Categories
Opinions

You Voted For Trump: Now What?

On November 9th I woke up to find out that Donald Trump was president. I wept. I did not cry because “my candidate” did not win. I cried because Trump received 85% of the evangelical vote despite his numerous offensive comments towards women, Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, and the disabled. This statistic became more painful when I realized that 81% of these evangelicals were white. Since I go to school with predominantly white evangelicals, some of whom have likely voted for Trump, I have chosen to address the rest of this OpED to this demographic.

Photo by: Anthony Burdo
Photo by: Anthony Burdo

Now, I know that not everyone who voted for Trump did so for racist or misogynist intents. I get that, and I would not want to accuse you of such things. But, if you are an individual who voted for Trump, particularly if you are of Caucasian descent, I need you to hear me. I know, that most of you did not approve of either candidate and that you probably felt that Trump was the lesser of two evils. You may have had other rational decisions motivating your vote. Yet, the bitter truth remains that 85% of Evangelical Christians did not see racism as a deal breaker.

We can debate about what it means to be an “evangelical” or we can debate whether or not Trump will abandon his offensive persona in office. We can even argue over the legitimacy of one voting for Trump over Clinton, but that is not the point of this piece. I am writing today to tell my white brothers and sisters that the results of this election have wounded my trust in the Church. I know this was not your intention. However, I feel uneasy knowing that majority of the American Church did not think about how their vote would directly affect the individuals who Trump had slandered. Christians cannot vote that way, particularly in this type of election. The Christian Church has a duty to its stranger (the refugee), to its vulnerable (the immigrant, the disabled), to the misrepresented (women and Muslim citizens), and to ethnic members of the Church. The fact that majority of evangelicals voted for Trump in light of these issues makes it difficult for me to believe that racism was considered a real problem in the campaign. Indeed, for 81% of these Evangelicals, racism was not and will not be a personal issue; perhaps that is why it was not a problem.

jiwanquoteI know this is a hard thing for me to say. I know it is even harder to hear, but I need you to know how your actions have hurt minorities, whether you intended it or not. It is hard to believe there is a place in America and the American Church for me, or people like me, because too many people voted without holding Trump accountable for his abusive language and campaign. If you voted for Trump, I do love you. That is why I wrote this article; the Church cannot be the Church if it remains passive in the face of injustice, and so I ask you to act. It is likely that racial prejudice and its dynamics are new to you, therefore, listen to your non-white friends and see what they have to say about it. Be honest about Trump’s (and other individual’s) abuses and please and avoid trivializing their pain. Rather, stand beside minorities and women who have been slandered in this campaign and hold the new president to a higher standard. You may have voted for Trump, but please make efforts to affirm that the Hispanic community, newly settled refugees, Muslim citizens and immigrants are valued people under Trump’s administration.  

I have heard many people comment that we ought not to worry about Trump’s presidency because God is in control. This is true, but the statement is being used as a horribly passive approach to the issues at hand. We are the Church and in this turbulent time we do not get to hide behind sentimental ideas of providence, but we must repent to one another. For when the Church acts like the Church and works for peace, only then shall we see the reconciling spirit of God at work.

Jiwan is a senior majoring in philosophy and theology.

Categories
News

Houghton Islamic Studies Partners with Lilias Trotter Center

This Monday, Islamic Studies professors Benjamin Hegeman and Don Little, along with President Shirley Mullen and Dean of the College, Linda Mills-Woolsey officially signed a partnership with the Lilias Trotter Center to offer Islamic Studies courses at Houghton. The Lilias Trotter Center, based out of Orlando, Florida, is a collaboration with Pioneers and Serving In Mission (SIM) and enables Christian engagement with Muslims. The Center partnered with Houghton allowing the College to continue the study of Islam by offering courses to better understand Muslim people and the Muslim world. Currently, the agreement with The Lilias Trotter Center and Houghton College is for 18 months, but if the courses are continued to seen as a value to the College, the partnership will continue.

LiliasTrotterSigning1_LukeLauer
From left to right: President Shirley Mullen, Dean Linda Mills-Woolsey, Professor Don Little, and Professor Benjamin Hegeman sign 18 month agreement between the Lilias Trotter Center and Houghton College on Monday Feb. 16.

Currently, Introduction to Islamic Foundations is being offered this semester and is the first course that Houghton has offered residentially and online at the same time. By recording lectures and putting them online, students from all over the world including Kenya and Switzerland are able to learn about Islamic theology and culture. Throughout the course, students are learning about Islam by looking at the three Islam texts: Qur’an, Hadiths, and Sira.  Bethany Rudolph ‘17 said she is taking the course, “to gain a deeper understanding of Islam, to be able to have conversations with Muslims, and to understand what the religion is about.”

LiliasTrotterSigning3_LukeLauer
From left to right: (Back row) Professor Don Little, Gail Schlooser, Professor Benjamin Hegeman (Front Row) Dean Linda Mills-Woolsey and President Shirley Mullen.

Because of budget restrictions, in December of 2013, it looked as though Islamic Studies would be no longer offered at Houghton. Little said, “we needed to know the future of the program and President Mullen invited me to speak out on why we needed Islamic Studies courses.” Throughout the spring semester of 2014, the Lilias Trotter Center and Houghton were communicating about the possibility of a partnership. In May of 2014, an agreement was set between the two organizations and today, they are now in a officially in partnership. Hegeman said, “I’m impressed with President Mullen and her invitation to continue the Islamic Studies programs.” A new Lilias Trotter full-time faculty member, Dr. Gail Schlosser, has joined the Islamic Studies program here at Houghton as well.

Hegeman explains that it is important for anyone in the global community to learn about Islam culture and theology. Senior Tyler Reese explains that her only impression of Muslims before taking this course was what she saw in the media, which she described as terrorist bombings. “I wanted to take this class to have a greater understanding of what provoked those actions and what these people were thinking when they planning such attacks.” Rudolph mentioned that it is easy for people to only listen and to believe to what mass media is telling us about a certain group, such as Muslims. “It’s created a very skewed image of Muslims,” said Rudolph., “Tthe courses that Dr. Little and Dr. Hegeman teach have helped me untangle those ideas and shape a better understanding of what Muslims really believe.,” she said.

Within five years, Little hopes that Houghton will be a main base for teaching Lilias Trotter courses. “We can bring on other Lilias Trotter staff members and work together to serve the local community and the Muslim community,” said Little. These professors are aware of budget restraints but have received a lot of praise for the program. “We realize that it’s an opportunity and challenge,” said Hegeman. In fall of 2015, there will be a new course in Islam offered called Islam: a Christian Introduction. Little said the course will be a general introduction to Islam culture and theology and the department is working on the course to serve as Integrative Studies credit. To find out more about the Lilias Trotter Center, please visit liliastrottercenter.org

Categories
International News

Mass Death Sentence in Egypt

An Egyptian court on Monday, February 1st 2015, sentenced 183 Muslim Brotherhood supporters to death. The court proceedings were held over the killing of 11 police officers in the violence that had engulfed Egypt after the 2013 dismissal of the former Islamist president, President Mohammed Morsi.

The attack took place after Egyptian military forces cracked down on Islamist supporters of Morsi in July 2013. Egyptian security forces descended onto two pro-Morsi camps in July and August 2013, killing hundreds.

JoePoyfairAt the end of July and beginning of August 2013, hundreds of demonstrators were killed by Egyptian security forces. The Human Rights Watch said that this mass killing of protesters “probably amounts to crimes against humanity,” thus creating an international outcry that was quickly quieted by the Egyptian government.

The United Nations has called the trials “unprecedented.” Amnesty International’s Deputy Middle East and North Africa Program Director, Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, said in a statement in response to Monday’s verdict.  “The death sentences are yet another example of the bias of the Egyptian criminal justice system.”

Sahraoui further stated that “issuing mass death sentences whenever the case involves the killing of police officers now appears to be near-routine policy, regardless of facts and with no attempt to establish individual responsibility.”

The original trial saw 377 people sentenced to life in prison in absentia, while not present at the event being referred to.  Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui said it would be wrong to impose the capital punishment “when there are serious doubts hanging over the fairness of the trial which disregarded international law.”

The Egyptian court did not put 183 individuals to death lightly. The Egyptian government has been attempting to fight against terrorism in Egypt. Muslim extremism has seen an increase in central Egypt in the past decade, and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has been fighting against these extremists.

Egypt’s current government, led by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has called for a ‘religious revolution’ and asked Muslim leaders to help in the fight against extremism. President el-Sisi has launched a war against terrorism, focusing particularly on the countries Sinai region, where an extremist group recently pledged allegiance to ISIS.

In an act of counter extremism, Egyptian authorities cracked down in 2013 on former supporters of Morsi, a longtime member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Egyptian government had officially declared a terrorist organization in December 2013

In a speech on New Year’s Day, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called for a “religious revolution” in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse. “Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s population, [which] is 7 billion people, so that they themselves may live?” President el-Sisi asked.

“We have to think hard about what we are facing,” President el-Sisi said. “It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing, and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible.”

Categories
Opinions

Missiology 101

Hello, Phil. I hear you’ve got to know this new fellow who has moved into your town lately, and I’ve been wondering what you think about him. He’s an immigrant, a missionary from a Muslim country, here to try to convert Americans to Islam. He certainly seems surprising, in some ways. He knows nothing about Christianity, or about what Christians believe. When someone asked him, he had no idea which country was on the other side of the United States’ northern border. And it was complete news to him that America had begun as a collection of British colonies, which rebelled against British rule and achieved independence in the eighteenth century. He doesn’t speak English, and is certainly taking his sweet time about learning it. But then, as he says (through an interpreter), some people just aren’t good at languages.

In fact, self-deprecation seems to be his long suit. He keeps saying what a dummy he is, how naïve etc.. Though I notice that, when you give him information that will be useful to him, he almost makes a point of forgetting it again right away, as though he didn’t want to be contaminated by it — as if naïveté were a treasured part of his self-image.

And then there’s the strange matter of American names. You can’t have failed to notice. As he explains, there is a custom in his country that all foreign names containing a simple ‘i’ sound have to be pronounced with ‘oo’. It’s not that the ‘i’ sound is difficult for him (there are plenty such names in his own country, for goodness’ sake); it’s just that they have a rule among themselves to pronounce all foreign names this way. So he calls Philadelphia ‘Fooladelphia’, and addresses you as ‘Fool’ — and, in the nicest, humblest possible way, he rather expects you to answer to it. And if you tackle him on this, he does his favorite ‘hurt feelings’ look, and says it’s the custom of his country, a part of his identity. And how could you try to take that away from him?

So what I want to know is this:  What do you think of this fellow, Phil? (or ‘Fool’?) Please don’t tell me merely that you expect him to be rather unsuccessful in converting Americans to Islam. I think we can take that much for granted. No: I’m playing the shrink here, with the big “So how do you Feel?” How do you feel about him?

missionaryMy guess is that, at a minimum, you will view him as a pitiable but also unwelcome intrusion into your town. Maybe you go further, and hold him in some degree of contempt for his attitudes. It’s possible you even go so far as to view him with actual anger and hostility.

Since it’s hard to feel threatened by him (although his country is powerful, it’s nowhere near as powerful as the U.S., and people there are an awful lot poorer than they are here), I suspect that you go for the more moderate reactions toward him. If the relationships were reversed, though, and his was the more powerful and wealthier society that was influencing our daily lives in countless ways, I suspect that your reactions would move over toward the more virulent end of the spectrum.

Scratch all that. I just made it up. And anyway, you’re not Phil. So let me tell you instead about a young couple I really have met, who really were surprising, in exactly the ways our imaginary Muslim in Phil’s home town was surprising. And I have to say that it’s OK — not great, but still OK — not to have any idea who Cyril and Methodius were. Or whether Istanbul is at the eastern end of Turkey, or the western. Or which country Belgrade is in. Maybe you know none of those things. It’s not great to be ignorant about them, because they matter. But the world is a big place, and I’m sure you could easily find facts of equivalent importance about, say, western China, concerning which I would be equally ignorant.

And anyhow, we’re in America. Indeed, it would still be OK not to know those things if we were in the U.S. and planning to start a business (or some political move, or do some Christian missions work) in, say, Peru or India. But this couple? They were missionaries in Macedonia. By that I mean, they had already arrived there. Now, Macedonia is a predominantly Orthodox country (Cyril and Methodius are the crucial figures in Slavic Orthodox history), that was under the rule of the Ottoman Turks for more than five centuries until just about within living memory. And it spent most of the twentieth century as part of Yugoslavia — which was ruled from the Serbian capital of Belgrade. And our couple knew nothing about these fundamental features of the country’s culture, religion, history, or geography.

A missionary is a person who, to put it bluntly, goes somewhere to tell the locals what’s what. But our friends didn’t know what’s anything.

We’ll take as read the fact that they didn’t know any of the language until they arrived. Who would expect anything else? And, of course, they pronounce the capital city of Skopje as ‘Skoapje’. You can say that’s the American pronunciation — like calling the Italian city of Firenze ‘Florence’ — if you want. Except that it wouldn’t be true. Because, even if we accept the unlikely assumption that they’d even heard of the city before they arrived, or had heard American pronunciations of it, they pronounced it that way straight away anyway, and ditto for smaller places that would have been completely off their radar. No: everyone around them in Macedonia says one thing — so they say another. It’s the custom, right? And my friend Kosta gets addressed if he were a beer mat: Coaster.

Can we see that anything milder than furious outrage would be altogether too kind a reaction by the unfortunate hosts?

But our friends are not the exceptions: they’re typical. To be sure, I know counterexamples. There’s an American pastor who has lived in a small town of that country for nine years. He looks and dresses like a local, sends his kids to the local school, and speaks so well that many can’t even tell he’s a foreigner.

But he’s the exception. The clueless young couple are the rule. So how should they respond to the points I just made? I’d tell you how they will respond — but you already know. Smile; look bewildered; make self-effacing jokes about what dummies they are; do something groovy that’ll entertain the local kids; look hurt and keep what they fondly imagine to be a ‘holy’ silence. But, whatever they do, make no change.

Categories
Opinions

Pros and Cons of Cultural Identity: Part 1 of 3

Cultural diversity is a concept that it is valued by most progressives, and even the non-progressive and monocultural, though they may not value others’ cultural identities, would die before they allowed someone to strip them of their heritage. But is praising cultural diversity a healthy practice? Though I would like to think so, I wonder if it really is beneficial, especially if we wish to decrease the high levels of violence and hate in our societies.

Courtesy of sempresicilia.wordpress.com
Courtesy of sempresicilia.wordpress.com

I was born in Southern California, but set foot on three different continents before my first birthday. I have lived in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, France, and Texas. I have traveled to approximately 15 different countries. I am the descendant of a survivor of one of the worst and most neglected genocides in history—that of the Armenians. Needless to say, when it comes to cultural diversity, I lack no experience. Yet through all this, I have not come out with a particularly passionate view of the plethora of cultures that inhabit our world, rather I have come to view them as a significant source of violence and hatred. Could it be that mankind would be more productive and peaceful were it not for all this diversity?

Fukuyama, a political and economic scientist, wrote a book titled The End of History in which he discusses the development of liberal democracy as being the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution.” However, Fukuyama limits his idea to state ideology and claims that the shift into liberal democracy will only eliminate conflict between “post-historical” states. Could we then extend this concept to include secular globalism? After all, religion and cultural identities (which are really synonymous in the majority of the world) appear to supersede, in most cases, that of national identity.

Fukuyama bases his theory on observable historical trends. He is deeply influenced by Hegelian thought, stating, “Hegel was the first philosopher to speak the language of modern social science, insofar as man for him was the product of his concrete historical and social environment.” Much like Hegel, Fukuyama sees historical trends suggesting a progression in humankind, not necessarily towards a utopian-style society as perhaps Marx would, but rather, “a moment in which a final, rational form of society and state became victorious.” This is to say that despite there still being violent acts perpetrated by individuals, there will be no more large-scale cultural or ideological inspired acts of violence.

Similar to both of these thinkers, I would like to take a look at the historical development of cultures from around the world. The Armenians and the Turks are an obvious choice for me, given my heritage. My ancestors were slaughtered in the early 20th century, and to this day many Turks still deny that this genocide ever happened. Violence against the Armenians still residing in Turkey continues today, not to any genocidal proportions, but the hatred remains deeply rooted in the culture. The simple explanation is the same one that explains the never ending slaughters in the Balkans, and the incessant retributive attacks between the Palestinians and the Israelis–it is due to cultural and religious diversity.

On an individual level, a Catholic and a Muslim, for example, can have a peaceful and loving relationship. But, on a larger scale, if we wish to maintain our separate cultural identities, it seems unlikely that we can live in divided communities without developing hatred and violence. For thousands of years the Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks have been slaughtering each other, for thousands of years the Jews and Arabs have despised each other, and for thousands of years the Turks and the Armenians have been at each other’s throats.

Where peace has begun to develop is within secularized, postmodern, Western societies. Could it be that as secularization settles in, as cultural identities are abandoned, and as we enter into not only a liberal democratic world but a secular and globalized world, that we will see peace, innovation and prosperity? It is in this environment that humankind seems to thrive together.

While I cringe at the thought of abandoning cultural diversity, as I do see beauty that has come out of various cultures, I would like to see peace develop in this world on a large scale. It seems as though the societies in which mass cultural violence has been near eradicated are secular and globalized societies, where cultural heritage is but a vague memory and faith is personal and disconnected from society as a whole. Is there any way we can practically achieve worldwide peace while maintaining cultural diversity?