[Dialogue] Fwd: Signs of Hope

[KroegerD at aol.com]

>From Dick Kroeger
 
 
  
____________________________________
 From: Dick email
To: DavThom at att.net, ckushell at earthlink.net, Ackroeger,  WRWPWW at juno.com, 
KroegerD
Sent: 7/20/2008 6:54:33 P.M. Central Daylight  Time
Subj: Signs of Hope



My Talk with the Saudis, and What I  Learned from Them

By Rabbi  Michael Lerner, Editor,TIKKUN

I had expected the World Conference on  Dialogue convened by the
King of Saudi Arabia July 16-18 in Madrid to be  little more than  a photo op 
for the King, a cheap way to buy good public  relations for a regime that has 
refused to  increase production of oil as  a way to reduce the current surge 
in the price, provided  haven and  support for the Wahabaist stream of Islam 
that has fostered extremists  likeSaudi-born and raised Osama bin Ladin and 
many other, and has
done far  too little with its wealth to alleviate the poverty and suffering 
of many in  the Middle East. For that reason, when the  Embassy called me to 
invite  me I at first declined the invitation, and only changed my mind a few 
days  before the event when  it became clear that many establishment Jewish  
leaders were planning to attend, so my presence there would not be giving  
legitimacy that these other leaders had not already given.

Imagine my  surprise, then, to hear the Saudi King not only affirm the 
centrality of  tolerance and dialogue, but speak in a language that, as one Muslim   
observer pointed out to me, sounded more like the New Bottom Line of the  
Network of Spiritual Progressives than it did like a speech of a self-absorbed  
monarch. [He is certainly also that, and my praise for his actions in starting  
what may be a processs of Glasnost and Perestroika is the Muslim world does  
not mitigate against the strong ethical revulsion I have at a society that  
does not allow the practice of any other religion besides Islam, for decades  
prevented Jews from even entering the country, even when they were members of  
the US Armed Services, systematically subordinates and oppresses women, and  
beheads people for "crimes" like  adultery].

King Abdullah  started with a strong affirmation of the goal of a new kind of 
tolerance  between religions. Religions have not
caused wars, said the  King, but  rather extremists who have misused religion 
in a hurtful and harmful way. A  truly religious person
would not resort to war, the King reminded us. But  why do people respond to 
the extremists? Because there is a deep  spiritual
crisis in the world, and it is that crisis which creates  theconditions in 
which exploitation, crime, drugs, family breakdown
and  extremism flourish.

The King  went on to explain that it should be the task of
the various religious  communities of the world to work together to
overcome that spiritual  crisis. But that will require religious
cooperation which must begin with  mutual respect and tolerance.
We need to emphasize what all religions have  in common--the ethical
message that permeates every major religion. That  message is that
hatred can be overcome through love. We in the religious  world
need to choose love to overcome hatred, justice over  oppression,
peace over wars, universal brotherhood over  racism.

To me, this didn't  sound like the King I had come to expect from Western 
media. This was  obviously a new direction being articulated by the King of Saudi 
Arabia.  Moreover, it was not just being articulated for a Western audience. 
The King  had convened a similar meeting of Islamic scholars and thinkers in 
Saudi  Arabia six weeks before, and there had championed this new approach for 
Islam  as the one most authentically rooted in traditional Islam (an argument 
made  previously by many Western Islamists-but when they were making that 
argument,  the Saudis seemed to be aligned with the other side, the more 
reactionary and  anti-tolerance forces). The King had faced some real opposition in his 
 previous meeting, and the events there and in this meeting in Madrid 
represent  first steps in a process that is likely to take years or decades. But this 
was  quite a striking new direction, and one that is very hopeful. It was an  
historic event, the thawing down of the ice that the Saudis had helped create 
 as they sponsored rejectionism of multiple paths in the past. Even in an  
authoritarian society like Saudi Arabia, the King has to deal with people who  
have different approaches to the world than he, particularly in the  
reactionary and anti-Semitic elements in the Islamic religious community, and  I don't 
expect to see some clear line of unambiguous goodness suddenly  emerging in 
Saudi Arabia to magically transform the whole society overnight,  any more than I 
expect to see that in the US or Israel).  

The overwhelming majority of people in the  room were leaders
from Muslim countries around the world. It appeared as if  they
were the King's primary audience. He was introducing a new
language  into the Islamic religious discourse, and it was a
language that has in the  past largely been rooted in Western
humanism and human rights. Many Muslims  in the room mentioned to
me or to others that they felt that this speech  was actually a
significant breatk-through, because the King is one of the  more
influential figures in Islam, because of his role as "Protector
of  the 2 Mosques" (in Mecca and Medina), gives him immense influence in the  
Islamic world.

Like the Jews, the Muslims have no pope and no  authoritative body that makes 
all religious rulings, but instead has a  plethora of religious authorities 
who read Islamic law in as many different  ways as Jewish Hallakhic authorities 
read Jewish law. Protestantism in  Christianity de facto created this same 
kind of plethora of sources of  authority, so that in effect people get to 
choose among a variety of different  Christian traditions today, just as they have 
had in Islam and Judaism for  many many centuries. But the identification of 
religious leaders with state  power leaders in Islamic countries has defacto 
created a much tighter control  by the powerful elites over the religious 
tradition in those  countries.

It remains to be seen whether the King can impose his  new tolerance over a 
Saudi society which has not done much yet to embrace this  new tolerance. But 
if the Saudis do in fact allow other religions to teach  their ideas and 
practice their religions in Saudi Arabia, and if they can make  other changes in law 
that embody a new spirit of respect for human rights,  that could have a huge 
impact throughout the Islamic world. Moreover, even if  none of this happens 
very soon, we should understand that in changing  ideologies, statements of a 
new worldview are themselves acts of  importance-sometimes writing or saying 
things (e.g. writing the Declaration of  Independence or giving a speech about 
the failure of Stalinism or writing a  book about the way that Israelis kicked 
Paletinian non-combatants out of their  homes and into refugee caps) can be 
just as important an action as any  other.

The Saudi King was followed by  the King of Spain who talked
about tolerance as an old Spanish  tradition,  presumably
referencing the period when Christians, Jews  and Muslims lied in
Spain in the 11-th  to the 14th centuries. He made  no mention (or
apology) for the Spanish expulsion of all Jews in 1492, He  made a
point of stressing, however, that today Spain is a  democracy
(presumably to acknowledge that unlike the King of the  Saudis,
the King of Spain no longer rules Spain in the way that the King  of
the Saudis actually does rule Saudi  Arabia).

Next, the leader of the Muslim  World League spoke about the
common values held by all  humanity that  should be a foundation
for transcending our political differences. Instead  of rejoicing
at the possibility of a clash of civilizations, as some  right-wingers in 
America have preached  (like Norman Podhoretz in
his  most recent book The 4th World War), we actually need to be
seeking  cooperation between the various global civilizations.
Islam, he insisted,  believes in the equality of all. There is no
legal foundation for the  prevalence of any given community or
race within  Islam.

Here too was an  incredibly hopeful message. It wasn't
relevant, really whether this is an  accurate description of Muslim
practice. It was, as was the King's talk, an  obvious attempt to change the 
thinking in his own community, a change that  could have profound
political effects if it is taken as seriously inside  Saudi Arabia  as  it 
was in Madrid.

After hearing the  Kings of Saudi Arabia and Spain speak, the "religious 
leaders of the world"  moved to  a reception line in which each of us was to give 
our name and  shake the hand of the King. I was in one of my more 
irrepressible moods, so  when it was my time I broke protocol and said to King Abdullah "I 
represent  the many Jews in the world who wish to see cooperation between 
Israelis and  Palestinians and a peace that provides security and justice for 
both sides  (and I pointed to the Tikkun pin I was wearing which has the Israeli 
flag and  the Palestinian flagm with the words "Peace, Justice, Life, 
TIKKUN"). I hope  that you will use some of your huge oil-generated billions of 
dollars to help  Palestinians build decent housing and plumbing in the refugee 
camps." By this  point the people
surrounding the King were moving to push me forward, and  the King
merely gave me a big smile (English was being translated for him  by his US 
Ambassador) and I moved on into the dining area.

To my  surprise, I was seated at a table with 8 members of the
King's cabinet and  his closest associates (I was the only
non-Muslim or non-Saudi at the  table).  I sat next to the Secretary
of Labor, and next to him was the  Secretary of Finance, and then
the others I remember included the Secretary  of Communications, the 
Secretary of Labor,  and one person who was  introduced as the King's main counsel and 
another as a close personal friend  of the King and another was one of the 
major corporation heads in Saudi  Arabia. Several people knew about Tikkun and 
it turned out that these men had  mostly been educated in the US or England, 
several at Oxford,
some at the  University of Southern California or at University of
California. Whereas  at almost all of the other tables in the huge
dining room there were  several conversations going on at the same
time, these people stopped their  separate conversations and
focused on me and wanted to know my perspective  on American
politics and on Israel/Palestine.

I very briefly  described the Tikkun/NSP perspective, particularly the need 
for a new  consciousness based on open-heartedness, mutual repentance, and 
compassion,  and the idea of the "New Bottom Line." I also talked about the new 
Global  Marshall Plan as a way to do foreign policy based on the recognition 
that our  interests as human beings in the West are directly tied to the 
well-being and  success of eveyone else on the planet, and that the smartest way to 
achieve  Homeland Security is not through Domination and "Power ove" other, but 
through  Generosity and Genuine Caring for Others. To start in this new 
direction, I  argued, would take a major act of public repentance by the peoles of 
the  world.

A few embraced this right away, and explained that their own  understanding 
of Islam led them to feel very comfortable with what I was  saying. Others 
argued that my thinking might be right for the U.S., but  certainly couldn't apply 
to the Middle East, since it would be unfair to ask  Palestinians to show 
equal repentance toward Israelis,  given that the  Palestinians had been made 
homeless by the 1947-49 conflict and were living in  terrible conditions.

I agreed with them that the suffering of the  Palestinians was impossible to 
accept as legitimate, and certainly ran counter  to the dictates of Judaism 
with its commands to care for "the other"  (ve'ahavta la'ger-You must love the 
stranger).  But then I added that it  was a shame that the Saudis with all 
their wealth had not done more to help  the Palestinians. The Finance Minister 
smiled and said that that was simply  not true, but that Israel was not letting 
their aid come through. He is  certainly right about the intransigence and 
human-rights-violating policies of  the Israeli government as it attempts to 
punish the entire Palestinian  population for the activities of a few (an explicit 
violation of international  law). However,  I pointed out that Palestinian 
refugees lived in Jordan,  Syria, Egypt and
particularly in Lebanon where their conditions  were
appalling and that the Saudis could rectify that.  

The Finance Minister responded by saying  that they had done more than was 
known, but that the particulars he was not  going to discuss. 
I then pointed out that Gaza and the West  Bank were in the hands of the 
Arabs from
1948-1967 and that their Arab  hosts and the Saudis had done
nothing to improve their slum-like  conditions. Several people
pointed out to me that the Palestinian  leadership that existed at
that time (1949-1967) prior to the emergence of  the Palestinian Liberation 
Organization)  
did not want to accept that the expulsion  from their homes was permanent, 
and hence did not want to begin any housing  construction project that would 
appear to be a resettling in the refugee  camps.

Didn't I agree that the refugees had suffered a huge  humanitarian
disaster? Yes, I said I did agree with that, but that  Israelis
were fearful that if Palestinians were to return now with  their
millions of people, that would eliminate Israel as a Jewish  state.
And I referenced my article on Israel at 60 in May/June 2008  Tikkun 
in which I had analyzed the situation in  terms of the Post Traumatic Stress 
Syndrome facing both Jews from our long  history of oppression
culminating in the Holocaust and the Palestinian  people as a
result of their displacement for the past sixty  years.

Myeven-handedness was challenged by some who said that certainly   
the suffering of the Palestinian people  couldn't be excused by
reference to the suffering of Jews in Europe, since  it was not the
Palestinians who had participated in the Holocaust? I  replied that
the Palestinians had played an important role, along with  the
Saudis and other Arab states in convincing the British to cut  off
immigration of Jews to Palestine. They responded that this  policy
was understandable, given the explicitly stated goal of  the
Zionist movement leaders to create a Jewish state in Palestine,
and  thus, Palestinians feared, to exclude or evict Palestinian
settlers (and as  several pointed out, Israeli historians like Beni Morris,  
Avi Shlaim, and Ilan Pappe uncovered  documents and letters from Zionist 
leaders
revealing that their intent in accepting  the UN resolution of 1947 to 
partitio
n Palestine was only a first step in their  larger intent to eventually take
over all of Palestine-and that goal was  clear to the Arabs as well as to the 
Zionist movement and
accounted for  their resistance to the partition agreement). I
pointed out that whatever  their fears, the reality was that they
had chosen an immoral path in  pushing the British to close
immigration to Jews, and that a majority of my  larger family had
died in Europe during the Holocaust and might have been  saved had
there been a place to escape to, and that Palestine was  the
nearest place in which Jews had some historical claim.

At this  point the Saudis challenged my contention that the
Palestinians or Arabs  had had much of an impact on the British in
their decisions. I argued that  the British in the 30s and 40s were
following policies shaped by their  concern for steady oil supplies
for their coming war (either with Hitler or  Stalin). The Saudis
responded by telling me that they (the Saudis) were not  a major
source of oil for the British and that in any event the  British
were a colonial power that was shaping the policies of other  Arab
states, and not vice versa. I was not sure that that was true,  but
then switched my line to point out that wherever  colonial
authorities ruled, they always tried to set the native  populations
against their minority groups, and that this is what had  happened
in Palestine and more generally in the Middle East. The Jews,  I
argued, were the minority in Palestine at that time, and the
potential  Arab revolt against colonialism had been weakened by the
distraction onto  opposing Zionism.

But was it a distraction or were the Zionists really  agents of
colonial rule? The Saudis pointed to the Balfour Declaration  in
1917 proclaiming Britain's commitment to supporting the Jews  in
establishing a state in Palestine. I argued that a. the British
had  no right to determine the future of the area, since it wasn't
theirs in the  first place (a point that showed the Saudis that
there were indeed Jews who  did not identify with the colonialist
perspective) and b. that most Jews  coming to Palestine were
fleeing oppression, most form Europe but some from  Arab countries.

They responded that Jews had lived in harmony with  their Arab
hosts until the colonial period and the rise of Zionism. At  that
point, rather than pursue that argument (I disagreed with them  and
would have pointed out that the conditions were akin to  apartheid
for Jews in most of those countries through much of that  history),
I turned instead to the larger frame of our discussion and  said,
"Wouldn't it be better if we really wish to build a future  of
peace that we stop trying to get a triumph on the issue of  guilt?
There are two national discourses here, and each has lots of  facts
to back it up, but it is futile and destructive to follow the  path
now being followed in which each side tells the story as  though
they are the righteous victims and the other side is the  evil
oppressors! Lets move beyond that to ask what we can do to  build
peace now, and start by each side acknowledging that the other  has
a legitimate though partial view, and that each side has sinned
and  gone off course." I then explained the Jewish view of "sin" as
similar to  an arrow going off course, implying that the sinner was
fundamentally good,  not evil, but had lost his or her way. They
seemed happy with that  notion.

But then they turned to the current situation and told me  how
surprised and outraged they were that the Saudi proposal to end
the  struggle and create peace based on a return to the 1967
borders, a proposal  offered to Israel several years ago, had
gotten zero response from Israel.  I responded that if they really
thought that there would be a full return  to those borders, they
were mistaken, because no Jew would ever agree to  give up access
to the Western Wall which was part of Jordan before the 67  war (and while  
under Arab rule, Jews had been prevented  from going to the Wall to pray). 
They thought that could be negotiated, but  the point, they said, was that they 
had gotten exactly ZERO RESPONSE to a  gesture which they felt should have 
been perceived by Israel as giving Israel  the recognition that Israel always 
claimed to be central to  its
needs.

I could not justify the Israeli government's behavior,  but
said that I opposed the current and past Israeli governments  since
the death of Rabin precisely because they had given up on  peace
and seemed more interested in holding on to the West Bank. But,  I
argued, most American Jews and a large number of Israelis would
accept  major territorial compromises if they really believed that
peace was  possible.

The Saudis said that it seemed impossible to believe  that when the Saudis 
had made it clear that peace was indeed possible. I  responded by pointing to 
the PTSD thesis coupled with the continuing fear of  Israelis that they might be 
wiped out by a combination of the Iranians plus  the surrounding Arab states. 
Incredulously, they asked if any Jews in the US  seriously believed that 
destruction of Israel was possible. I responded that  such fears were frequently 
voiced in the organized Jewish community, though  many younger Jews did not 
share that fear. At this point, the Saudis were so  astounded they almost lost 
interest in the conversation. They found it  impossible to believe
that anyone could believe that Israel was in any  danger of
destruction. Israel, they pointed out to me, had close to  two
hundred nuclear bombs-no state would dare seek to destroy Israel
for  fear of being wiped off the face of the earth. Similarly, they
perceived  Iranian threats from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be a 
joke,  since
everyone knew that Iran did not have any nuclear  capacity
whatsoever and was unlikely to have anything in the next  decade.

Many of the Saudis at the table felt that at this point they  were
listening to a typical Israeli propagandist (me) and that there
was  no point in continuing to talk since they believed that I knew
and all  Israelis and Jews knew that there was no possibility of
Israel ever getting  destroyed by the weak Arab or Islamic world,
and that taking such concerns  seriously were about as rational as
thinking that Saddma Hussein had  weapons of mass destruction.

In any event, they asked what I thought  they should do-was there
anyone among Israelis leaders who had the power  and inclination to
build peace. When I talked about Yossi Beilin they said  I had
misunderstood-they wanted to know about anyone who was likely  to
actually have the power to implement a peace agreement, and I was
not  sure who to suggest. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni does not seem 
to me  to have the kind of commitment to peace that would be necessary to gain 
the  support of the current cabinet for a path to peace that involved serious 
land  compromises, and Bibi Netanyahu, who may be Israel's next Prime 
Minister, has  zero inclination toward a negotiated settlement with the Palestinian  
people.

The Saudis then asked me about Obama and particularly his  seeming
capitulation to AIPAC immediately after securing the  Democratic
nomination. I told them about the divisions in the Jewish  world,
the way that the peace forces represented a majority of  American
Jews were largely without the finances or access to media  to
make their presence known, and that the pro-AIPAC dems would
likely  make it difficult for Obama to provide strong leadership  on
Israel/Palestine unless there emerged a powerful grassroots force
in  the Jewish world and in the Christian world that would push in a
different  direction. Many of them asked if that was not in part
the role of the  Network of Spiritual Progressives, and I affirmed
that but pointed out  major problems we faced: a. lack of finances
b. media power of the Jewish  right and the willingness of the
liberals in the media to assume that AIPAC  and the Jewish
establishment spoke for most if not all American Jews. c.  turf
battles that made groups like Brit Tzedeck unwilling to  cosponsor
Washington lobbying with NSP and Jewish Voices for Peace or  any
groups that were interfaith, the unwillingness of Christians  for
Middle East Peace to align in their lobbying with Jewish groups,
the  unwillingness of Jim Wallis' Sojo group to work with the
Network of  Spiritual Progressives on Israel/Palestine issues, the
fear that J Street  people seemed to have about getting involved
with any group that might  appear too critical of Israel or even
too explicitly critical of AIPAC, and  the contrast with the Jewish
right which had been willing to all work  together to support AIPAC
for the sake of maximizing their political power.  I also discussed
the lack of political coherence of the Christian Left and  their
inability to join in any effective public political action  with
other groups with whom they disagreed theologically (so,  for
example, it was rare to see progressive Catholics joining
with  progressive Protestants on Middle east issues, or even on
issues like the  Global Marshall Plan because they didn't want to align with 
groups that had a  different stand than they on abortion or gay rights), much 
less with Jewish  groups, except in the narrow frame of specific legislative 
issues on Capitol  Hill (but not in challenging the dominant political ideas 
that shaped American  thought on the Middle East and made Obama reluctant to 
challenge the  willingness of the American government to follow the lead of 
whoever happened  to be in power in Israel). But I also told them that all this 
could change.  I
pointed out that Obama had been intellectually close to Tikkun for many  
years, that his ideas on many issues closely aligned with the Tikkun  perspective, 
and that he had signaled 8 years ago to our Chicago chapter of  the Tikkun 
community that he was very sympathetic to our position on  reconciliation 
between Israelis and Palestinians.

Still, I pointed out,  in some respects the Clintons had been aligned with 
Tikkun before they took  office, but our failure to mobilize enough public 
pressure on them had made it  possible for AIPAC insiders in the White House and 
the Democratic Party to  push them far from me or Tikkun's perspectives, and the 
same danger existed  for Obama unless the progressive forces in all the 
religious and  secular
communities could organize a serious and systematic alternative  in
every Congressional district.

But how could that help, the Saudis  wanted to know. What could
change the discourse in America or Israel in the  way that I had suggested, a 
way that would recognize the humanity and  fundamental decency of most 
Muslims, most Arabs and most  Palestinians

To answer that I presented the Global Marshall Plan. Many  were very positive 
about it, but insisted that the initiative would have to  come from the 
United States in the first instance. If that happened, they felt  sure that Saudi 
Arabia and many others would join such an effort. Theyhoped  that the Global 
Marshall Plan would gain traction, and they fully embraced the  view that 
security would come through
generosity more than through military  domination.

That was my discussion with the Saudis. I consciously held  myself
back on several fronts. I felt it pointless to argue with  them
about the deficiencies of this conference-the fact that though  it
was centered on the notion of "dialogue" that in fact the  sessions
were a series of presentations in which there was zero  opportunity
for dialogue with others in the room. I several times tried  to
raise the issue of the de facto exclusion of women from the
dialogue,  though there were some women in attendance, but I got
zero response or  understanding on that. I got nowhere in pointing
out the contradiction of  holding an interfaith dialogue in Spain
at a time when the Saudis  themselves prohibit the practice of any
other faith but Islam inside Saudi  Arabia. Many of these sessions
seemed empty to me precisely because they  were mere preaching about 
tolerance and dialogue, though the reality in Saudi  Arabia
provides so little dialogue or tolerance of other  religions.

And yet, I realized that that point, though righteous,  somehow
missed the significance of this gathering, which was in fact  more
about advancing the idea of tolerance, peace, non-violence,  mutual
understanding and dialogue in the Islamic world and in  particular
in the religious community in the Islamic  world.

The Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and others  who were in 
attendance here were props for this discussion, but what the  King
of Saudi Arabia was doing was nevertheless of historic significance.  In a 
previous meeting in Mecca with Islamic religious leaders, he faced  considerable 
opposition to his proposal for an interfaith conference around  dialogue and 
mutual understanding. He had used his power and authority as the  Guardian of 
the Sacred Mosques of Mecca and Medina to override opposition and  go forward 
with this conference. Precisely because Saudi forms of Islam are  perceived as 
the most conservative, taking this step is certain to reverberate  for 
decades through the Islamic world and to be an historical marker in the  process of 
modernization in Islam. For Islam, this gathering and the one  before it in 
Saudi Arabia were roughly equivalent in signifiance to that og  Gorbachev 
announcing the beginning of a new openness and tolerance toward the  West that was 
the first step toward the dissolution of the Soviet  Union.

And there is also another dimension. The Saudis are  implicitly
taking religious leadership in the struggle with a  reactionary
version of Islam that has emerged in Iran. Though Iran was  never
mentioned, this gathering, plus the actions of the Prince  of
Jordan in calling for an Islam that works in cooperation with  the
Western world and with other religious communities, renouncing  the
"conflict of civilizations," appears to be a major challenge to
the  growing appeal of Iranian forms of Islam among young Muslims
who are filled  with righteous indignation against the West in
light of the devastation  brought to Iraq by the US and the UK.

Finally, a word about the media.  As I listened to the Saudis at my
table I realized once again what I've  known for four decades-how
completely the media misrepresents who the  people are with whom the powerful 
in the US are at odds. I have long known  that about the
Jewish media as well-I'm portrayed often as an enemy of  Israel or
a self-hating Jew! And ever since the Clintons embraced  my
"Politics of Meaning," the American media has represented me as a
New  Agey thinker rather than as someone deeply rooted in
Judaism,psychology,  philosophy and still learning from all the
other religious and spiritual  traditions of the human race through
its history. Still, with all that, I  was amazed to find myself
amazed at the humanity, intelligence, and shared  commitment to
rationality among all these leaders of the Saudi regime. NO,  I'm
not giving up my skepticism, and no, I have not forgotten  the
barbarism of some Saudi legal practices, the strong misogyny  of
their culture, and the profound anti-Semitism that exists in  their
society. No, I was not holding some racist view-the Saudi system is  actually 
extremely oppressive, its legal system extremely intolerant and  imposing of 
a particularly reactionary version of Islam that goes with  beheading some 
people for being   But what I was discovering at  lunch is that there is a 
modernizing Saudi elite that sees those reactionary  aspects of their own society as 
problematic, and hopes to change that  (indicated to me in many comments made 
during the two hours we sat together  and which I've only partially 
summarized here).
I am not an advocate for  the Saudi regime, but I now see that there are 
elements in it with a true and  deep humanity. I see the fundamental decency of 
some who are engaged in an  effort to "reform from within," and am reminded once 
again of  how
ridiculous it is to talk about a whole society as though  it
represented a single perspective or shared a single worldview. I also  see 
now the need to work with the most progressive elements, and the need to  avoid 
"Othering the Other."

Another point about the media: this  conference is a front page story in most 
of the world, but is being largely  ignored in the US media who were notably 
absent from the hundreds of media  covering this event. This is a willed 
ignorance about the world fostered by  the US media establishment.

What was also clear to me in this  conversation was that these very
enlightened Saudis had NEVER met or been  in a conversation with
Jews who held progressive values and took those  value seriously.
For them, it was an exciting revelation that there were  Jews who were both 
pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, who could hold both  narratives as having 
elements of truth and elements of goodness, just as it  was exciting to them to learn 
about the interfaith Network of  Spiritual
Progressives. They too had fallen for the media distortions  and
for believing that the American elites with whom they have  had
contact represent the democratic will of the American people,  so
they were happy to be disabused of that notion.

I came away  from this direct time with the Saudis with 
the distinct impression that I  had helped foster more positive
notions about who Americans are, who Jews  are, and what Israelis
are about. I believe that this happened in many  other conversations that 
took place in the hallways between the 20 or so Jews  at the conference and the 
hundreds of Muslims and Christians.  While some  of those Jews probably 
conveyed the same stuckness and stubbornness that  Israel and the American Jewish 
establishment always conveys, there were fresh  thinkers like Rabbi Michael 
Paley, Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, Rabbi Phyllis  Berman, Rabbi Arthur Waskow,  Rabbi 
Marc Gopin, Rabbi Scott Sperling and  Rabbi David Rosen who each have creative 
and exciting ideas on how to continue  this dialogue. For that, as for many 
other aspects of this set  of
conversations, I give thanks to God for the opportunity that I
have  had to serve the causes of peace and reconciliation!

Returning to the  rest of the conference would be a downer in
comparison with this  conversation, but I soon realized that that
too was a premature judgment. I  felt richly rewarded by the
opportunities to meet and chat with many other  Muslims, and to
realize how safe the place felt for us Jews even though we  were a
tiny minority in a hall filled with Muslims. But the actual  formal
presentations also raised some important issues and even a  rather
encouraging vision of the future, which I'll translate  somewhat
into my frame.

I mentioned above that this conference is a  significant step in
the process of modernization in the Islamic world. But  of course,
modernization in the West has been deeply linked to a process  of
"de-mystification of the world" that we at Tikkun call
"scientism,"  the triumph of the worldview that the only things
that count are those that  can be measured or empirically verified,
and that everything else is  literally "non-sense."
The result is the empty public square, a public life  devoid of
values. And as I've showed in our empirical research at  the
Institute for Labor and Mental Health, and explained more fully  in
my The Politics of Meaning and in my Spirit Matters and The Left
Hand  of God, this has created a spiritual crisis of monumental
importance that  is at the root of family breakdown, drug and
alcohol abuse, narcissism and  alienation, loneliness and a sense
of the meaninglessness of one's life  that has grown to monumental
proportions.

While the poverty in the  under-developed world is itself a major source of 
pain, one of the aspects of  the West that is most resented and feared is the 
power of Western culture to  uproot traditional cultures to replace them with 
the values of  the
marketplace and the demystification and scientism that is central
to  capitalist enterprise.

Watching the spiritual suffering and  degradation that in the West is taken 
for granted and rarely connected with  the values generated by a society that 
measures "success" primarily in  material terms and encourages a world view of 
"looking out for number one" and  "me-firstism" and "values out of our 
professions and out of our work world and  only have a place on a weekend religious 
moment but not in dailylife," people  in the Muslim world are particularly 
concerned about this aspect of Western  imperialism and are committed to fighting 
it.

So what was said by  some of the speakers was that the kind of
modernization that should be  welcomed into Islam, and the kind of
tolerance that should be an important  element of Islamic culture,
should not include a tolerance for those kinds  of values that
shape the culture of capitalist imperialism and are  reflected in
the pop culture it has fostered. Instead, they envision  a
modernization that is respectful, inclusive, and based on
affirming  the value of spiritual and religious diversity, but that
does not accept  the secularism and the scientism of the modern
world that parades under the  name of Western "rationality" and "progress."

That, of course, is a  vision closely aligned with ours. We do not
at Tikkun or in the Network of  Spiritual Progressives (NSP) affirm any 
particular religious tradition, nor do  we believe that  one must be religious or 
part of some religious  tradition in order to be part of the NSP or in order to 
 deserve our  respect or connection.

But we do affirm that there is something in  the
spiritual worldview, even the "spiritual but NOT  religious"
worldview that is an essential part of a fulfilled life.  While
that spiritual element may manifest as play, art, music, dance,  or
even study of the wonders of the universe as experienced through
the  study of science, it is an irreducible element that cannot be
accessed  solely by scientism (though it could be by scientific
investigation). To be  spiritual in our sense is to recognize that there are 
aspects of reality that  are real and knowable, but cannot be know through 
measurement or empirical  verification.

What the advanced-consciousness-Muslims  whose
wisdom was in full flower at this conference seem to be  promising
us is that the coming spiritual renaissance of Islam may provide  a
foundation for precisely this kind of tolerant, loving, and
generous  form of religion that becomes a beacon for future
generation. This kind of  Islam will speak to people who may be experiencing 
the crisis of  spiritual
emptiness of the contemporary world but are not willing to  embrace
fundamentalisms of any sort or give space to worldviews that  do
not include tolerance, mutual respect for others, and a true
spirit  of generosity. This is precisely the kind of renewal that many of us 
in the  NSP are seeking to build in the Christian and Jewish worlds  today.

It may be hard for many of us to imagine a
world in  which Islam becomes identified with these values of love,
generosity,  kindness, tolerance, social justice and peace. Such a 
development for Islam,  or for that matter for Judaism and Chrisitianity, would 
certainly be an  incredibly wonderful development. For those of us who despair about  
Christianity or Judaism having gone astray from the loving elements in their  
founders' visions that these religions now embody, in at least part of their  
practice, exactly the opposite values from those that made these religions  
catch fire in the hearts of their adherents (that may be what it means to see  
the Burning Bush), the notion that Islam might be the spark that generates a  
new religious revival based on mutual respect and spiritual intensity could  
dramatically expand our understanding of
the endless potential for God to  surprise us, un-do our conceptual
certainties, and open our hearts to each  other.

Well, I won't hold my breath for that in Islam or any other  religion. As 
moved as I was by this conference, I believe that the  historically significant 
process that the King of Saudi Arabia helped advance  in Madrid will take 
decades to fully mature in the actual reality of daily  life in Saudi Arabia. In 
fact, I expect that we are more likely to see  progressive visions from Islam 
emerge from the diaspora communities of Muslims  in the U.S. (see the work of 
the Zaytuna Institute in the SF Bay Area),  Canada, England, and France, and 
from Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Palestine. But  none of these will have as much 
lasting impact as the transformation, however  difficult and long it may take, 
that was set on path by this process initiated  by King Abdullah. Similarly, 
those of us who are seeking to build a renewal in  Christianity, Judaism, 
Hinduism, and Buddhism have our work cut out for us,  and overcoming the 
out-of-balance energy toward repression, distrust, fear of  the other, and commitment to 
"domination as the path to security" (the   legacy of what I call "the Right 
Hand of God") will be a task that will not be  completed in my lifetime, not 
even in Western religions. But I think it is  very important to acknowledge 
victories and steps forward, and I believe that  we are seeing now a major step 
toward strengthening the Renewal forces in  Islam, and I am grateful to have 
been part of that experience.

I also  came away with a hopeful attitude about what is possible in the way 
of Middle  East peace once the Israeli people come to the place of being 
willing to give  up the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan, and to the consciousness of 
recognizing  that their security will come more from a spirit of generosity and 
caring for  others than through domination and occupation. But that, too, is 
not around  the corner. All the more reason why we at Tikkun and the Network 
of Spiritual  Progressives have to be willing to remain true to our faith that 
love and  generosity will eventually triumph in the hearts and minds of all 
people on  the planet, and that our task is to do what we can to accelerate that 
process  so as to relieve the suffering that is happening as long as the old 
paradigm  of fear and domination continue to shape the policies of  states 
around  the world.

Rabbi Michael Lerner, July 18, 2008 Madrid, Spain

If you find this perspective moving and wish  to support it, here's what you 
can do: 1, copy and send this to everyone you  know or who is in any email 
discussion group or list you are on; post it on  your own web-site, YOUTUBE, or 
wherever else you have access, and talk about  it to everyone you know. An 
electronic version can also be found at  www.spiritualprogressives.org  2. Join 
the Network of Spiritual  Progressives (NSP) at www.spiritualprogressives.org 
and give us the financial  support we need to keep this kind of analysis coming. 
When you join NSP you  will automatically receive a one year subscription to 
Tikkun  magazine..   We need your financial support, not just your agreement  
with our principles or perspective-so how about acting NOW to strengthen our  
voice!

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine  www.tikkun.org,
chair of the Network of Spiritual  Progressive
www.spiritualprogressives.org, and author of 11 books  (including
The Politics of Meaning, Healing Israel/Palestine, and The  Left
Hand of God, the latter a national best seller in 2006). He  is
rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in SF, conducts Friday  evening
services in SF, and teaches Torah on Shabbat mornings in  Berkeley
(see www.beyttikkun.org for schedule) and High Holiday services  in
S.F.  You don't have to be Jewish to register for the High Holiday  services, 
which are among the most creative and unique traditional services  you'll 
ever experience.

RabbiLerner at Tikkun.org
510 644 1200



 
____________________________________
 Get fantasy football with free live scoring. _Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy 
Football  today_ 
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020) .





**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for 
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.      
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080720/638811c5/attachment-0001.html