Unit 2 The Duality of Human Nature: Hatred and Love, Fear and Hope, Anger and Peace Assessment 1

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has asserted that "Religious freedom provides a cornerstone for every healthy society. It empowers faith-based service. It fosters tolerance and respect among different communities. And it allows nations that uphold it to become more stable, secure and prosperous.” Use the documents below to analyze the duality of America’s population. You will ultimately formulate a position and construct an argument about whether the United States is a “healthy society” that not only tolerates but upholds “religious freedom” or not.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

DOCUMENT C 11 September 2001: The twin towers of the World Trade Center burn with the Statue of Liberty in the foreground.

DOCUMENT B “The New Colossus” (This sonnet, composed by Emma Lazarus in 1883 as part of the fund-raising efforts for the construction of the

Statue of Liberty, is now mounted on its pedestal.)

DOCUMENT A First Amendment to the Bill of Rights (1791)

President Bush: Thank you all. I want you all to know -- it [bullhorn] can't go any louder -- I want you all to know that America today, America today is on bended knee, in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. The nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens

Rescue Worker: I can't hear you!

President Bush: I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!

Rescue Workers: [chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

President Bush: The nation -- The nation sends its love and compassion --

Rescue Worker: God bless America!

President Bush: -- to everybody who is here. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for makin' the nation proud, and may God bless America.

Rescue Workers: [chanting] U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

DOCUMENT D President George W. Bush, “Bullhorn Address to the Ground Zero Rescue Workers in New York City,” 14 September 2001

DOCUMENT E Mike Luckovitch, “The Statue of Liberty Weeps,” Atlanta-Journal Constitution, 12 September 2001

A proposal to build a mosque steps from Ground Zero received the support of a downtown committee despite some loved ones of 9/11

victims finding it offensive. The 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center was unanimously endorsed by the 12-member Community

Board 1's financial district committee. The $100 million project, called the Cordoba House, is proposed for the old Burlington Coat

Factory building at Park Place and Broadway, just two blocks from the World Trade Center site.

"I think it will be a wonderful asset to the community," said committee Chairman Ro Sheffe.

Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, who helped found the Cordoba Initiative following the 9/11 attacks, said the project is intended to foster better relations between the West and Muslims. He said the glass-and-steel building would include a 500-seat performing arts venue, a swimming pool and a basketball court. "There's nothing like it," said Rauf, adding that facilities will be open to all New Yorkers.

Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement and Cordoba Initiative board member, said the project has received little opposition. "Whatever concerns anybody has, we have to make sure to educate them that we are an asset to the community," Khan said. Khan said her group hopes construction on the project will begin by the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Once built, 1,000 to 2,000 Muslims are expected to pray at the mosque every Friday, she said.

No one at last night's meeting protested the project. But some 9/11 families said they found the proposal offensive because the terrorists who launched the attacks were Muslim.

"I realize it's not all of them, but I don't want to have to go down to a memorial where my son died on 9/11 and look at a mosque," said retired FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches - whose son Jim, a firefighter, was killed on 9/11. "If you ask me, it's a religion of hate," said Riches, who did not attend last night's meeting.

Rosemary Cain of Massapequa, L.I., whose son, Firefighter George Cain, 35, was killed in the 2001 attacks, called the project a "slap in

the face." "I think it's despicable. That's sacred ground," said Cain, who also did not attend the meeting. "How could anybody give them

permission to build a mosque there? It tarnishes the area."

DOCUMENT F Joe Jackson and Bill Hutchinson, “Plan for Mosque Near World Trade Center Site Moves Ahead,” New York Daily News, 6 May 2010

DOCUMENT G Robert Ariail, Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 28 July 2010

DOCUMENT H

DOCUMENT I “Controversies Over Mosques and Islamic Centers Across the U. S.,” The Pew Research Center, 27 September 2012

September 11, 2011 changed not only the world we live in but had a major impact on the mental health of individuals around the world. Some of the individuals most impacted by the events of 9/11 were the Muslims in the United States and abroad. Based on research conducted post 9/11 by multiple individuals, Muslims and Arabs have suffered tremendously. For Muslims and Arabs living in the United States, the impact was two-fold. Not only were they mourning the loss of thousands of fellow countrymen and women who lost their lives on 9/11, but they were simultaneously dealing with discrimination, hate crimes, stigmatization, isolation, and fear for their own well-being in a country they called home. Dr. Mona Amer, a psychologist, conducted research about the mental health of Muslims and Arab Americans in 2006 but ironically ended up as a target of hate and discrimination after her research was reported in USA Today. In an article by American Psychological Association’s Monitor on Psychology, Rebecca Clay reports in her article “Muslims in America, post 9/11”, Dr. Amer received death threats from strangers. The negative attitude towards Muslims has not decreased since the 2006 study by Dr. Amer. Since 9/11, political candidates and TV pundits have contributed to the hostile attitude towards Muslims in the United States. The past 6 months alone Muslims have made front page news due to stories about Quran burnings, The Ground Zero Islamic Center, and anti-Muslim congressional hearings on Capitol Hill. Ms. Clay reports “according to the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans with favorable views of Islam dropped from 41 percent in 2005 to 30 percent in 2010. Ten years after 9/11, the positive attitude towards Muslims in the United States has declined rather than improved. Muslims receive constant negative messages through the media about their religion and culture. Dr. Amer states “there are things that are said in the media about Arabs and Muslims that would never be tolerated or said about any other group…you receive constant messages about how your community is full of terrorists, ignorant people, oppressive people” (APA monitor, 2011). The constant Islamaphobic rhetoric is having a negative impact on the mental health of Muslims in the United States. Dr. Amer, who has the largest group of participants from the most demographically diverse Arab-American population, has found many Muslims and Arabs suffer from anxiety, depression, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Although the majority of the participants were Muslims, we must note not all Arabs are Muslim, yet many suffered the back-lash due to being Arab. In the study which will soon be published in the Social Psychiatric Epidemiology, Dr. Amer, along with Dr. Hovey of the University of Toledo, found 50 percent of the study participants had depression that warranted further evaluation and 25 percent reported moderate to severe anxiety. Ongoing racial profiling, discrimination (verbal assaults and work place discrimination), and other stressors unique to Arabs is reportedly the cause. According to Kaplan (2006), violent acts against Arabs and those perceived to be Arabs rose sharply over the 9 weeks following 9/11. Although the majority of participants in the study reported feeling safe to extremely safe pre 9/11, more than 82 percent reported feeling unsafe to extremely unsafe post 9/11. Dr. Amer and Dr. Hovey note feeling unsafe is a predictor of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). According to Padela and Heisler (2009) there are roughly 5.4 million Muslims in the United States, made up of African Americans, South Asians, and Arabs; additionally, there are approximately 2.5 million non-Muslim Arabs residing in the U.S. There is a large portion of the Muslims in the United States who are immigrants, many from war torn countries such as Palestine, Iraq, & Afghanistan. There are many stressors and trauma inherent to immigration, such as loss of home and land, acclimating to a new culture and environment, and dealing with cultural and linguistic barriers. Many immigrants from war torn countries have also suffered trauma as a result of their experiences back home. For these Muslim immigrants, the added stressors related to post 9/11 exacerbate their symptoms.

DOCUMENT J Dr. Nafisa Sekandari and Dr. Hosai Mojaddidi, “The Impact of 9/11 on the Mental Health of Muslims: 10 Years Later,” MentalHealth4Muslims.com, 27 September 2011

For many Muslims, turning to religion, as opposed to mental health practioners, is the first line of defense. Many individuals tend to intensify their religious practice by additional fasting, reading the Quran, praying, and regular mosque attendance. Abu-Raiya et al (2011) surveyed 130 Muslims living in the United States and found most experienced at least one stressful event related to their Muslim identity such as anti-Muslim comments, special airport security checks, and discrimination. In the study, Abu-Raiya reports participants used both religious and non-religious coping strategies to best handle these stressful situations. Abu-Raiya identifies the non-religious coping strategies as reaching out to others (either Muslim or non-Muslim). Reaching out to others resulted in positive changes such as personal strength and better appreciation of life. Those individuals who isolated themselves from others experienced increased depression and anger. Abu-Raiya identifies positive and negative religious coping strategies in his study. Positive religious coping involved feeling the love of Allah and praying for consolation. It also involved reading the Quran and seeking support from members of the Mosque. Negative religious coping strategies included feeling Allah was punishing them for their bad actions or lack of religious devotion and practice. Abu-Raiya found the positive religious coping was associated with greater “post traumatic growth” and the negative religious coping was associated with higher levels of depression. Individuals should focus on the positive religious coping strategies and avoid the negative religious coping strategies. For many Muslims, seeking out mental health professionals is a challenge due to the lack of Muslim mental health practioners in their community, and having to work with non-Muslim mental health practioners. Muslims should seek out mental health support if they are dealing with depression and/or anxiety. Dr. Amer, who is also the co-editor of “Counseling Muslims: Handbook of Mental Health Issues and Interventions” (Routledge), reports many non-Muslim mental health practioners “don’t necessarily get into the specifics of what can or should be done differently when serving a Muslim client”. Dr. Amer suggests mental health professionals should address ethnic background, history, and immigration status when working with Muslims and don’t assume all Muslims are the same. Also consider the fact that Muslim Americans can include African-American, Latino, and Caucasian converts, members of long settled Arab communities, and immigrants from diverse backgrounds such as China, India, Pakistan, Africa, etc. Dr. Amer encourages non-Muslim therapists to bring religion in therapy. Therapists should encourage a religious dialogue with their Muslim clients and make an attempt to better understand the specific needs of their clients.

DOCUMENT K Marshall Ramsey, Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, MS), 11 September 2010

The wave of rage against America that has rolled across the 1.6 billion-strong Muslim world thanks to the witless film deriding the Prophet Muhammad has raised an important question for Americans: Why do they hate us so much? I prefer to put the question in a broader context, drawing from the Elizabeth Barrett Browning sonnet, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." Why do I hate thee? Let me count those ways, too. In general, I have found overseas attitudes toward the United States and Americans to be a combination of the two, love and hate. "How do I love thee?" First of all, foreigners, including Muslims, remain fascinated by the vigor and creativity of American culture, ranging from Carly Rae Jepson's "Call Me Maybe," to Andy Warhol's Campbell soup cans, to Jerry Lewis. There remains an endless fascination with American movies and stars. Unfortunately, some U.S. cultural and commercial exports, such as McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants, have become the targets of mobs in a few Islamic capitals. (As far as I can tell the attacks have had nothing to do with campaigns against obesity.) Second in the love category, although it now seems a long time in the past, the United States played a large role in promoting the cause of anti-colonialism in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, particularly when it told European allies in World War II, as they had their backs against the wall resisting Germany and Japan, that they would have to give up their colonies once the war was over. The Atlantic Charter put it quite flatly in 1941, asserting the right of all people to self-determination. The United States followed up over subsequent decades, supporting the process of decolonization to its virtual completion. U.S. flagship actions included firm opposition to the British, French and Israeli seizure of the Suez Canal from Egypt in 1956 and the decisions by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy to recognize and establish embassies in African countries as they achieved their independence. Third, in spite of the recent violence in the Muslim world directed against the United States, there also has been recognition of the U.S. role in supporting the Arab Spring and rejecting dictators on behalf of freedom. Benghazi, Libya, was where the U.S. ambassador and three of his colleagues were murdered, but Libyans there also demonstrated in support of the four diplomats and the United States, followed by a fierce effort to disarm the militias involved in the attack on the U.S. consulate. Now, "How do I hate thee?" U.S. policies that have fostered hatred in the Muslim world are the product of successive Republican and Democratic administrations. It would be unfortunate if either of this year's presidential candidates, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, nailed down in advance any piece of U.S. foreign policy in a way that would cut into the next administration's flexibility in this area. The oldest problem is the U.S. failure since 1948 to broker a two-state agreement that would create a Palestinian state alongside Israel and allow both to live in peace side-by-side. The United States and the world are going round and round again on this issue. The so-called Middle East peace process is, again, buzzard food. President Obama tried to pick up that snarling porcupine in 2009, just after he came to office. When it bit him -- i.e., both sides resisted -- he dropped the effort. Former Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, who showed the patience of a saint in achieving the 1998 Good Friday accord between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, threw in his hand on the Middle East peace non-process last year. A second obvious problem in U.S.-Muslim relations is the fact that America has waged war in two Muslim nations, Afghanistan and Iraq, over the past 11 years. Afghanistan was perfectly justifiable after 9/11, and Muslims understood well its basis. What they don't get is why we stay on. As for Iraq -- President George W. Bush's unjustified, reelection-driven war based on the false premises that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links with al-Qaida -- they don't get that at all. And they couldn't possibly understand the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and places of detention in Afghanistan, the rendition of U.S. prisoners to other countries, U.S. drone attacks, American soldiers urinating on Afghan corpses and burning holy Islamic texts, and, perhaps most painful of all, the indefinite detention without due process of law of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay -- despite Mr. Obama's pre-election pledge to close the facility. Now, how much of the problems between the United States and Muslims are a result of the centuries-long contest between Christian and Islamic peoples and states is hard to say. There is some ugly history there. So far, the Obama administration has managed not to utter the word "crusade." Mr. Bush and then Mr. Obama have both been clear that they don't hold 9/11 or anything else against Muslims as such, and they've reiterated that Muslims, too, were victims of the 2001 attacks. I am glad to see foreign policy being discussed in this year's presidential campaign, but there remains an ineluctable argument for exercising serious restraint.

DOCUMENT L Dan Simpson (former U.S. Ambassador), “Why Do They Love/Hate Us? U.S.-Muslim Relations are Fraught with Complications,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 26 September 2012

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

DOCUMENT M The Pledge of Allegiance (1892), as composed by Baptist minister and Christian socialist Francis Bellamy

DOCUMENT N The Pledge of Allegiance (1923), officially adopted by the United States Congress in 1942 after being modified by the National

Flag Conference in 1923 so that new immigrants would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and the United States

DOCUMENT O The Pledge of Allegiance (1954), amended and signed into law by President Eisenhower, who stated, "From this day forward,

the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. ... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war.”)

DOCUMENT P Mike Luckovich,“A Compromise,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 28 March 2004

Secretary Clinton delivered a powerful and personal speech about religion at an Eid ul-Fitr reception, marking the end of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. The speech, at times, was a direct response to the attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in the Middle East, and the deaths of four diplomats at the hands of militants in Libya. In her remarks, Clinton repeated much of what she has said in the last two days. Namely that the Benghazi attack was carried out by a “small and savage group,” and that the United States completely rejects what she called the “inflammable and despicable” anti-Muslim film circulating the Internet. However, Clinton pointed out all religions have faced insults and denigration, but that’s no justification for violence. The response to such insults is what separates people of true faith from those who would use religion as an excuse to commit violent acts, she said. “When Christians are subject to insults to their faith, and that certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. When Hindus or Buddhists are subjected to insults to their faiths, and that also certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence,” said Clinton. “The same goes for all faiths, including Islam.” She spoke movingly about her own personal beliefs as a way of re-enforcing her point. “I so strongly believe that the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries,” said Clinton. “Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one’s faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one’s faith is unshakable.” She asked the crowd to work towards building a world where if one person commits a violent religious act, millions of people will stand up and condemn it. “We can pledge that whenever one person speaks out in ignorance and bigotry, ten voices will answer,” Clinton said forcefully. “They will answer resoundingly against the offense and the insult; answering ignorance with enlightenment; answering hatred with understanding; answering darkness with light.” The secretary urged the audience not to be discouraged by the hatred and violence that exists, but instead resolve to do something tangible to promote religious tolerance in their own communities. “In times like these, it can be easy to despair that some differences are irreconcilable, some mountains too steep to climb; we will therefore never reach the level of understanding and peacefulness that we seek, and which I believe the great religions of the world call us to pursue,” she reflected. “But that’s not what I believe, and I don’t think it’s what you believe . . . Part of what makes our country so special is we keep trying. We keep working. We keep investing in our future,” she said. This year’s annual Eid event honored three young Muslim-Americans who are part of the State Department’s Generation Change program. The initiative, launched by Clinton two years ago, supports young Muslims to develop positive organizations and movements around the world. Clinton acknowledged given deaths of the diplomats killed in Libya this week, the event had a more somber tone than in years past. But she also highlighted the outpouring of support the United States has received from the Muslim world. She thanked the Libyan Ambassador, Ali Suleiman Aujali, who gave a heartfelt tribute U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens ,whom he called his dear friend, killed in Benghazi on Tuesday. “I must tell you, Madam Secretary, and tell the American people, that Chris is a hero,” said Aujali. “He loves Benghazi, he loves the people, he talks to them, he eats with them, and he [was] committed – and unfortunately lost his life because of this commitment.”

America is a melting pot not only of culture but also religion, according to a survey released Wednesday. Many Americans attend services outside of their own religion, and blend Christianity with Eastern and New Age beliefs, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life said. The nationwide poll of 4,013 adults found that a third regularly or occasionally attended religious services at more than one location -- and 24% of the public overall worshiped outside their faith. Three in 10 Protestants surveyed said they sometimes attended services representing other faiths, as did about 20% of Roman Catholics. S. Scott Bartchy, a professor of the history of religion at UCLA, said the results were not surprising given the increasing cultural diversity of the United States. "Once people become acquainted with various religions, it's easy to mix and match," he said. Bartchy also said technology, such as the Internet, played a role in observing multiple religions. "The great thing is, as an individual you can go online and get all kinds of ideas. You can go online and put it together yourself."

DOCUMENT Q “Secretary Clinton Delivers Powerful Religion Speech After Middle East Embassy Attacks,” ABC News, 13 September 2012

DOCUMENT R Nicole Santa Cruz, “More Americans ‘Mix and Match’ Religious Beliefs, Poll Finds,” Los Angeles Times, 10 December 2009

About a quarter of those surveyed expressed beliefs in New Age or Eastern religious principles such as reincarnation and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects. "People have talked about many Americans in the mainstream seeing themselves as being on a spiritual journey," said Paul Lichterman, a professor of sociology and religion at USC. He said that over a lifetime, more Americans will try out different religions than will stay true to one faith. The number of Americans who said they had interacted with a ghost had doubled over the last 13 years, from 9% to 18%, the survey found. About 65% of those surveyed also expressed belief in or report having an experience with a variety of supernatural phenomena, such as believing in astrology, being in touch with the dead or consulting a psychic. Regardless, Lichterman said, Americans have the idea that religion and spirituality are a matter of choice. "That kind of religious individualism," he said, "is the American religion."

The world’s Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to new population projections by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

In the United States, the population projections show the number of Muslims more than doubling over the next two decades, rising from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million in 2030, in large part because of immigration and higher-than-average fertility among Muslims. The Muslim share of the U.S. population (adults and children) is projected to grow from 0.8% in 2010 to 1.7% in 2030, making Muslims roughly as numerous as Jews or Episcopalians are in the United States today. Although several European countries will have substantially higher percentages of Muslims, the United States is projected to have a larger number of Muslims by 2030 than any European countries other than Russia and France.

Currently, the Muslim population of the United States is 2, 595,00; that number will rise by 2030 to an estimated 6,216,00—increasing by 139.5%.

Children under age 15 make up a relatively small portion of the U.S. Muslim population today. Only 13.1% of Muslims are in the 0-14 age group. This reflects the fact that a large proportion of Muslims in the U.S. are newer immigrants who arrived as adults. But by 2030, many of these immigrants are expected to start families. If current trends continue, the number of U.S. Muslims under age 15 will more than triple, from fewer than 500,000 in 2010 to 1.8 million in2030. The number of Muslim children ages 0-4 living in the U.S. is expected to increase from fewer than 200,000 in 2010 to more than 650,000 in 2030.

About two-thirds of the Muslims in the U.S. today (64.5%) are first-generation immigrants (foreign-born), while slightly more than a third (35.5%) were born in the U.S. By 2030, however, more than four-in-ten of the Muslims in the U.S. (44.9%) are expected to be native-born.

The top countries of origin for Muslim immigrants to the U.S. in 2009 were Pakistan and Bangladesh. They are expected to remain the top countries of origin for Muslim immigrants to the U.S. in 2030.

For many years the image of a "melting pot" was used to describe the experience of immigrants coming to America. The expectation was that as people from diverse backgrounds, cultures and religions make their way to our country, a sort of American cultural crucible would melt away all the differences leaving one homogeneous social stew. And at some levels that has happened. Technology has provided a nice blending together of cultures around common language and activities involving cell phones, the Internet and so on. Our consumer culture has had a similar effect, at least in the clothing styles of young people. But on other levels, and in some regards deeper levels, there has not been a melting. The distinctive qualities of race, religion and cultural heritage have been stubbornly retained by many who have immigrated to this country. Rather than a melting pot that boils away all the differences between us, we are more like a tossed salad with unique pieces of cultural heritage clearly visible and intact.

DOCUMENT S The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, The Pew Research Center, 27 January 2011

DOCUMENT T Jim Evans, “America as Melting Pot? We're Really More of a Tossed Salad,” EthicsDaily.com, 26 June 2009

These pieces of heritage are most often identified with hyphens — African-American, Irish-American, Italian-American, Jewish-American, Muslim-American, Latino-American and so on. There are some who decry these hyphens and argue that they weaken America. Ethnic groups are accused of allowing cultural loyalties to come before a common commitment to our country. While that remains to be seen, we have no one to blame but the creators of our own Constitution. The founders, while perhaps not anticipating the level at which people of the world would be drawn to our country, nevertheless made it possible to happen. Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that there is no religious test for public office. No candidate is required to adhere to a religion in order to run for and be elected to office. And the same is true for citizenship. A person need not be a Christian or any other religion in order to be a citizen. There is no official religion of the United States. And so, the world has come. They have embraced our freedoms and our citizen rights, but many of them have kept their cultural heritage and religion intact. So how do we now live together in this tossed salad of a hyphenated culture? Well, one answer may come from a surprising source. On July 4, mega-church pastor Rick Warren will address the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America. Is he going there to evangelize them, call them all to accept Jesus? No, Warren will be engaging in what is known as "interfaith dialog." Dialog, as in having a conversation, learning from the other while introducing ourselves. A sort of culture-wide "get to know you." And he is drawing fire for it. Bloggers among the evangelical faithful are throwing everything at Warren except the kitchen sink. They are accusing him of selling out the faith and betraying the cause of evangelicalism. But I don't think he is. Warren is demonstrating a kind of faithful American pragmatism. He understands that as far as the Constitution is concerned, all religion is created equal. Consequently, all devotees of all faiths, and those with no faith, are entitled to the full protection and benefits afforded to citizens by that Constitution. In other words, Warren is being a good neighbor to a group of Muslim-Americans. He is talking and listening. He is showing respect and honor, much as you would expect from someone who claims to love his neighbor as he loves himself.

DOCUMENT U Rob Rogers, “Blind Hatred,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 2001

DOCUMENT V Rob Rogers, “Muslim Obama,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 26 August 2010

Wading into the controversy surrounding an Islamic center planned for a site near New York City’s Ground Zero memorial this past August, President Obama declared: “This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.” In doing so, he paid homage to a vision that politicians and preachers have extolled for more than two centuries—that America historically has been a place of religious tolerance. It was a sentiment George Washington voiced shortly after taking the oath of office just a few blocks from Ground Zero. But is it so? In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in 1620. The Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their governor John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the same, coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which everyone was free to practice his or her own faith. The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real story of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently embarrassing and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school texts either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent conversation about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this comforting tableau. From the earliest arrival of Europeans on America’s shores, religion has often been a cudgel, used to discriminate, suppress and even kill the foreign, the “heretic” and the “unbeliever”—including the “heathen” natives already here. Moreover, while it is true that the vast majority of early-generation Americans were Christian, the pitched battles between various Protestant sects and, more explosively, between Protestants and Catholics, present an unavoidable contradiction to the widely held notion that America is a “Christian nation. First, a little overlooked history: the initial encounter between Europeans in the future United States came with the establishment of a Huguenot (French Protestant) colony in 1564 at Fort Caroline (near modern Jacksonville, Florida). More than half a century before the Mayflower set sail, French pilgrims had come to America in search of religious freedom. The Spanish had other ideas. In 1565, they established a forward operating base at St. Augustine and proceeded to wipe out the Fort Caroline colony. The Spanish commander, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, wrote to the Spanish King Philip II that he had “hanged all those we had found in [Fort Caroline] because...they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine in these Provinces.” When hundreds of survivors of a shipwrecked French fleet washed up on the beaches of Florida, they were put to the sword, beside a river the Spanish called Matanzas (“slaughters”). In other words, the first encounter between European Christians in America ended in a blood bath The much-ballyhooed arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans in New England in the early 1600s was indeed a response to persecution that these religious dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritan fathers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony did not countenance tolerance of opposing religious views. Their “city upon a hill” was a theocracy that brooked no dissent, religious or political The most famous dissidents within the Puritan community, Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, were banished following disagreements over theology and policy. From Puritan Boston’s earliest days, Catholics (“Papists”) were anathema and were banned from the colonies, along with other non-Puritans. Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs. Throughout the colonial era, Anglo-American antipathy toward Catholics—especially French and Spanish Catholics—was pronounced and often reflected in the sermons of such famous clerics as Cotton Mather and in statutes that discriminated against Catholics in matters of property and voting. Anti-Catholic feelings even contributed to the revolutionary mood in America after King George III extended an olive branch to French Catholics in Canada with the Quebec Act of 1774, which recognized their religion When George Washington dispatched Benedict Arnold on a mission to court French Canadians’ support for the American Revolution in 1775, he cautioned Arnold not to let their religion get in the way. “Prudence, policy and a true Christian Spirit,” Washington advised, “will lead us to look with compassion upon their errors, without insulting them.” (After Arnold betrayed the American cause, he publicly cited America’s alliance with Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so. In newly independent America, there was a crazy quilt of state laws regarding religion. In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches In 1779, as Virginia’s governor, Thomas Jefferson had drafted a bill that guaranteed legal equality for citizens of all religions—including those of no religion—in the state. It was around then that Jefferson famously wrote, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But Jefferson’s plan did not advance—until after Patrick (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”) Henry introduced a bill in 1784 calling for state support for “teachers of the Christian religion. Future President James Madison stepped into the breach. In a carefully argued essay titled “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” the soon-to-be father of the Constitution eloquently laid out reasons why the state had no business supporting Christian instruction. Signed by some 2,000 Virginians, Madison’s argument became a fundamental piece of American political philosophy, a ringing endorsement of the secular state that “should be as familiar to students of American history as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,” as Susan Jacoby has written in Freethinkers, her excellent history of American secularism.

DOCUMENT W Kenneth C. Davis, “America's True History of Religious Tolerance: The idea that the United States has always been a bastion of religious freedom is reassuring—and utterly at odds with the historical record.” Smithsonian magazine, October 2010.

Among Madison’s 15 points was his declaration that “the Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every...man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an inalienable right. Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. “Who does not see,” he wrote, “that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” Madison was writing from his memory of Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia As a Christian, Madison also noted that Christianity had spread in the face of persecution from worldly powers, not with their help. Christianity, he contended, “disavows a dependence on the powers of this world...for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them. Recognizing the idea of America as a refuge for the protester or rebel, Madison also argued that Henry’s proposal was “a departure from that generous policy, which offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country. After long debate, Patrick Henry’s bill was defeated, with the opposition outnumbering supporters 12 to 1. Instead, the Virginia legislature took up Jefferson’s plan for the separation of church and state. In 1786, the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, modified somewhat from Jefferson’s original draft, became law. The act is one of three accomplishments Jefferson included on his tombstone, along with writing the Declaration and founding the University of Virginia. (He omitted his presidency of the United States.) After the bill was passed, Jefferson proudly wrote that the law “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. Madison wanted Jefferson’s view to become the law of the land when he went to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. And as framed in Philadelphia that year, the U.S. Constitution clearly stated in Article VI that federal elective and appointed officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. This passage—along with the facts that the Constitution does not mention God or a deity (except for a pro forma “year of our Lord” date) and that its very first amendment forbids Congress from making laws that would infringe of the free exercise of religion—attests to the founders’ resolve that America be a secular republic. The men who fought the Revolution may have thanked Providence and attended church regularly—or not. But they also fought a war against a country in which the head of state was the head of the church. Knowing well the history of religious warfare that led to America’s settlement, they clearly understood both the dangers of that system and of sectarian conflict It was the recognition of that divisive past by the founders—notably Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison—that secured America as a secular republic. As president, Washington wrote in 1790: “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunity of citizenship. ...For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens. He was addressing the members of America’s oldest synagogue, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island (where his letter is read aloud every August). In closing, he wrote specifically to the Jews a phrase that applies to Muslims as well: “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. As for Adams and Jefferson, they would disagree vehemently over policy, but on the question of religious freedom they were united. “In their seventies,” Jacoby writes, “with a friendship that had survived serious political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction on what they both considered their greatest achievement—their role in establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views. Late in his life, James Madison wrote a letter summarizing his views: “And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. While some of America’s early leaders were models of virtuous tolerance, American attitudes were slow to change. The anti-Catholicism of America’s Calvinist past found new voice in the 19th century. The belief widely held and preached by some of the most prominent ministers in America was that Catholics would, if permitted, turn America over to the pope. Anti-Catholic venom was part of the typical American school day, along with Bible readings. In Massachusetts, a convent—coincidentally near the site of the Bunker Hill Monument—was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent school. In Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, anti-Catholic sentiment, combined with the country’s anti-immigrant mood, fueled the Bible Riots of 1844, in which houses were torched, two Catholic churches were destroyed and at least 20 people were killed At about the same time, Joseph Smith founded a new American religion—and soon met with the wrath of the mainstream Protestant majority. In 1832, a mob tarred and feathered him, marking the beginning of a long battle between Christian America and Smith’s Mormonism. In October 1838, after a series of conflicts over land and religious tension, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs ordered that all Mormons be expelled from his state. Three days later, rogue militiamen massacred 17 church members, including children, at the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill. In 1844, a mob murdered Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum while they were jailed in Carthage, Illinois. No one was ever convicted of the crime Even as late as 1960, Catholic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy felt compelled to make a major speech declaring that his loyalty was to America, not the pope. (And as recently as the 2008 Republican primary campaign, Mormon candidate Mitt Romney felt compelled to address the suspicions still directed toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.) Of course, America’s anti-Semitism was practiced institutionally as well as socially for decades. With the great threat of “godless” Communism looming in the 1950s, the country’s fear of atheism also reached new heights America can still be, as Madison perceived the nation in 1785, “an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion.” But recognizing that deep religious discord has been part of America’s social DNA is a healthy and necessary step. When we acknowledge that dark past, perhaps the nation will return to that “promised...lustre” of which Madison so grandiloquently wrote.

For the first time in its history, the United States does not have a Protestant majority, according to a new study. One reason: The number of Americans with no religious affiliation is on the rise. The percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. has reached a low of 48 percent, the first time that Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen below 50 percent. The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when no Protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees. Among the reasons for the change are the growth in nondenominational Christians who can no longer be categorized as Protestant, and a spike in the number of American adults who say they have no religion. The Pew study, released Tuesday, found that about 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years. Scholars have long debated whether people who say they no longer belong to a religious group should be considered secular. While the category as defined by Pew researchers includes atheists, it also encompasses majorities of people who say they believe in God, and a notable minority who pray daily or consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious." Still, Pew found overall that most of the unaffiliated aren't actively seeking another religious home, indicating that their ties with organized religion are permanently broken. Growth among those with no religion has been a major preoccupation of American faith leaders who worry that the United States, a highly religious country, would go the way of Western Europe, where church attendance has plummeted. Pope Benedict XVI has partly dedicated his pontificate to combating secularism in the West. This week in Rome, he is convening a three-week synod, or assembly, of bishops from around the world aimed at bringing back Roman Catholics who have left the church. The trend also has political implications. American voters who describe themselves as having no religion vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Pew found Americans with no religion support abortion rights and gay marriage at a much higher-rate than the U.S. public at large. These "nones" are an increasing segment of voters who are registered as Democrats or lean toward the party, growing from 17 percent to 24 percent over the last five years. The religiously unaffiliated are becoming as important a constituency to Democrats as evangelicals are to Republicans, Pew said. The Pew analysis, conducted with PBS' "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly," is based on several surveys, including a poll of nearly 3,000 adults conducted June 28-July 9, 2012. The finding on the Protestant majority is based on responses from a larger group of more than 17,000 people and has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.9 percentage points, Pew researchers said. Pew said it had also previously calculated a drop slightly below 50 percent among U.S. Protestants, but those findings had fallen within the margin of error; the General Social Survey, which is conducted by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, reported for 2010 that the percentage of U.S. Protestants was around 46.7 percent. Researchers have been struggling for decades to find a definitive reason for the steady rise in those with no religion.' The spread of secularism in Western Europe was often viewed as a byproduct of growing wealth in the region. Yet among industrialized nations, the United States stood out for its deep religiosity in the face of increasing wealth. Now, religion scholars say the decreased religiosity in the United States could reflect a change in how Americans describe their religious lives. In 2007, 60 percent of people who said they seldom or never attend religious services still identified themselves as part of a particular religious tradition. In 2012, that statistic fell to 50 percent, according to the Pew report. "Part of what's going on here is that the stigma associated with not being part of any religious community has declined," said John Green, a specialist in religion and politics at the University of Akron, who advised Pew on the survey. "In some parts of the country, there is still a stigma. But overall, it's not the way it used to be." The Pew study has found the growth in unaffiliated Americans spans a broad range of groups: men and women, college graduates and those without a college degree, people earning less than $30,000 annually and those earning $75,000 or more. However, along ethnic lines, the largest jump in "nones" has been among whites. One-fifth of whites describe themselves as having no religion. More growth in "nones" is expected. One-third of adults under age 30 have no religious affiliation, compared to 9 percent of people 65 and older. Pew researchers wrote that "young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives," and aren't expected to become more religiously active as they age.

DOCUMENT X “Report: US Protestants Lose Majority Status,” The Associated Press, National Public Radio, 9 October 2012