fellow human beings. We hope to offer solutions of peace, respect, and hope to all. We support the universal human rights of all people of all identity groups and all religions, without exception, without caveat.

====================================

I reject the views of the Anti-Islam movement, and I respect the religious liberty of all human beings, including my Muslim brothers and sisters in humanity. But I also reject the silence from our society, media, and our institutions on too many on extremists who rationalize oppression of human rights, hate, and violence based on the extremist views on what they believe justifies a religious “culture.” The failure to consistently address both extremist views will continue to lead to increasing human rights and security challenges in the United States and around the world.

In the past month, we have seen mirror images of ideological terrorists in Europe and in the United States: terrorist Anders Behring Breivik in Norway and failed terrorist Naser Abdo in Texas. Both terrorists believe they represent opposite ideological views, but they represent a common threat to our human rights and security.

The common argument by both ends of the spectrum has been an ideological view toward creating closed “cultures.”  Both the Anti-Islam movement and the Bin Ladenist ideologues have rationalized terrorism to support closed cultures that they believe are not only more important than human rights, but also more important even than human lives. Furthermore, the neglect by media, our governments, international agencies, too many counterterrorists, and too many human rights groups to seriously discuss this problem is the fear of offending anyone’s view of “culture.”

Our cultures do matter. But our shared universal human rights and human dignity are what truly unite us as a human race. Our shared human rights are not only the basis for cultures of life and dignity, but also the basis for security and peace.

1. The Breivik Terrorist Attack

On July 22, 2011, 77 children, women, and men were killed in Olso, Norway at the hands of a terrorist who claimed that his actions were to promote his Anti-Islam views. As that nation remembers the loss of their fellow citizens and loved ones, it is past time to have a more serious reflection on the ideological claims of the confessed Oslo terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, and the consequences of his ideological views.

The week after the terrorist attack, the mainstream media discovered a video that Breivik made and a “manifesto” that he sent out on email. It listed a number of Anti-Islam leaders and writings by others, and the news media latched onto the Anti-Islam leaders, blaming them as individuals for Breivik’s terrorist activities. The Anti-Islam leaders defended themselves and rejected such associations, stating they were opposed to violence.

There is no question that Mr. Breivik is the individual responsible for and accountable for his crimes and terrorism. He and he alone is accountable for his actions, his cruel and vicious murder of women, children, and others. He is not a hero, but a criminal. He is not a visionary, but a common killer.

But Breivik’s use of the Anti-Islam ideology for violence is not the isolated incident that some believe, and it is important for human rights and security that it is addressed. His violent terrorism may have been the first, but he is not alone in his calls for violence among Anti-Islam activists. Breivik’s July 22 attack is not the first violence we have seen from the Anti-Islam campaigns.

The Anti-Islam movement is not only growing in numbers, it also is increasingly becoming a security and human rights challenge itself.

2. The Growing Challenge of the Anti-Islam Movement

After the 9/11 attacks, a number of Americans, and then Europeans began to fear future attacks from violent individuals who shared the extremist ideology of Osama Bin Laden.  They sought to understand the ideology and rationale behind such attacks. Some sought to consistently challenge a Bin Ladenist extremist ideology which would use Islamic religious views to rationalize human rights and security threats. But as the mainstream media, governments, and traditional human right groups ignored this, some became more hard-lined in their thinking and political in their organization.  This created a significant divide among people with this concern.  Some remained concerned about Bin Ladenist ideologies and their followers; others sought to blame Islam itself for such terrorism and abuse of human rights.  This latter group began to form an Anti-Islam movement.

With the example of the success that American Tea-Party style activism found with conservative politicians, some Anti-Islam activists began to start to build a political movement of their own.  (This began less than a year after our own R.E.A.L. human rights coalition had started to offer a consistent view on human rights issues.)

There are many who have been outraged by the actions of Bin Ladenists.   The outrage towards such extremists was coupled with a sense of abandonment and fear, in believing that traditional government and human rights groups were not concerned about the Bin Ladenist ideological views. As those with Bin Ladenist views have sought to threaten human rights and security, some have gravitated towards populist leaders in the Anti-Islamic movement.

In Europe, groups such as the Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) and the English Defence League (EDL) were created. In the United States, the SIOE sought to create a version of their group in the United States called the Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) two years ago.   R.E.A.L. has been on the record as objecting to the SIOA and its message since the creation of the SIOA.

The Norway terrorist Anders Breivik used the ideas from such Anti-Islam groups as the rationale for his July 22 terrorist acts.  I have read much of Mr. Breivik’s “manifesto,” and I have seen his video that he released prior to his terrorist attack. There are a number of familiar names and familiar images. Anti-Islam terrorist Breivik has praised the SIOE and praised the EDL. In Breivik’s Anti-Islam manifesto, he quoted original SIOA leader D.L. Adams, as well as current SIOA leaders Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. In addition, Breivik references European philosophers, and even counterterrorist analysts such as Evan Kohlmann, who have I met, and I know that Mr. Kohlmann adamantly rejects an Anti-Islam view. I have no doubt that Mr. Spencer (who was widely quoted in the Breivik manifesto) and others referenced in Breivik’s manifesto, were shocked and horrified by this, as any sane individual would be.

I have met Mr. Spencer and neither he nor Ms. Geller are the demons that the media have sought to portray them as. While I disagree with their views and their strategy, I have no doubt that they genuinely believe that what they are doing will protect American human rights and security. I met with Mr. Spencer several years ago and I shared his concern about those rationalizing human rights abuses in some parts of the world based on some extremist individuals’ and groups’ interpretation of Sharia.

The difference that Mr. Spencer and I have is that he believes the extremists are correctly interpreting Islam and Sharia. I believe that Muslims around the world all practice Islam differently and I know many Muslims who reject the views of extremists and Bin Ladenists who seek to deny human rights – based on any rationalization, including religious ones. We must support those who would promote human rights and dignity from within any religion and any identity group.

While I think Spencer and Geller are wrong in their Anti-Islam ideology and their approach, their voices once sought to challenge human rights abuses and terrorist threats from those who would rationalize their acts based on their extremist views of Islam. To gain attention from an apathetic public and government, they have pursued a political approach, taking over as the leaders of the SIOA group in the United States and seeking to align with political leaders. Two years ago, the original SIOA had only a few fringe members that sought to disrupt a Muslim prayer meeting on Capitol Hill. A year later, with the SIOA leadership taken over by Spencer and Geller, the SIOA led a massive protest with politicians against the Coroba House Islamic Center, and went on to coordinate anti-mosque campaigns elsewhere.

The emphasis moved from a concern about violent “jihad” and human rights concerns to political affiliations with other Anti-Islam activists groups, and a growing tolerance of Anti-Islam extremists – regardless of their tactics.

At the same time, the SIOA’s original sponsors, the SIOE began leading protests against mosques throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. The EDL then began even greater protests with larger public presence, which has drawn growing angry mobs. This attraction to anger has taken arguments that once condemned extremists and turned such groups into becoming havens for extremists themselves.

3. The Anti-Islam Movement’s Anger Attracts Hate and Violence

The political mass movement of the Anti-Islam movement has garnered greater populist support, but without a positive focus and with an emphasis on outrage, it has sometimes attracted not only angry, but also violent individuals.

The debate has also led to many in the Anti-Islam movement to shift from defending human rights to defending Western “culture” or “Western civilization.” This has led to their movement attracting individuals who will seek to “defend” such cultural views, using any means necessary – including some who promote hate and violence.

Frustration within the Anti-Islam movement has led individuals to move from outrage over human rights to alliances with those who will use even violence to defend what they view as Western “culture.”

Years ago before she led the SIOA, Pamela Geller sought sympathy for “honor killing” victims and led a fund-raising effort for a headstone for the unmarked grave of a girl Aqsa Parvez, who was a victim of such an “honor killing.” I donated to that cause out of concern for mercy and respect for the dead; whether that was naive or not, I felt pity for that child. As much as I disagree with Ms. Geller today, I appreciate what she did for Aqsa Parvez. There is no “honor” in murder, and “honor killings” are nothing than that – murder.

There is also no “honor” in promoting those who seek violence against innocent people. In 2010, SIOA leader Pamela Geller also repeatedly promoted and recruited for the English Defense League (EDL). The EDL is a British group whose mob protests have resulted in bricks thrown at police, mobs attacking restaurants of helpless public, engaging in street fights, attacking the press, and mob violence across the United Kingdom. Their violent supporters are more than a few isolated extremists, as some would contend. The EDL’s leader, while claiming to promote a “Christian culture,” does so while using obscene language in his public speeches and has his own history of violence.

The Norweigian terrorist Breivik repeatedly praised the EDL, praised the SIOE, and he sought to join the SIOE group, which created the American SIOA group. The SIOE group states it rejected Breivik’s membership from their Facebook web site, but what the SIOE fails to ask itself is why individuals such as the terrorist Breivik sought to join their cause.  In June 2010, the same SIOE attracted Nazi supporters who sought to join their protest against a mosque in Denmark.

The SIOA leaders, including Mr. Spencer, have stated they rejected Mr. Breivik’s violence and indicated that they have never supported any violence. That certainly appears to be true. However, it is not the entire story.

In February 2010, Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch, which for years condemned terrorism, then issued an article dismissing an American terrorist attack in Austin, Texas as “simply Going Out With A Bang,” which we rejected. (Austin terrorist Joe Stack’s views were that “violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.”)

In April 2010, Geller and Spencer took over the leadership of the SIOA political group. The populist campaign attracted angry individuals in the United States, just like it did in Europe.  In the United States, the SIOA marches became angry shouts and epithets, with SIOA supporters harassing even Egyptian Christian Copts at the 9/11 protest.

Since May 2010, the SIOA Facebook web page became a magnet not only for the outraged but also for those full of hate of hate, as well as numerous images of hate and violence. The SIOA Facebook web site became (and still is) full of images of violence, vulgarity, with numerous images that promote violence against Muslims and threats to kill “lieberals,” with images of feces and urination on the Qur’an, images of burning the Qur’an, images of animal sex, and the most depraved attacks on human beings.

One SIOA Facebook supporter, who relished in the depravity of the images by SIOA supporters there attacking Muslims, stated: “I am glad to know we have some capable of being able to reach them on the only level they seem to understand; total debasement.” This is the campaign that some Anti-Islam supporters seek, which has nothing to do with culture, nothing to do with human rights, and certainly nothing to do with human dignity.

At least three of the images in the video by the terrorist Breivik are identical to images that have been on the SIOA Facebook page for over a year – they are still there at the posting of this article, a month after Breivik’s terrorist attack.

Whether the terrorist Breivik got these violent images from the SIOA Facebook or another Anti-Islam source is unknown. But today, a month after the Oslo terrorist attack that killed 77, the images of violence and hate in Breivik’s video, remain on the SIOA Facebook website today.

There is no doubt that no one can hold the SIOA leaders accountable for the dozens and dozens of vulgar, foul, and violent images on the SIOA Facebook site, the threats of violence and hatred. Like Breivik’s actions, these are the responsibility of the individuals who made such statements and posted such images.

The SIOA supporters have freedom of speech to make such foul comments and postings, whether we like them or not. That is a freedom that we all have. But all freedoms come with responsibilities of accountability and even association – fair or unfair. It is the responsibility of the SIOA to demonstrate that their campaign rejects hate and rejects violence.

In addition, the SIOA Facebook site even became a magnet for those making death threats against those who would challenge their Anti-Islam views. When I discovered one such threat, I anonymously alerted the SIOA leadership and someone removed the posting (I also contacted the threatened individual and law enforcement).  SIOA leaders also removed the member from the Facebook site.

The challenge for the SIOA, SIOE, and the Anti-Islam movement is not “isolated” extremists in their groups, it is a consistent message of anger, hatred, and venom against Muslims that is an extremist message that resonates with angry and violent people.  That is where the NEXT Anders Breivik will come.

Calls for violence have become increasingly common within the Anti-Islam campaign, including in the websites of one of the SIOA’s leaders, Robert Spencer. In January 2011, Mr. Spencer’s JihadWatch website once again became the point of controversy from one of its contributors. This time, JihadWatch’s “Roland Shirk” called for Egyptian government to kill those Egyptians protesting for freedom against the tyrant Hosni Mubarak in the JihadWatch article “A Whiff of Grapeshot”, calling for a “Tienanmen Square” type massacre of the Egyptian protesters.  R.E.A.L. responded to this with our objections and calls for JihadWatch to remove such calls for violence.

Mr. Spencer no doubt rightly states that he objects to the violence by the terrorist Breivik. But it remains troubling that he has been so silent about the images of violence on the SIOA Facebook web page, as he is aware of the photos page, and made his own postings there.  It is troubling that he has been so silent for those calling for violence, even among his own writers, on his own website. Our intentions must be supported by our deeds.  I hope that the SIOA leaders choose to reconsider their position on the comments and images by their supporters.

I regret to any group that I have to point to these embarrassing and ugly instances among their supporters.  I can only imagine how I would feel if they pointed such instances out to me, and I genuinely feel sorry for them.   But if even a casual viewer can see these, surely their leaders must be able to do so.  They need to consider the consequences of pursuing such a path of negativity – both to our shared security and our human rights.

Such attractions of anger and hate have been facilitated by an ideological view that prioritizes “culture” over “human rights,” and that has been a consistent problem for such political groups as the SIOE and SIOA. The European parent group SIOE is proud of its slogan “Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” Three years ago, the SIOA website three years ago urged American activists that they should not worry about being “nice.” The original SIOA leader DL Adams stated that “Multiculturalism, tolerance, and ‘niceness’ are destroying the foundations of our cultures…”; this is the same DL Adams that the terrorist Breivik quoted in his manifesto against Islam and multicultarlism.

Let us never lose the ability to respect one another, no matter how much we disagree with one another.

When we prioritize the defense of a single culture over human rights, and when we allow human hate, not human rights, to become a voice for our campaigns, then we should question where we are going.

It would be optimistic to view that the Breivik terrorist attack was a wake-up call on the Anti-Islam extremism. I don’t believe it has been. We have had plenty of other warnings before this and acts of violence by Anti-Islam supporters that have also been ignored. Foolishly, some have sought to associate such violence only with the “right-wing,” which has mired this debate in political finger-pointing. We need to realize this problem is not limited to Breivik and not limited to only certain groups.
We have to challenge the Anti-Islam rejection of human rights and human dignity, by being consistent on these issues ourselves.

Furthermore, as I will describe in a separate writing, the Christian community needs to take responsibility and deal with the growing numbers of pastors and Christian leaders that have become involved in the Anti-Islam movement. This includes a growing number of Christian pastors, evangelists, and ministers who publicly show their affiliation and support the Anti-Islam SIOA group.

Christian leaders cannot look only to Muslim communities to challenge the extremists in their faith; Christian leaders must also own that same responsibility.

3. The Silence on Bin Ladenism

Shortly after Breivik’s terrorist attack on July 22, another accused terrorist Naser Abdo was arrested for allegedly planning a terrorist plot to kill soldiers at the Fort Hood Texas base. Naser Abdo’s case, like others, has been on the opposite end of the spectrum where individuals have rationalized violence and hate based on their extremist views of Islam.

Mr. Naser Abdo was a member of the American military who sought to reject his service because he is a Muslim. Whether you agree with the tactics, strategy, and actions of the American military in Afghanistan, let us be clear once again on who the Taliban are, and what they represent.

On August 19, 2011, the Taliban in Pakistan blew up a mosque killing an estimated 50 Muslims in the village Ghundi during Friday prayers. The mosque is in the Khyber region near the Afghan border. This terrorist attack during Ramadan demonstrates once again, who and what the Taliban really are – valueless killers and thugs, who readily will murder other Muslims. The same day, in Kabul, such terrorists attacked the British Council in Afghanistan killing another 8 individuals.

These terrorists are not acting on behalf of Islam or on behalf of Muslims. They are acting on behalf of their own ideology of violence and death, including killing fellow Muslims. They are acting on behalf of an ideology that rejects human rights and human lives.

Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) wrote in the Wall Street Journal on August 18, speaking about the case of failed terrorist and Army Private Naser Abdo. According to Dr. Jasser, who is himself a Muslim veteran of the U.S. armed forces, “The vast majority of Muslims serve with honor and distinction. They are not the problem. The problem is the subset of Muslims who are Islamists.”

I understand the need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims on this issue, and for the purposes of this article I have described what Dr. Jasser calls as “Islamists” as “Bin Ladenists.” We have debated the lexicon and terms we should use for such extremists, whether it should be “ta’assub,” “irhabis,” “Islamists,” “Islamic extremists,” “radical Islam.” Years ago, I questioned if such lexicon debates were sensible if they led us to be in denial on real problems. Still, I underestimated how such hurt feelings might also prevent such a necessary dialogue. I urge Christians to start hearing about “Christian terrorists” and see how it makes them feel. But while we argue over lexicon, the two extreme ends of the spectrum on this issue continue to recruit followers. We need a national dialogue and lexicon for this debate in the United States, where many Americans do not know Arabic and terms like irhab and Hirabah are not understood.

I propose we consider something simpler such as “Bin Ladenism.”

If we look at the Bin Ladenist view of the world, that ideology also seeks to position the world through the defense of a religious extremist culture of its own. The failure by responsible leaders to challenge that ideological and human rights threat has left this largely to the vocal Anti-Islam advocates.

But the Bin Ladenist view not only rejects human rights and human dignity for non-Muslims, it also rejects them for Muslims as well.

One of the great historical failures has been the unwillingness of traditional human rights groups to aggressively take up the cause for women’s rights, religious freedom, in the face of groups, ideologies, and even nations that would justify stonings, “honor killings” of women, gays, and abuse and murder of people of all faiths – simply because of their identity. It has been and is a great moral wrong to ignore the ideology of the Bin Ladenists around the world.

Silence is not and must not be the answer.

Even when Bin Ladenist terrorists in the U.S. seek to plot attacks, such as Naser Abdo, we have silence.  And the world wonders why such cancerous silence has metastasized into a political Anti-Islam movement?

Certainly a large portion of this is understandable embarrassment and protectiveness in the Muslim American community.  But we need to have this dialogue in a way that we can debate this issue without blaming all Muslims and all of Islam for such extremists, so that interfaith leaders, human rights groups, and government agencies can play a responsible role.

It is true that any human rights issue has a struggle to get attention – from the genocide in Sudan, the concentration camps in Communist China and Communist North Korea, the killing of gays in Uganda, and the abuse of women in the Congo. All these and many more struggle to get the limited attention of busy people who wish they could do more, and many who have no idea such abuses are going on.

It is also true that every religious extremist group has their human rights areas of shame from “Hindu” “honor killings” in India, Christian extremist terrorists of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Africa, the oppression of minorities in Uganda, and groups such as the Hutaree and the Westboro Baptist Church, who rationalize their hatred based on their extremist views of “Christianity.”

But few of these see the silence that we have seen with the oppression of minority Muslim sects and non-Muslims in too many “majority Muslim nations.” Two wrongs don’t make a right – and the media, the United Nations, human rights groups, and our governments remaining silent on these abuses – is another moral wrong.

We must challenge what is not only isolated cases of Bin Ladenist cultures but large numbers of individuals that seek to deny human rights for others – in any religion or any identity group.

About three years ago, I decided that I would develop the R.E.A.L. coalition on human rights where we would be consistent on these and other human rights issues. The week before one of our first event on International Women’s Day at the U.S. Capitol on March 2009, in Chechnya, the Chechen President brought a series of “loose women” out into the streets and had his police gun them down. The Chechen President claimed that his extremist view of Islam entitled him to kill such women in the streets. In Russia, they looked the other way. But not just in Russia, most of the world looked the other way. He committed murder in broad daylight to no objections, no world outcry, no marches or demands by feminist groups.

I and a few women stood in front of the U.S. Capitol and we were the only protest in the world.

We must not abandon our brothers and sisters around the world – of any identity group, any religion – to those who would rationalize violence, hate, or murder – based on their claim that their view of a religion justifies murder and oppression. That is not defending or respecting a culture. That is abandoning our shared identify as human beings with universal human rights.

We must refuse to let either anger or fear allow us to forsake our fellow human beings, their human rights, and their human dignity.

4. Our Shared Human Rights Are Greater Than Individual Cultures

We need to challenge extremist groups without accusations that there is a monolithic view of any religion as responsible for the actions of extremists. It is as absurd to claim all Muslims or all of Islam is to blame for specific extremists, as it would be to blame all Christians or all of Christianity is to blame for specific extremists. The world cannot move forward with such arguments that deny dignity, respect, and religious liberty for all. Our religious liberties exist – but abuse to our universal human rights remain the same – no matter where they are done or who is responsible for their abuse.

This argument for our universal human rights is so clear that both the Anti-Islam movement and the Bin Ladenist movement have rejected such shared human rights, and have chosen instead only defend “cultures” where they can decide who deserves freedoms, life, and liberty. In the United States and Europe, the Anti-Islam movement seeks to close mosques. In Indonesia and Egypt, the Bin Ladenist movement seeks to close churches. They seek to create closed societies, closed cultures, that will prohibit free choice, free thought, free speech, and free lives.

But we do not have a free world and a slave world. We do not have a “Muslim World” and Christendom.  While some may perceive that we have a world of divisions, the reality is that we live in a world of unity. We breathe the same air, see the same sun and moon, have the waters of the world that eventually touch us all in some way. We live together on this shared Earth, where universal human rights are the right of all people in every part, no matter who seeks to deny them.

We are not the divisions or labels that some would have us wear.  We are complex individuals with individual lives and aspirations.  But while are unique and special individuals, we are also a singular human race, with a singular human destiny – both for good and bad. We are accountable for our actions, just as we are entitled to our freedoms.

History has shown that every cage will eventually be broken. Those who seek to build new cages, new closed societies to defend only “one culture” fail to understand that we are not many. We are one. We are humanity.

We are not a mere collection of diverse cultures, but we are human beings with shared bodies, brains, joys, sorrows, and even dreams.

We can dream, like others have before us, of the day when we set our divisions aside, and we all recognize that we are truly all “free at last, free at last, free at last.”

But if every journey requires an initial step, let us start here. Let us stop hating one another.  If we let go of the rocks of hatred, we can begin to stop building artificial walls to divide one another.   Let us resolve to end hate as a cancer that will close our minds to the infinite possibilities of hope, joy, and unity that we can have together.

Choose Love, Not Hate. Love Wins.

Human Rights Day Event Theme: “Compassion and Human Rights”

This year, three British archeologists completed scientific research on compassion in prehistoric human beings.  They published their findings in a book entitled “The Prehistory of Compassion.”  They found that compassionate behavior in prehistoric human beings was evidenced as early as 6 million years ago, and they trace the increasing growth of compassion in human beings at 1.8 million years ago, 300,000 years ago, 120,000 years ago, and 40,000 years ago.

Their findings lead us to the conclusion that compassion is not only an essential part of promoting human rights, but also that our capacity for compassion is a part of our identities as human beings.

There are others who seek to deny compassion in themselves and others.  Some seek to actively promote hatred.  In Washington DC in 2009, Nazi and white supremacist James Von Brunn sought to commit a terrorist attack on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.  Mr. Von Brunn told his supporters that hate was “natural, normal, necessary.”

We are challenged by such views in the United States and around the world, where people are taught that their identity group, their divisions, their self-interest alone, is all that matters.   We are challenged by views from some that other identity groups are inferior and not deserving of the same inherent, universal human rights.

Scientific evidence proves that compassion, not hate, is “natural, normal, necessary” in human beings.  Our shared religious, moral, and ethical practices teach us that compassion towards others is an inherent part of our human identities.  When some deny our human capacity for compassion by denying human rights to others, they are not just attacking our universal human rights, they are also denying their identities as human beings.

We tend to look at compassion as only a choice, when it is convenient and when we have time.  But compassion is more than a choice.  Compassion is a legacy of our continuing development as human beings.  Our growing capacity for compassion is the path ahead for our future as a human society. Human dignity and our other universal human rights are dependent on our shared compassion for each other as human beings.

Human rights campaigns really begin with compassion.  Certainly, there are those who speak out on oppression, discrimination, and violence against their own identity group.  But they do so because they believe that someone else will listen to them, that someone else will care, that someone else will have compassion.

Our volunteer activists with Responsible for Equality And Liberty believe in this so much that our motto is “Choose Love, Not Hate – Love Wins.”  We offer an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist, even to those who would offer us hate, even to those who would deny our human rights.  I know that this is not always easy to do, when you are attacked, when your identity group is attacked, when your family is attacked.  I understand this first-hand.  But I will stand my ground to the last and state that “Love Wins,” not just now, but also tomorrow.  Compassion is not only the hope for human rights, it is also the destiny for humanity.

Compassion and A Shared Human Rights Cause

If we accept that compassion is necessary for an effective human rights campaign, then it follows that individual human rights campaigns share this need for human compassion.  Responsible for Equality And Liberty sees such individual human rights campaigns as elements of a larger, shared human rights cause.  Your campaign for human rights is our campaign.  The larger shared cause of universal human rights for all is also your cause as well.  We believe that for individual campaigns to truly succeed, we must also work towards our shared human rights cause.

The mission of Responsible for Equality And Liberty has been to bring people and human rights campaigns together to become aware of each other, to see what we have in common, to identify our shared human rights struggle, and to demonstrate how we can work together.  Our goal is to work to help our fellow human beings prioritize human rights issues in their lives, activities, governments, nations, and shared world.

In the traditional human rights community, we have defined ourselves primarily by individual human rights campaigns. Individual human rights campaigns struggle with competition for attention, resources, and visibility, and today many campaigns struggle with a difficult economy and apathy.  Some groups have created coalitions on specific regions or specific topics to maximize their effectiveness and resources.

We have a different vision, different agenda, and different hope for the future.

We believe that there is a singular, shared human rights cause that is larger than any one campaign, any one organization, or any one coalition.  We are reaching out to the larger coalition of our human brothers and sisters across world to embrace their human capacity for compassion, that is part of their very human nature.  We believe the leaders for human rights are every single one of us as human beings.  The message to our fellow human beings is that their self-interest begins with prioritizing the compassion that is part of their humanity, and that their self-interest begins with prioritizing the universal human rights that we must all share.  An attack on human rights anywhere is an attack on human rights everywhere.

We seek to get our fellow brothers and sisters in humanity to recognize the needs of their human family, to recognize their inherent human identity for compassion to their fellow human beings.  We aren’t seeking to CHANGE our fellow human beings, but we seek to get our brothers and sisters to stop denying who and what they are as human beings, to stop denying their responsibility for their human family, and to stop denying their capability for the compassion we need to truly work towards a shared human rights cause.  We implore our brothers and sisters in humanity to be true to who they are as human beings.

It is time for our fellow human beings to come to the aid of our human rights leaders and TOGETHER bring an end to the human rights violations of our brothers and sisters around the world.  We must all be responsible for equality and liberty.

In working in our human rights cause, we must remember that our conscience must also be led by our compassion.  We must remember that without compassion to others, we cannot promote any human rights initiative. People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

In the traditional human rights community, we have also largely defined ourselves with what is wrong and bad in the world.  In our passion and concern for others, it is easy to slip into a pattern of simply cataloging the ills of the world, especially given the horrible genocide, violence, oppression, and abuse of so many in the world.

If we believe in the power of compassion, we must also balance a shared human rights cause with describing what is right in the world as well.  We must offer hugs with our entreaties, we must offer hope from within the gloom. We must offer a positive message of optimism that celebrates our accomplishments.  Every step, every accomplishment, no matter how small it seems, is another demonstration of the growth of human compassion.  Every success once again proves how love will defeat hate.

You are demonstrating how important this is by being here at this Human Rights Day event today.

We have the answer to our shared human rights cause within each of our hearts.   Imagine those hearts working together as one.  That is our vision, and we hope it is yours.

We must find the courage and consistency to work towards our human destiny of compassion in human rights and human dignity for all.

Love Wins.

Human Rights Challenges for the United States: Racial and Religious Intolerance

While we address human rights challenges around the world on Human Rights Day, it is important for those of us in America to also recognize the continuing human rights challenges that we face within our own country. When we call for our fellow human beings to be compassionate and responsible in such human rights – that compassion and responsibility must also come from ourselves in our own lives as Americans.

The hard work of defending human rights in America may be unpopular at times.  It is often easier to get Americans to agree that people in another country, people of another majority religion, or people who are somehow “different” should make commitments to “change” first.  But as a nation responsible for equality and liberty, we must practice what we preach – not just when this is easy to hear – but most especially when this is difficult for us to hear.

When we ask others to recognize the need to support our universal human rights and to embrace their human compassion for one another, as a nation in America, we must also take a good look in the mirror and ask ourselves and our nation to do the same.  When we work for the human rights of women, racial harmony, religious freedom, and liberty around the world, let us not forget that we must also continue to extend our hand in compassion to work for such human rights in the United States of America as well.

The past year saw a marked increase in racial and religious intolerance in America that those of us in the United States working for human rights around the world must also be responsible for addressing as Americans.  We have seen how such intolerance can and will continue to divide us as a nation.  There are some working to celebrate and even to expand such divisions based on intolerance in our nation. We have a responsibility, not just as Americans, but also as human beings committed to our universal human rights, to use the power of compassion to defy the venom of intolerance.  Love will ultimately win.

While we condemn the horror of slavery in parts of the world today, on December 20 in South Carolina and other states in the American South, there will be celebrations of the 150th anniversary of Secession Day, when the Confederate States of America began to failed efforts to dissolve their union with the United States of America.  A key issue in the Confederate states’ secession was the issue of slavery in America (which was in both the South and the North at that time), a dark chapter from America’s struggles with human rights.  We ask our fellow Americans in the South to reflect on this issue.  While some celebrate our past divisions, we know that there will be Southern Americans who will continue to prioritize of common bonds in humanity and compassion.

In the past year, we have seen numerous groups anxiously try to revive hatred and divisions between all races in America.  We have seen white supremacists get radio shows on FCC-licensed radio stations.  We have seen those who promote diverse racial supremacism (both white and black) interviewed in parts of the news media without challenge to their views against equality.  The rhetoric of racial intolerance seems to becoming more public and more prevalent, as we see not only in the media and the Internet, but also in marches in the streets of our city, including our nation’s capital. Racial slurs, hate symbols, nooses hung outside black American’s homes, and marches of racial hatred continue in America.  Racial hate messages are distributed in fliers, promoted in our libraries and parks, and racial hate messages are hidden in plastic Easter Eggs for children to find.  Even the simple snowman is not safe from the disease of racial hate.  Last week in Idaho, a white supremacist made a Ku Klux Klan shaped snowman holding a rope hanging noose.

But we have also seen the activism and courage by many other Americans who reject and who are horrified by such divisions and hatred. While racial supremacists get the news headlines, there are countless unheralded heroes who have condemned such racism, who have promoted racial harmony, and who in cities across our nation have taken a courageous stand against hate.  Americans across the nation have replied to hate: “Not in Our Town.”

In the past year, we have seen the consequences of desperate acts of violence by white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups, as they have come to realize that America will no longer consider going back to the bad old days of racial hate. This year, individuals were convicted of terrorist plots against black Americans. Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman were convicted of a plot to kill 88 black Americans and Barack Obama in Tennessee; this plot included a plan to decapitate 14 black Americans, as well as shooting out the windows in a black American church. This year, we have seen the conviction of Ku Klux Klan leader Raymond “Chuck” Foster in killing a white woman Cynthia Lynch, who died because she chose her conscience over the KKK’s efforts to indoctrinate her in the white supremacist group.

For every desperate act of racial violence and hatred, we have seen a hundred acts of courage and compassion.  Our nationwide law enforcement and Department of Justice have stood up to such violence and ensured that criminals have received justice.  When the Nazis marched in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the YWCA has offered a message of peace and a commitment to our human rights.  The message from law enforcement has been consistent: while we respect freedom of speech even by those promoting racial hate, we are a nation of laws where violence will not be tolerated.   The message from our community organizations has been that we will respond to hate with compassion and dignity for all.

Last winter in 2010, we saw the growing efforts of a nationwide white nationalist group to hold a national event in our nation’s capital, where diversity was to be mocked and minority races were to be viewed as inferior.  We stand without question to respect the dignity, equality, and liberty of all of our fellow Americans and human beings.  That is why we are Responsible for Equality And Liberty.  Responsible for Equality And Liberty made an effort to urge local hotels to give us the chance to also promote racial equality, human dignity, and the value of our human diversity as brothers and sisters in humanity.  For such compassionate activism in America, we were condemned by white nationalists, mocked in some foreign media, we were threatened, and efforts were made to disparage my family.  Our efforts to promote racial dignity, equality, and liberty were undeterred.  When white nationalists later came to disrupt other human rights events we had, I continued to extend our mission of compassion and offer an outstretched hand to them as well, as my brothers and sisters in humanity.

At the time, some asked me why don’t we just let black civil right groups challenge the views of white nationalists.  We are Responsible for Equality And Liberty.  Responsibility begins at home, in our own city, state, and nation.  Responsibility begins with our own identity group.  That is why as a white human being, I must challenge white supremacism.  That is why as a man, I must challenge misogyny and attacks on women’s rights.  That is why as a Christian, I must challenge those Christian extremists in America who seek to deny religious rights to religious minorities.  We must be living examples as agents of compassion and change in our own identity groups.

If we only look to identity groups in the minority (in America or anywhere or the world) to lead the path of compassion in gaining human rights and human dignity, then those in majority identity groups in the world have not truly accepted our responsibility for compassion and human rights.  I urge those around the world, whatever your identity group, to embrace this responsibility for compassion and human rights.  Change begins with us.

———————————-

On the issue of religious intolerance in America, we have seen tremendous attacks on our religious freedoms, religious pluralism, and a growing religious intolerance that attacks our institutions, laws, and Constitution.  I wrote earlier this week about my first president, John F. Kennedy, who in a speech in 1960 while a candidate for president stated that “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end…”.  Fifty years later, we have seen, especially this year, that America sadly still has a long way to go.

We have not just seen the rise of only one form of religious intolerance.  We have seen attacks on houses of worship and we also have seen a growing rise of religious militants intolerant of people with different faiths.

We have seen black Christian churches attacked across America, including here in the Washington DC area, some of which have been shot up by guns.  We have seen attacks on Hindu and Buddhist temples; this has included attacks on Buddhist temples that have included pro-”Christian” graffiti.  We have seen an endless series of attacks on Jewish synagogues in America, which have included Nazi symbols, death threats, and hate – even here in the Washington DC area and in the city where I live.

We have seen the rise of a virulent hatred against Islam and Muslim mosques across our nation, with a pipe bomb attack against a mosque in Florida, arson attacks against mosques in Texas and Oregon, and a conviction of Neo-Nazis for their arson attack against a mosque in Tennessee.  We have seen other cases of arson, vandalism, and destruction in attacks against Muslim mosques across America, with vandalism and destruction of property in Tennessee, arson of construction equipment for a new mosque in Tennessee, arson attack against a mosque automobile in Louisiana, children harassed outside of their mosque in Texas, and youths shooting rifles outside of a mosque in western New York.

Our freedom of religion and worship, like all of our other freedoms, is dependent on our shared trust of pluralism in our society; in America, we don’t have to agree with someone else’s religion or faith or even support any religion at all.  But we do have the responsibility to ensure that others’ freedoms are defended, as they are guaranteed by our Constitution, by our laws, and by our society.

Religious militantism that seeks to promote violence or deny others their human rights is a violation of that covenant of shared trust, and we continue to urge representatives of religious groups to combat such militantism.  But we have the common sense and the respect for our fellow Americans that we don’t begin to believe that religious militants represent the majority of kind-hearted, loving people of various faiths.  When we see threats in NYC and Portland by Muslim men who have sought to have bombs in large groups, we know that they do not represent Muslim America.  When we see threats by the Christian Hutaree group arrested for plotting attacks against police officers, and others who claim to represent Christian groups in America who call for violence, we know that they do not represent Christian America.

We must recognize efforts by those of a majority religion to seek to deny the human rights of freedom of religion and freedom of worship presents a significant problem for America, just as it would in any nation.  This year, we have seen coast-to-coast efforts across American by those who claim to represent elements of Christianity to seek to prevent Muslims from having houses of worship, who seek to deny freedom of religion, who seek to ban mosques, and even some who have gone to court in Tennessee to seek to deny that Islam is a religion in America.  In California, Tennessee, New York, Georgia, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Florida, Connecticut, North Carolina, in state after state, we see those who seek to deny religious freedom and freedom of worship for Muslim-Americans.  We have seen people call for attacks on mosques on the radio and on the Internet, we seen those who have called for a war on Islam, and we have seen those in our nation’s capital and other parts of the nation who have destroyed and burned the Qur’an.  In the city of our Statue of Liberty, we have seen those who tell to the cheers of American crowds that some Muslim leaders should not have the right to have freedom of worship, not just in NYC, but anywhere in America.

But we have also seen the rise of a new generation of interfaith movements across America, created out of the troubling challenge of growing religious intolerance in America.  Diverse people across America have joined hands together in response to the storm of religious hate and intolerance against Muslim Americans and other Americans.  They have held their own candle-light vigils.  On September 11, in our nation’s capital, I was privileged to have the opportunity to have people of all faiths and no religion at all join together to defend freedom of religion and worship for Muslim Americans, simply because it was the right thing to do, it was the American thing to do.  To those who promote religious intolerance and hate, we offer an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist, of pluralism, peace, and compassion as fellow human beings.

A few weeks ago in Portland, Oregon, a Muslim man was arrested for an alleged plot to bomb a crowd during a Christmas-tree lighting.  Days later, a mosque that he attended was attacked by an arsonist.  But then the true face of compassion showed itself, as Portland neighbors of all religions and none at all, people of diverse groups banded together.  The parking lot of the Portland mosque was full as community and religious leaders who joined together to condemn such hate and violence.  That is the America that I know and love.  In the past several months, I have attended two mosque services, and my regret is that I have not had time to have further visits yet.  But to those of you who have not had the opportunity to visit a mosque, I would urge you to do so, and send a signal that those of us who defend human rights support such tolerance and freedom of religion and worship for all people.

Some may think this is a problem just for Muslim Americans.  We see that once that the disease of hate takes root, this illness does not just limit itself to any one group, but sickens and undermines our entire society.  The group in Georgia that seeks to deny freedom of worship for Muslim Americans, has also opposed Buddhists from holding worship services.  A Christian extremist group based out of Virginia that sought to destroy the Qur’an in our nation’s capital also has opposed Hindu public prayer.  The group in Tennessee that seeks to deny freedom of religion for Muslims and seeks to deny that Islam is a religion, also opposes Falun Dafa / Falun Gong members from publicly practicing their beliefs in Tennessee.  A Christian extremist group that led one of the Qur’an burning efforts also regularly protests and seeks to disrupt worship services in Jewish synagogues, and has praised terrorist attacks against Iraqi Christians.

Fifty years ago, John F. Kennedy told those who sought to deny him the right to run for president because he was a Catholic American: “Today I may be the victim–but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”

It has been a very difficult year for America, but many have made the courageous decision to put hate and intolerance in our past, and make compassion and human rights our future.

America is a nation of nations, an amalgamation of different races, different religions, different ethnic groups, and different identity groups.  Our infinite diversity is balanced by our uni-culture of respect for our Constitution, our freedoms, and our universal human rights.  When groups within America begin to fight among themselves, our balance has always been in the agreement on the truths that we hold self evident that all men and women are created equal.  This commitment to equality and liberty in America is a model for what we seek to share with our brothers and sisters in humanity around the world.

Human Rights Day – R.E.A.L.’s Jeffrey Imm Prepared Remarks

Human Rights Day Text

Welcome

It is another good day to be responsible for equality and liberty.

Good afternoon and welcome to today’s Human Right’s Day event to recognize the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the importance of our universal human rights around the world.  My name is Jeffrey Imm, and I am with the volunteer human rights activists “Responsible for Equality And Liberty.”  I would like to thank those groups and their activists who come to join us this year here at the National Press Club.  Our plan is for me to mention why we remember Human Rights Day, offer a brief introduction on the theme of today’s event, “Compassion and Human Rights,” and then allow various speakers to come up.  We will try to have Q&A after each speaker but if we start to run too long, then we may have to postpone some Q&A period until the end.

The groups and speakers that we have scheduled for today include:

1. Jeffrey Imm, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) – on Compassion and Human Rights; on the Challenge of Racial and Religious Intolerance in America
2. Mohamed Yahya, Damanga Organization – on Sudan and Darfur
3. Dr. Nazir Bhatti, Pakistan Christian Congress – on Christians in Pakistan
4. Ms. Caylan Ford, DC Liaison and Analyst of Falun Dafa Information Center  – on Falun Dafa in the People’s Republic of China
5. Yubin Pang MD Ph.D., Executive Director, Washington DC Area, Global Service Center for Quitting CCP
6. Ms. Maria Rohaly – Mission Free Iran, on women’s rights in Iran
7. Ms. Carolyn Cook – United for Equality – on women’s rights in the United States
8. C. Naseer Ahmad – Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and human rights

We may change the order of some of these speakers to accommodate some who are traveling here from out of town, so I appreciate your patience and understanding on that.

Introduction to Human Rights Day

Around the world every year, people remember Human Rights Day to honor the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the assembled nations of the world in the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, three years after the defeat of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the tragedy of the Holocaust.

The UDHR was designed as a statement of “never again” to such atrocities against human rights and human dignity.  But the UDHR was more than simply defiance against those who would promote hate, it has more importantly been a guideline and declaration of the universal human rights we view as inherent human rights, regardless of your nationality, your race, your religion, your beliefs, your political views, your gender or sexual orientation.  No matter who you are, you are human being with universal human rights.

The bold and unequivocating view of the UDHR’s declaration is that human beings are human beings with the same universal, inherent human rights and freedoms everywhere on our shared planet Earth – no matter what organization, what nation, or what group of people believes otherwise.  According to the UDHR, all of us share a common family of humanity together – along with the universal human right of human dignity for all.

=======================================================

Human Right Day Event Theme: “Compassion and Human Rights”

This year, three British archeologists completed scientific research on compassion in prehistoric human beings.  They published their findings in a book entitled “The Prehistory of Compassion.”  They found that compassionate behavior in prehistoric human beings was evidenced as early as 6 million years ago, and they trace the increasing growth of compassion in human beings at 1.8 million years ago, 300,000 years ago, 120,000 years ago, and 40,000 years ago.

Their findings lead us to the conclusion that compassion is not only an essential part of promoting human rights, but also that our capacity for compassion is a part of our identities as human beings.

There are others who seek to deny compassion in themselves and others.  Some seek to actively promote hatred.  In Washington DC in 2009, Nazi and white supremacist James Von Brunn sought to commit a terrorist attack on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.  Mr. Von Brunn told his supporters that hate was “natural, normal, necessary.”

We are challenged by such views in the United States and around the world, where people are taught that their identity group, their divisions, their self-interest alone, is all that matters.   We are challenged by views from some that other identity groups are inferior and not deserving of the same inherent, universal human rights.

Scientific evidence proves that compassion, not hate, is “natural, normal, necessary” in human beings.  Our shared religious, moral, and ethical practices teach us that compassion towards others is an inherent part of our human identities.  When some deny our human capacity for compassion by denying human rights to others, they are not just attacking our universal human rights, they are also denying their identities as human beings.

We tend to look at compassion as only a choice, when it is convenient and when we have time.  But compassion is more than a choice.  Compassion is a legacy of our continuing development as human beings.  Our growing capacity for compassion is the path ahead for our future as a human society. Human dignity and our other universal human rights are dependent on our shared compassion for each other as human beings.

Human rights campaigns really begin with compassion.  Certainly, there are those who speak out on oppression, discrimination, and violence against their own identity group.  But they do so because they believe that someone else will listen to them, that someone else will care, that someone else will have compassion.

Our volunteer activists with Responsible for Equality And Liberty believe in this so much that our motto is “Choose Love, Not Hate – Love Wins.”  We offer an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist, even to those who would offer us hate, even to those who would deny our human rights.  I know that this is not always easy to do, when you are attacked, when your identity group is attacked, when your family is attacked.  I understand this first-hand.  But I will stand my ground to the last and state that “Love Wins,” not just now, but also tomorrow.  Compassion is not only the hope for human rights, it is also the destiny for humanity.

Compassion and A Shared Human Rights Cause

If we accept that compassion is necessary for an effective human rights campaign, then it follows that individual human rights campaigns share this need for human compassion.  Responsible for Equality And Liberty sees such individual human rights campaigns as elements of a larger, shared human rights cause.  Your campaign for human rights is our campaign.  The larger shared cause of universal human rights for all is also your cause as well.  We believe that for individual campaigns to truly succeed, we must also work towards our shared human rights cause.

The mission of Responsible for Equality And Liberty has been to bring people and human rights campaigns together to become aware of each other, to see what we have in common, to identify our shared human rights struggle, and to demonstrate how we can work together.  Our goal is to work to help our fellow human beings prioritize human rights issues in their lives, activities, governments, nations, and shared world.

In the traditional human rights community, we have defined ourselves primarily by individual human rights campaigns. Individual human rights campaigns struggle with competition for attention, resources, and visibility, and today many campaigns struggle with a difficult economy and apathy.  Some groups have created coalitions on specific regions or specific topics to maximize their effectiveness and resources.

We have a different vision, different agenda, and different hope for the future.

We believe that there is a singular, shared human rights cause that is larger than any one campaign, any one organization, or any one coalition.  We are reaching out to the larger coalition of our human brothers and sisters across world to embrace their human capacity for compassion, that is part of their very human nature.  We believe the leaders for human rights are every single one of us as human beings.  The message to our fellow human beings is that their self-interest begins with prioritizing the compassion that is part of their humanity, and that their self-interest begins with prioritizing the universal human rights that we must all share.  An attack on human rights anywhere is an attack on human rights everywhere.

We seek to get our fellow brothers and sisters in humanity to recognize the needs of their human family, to recognize their inherent human identity for compassion to their fellow human beings.  We aren’t seeking to CHANGE our fellow human beings, but we seek to get our brothers and sisters to stop denying who and what they are as human beings, to stop denying their responsibility for their human family, and to stop denying their capability for the compassion we need to truly work towards a shared human rights cause.  We implore our brothers and sisters in humanity to be true to who they are as human beings.

It is time for our fellow human beings to come to the aid of our human rights leaders and TOGETHER bring an end to the human rights violations of our brothers and sisters around the world.  We must all be responsible for equality and liberty.

In working in our human rights cause, we must remember that our conscience must also be led by our compassion.  We must remember that without compassion to others, we cannot promote any human rights initiative. People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

In the traditional human rights community, we have also largely defined ourselves with what is wrong and bad in the world.  In our passion and concern for others, it is easy to slip into a pattern of simply cataloging the ills of the world, especially given the horrible genocide, violence, oppression, and abuse of so many in the world.

If we believe in the power of compassion, we must also balance a shared human rights cause with describing what is right in the world as well.  We must offer hugs with our entreaties, we must offer hope from within the gloom. We must offer a positive message of optimism that celebrates our accomplishments.  Every step, every accomplishment, no matter how small it seems, is another demonstration of the growth of human compassion.  Every success once again proves how love will defeat hate.

You are demonstrating how important this is by being here at this Human Rights Day event today.

We have the answer to our shared human rights cause within each of our hearts.   Imagine those hearts working together as one.  That is our vision, and we hope it is yours.

We must find the courage and consistency to work towards our human destiny of compassion in human rights and human dignity for all.

Love Wins.

=======================================================
Human Rights Challenges for the United States: Racial and Religious Intolerance

While we address human rights challenges around the world on Human Rights Day, it is important for those of us in America to also recognize the continuing human rights challenges that we face within our own country. When we call for our fellow human beings to be compassionate and responsible in such human rights – that compassion and responsibility must also come from ourselves in our own lives as Americans.

The hard work of defending human rights in America may be unpopular at times.  It is often easier to get Americans to agree that people in another country, people of another majority religion, or people who are somehow “different” should make commitments to “change” first.  But as a nation responsible for equality and liberty, we must practice what we preach – not just when this is easy to hear – but most especially when this is difficult for us to hear.

When we ask others to recognize the need to support our universal human rights and to embrace their human compassion for one another, as a nation in America, we must also take a good look in the mirror and ask ourselves and our nation to do the same.  When we work for the human rights of women, racial harmony, religious freedom, and liberty around the world, let us not forget that we must also continue to extend our hand in compassion to work for such human rights in the United States of America as well.

The past year saw a marked increase in racial and religious intolerance in America that those of us in the United States working for human rights around the world must also be responsible for addressing as Americans.  We have seen how such intolerance can and will continue to divide us as a nation.  There are some working to celebrate and even to expand such divisions based on intolerance in our nation. We have a responsibility, not just as Americans, but also as human beings committed to our universal human rights, to use the power of compassion to defy the venom of intolerance.  Love will ultimately win.

While we condemn the horror of slavery in parts of the world today, on December 20 in South Carolina and other states in the American South, there will be celebrations of the 150th anniversary of Secession Day, when the Confederate States of America began to failed efforts to dissolve their union with the United States of America.  A key issue in the Confederate states’ secession was the issue of slavery in America (which was in both the South and the North at that time), a dark chapter from America’s struggles with human rights.  We ask our fellow Americans in the South to reflect on this issue.  While some celebrate our past divisions, we know that there will be Southern Americans who will continue to prioritize of common bonds in humanity and compassion.

In the past year, we have seen numerous groups anxiously try to revive hatred and divisions between all races in America.  We have seen white supremacists get radio shows on FCC-licensed radio stations.  We have seen those who promote diverse racial supremacism (both white and black) interviewed in parts of the news media without challenge to their views against equality.  The rhetoric of racial intolerance seems to becoming more public and more prevalent, as we see not only in the media and the Internet, but also in marches in the streets of our city, including our nation’s capital. Racial slurs, hate symbols, nooses hung outside black American’s homes, and marches of racial hatred continue in America.  Racial hate messages are distributed in fliers, promoted in our libraries and parks, and racial hate messages are hidden in plastic Easter Eggs for children to find.  Even the simple snowman is not safe from the disease of racial hate.  Last week in Idaho, a white supremacist made a Ku Klux Klan shaped snowman holding a rope hanging noose.

But we have also seen the activism and courage by many other Americans who reject and who are horrified by such divisions and hatred. While racial supremacists get the news headlines, there are countless unheralded heroes who have condemned such racism, who have promoted racial harmony, and who in cities across our nation have taken a courageous stand against hate.  Americans across the nation have replied to hate: “Not in Our Town.”

In the past year, we have seen the consequences of desperate acts of violence by white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups, as they have come to realize that America will no longer consider going back to the bad old days of racial hate. This year, individuals were convicted of terrorist plots against black Americans. Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman were convicted of a plot to kill 88 black Americans and Barack Obama in Tennessee; this plot included a plan to decapitate 14 black Americans, as well as shooting out the windows in a black American church. This year, we have seen the conviction of Ku Klux Klan leader Raymond “Chuck” Foster in killing a white woman Cynthia Lynch, who died because she chose her conscience over the KKK’s efforts to indoctrinate her in the white supremacist group.

For every desperate act of racial violence and hatred, we have seen a hundred acts of courage and compassion.  Our nationwide law enforcement and Department of Justice have stood up to such violence and ensured that criminals have received justice.  When the Nazis marched in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the YWCA has offered a message of peace and a commitment to our human rights.  The message from law enforcement has been consistent: while we respect freedom of speech even by those promoting racial hate, we are a nation of laws where violence will not be tolerated.   The message from our community organizations has been that we will respond to hate with compassion and dignity for all.

Last winter in 2010, we saw the growing efforts of a nationwide white nationalist group to hold a national event in our nation’s capital, where diversity was to be mocked and minority races were to be viewed as inferior.  We stand without question to respect the dignity, equality, and liberty of all of our fellow Americans and human beings.  That is why we are Responsible for Equality And Liberty.  Responsible for Equality And Liberty made an effort to urge local hotels to give us the chance to also promote racial equality, human dignity, and the value of our human diversity as brothers and sisters in humanity.  For such compassionate activism in America, we were condemned by white nationalists, mocked in some foreign media, we were threatened, and efforts were made to disparage my family.  Our efforts to promote racial dignity, equality, and liberty were undeterred.  When white nationalists later came to disrupt other human rights events we had, I continued to extend our mission of compassion and offer an outstretched hand to them as well, as my brothers and sisters in humanity.

At the time, some asked me why don’t we just let black civil right groups challenge the views of white nationalists.  We are Responsible for Equality And Liberty.  Responsibility begins at home, in our own city, state, and nation.  Responsibility begins with our own identity group.  That is why as a white human being, I must challenge white supremacism.  That is why as a man, I must challenge misogyny and attacks on women’s rights.  That is why as a Christian, I must challenge those Christian extremists in America who seek to deny religious rights to religious minorities.  We must be living examples as agents of compassion and change in our own identity groups.

If we only look to identity groups in the minority (in America or anywhere or the world) to lead the path of compassion in gaining human rights and human dignity, then those in majority identity groups in the world have not truly accepted our responsibility for compassion and human rights.  I urge those around the world, whatever your identity group, to embrace this responsibility for compassion and human rights.  Change begins with us.

———————————-

On the issue of religious intolerance in America, we have seen tremendous attacks on our religious freedoms, religious pluralism, and a growing religious intolerance that attacks our institutions, laws, and Constitution.  I wrote earlier this week about my first president, John F. Kennedy, who in a speech in 1960 while a candidate for president stated that “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end…”.  Fifty years later, we have seen, especially this year, that America sadly still has a long way to go.

We have not just seen the rise of only one form of religious intolerance.  We have seen attacks on houses of worship and we also have seen a growing rise of religious militants intolerant of people with different faiths.

We have seen black Christian churches attacked across America, including here in the Washington DC area, some of which have been shot up by guns.  We have seen attacks on Hindu and Buddhist temples; this has included attacks on Buddhist temples that have included pro-”Christian” graffiti.  We have seen an endless series of attacks on Jewish synagogues in America, which have included Nazi symbols, death threats, and hate – even here in the Washington DC area and in the city where I live.

We have seen the rise of a virulent hatred against Islam and Muslim mosques across our nation, with a pipe bomb attack against a mosque in Florida, arson attacks against mosques in Texas and Oregon, and a conviction of Neo-Nazis for their arson attack against a mosque in Tennessee.  We have seen other cases of arson, vandalism, and destruction in attacks against Muslim mosques across America, with vandalism and destruction of property in Tennessee, arson of construction equipment for a new mosque in Tennessee, arson attack against a mosque automobile in Louisiana, children harassed outside of their mosque in Texas, and youths shooting rifles outside of a mosque in western New York.

Our freedom of religion and worship, like all of our other freedoms, is dependent on our shared trust of pluralism in our society; in America, we don’t have to agree with someone else’s religion or faith or even support any religion at all.  But we do have the responsibility to ensure that others’ freedoms are defended, as they are guaranteed by our Constitution, by our laws, and by our society.

Religious militantism that seeks to promote violence or deny others their human rights is a violation of that covenant of shared trust, and we continue to urge representatives of religious groups to combat such militantism.  But we have the common sense and the respect for our fellow Americans that we don’t begin to believe that religious militants represent the majority of kind-hearted, loving people of various faiths.  When we see threats in NYC and Portland by Muslim men who have sought to have bombs in large groups, we know that they do not represent Muslim America.  When we see threats by the Christian Hutaree group arrested for plotting attacks against police officers, and others who claim to represent Christian groups in America who call for violence, we know that they do not represent Christian America.

We must recognize efforts by those of a majority religion to seek to deny the human rights of freedom of religion and freedom of worship presents a significant problem for America, just as it would in any nation.  This year, we have seen coast-to-coast efforts across American by those who claim to represent elements of Christianity to seek to prevent Muslims from having houses of worship, who seek to deny freedom of religion, who seek to ban mosques, and even some who have gone to court in Tennessee to seek to deny that Islam is a religion in America.  In California, Tennessee, New York, Georgia, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Florida, Connecticut, North Carolina, in state after state, we see those who seek to deny religious freedom and freedom of worship for Muslim-Americans.  We have seen people call for attacks on mosques on the radio and on the Internet, we seen those who have called for a war on Islam, and we have seen those in our nation’s capital and other parts of the nation who have destroyed and burned the Qur’an.  In the city of our Statue of Liberty, we have seen those who tell to the cheers of American crowds that some Muslim leaders should not have the right to have freedom of worship, not just in NYC, but anywhere in America.

But we have also seen the rise of a new generation of interfaith movements across America, created out of the troubling challenge of growing religious intolerance in America.  Diverse people across America have joined hands together in response to the storm of religious hate and intolerance against Muslim Americans and other Americans.  They have held their own candle-light vigils.  On September 11, in our nation’s capital, I was privileged to have the opportunity to have people of all faiths and no religion at all join together to defend freedom of religion and worship for Muslim Americans, simply because it was the right thing to do, it was the American thing to do.  To those who promote religious intolerance and hate, we offer an outstretched hand, not an upraised fist, of pluralism, peace, and compassion as fellow human beings.

A few weeks ago in Portland, Oregon, a Muslim man was arrested for an alleged plot to bomb a crowd during a Christmas-tree lighting.  Days later, a mosque that he attended was attacked by an arsonist.  But then the true face of compassion showed itself, as Portland neighbors of all religions and none at all, people of diverse groups banded together.  The parking lot of the Portland mosque was full as community and religious leaders who joined together to condemn such hate and violence.  That is the America that I know and love.  In the past several months, I have attended two mosque services, and my regret is that I have not had time to have further visits yet.  But to those of you who have not had the opportunity to visit a mosque, I would urge you to do so, and send a signal that those of us who defend human rights support such tolerance and freedom of religion and worship for all people.

Some may think this is a problem just for Muslim Americans.  We see that once that the disease of hate takes root, this illness does not just limit itself to any one group, but sickens and undermines our entire society.  The group in Georgia that seeks to deny freedom of worship for Muslim Americans, has also opposed Buddhists from holding worship services.  A Christian extremist group based out of Virginia that sought to destroy the Qur’an in our nation’s capital also has opposed Hindu public prayer.  The group in Tennessee that seeks to deny freedom of religion for Muslims and seeks to deny that Islam is a religion, also opposes Falun Dafa / Falun Gong members from publicly practicing their beliefs in Tennessee.  A Christian extremist group that led one of the Qur’an burning efforts also regularly protests and seeks to disrupt worship services in Jewish synagogues, and has praised terrorist attacks against Iraqi Christians.

Fifty years ago, John F. Kennedy told those who sought to deny him the right to run for president because he was a Catholic American: “Today I may be the victim–but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”

It has been a very difficult year for America, but many have made the courageous decision to put hate and intolerance in our past, and make compassion and human rights our future.

America is a nation of nations, an amalgamation of different races, different religions, different ethnic groups, and different identity groups.  Our infinite diversity is balanced by our uni-culture of respect for our Constitution, our freedoms, and our universal human rights.  When groups within America begin to fight among themselves, our balance has always been in the agreement on the truths that we hold self evident that all men and women are created equal.  This commitment to equality and liberty in America is a model for what we seek to share with our brothers and sisters in humanity around the world.

My President and Religious Intolerance in America

by Jeffrey Imm
Responsible for Equality And Liberty

To those of us who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, we know how identity group intolerance caused Americans to fight each other and how it divided our nation. We’ve been there – done that.  We don’t want a divided nation again.  We remember the past, to provide context to those who want drag our nation back to the “bad old days.”

Many people seem to only believe that it was a time of racial intolerance and division, and they seem to also forget that it was also the final days of a period of religious intolerance as well.  In the 1920s, religious intolerance in America had reached a peak, as did the 4 million membership in the Ku Klux Klan organization.  But in the decades to follow, religious intolerance started to reduce through the 1950s.

Until America faced another test in 1960.

Not unlike recent times, progress in respect for one another faced another challenge when a Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy decided to run for president.  In 1960, to some people, the problem was that John Kennedy was a Catholic Christian.  Half a century later, it may seem laughable that some would have questioned a person’s “fitness” to be an American president because they were a Catholic Christian.  But at the time, it was viewed by some as a real issue, and John Kennedy had to address this topic in his campaign.

John F. Kennedy Speaking on Religious Freedom in 1960 at Houston, Texas Conference

In 1960, the question that some raised regarding John Kennedy was whether he could be a loyal American, while being a Catholic, or whether he would “led” by the Catholic Church in his decision-making as president.  Of course, such claims were an insult to the identity of what America is – a nation that supports freedom of conscience for all – from the youngest child to the President of the United States.  That is and always will be the America that I know and love.

John Kennedy addressed these concerns in a historic speech on September 12, 1960 to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.  His words are as powerful and important today as they were half a century ago, and not just to America, but to the entire world.

John Kennedy addressed the challenge of those who would judge his effectiveness to lead the United States of America and be commander-in-chief – solely based on his religion.  John Kennedy questioned what his religious identity had to do with “the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms–an America with too many slums, with too few schools…,” stating that these are “are not religious issues–for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.”

John Kennedy went on to address the campaign concerns over his religion: “it is apparently necessary for me to state once again–not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me–but what kind of America I believe in.”

John Kennedy made it clear the type of America that he believed in: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” where no religious group would tell the president or public official how it must act, “and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.  For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim–but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”

John Kennedy stated “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice”… “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace”…. and “where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

John Kennedy continued to say that while he would not “disavow either my views or my church” that he would act “in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates.”  John Kennedy concluded that he would do “the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”

John F. Kennedy was elected President of the United States of America in 1960.  He was president, not just of the Christians, not just of the Catholic Christians, but of all Americans.

President John Kennedy was my president.  I may have been too young to vote, but John Kennedy had a way to make us all know that he was the president for all of us – no matter how small, how large – we were all equal as Americans.

For a time in a difficult, divided America, THERE WAS HOPE.

My father and mother had a “mixed” religious marriage, by that era at least.  My father was a Protestant Christian and my mother was raised as a Catholic Christian.  My mother was a political worker, and was active in the John F. Kennedy campaign.  I was just a small boy, but I went with her to the election polls, and was taught to say “vote for Kennedy,” which I understand many found quite adorable.  I wish I could remember but I was very young.

But I do remember Friday, November 22, 1963 – the day my president was murdered.  There are some memories in life that are so painful, the sharpness is never dulled.  When my president was murdered, he was mourned not just by some, but by people in the streets, in their homes, and across television.  Those of you who read about it in the history books won’t quite understand it.  There was nothing else anyone talked about.  There was just the murder of our beloved President Kennedy.  There was a NATIONAL mourning.  I don’t think Americans who only understand the current generation can conceive of a national mourning or a national solidarity on anything.  But in 1963, the United States was truly united in its grief over the death of President Kennedy.

On Saturday morning, our president’s coffin was what that era’s children had to wake up and see on television. Our parents cried and we children watched in stunned silence as the television broadcast our president’s body as it was transported in his coffin from Dallas, Texas where he was gunned down back to our nation’s capitol.  I will never forget my president in his coffin, murdered.

After the national mourning, our nation got back to business. Our divisions grew and the nation fought among itself.  The tragedy of violence did not end.  We had to witness the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy among too many others.  Medgar Evers was murdered less than 6 months before President Kennedy.  For a while, America was degenerating into a nation whose politics of division had fallen into politics of violence and assassination. To those who lived such gut-wringing, heart-wrenching decades, surely we must never want to return to such a period of intolerance and division again.

But once again, in America, we find ourselves returning to an era of constant division and growing intolerance in America – both racial and religious intolerance.

In America today, there are religious extremists from different faiths that seek to declare a war on people of other faiths.  Their religious intolerance is the exact opposite of what my president represented.  We have seen a Muslim extremist seek to blow up a crowd at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon, and in that same town, we have seen anti-Muslim extremists who have committed an arson attack on a Portland mosque.   In the reports on that story, I have seen people who have publicly called for blowing up mosques in America, which is part of the continuing anti-Muslim hatred that we have seen grow in the United States from coast-to-coast with people calling for bombings, terrorist attacks, and denying freedom of religion and worship for Muslims in New York City, Tennessee, Florida, and California.  It is a horrific disgrace to America and to Americans of every faith, belief, conscience, and identity group, and many, many Americans have been standing up to such hate, intolerance, and open calls of violence against Muslims and non-Muslims.

Yet more and more continue to publicly promote hate, intolerance, and violence against people of other faiths without fear of consequences.   The Ku Klux Klan once were afraid of what their public embrace of hate would do to their name, their employers, and their lives, which is why they hid behind hoods, while they promoted their white supremacist, twisted view of “Christian Protestant” hatred against other religions, other Christian sects, and other races.

What my president understood is that religious intolerance could never be given official political support.  This is a problem in American politics today.  Leaders of American political parties cannot be perceived to be supporting, favoring, or condemning one religion or one religious sect over another.  Leaders of Americans are not just leaders of a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc., nation – they are leaders for ALL Americans – no matter what their faith (or lack thereof), no matter what their religion.  America is a nation of the people and for the people – of all kinds.

As my president said in 1960, “this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died–when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches–when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom.”

Our police officers, our firefighters, our public servants of all kinds do not protect, do not rescue, do not serve only Americans of one religious identity.  Nor do we know the religion of those who serve.  There is never a question.  All Americans are equal – it is a fundamental basis for the definition of our nation.

There was a time in America when we often didn’t know each other’s religions, nor was it something people asked in a polite society.  Certainly, many do and have the right to be evangelists and share their faiths, hope, and strength from their religion with others.  Evangelism is a great inspiration and mission in the lives of many people. When I was a boy, I too passed out Bibles to others, and there are a number of evangelistic missionaries in my family.  We can share our faith, while respecting the privacy and dignity of others.

But there is a difference between private evangelism and expecting our public government officials and leaders to perform religious evangelism or show religious preferences, while performing their public duties.  There are some political leaders in America today who believe that if our government leaders are not using their positions to evangelize or to comment on other religions, then they are “running away” from their religion. There are political leaders in America today who believe that if you don’t follow their form of religious beliefs and views than somehow you are “dodging” the issue of your religious responsibilities.

In her latest book, “America by Heart,” politician Sarah Palin criticizes President Kennedy for what she views as his failures in these areas.  On page 184 of her book, Sarah Palin criticizes President Kennedy’s 1960 Houston speech, writing “As an adult I’ve revisited Kennedy’s famous speech and have discovered that it is actually quite different from the way it is often described.  Instead of reconciling his religious identity with his role in public life, Kennedy entirely separated the two.”  On page 185 of her book, she states that John Kennedy did not resolve the issue of whether one’s religious faith controlled one’s career in government, stating: “In any case, JFK’s famous speech did not resolve the issue–perhaps because it dodged the crucial question–and it is still very much with us today.”  On page 186 of her book, she praises Republican Mitt Romney who aspired to become president in 2008 in contrast stating, “unlike Kennedy, he spoke out strongly for America’s religious heritage, and how it continues to define us as a nation: [quoting him as stating] ‘America faces a new generation of challenges.  Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us… Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.’”

On page 187 of her book, she states that “The difference is striking: where Kennedy seemed to want to run away from religion, Mitt Romney forthrightly embraced it.  The contrast is attributable not just to the political distance between the two men, but to the distance our country has come since 1960.”

Indeed it has come a distance, but not always in a good way.  In too many ways, our nation is going backwards, and we must find the courage of our convictions to right the ship of state.

Freedom requires courage – the courage to defend freedom not just for the majority, but also for the minority.

Sarah Palin never knew my president.

She was born after my president was buried, and she knows of him from books she has read.

I can tell Sarah Palin that my president didn’t “dodge” the issue of his religious identity; he simply didn’t make his religious identity the basis on why he should or should not do his job – just like millions and millions of Americans do every single day of their lives.  Imagine choosing which employees are valuable, which businesses deserve business, which government and military individuals take what actions, all based on their individual religious beliefs.  The idea is absurd, unworkable, and completely ridiculous.  The idea would be seek to create something that is…. not America – certainly not the land of the free.

My president sought to be commander-in-chief, not evangelist-in-chief.

My president sought to lead us in a representative democracy, not a discriminatory theocracy.

My president sought to be president not just for some Americans, but for all Americans.

Sarah Palin, my president did not “dodge” anything or anyone – not his religious convictions, not the U.S.S.R.’s nuclear missiles, and not even an assassin’s bullet – but most of all not his responsibilities as president to ALL Americans.

My president believed in America that much – that is why he literally gave his life to his nation.

Sarah Palin, you should know there was no bigger heart in all of America than my president’s. There was a reason why the NATION mourned the death of President John F. Kennedy.

When I despair, I sometimes visit my president at Arlington National Cemetery.  No one, not even my closest family members, knows this.  I have never told anyone before.

I go there and stand by my president’s grave and pray.  I pray for guidance by God.  I pray for guidance by my president’s spirit to give me wisdom and courage.  I still mourn his loss today, as our nation has mourned his loss for nearly 50 years.  I wonder why such a great and wise man had to be taken from us, and those of us without his wisdom, without his heart, without his decency, and without his vision are left behind to struggle on.  We needed my president so badly.  But I believe God has a reason why these many years we had to find our way on our own.  We have our own responsibilities.

In the pouring rain or the cold, the Eternal Flame by my president’s grave continues to burn.  It burns not just to remember him as my president, but always to remember him as OUR president.

I read the great words on the stone plaques by his grave.  I settle on one that has his quote

“In the long history of the world, a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.   I do not shrink from this responsibility.  I welcome it.“

My president – he gave his life to be Responsible for Equality and Liberty.  Not just on the popular issues, but also on the unpopular issues, not just when it was easy, but also when it was hard, and not just when it was convenient, but also when it meant sacrifice – even his ultimate sacrifice.

To those who believe in freedom, whether you are American or any other nationality, I hope my president’s sacrifice and courage is an example to you in your life, so that you too do not shirk from our shared responsibility for equality and liberty for us all.

The National Public Radio’s Double Standards on Comments about Islam

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) supports our universal human rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of worship for ALL people — without exception.  Such freedoms are part of the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has signed and supports.

On October 21, 2010, the National Public Radio (NPR) announced that it was firing Juan Williams over remarks that he made on FOX News regarding Muslims and on terrorism. R.E.A.L. is concerned that the NPR is employing a double-standard; it condemns Mr. Williams’ comments on other television channels, while the NPR is not willing to be concerned about editorial standards on its own NPR broadcasts.

Barely two weeks ago, it was the NPR itself that was broadcasting and is still promoting a “debate” with speakers that sought to persuade Americans that Islam was not a “religion of peace.” Moreover, the anti-Islam speakers in the debate (that the NPR co-sponsored, broadcast, and continues to promote on its website) were led by Aayan Hirsi Ali, who is employed by the AEI which is also funded by the group that primarily sponsored the October 6 debate on Islam. The “debate” broadcast and co-sponsored by the NPR included no religious scholars.  NPR editors saw no conflict-of-interest or questionable editorial standards in promoting a debate on the legitimacy of Islam, where the primary anti-Islam speaker works for a group that is funded by the debate organizer.

On October 13, 2010, R.E.A.L. asked whether NPR resources and federal funds should be used to help further comments in a “debate” arguing against the legitimacy of any religion. This is especially given the toxic anti-Islam and anti-Muslim environment in the United States today, which has even led to some to go to court to try to prove that Islam is not a legitimate religion – requiring the US Department of Justice to have to step in (an argument similar to the one that NPR was broadcasting on October 6, and that it continues to promote today.)

If NPR is concerned about such “editorial standards,” then perhaps the first place it should focus on is the NPR’s own broadcasts and NPR’s own web site.

If the NPR wants to hold Juan Williams and others to such standards, they must not have double standards for their own broadcasts versus those of their contributors.

According to the NPR, Juan Williams stated on FOX News O’Reilley Show that “Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

The NPR statement is that “Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret. However, his remarks on The O’Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a News Analyst with NPR.”

Certainly, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) objects to efforts and comments to demonize any identity group, including based on their dress. But R.E.A.L. urges the NPR to be consistent in its standards and not to simply single out one reporter for a single remark, while the NPR had no problem with broadcasting 90 minutes of a “debate” which often made incredible harsh remarks about all of Islam as a legitimate religion.

According to the Washington Post, “Williams then brought up a statement made in a New York courtroom this month by Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani American who pleaded guilty to trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square and was sentenced to life in prison. ‘He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,’ Williams said. “

R.E.A.L. believes that legitimate and scholarly debate on the views of extremists must be had to discount and defy such views.  Let’s also be clear that there indeed radicals who share the views of Faisal Shahzad, and it is essential that the media and the American people do not give such radicals rationalization for their views, including radicals in the anti-Islam movement as well.

R.E.A.L. respects the need of the NPR to act on its editorial standards of contributors but believes that the NPR needs to practice what it preaches on those standards.

The larger problem R.E.A.L. sees with this issue is that such double standards will seek to give the perception that the NPR’s actions are politically-oriented, rather than content-oriented.  In addition, this double standard will give rise to some in the anti-Islam movement who will view such actions as selective “censoring” of those who have concerns on such issues, and will only give more rationale to anti-Islam supporters for the need to have their movement.

Double-standards like this are counterproductive to the larger human rights issues, and this demonstrates the imperative need to have a discussion and an emphasis among the American people that will challenge extremist views on both sides of this issue.

In the upcoming future, R.E.A.L. will be posting an article that seeks to provide a way for those who respect human rights and human dignity to navigate on this complex issue in a way that it does not empower radicals or extremists from any side of this topic.

Once again, we believe that showing restraint, respect, and dignity to our fellow human beings is necessary for a productive discussion of difficult topics.  But we also believe that such debates also requires us to be CONSISTENT in our support for equality and liberty.

Choose Love, Not Hate – Love Wins.