11/11/16

Islam in America

Last fall, my husband and I enrolled in a continuing education course at UNLV on Islam in America.  As the presidential election began to heat up, there was a lot of talk about Muslims and what Muslims believe.  It didn’t seem to us that any of those sources were authoritative.  So we signed up.

It was awesome!

Unfortunately, we missed a lot of classes because of previous plans, so we signed up again this year.  It is again awesome. However, what we’ve been learning bears little resemblance to the political rhetoric I've heard for the last year or so. I'm also reminded of some basic social psychology: We humans tend to stigmatize people we consider "other".  The more we realize that the "other" is "us", the better we treat each other. 

Caveats: First, you’re getting this filtered through me.  If there are problems, inaccuracies or inconsistencies, that's on me. Second, our instructor, Imam Abdullah, is clearly a moderate if not a progressive.

So here’s what I’ve learned.

The Koran. The Koran is made up of what Mohammad said that god said directly to him.  The words were written down at the time, so not oral tradition like my own Hebrew Bible.  I’ve read about half so far.  It’s not like the Bible, which contains mostly stories or history or literature, but more like Mohammad was channeling god.  Interesting.  It’s also not in historical order, which makes it more challenging. And it’s also not anything like what I’ve been hearing people say.

It is typically pretty benign, though there are violent parts.  Some of what I read had to do with lecturing the people on their practice of female infanticide and saying that god deeply disapproved.  Mohammad tells them that at the end of days those murdered daughters will rise up and accuse their parents, so stop it now. Are you surprised?  I was.  That's why I'm taking this class.  Besides, context is everything here.

Jews and Christians. Mohammad felt that his faith was merely an extension of the monotheistic tradition that started with Abraham.  Jews and Christians were "People of the Book" and worthy of special consideration.  The name "Allah" is closely related to the Hebrew "Elohim", which is one of the names of god.  (This is me: Historically, Islam has been far, far kinder to Jews than Christianity.  The problems of the last century or so are much more political than religious. I expect my Israeli friends to disagree.)

The Haddith. After Mohammad died, there was a circulating oral tradition of things that he had said or actions he had taken.  Lots and lots.  Some centuries later these were evaluated, and those considered most legitimate were collected into the Haddith. There are four separate traditions on what this actually means and what's important.  

Sharia Law.  Sharia is the legal extension of the Koran and Haddith.  No country actually tries to implement these rules. Like everybody else, they have their own laws based on their own traditions and customs. They're not trying to do letter and verse.  To give some perspective, think what would happen if Israel tried to legislate ALL the laws in Leviticus.  Like stoning people who carry money on the Sabbath.  Or re-instituting animal sacrifice.  Or not eating animal fat. And so on.

Shia and Sunni. Mohammad had no sons, so two different people claimed to be the legitimate heir to his leadership: his son-in-law, Ali (The Shia) and his father-in-law, Abu Bakr (The Sunni). Assassinations and conflicts ensured, and now these two groups are mostly at each other’s throats. The theological differences are complex. You can find articles on Wikipedia.  Geographically, many of the Shia are in Iraq and the Sunni in Saudi Arabia, Syria and so on, but the mix is spread all over.  The fight for Mosul is also a fight between Shia and Sunni.

These movements are split into tribes and groups and subgroups and sub-subgroups, all of whom have their own individual interpretation of what it means to be a Muslim. There are Chinese Muslims and Indonesian Muslims and American Muslims and so on.  Each group is flavored by not only their theological views but the culture in which they live. As our imam told us, there’s one group that says part of a particular prayer should be spoken loudly and another that says softly.  He visited a mosque that says it softly while he said it loudly. They asked him to leave! Said he wasn’t a Muslim.

Mosques and Imams in America. Typically, each mosque in the United States is independent.  They are often built by a benefactor who also hires the imam. If the benefactor is an immigrant, he usually hires from his home country.  Other mosques have a committee that hires the imams. Most of the imams in the US and everywhere else don’t read Arabic.

Let me repeat that:  A typical imam doesn’t read Arabic or understand the language.

He’s memorized the entire Koran, and knows what each part means, so what he tells his followers is what he learned from someone else or what he feels is or ought to be true. And who could gainsay him as the followers can’t read Arabic either, right?   (Only about 12% of the world's Muslims are Arabic anyway).  

Moreover, in this country, many of the imams don’t speak English well and have zero experience in dealing with public relations. As a result, there is no one to speak for the Muslim community because there isn’t a unified Muslim community nor an organization that represents them. (Me again: Here's an interesting article from Slate that looks at the issue.)

So Islam is a faith that started, like many others, with a charismatic leader who has left a legacy for others to interpret.  It should come as no surprise that sometimes their actions resemble the legacy more accurately than other times. Think of the differences between the Quakers and the KKK, both of whom claim to be Christians.  To demonize all Muslims as terrorists based on the actions of a microscopic few is like me judging all Christians as terrorists because of the actions of the Klan. 

Let me add as a final note that the members of many of these mosques are in a state of panic right now, not knowing if they’ll be forced to have identity cards, not knowing if they’ll be able to return to the US if they leave for vacation or business, not knowing what will happen next.  The mood, Imam Abdullah said on Thursday, is that they’ll give the Trump administration 100 days and then decide what to do. 

He also said that already neighbors are reaching out to their Muslim friends to reassure them of their support.  

NOTE: It’s a very different history for the Black Muslim movement in America, which we won’t get to till later in the semester.

ADDENDUM:  In response to Anonymous' comments below, I have posted an addendum to this blog.  You can find it HERE.  

11/9/16

Living in the bubble Part IV

So, last night happened. Or as my cousin Michael says, 9/11 has been followed by 11/9. Lots to unpack here as the Trump Train plowed over Democratic expectations, but two thoughts this morning that I’d like to pass on.

First, it’s classical psychology to talk about the stages of grief:

I’ve got them oddly mixed up today:  Denial and isolation last evening, depression and acceptance during a long, sleepless night, and now anger.  Acceptance because we’re a democracy. That’s how it functions. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. You pull up your panties and move on.

Ah, but anger.  Yep, anger.  I’m pissed.  I understand, in some way, how some folks felt when the rest of us elected a black man who offered hope.  Lots of folks in the country couldn’t figure out how that happened or how that hope related to them.  Their explanation was massive voter fraud, and a whole new era of more overt racism and white supremacy began. I don’t see any of the Democratic leaders saying anything like that.  What we Dems have to think about is that there are lots of Americans who felt their voices weren’t being heard and elected a man they think will work for them.  I wish them the best. Next time maybe we can offer something better.

Me?  Now, more than ever, I’m politically galvanized. I’m pumped.  I worked hard on this election in Nevada.  Because of thousands of people like me, we sent our electoral votes to Clinton and elected a Democratic woman to the Senate (the FIRST Latina Senator!). Of our four House seats, three will be Democrats.  Yesterday it was only one. And we took back both the Nevada state Senate and Assembly. We can do this.  Because this is also how a democracy works.

Second is an old vaudeville joke:  A priest, a rabbi and a minister were stranded on a desert island that was rapidly becoming covered by the incoming tide. The priest sank to his knees and prayed to the Virgin Mary to intercede with god. The minister clasped his hands together, looked towards heaven, and vowed to change his ways. When they were done, they turned to stare at their Jewish brother who was sitting in the water, concentrating on each new wave.

“What are you doing?” they asked.  “Learning how to breathe underwater,” he replied. 

Time to grow gills.

10/30/16

Donald Trump, The Prisoner’s Dilemma and Maine’s Instant Runoff Initiative

Sometimes, in politics, weird things happen. (No kidding, right?) Witness Maine’s controversial governor, Paul LePage, who won his first visit to the state house with less than 38% of the vote. The reason? It was a three-way race.

Or even more dramatically and historically, this past spring’s Republican primary eleven-person cavalry charge. With so many folks running, and running into each other, the winner only needed a fraction of the vote, as long as it was a bigger fraction than anyone else’s. And that’s what happened.

Journal Universel, Paris, 1863

Then, as the Republican establishment began to realize that they were about to nominate perhaps the only candidate who could possibly lose to Hillary Clinton, they tried to put together a strategy that would #DumpTrump.  It didn’t work.

Why not?

First, it was too little, too late.  Trump was already well on his way to amassing sufficient delegates.  But their strategy also required the remaining candidates to play the Prisoner’s Dilemma and win. 

Say what?

Here’s how the Prisoner’s Dilemma works:

CanStock Photos

Imagine that you and your friend, Mr. D, are cat burglars. You were caught breaking into the Snodgrass Mansion in search of the priceless Cat’s Eye Diamond. The local police take you off to the station house and put you in separate rooms.  Eventually, the district attorney comes to both of you and offers the same deal:

      

      1.  Admit your guilt. If Mr. D also admits his guilt, you will both get a 6-month sentence at a minimum security prison. If Mr. D says he’s innocent, you go to prison for 12 years while he goes free. 

      2.  Insist on your innocence. If Mr. D admits his guilt, you go free and he gets the 12-year sentence.  If Mr. D also insists on his innocence, you both go to trial and each of you will get a 6-year prison term based on their airtight case.

Obviously, the best deal for both of you is for you both to admit your guilt.  The best deal for a single person is to hold on to your innocence and hope the other guy confesses. You are not allowed to communicate with Mr. D. What do you do?

If you live in a collectivist society (like Japan or Mexico, or India), one that values the group over the individual, you pick the first option. The good of the group outweighs the good of the individual. You trade off your chance to go free for the lower sentences for both of you. And Mr. D will do the same.  You both get the shorter sentence at a better facility.

If you live in a society that values the individual, like the U.S. does, you pick option two and hope for the best, because the good of the individual outweighs the good of the group. Unfortunately for you, Mr. D makes the same choice and off you both go for a long term in a maximum security prison.  What sunk the Republicans was that none of the pack running against Trump were willing to trade off their individual presidential ambitions for the good of the party. Not until it was far too late. As a result, they lost the Prisoner’s Dilemma and came very close to losing the election.

gograph

Now, what does this have to do with Maine’s “Instant Runoff” Initiative?  Everything, actually. 

LePage won because he was in a three person race. The candidate with the least chance of winning took votes from the other, and LePage won instead.  Happened twice, once in 2010 and again in 2014. So in the hopes of preventing a minority winner in the future, Maine voters now have the chance to change how they vote with this new Initiative. Instead of picking a single candidate, voters would be asked to rank the candidates: 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc .  Then, if no one gets a simple majority from the 1st choice votes, they would drop the lowest person and count the votes again.  The votes from the dropped candidate would then be assigned based on their second choice. And so on, until someone gets a majority.  An "instant runoff". They hope to do this in races for the governorship, senate, house, state senate and state representatives, thus eliminating the Prisoner’s Dilemma in these races and allowing only majority vote candidates to win.  Elegant and simple. I wish them the best.

Gary Johnson take note: Are you playing the Prisoner's Dilemma? Your vice-president has figured it out. 

10/27/16

Conservatives serve a tastier meal!

I’m not a very good cook.  Fearless, but not so good. My family suffered for decades with grocery store rotisserie chicken and green bean/mushroom casserole.  And some of our Thanksgiving meals have been the stuff of legend.

There was the turkey we cooked in one of those supermarket aluminum pans. You know, the cheap, flexible ones?  And when we went to take the bird out of the oven, the pan collapsed, spilling hot fat into the oven where it immediately burst into flames.  Who knew that would happen, right? Made for crispy turkey skin along with the singed eyebrows.

Then there were the pumpkin crème brulees in individual cups.  I bought a blow torch at the restaurant supply place that turned out to be big enough to repair a major pipeline.  As our daughter’s sweetie said, “Open flame at a Gilbert Thanksgiving? What could possibly go wrong?”

And then there was the Thanksgiving where I decided to do a New England clam bake instead of the usual. Being squeamish, I wanted to be sure the lobsters were dead before putting them in the boiling water.  The lobsters took exception to my plan.  What a mess. Enough said.

So what does this have to do with liberals and conservatives?  It takes us back to those moral foundations that underlie most societies and how Liberals and Conservatives use these foundations to cook up tasty notions. 

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt suggests that we think of this like an audio equalizer.  Here’s what Liberals look like: 

Liberals are most concerned that others suffer no harm.  Seeing someone in pain deeply distresses them.  They are also concerned, though to a lesser degree, with anything that restricts their Liberty.  Finally, Liberals are concerned with fairness, which to them means equality. (To conservatives, it means proportionality. The difference in definitions all by itself accounts for a lot of the demonization of The Other.)

So in putting together their platforms and policies, Liberals have three spices to choose from. There will be a lot about Caring for others, Liberty (pro-choice, for example) and Fairness (equal rights, equal access, gay marriage).  But that can limit the dishes they can offer.

Conservatives, on the other hand, hit about equally on all six foundations. Their equalizer looks like this:

They care a lot about others’ being hurt but not as much as Liberals do. They’re about the same in Liberty but with different issues (Don’t’ take away my guns) and Fairness, but are much more involved in moral foundations like Loyalty (Colin Kaepernick, for example) Authority and Sanctity/Purity (opposition to gay marriage and sex education). 

What this means politically is that Conservatives have more spices in their spice rack. They can craft messages that address any and all of these six values while still being true to their conservative philosophy.

Side Note:  Arch Conservative Ted Olson helped argue for gay marriage in the landmark Supreme Court case of several years ago.  He said that marriage equality WAS a conservative value, but I believe he was basing that on issues of Liberty and Fairness, not the usual Sanctity/Purity.  It was an interesting turn. Many Conservatives disagreed.

Wild flight of fantasy:  Emotions and behaviors are contagious. Seeing others yawn, we yawn ourselves. Seeing someone hurt can make us hurt. This caring for others, feeling their pain, can be tied to what are called “mirror neurons” in the brain.  If I’m in pain, parts of my brain light up in an fMRI scan.  If I see someone else in pain, some of those parts still light up.  It’s the neurological foundation of empathy. 

David G. Myers, Psychology, 9^th edition

.

It makes me wonder if an overabundance of mirror neurons determines, in part, whether someone is a Liberal instead of a Conservative.  Now there’s a dissertation topic for someone!