Jeffrey L. Richey: Disaster in Japan

the-earthquake-thunder-fish-yosuke-ueno

The Earthquake Thunder Fish, Yosuke Ueno

Since its “opening” in 1854 by U.S. Navy Commodore Matthew Perry, Japan often has been defined in the West by a single, simple image.

Sometimes that image has been one of exotic, romantic tradition (a samurai or a geisha); sometimes it has been the image of technophilic hypermodernity (a bullet train or a robot). Over the past week, Japan has been visually defined in television and online news accounts by the imagery of disaster: flooded fields and streets, bodies and vehicles washed ashore, nuclear power plants exploding, and houses afire.

Disaster looms large in the Japanese cultural imagination. Even casual consumers of Japanese media are aware of the nation’s appetite for apocalypse, as seen in films from 1954’s Gojira (Godzilla) to 2006’s Nihon Chinbotsu (Japan Sinks), not to mention anime (cartoon) and manga (comic book) series such as Akira and Sunabōzu (Desert Punk). What the average Godzilla or anime fan may not realize, however, is how deeply rooted Japanese perceptions of disaster are in traditional Japanese religious culture.

In traditional Japanese religion (not only Shintō but also forms of Buddhism as well as hybrid and new religious movements), kami (deities) are entities of great power and unpredictable, even nonexistent morality. As the influential religious thinker Motoori Norinaga (1730-1801) wrote:

The changing of spring and fall, the falling of rain and tempest of wind, all things good and evil which may befall men and lands, one and all are the doings of the kami…. Among the kami are good and evil, and their doings are likewise in accord with that nature…. When provoked, a good kami may erupt in rage, while evil kami may soften their hearts when happy, and it is not entirely inconceivable that they might even bestow blessings on humans. And although people may not realize it, the actions [of a kami] which may at first be thought evil, in fact turn out good, while those first thought to be good, may in fact turn out evil.

Many a Japanese apocalyptic drama or disaster movie has perpetuated this ambiguous concept of the sacred. Much like kami, Godzilla has been depicted as both an agent of destruction and a powerful protector who both menaces and saves Japan, depending on the film in question. Interestingly, in the original Godzilla film, nuclear radiation is said to have been responsible for creating the mutated prehistoric menace that is Godzilla, while in Japan Sinks, nuclear warheads are used to detonate portions of sea floor, thrusting the flooded Japanese islands back up above sea level. Thus, whether one speaks of supernatural figures, fictional monsters, or contemporary technology, power in Japan is cloaked in moral ambiguity, and it ultimately teaches human beings important lessons about the limits of their own power as well as their own hidden resources.

Unlike practitioners of Western religious traditions such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, who may struggle with why a good God would permit evil to exist, traditional Japanese religious communities have tended to turn such moral reflection inward. Instead of asking why disaster occurs or whether it confirms divine justice, one often hears those influenced by Japanese religious traditions asking how they should respond to disaster and how that disaster might lead to self-cultivation and self-transformation. Phrases customarily uttered by Japanese during moments of crisis, such as gaman (“putting up with it”) and ganbatte (“do your best!”), reveal the faith that they often place in the healing and redemptive power of suffering as an occasion for both the strengthening of collective bonds and the development of personal character.

The ideas, institutions, and practices associated with Confucianism and Buddhism, in particular, reinforce the notions that individuals exist interdependently with others as members of a group and that people carry within themselves deep wellsprings of spiritual potential that can be actualized through self-effacing behavior and collective discipline. In medieval Japan, the experience of disaster both confirmed people’s sense that they were living in the era of mappō (“decline of the Buddhist teaching,” a degenerate period in which salvation was increasingly difficult to attain) and encouraged them to seek relief in either the tariki (“other-power” of merciful beings such as Amida Buddha) or the jiriki (“self-power”) of their own latent Buddha-nature. Either way, disaster could be transformed into an opportunity for cultivating one’s gratitude and fortitude in service to others.

In many ways, Japan is one of the world’s most secular societies. By Western standards of religiosity (personal belief, individual membership, embrace of doctrines and scriptures), most Japanese do not appear to be very “religious.” But when monstrosity strikes, the character of a culture is revealed. In the case of Japan, the imagery of disaster also includes the visage of a Buddha, reflected in the faces of millions of ordinary Japanese standing in line for aid, searching ruins for loved ones, and lending a helping hand to others: calm, compassionate, and concentrated. Such an image still inspires Japanese and others who cope with the inevitable loss and suffering that living and dying as impermanent, interdependent beings entails.

Jeffrey L. Richey is director of the Asian studies program and associate professor of religion at Berea College in Kentucky.

The Ethics of Intervention in Libya

BOB ABERNETHY, host: The situation in Libya remains uncertain. The Gaddafi government Friday (March 18) announced a ceasefire following UN authorization of outside military intervention. On Thursday (March 17), after a week of vigorous international debate, the Security Council approved establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya as well as “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.

What are the moral considerations that should guide a decision to intervene in another country? Kim Lawton took a closer look.

KIM LAWTON, correspondent: As the situation continued to deteriorate inside Libya, calls for international military intervention escalated. The UN’s resolution demanded a ceasefire, and if the violence doesn’t end, authorized enforcement of a no-fly zone and pledged to take “any necessary means” to protect civilians. But there are never easy solutions.

post02-libyainterventionShaun Casey is professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary.

SHAUN CASEY (Wesley Theological Seminary): Whether you act or whether you don’t act, the stakes are really quite high, and that’s what makes it so daunting from a moral perspective: trying to find the right way to know when to intervene and when not to because the consequences, the body counts are quite high.

LAWTON: In the wake of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations hammered out a set of principles known as the “Responsibility to Protect.” The principles say that nations must protect their population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. And if a state doesn’t live up to that responsibility, the international community has a responsibility to step in. The United States has endorsed those principles.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from Nobel acceptance speech, December 209): I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in the other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later.

LAWTON: According to Casey, the principles draw heavily from the just war tradition, which says there must be a just cause for such intervention.

post01-libyainterventionCASEY: What people need to be looking for, particularly with respect to Libya, is to what extent are war crimes being committed, are innocent people being directly targeted, is there something approaching genocide occurring on the ground at this point?

LAWTON: Once that has been determined, the next questions are who has the authority for approving an intervention and who has the responsibility of carrying it out?

CASEY: Simply because you may have a justification for intervention, that doesn’t answer the “who” question. Should France be the one who intervenes? Should Saudi Arabia intervene? Should the Arab League? Should the Africa Union? There are a lot of regional entities there that may actually have some resources that could be applied militarily.

LAWTON: Atrocities in and of themselves don’t automatically trigger intervention.

CASEY: Sure, we have a commitment to fighting injustice, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to go militarily instantly wherever injustice occurs. We have to ask the question “how large,” and do we actually have the empirical, sort of pragmatic capability to do anything about it?

LAWTON: Casey admits it’s difficult to know where that moral line is.

post03-libyainterventionCASEY: Nobody is going to say, “Well, you have to have 50,000 people die before we go in.” So you have to take it case by case, and certainly in a situation like Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands of people were butchered, in retrospect you’d say, oh my goodness, of course that was on a scale that would’ve justified intervention.

LAWTON: Another question is whether there is what the just war theory calls a “reasonable chance of success.”

CASEY: So let’s say we do a no fly zone and Gaddafi still sends in ground troops and tanks and manages to defeat the rebels. Does the fact that we established a no fly zone mean we want to actually then put ground troops to deter Gaddafi if he continues to be successful?

LAWTON: Casey says concerns about potential success have so far prevented the international community from intervening in Darfur, even though there is strong consensus that atrocities continue to be committed there. He acknowledges that not acting in a particular situation can also be a moral failure.

CASEY: If you have the ability to intervene and to stop an injustice or stop an atrocity and don’t, I think you do have moral culpability as a result of that.

LAWTON: The moral questions are getting increasingly complicated, and Casey says they’re not going away any time soon.

CASEY: If history’s any guide, we’re going to see more of these failed states and more of these sort of nascent civil wars, and we’re going to be asked a lot more to intervene in these kinds of conflicts.

LAWTON: All the more reason, he says, to stay vigilant in doing the moral calculus.

I’m Kim Lawton in Washington.

Shaun Casey: Weighing Intervention in Libya

Watch extended excerpts from correspondent Kim Lawton’s March 16, 2011 interview about the ethics of intervention in Libya with Shaun Casey, professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC.

 

Purim

 

RABBI GIL STEINLAUF (Adas Israel Congregation, Washington, DC): The Purim story is actually one of the books of the Bible. It’s called the Book of Esther or Megillaht Esther in Hebrew.

Jews today often think of it as a kind of fun, silly holiday. It’s kind of like Mardi Gras. It has costumes, and it has parties and festivals.

What really sets it apart as unique, in the Jewish tradition, is that it has specific mitzvot or commandments. We have to give gifts of food to each other. The most famous food that’s associated with Purim is what we call hamentoshen, and we have to give gifts to the poor, and we also have to sit down for a “seudah” or a festive meal together. We have to share the experience with community.

post01-purim2011You have to hear the reading of the Book of Esther.

Reader: Moredechai told the servant that the Jews were to be killed by Haman and that Esther should go to the king to plead for her people.

STEINLAUF: When we talk about a terrible oppressor or enemy who has tried to destroy the Jewish people, there’s the expression “yemach shemo” which means “may his name be blotted out.”

Reader: Our enemy, replied Esther, is this wicked Haman.

STEINLAUF: So that’s taken literally. It’s not just a figure of speech. We give out noisemakers, which are called graggers. They swing them around and they make the noise. It’s as funny and as silly—as much as you can poke fun at the gravitas of life, the better. But, you know, it’s not just a child’s holiday. It’s actually a very sophisticated, very powerful spiritual message.

What’s most remarkable about the Book of Esther is God is not a character in the story. You never actually see God anywhere in the story. Esther is related to the Hebrew word “esther,” which means “hidden,” so that’s God’s hidden nature, and in a sense it reflects our ongoing sense of being mystified and curious about the fact why doesn’t God rescue us in the way that God rescued us from Egypt? And here in the story we see how, seemingly by chance, we managed to survive. What seems like chance is actually the surface of a much deeper reality, where God’s presence is working itself out in ways that we really can’t quite understand.

I think the deepest message of Purim is: You know what? It’s all ultimately okay. There really is a God even if we can’t find that God so directly. This world, like it says in the beginning of the Book of Genesis—it’s really “Tov M’od,” it’s really very good. We can even enjoy this world with all of its troubles and find reasons for joy.

Rabbi Gil Steinlauf Extended Interview


Purim is a bittersweet holiday with a powerful spiritual message, says Rabbi Gil Steinlauf of Adas Israel Congregation in Washington, DC. A story about Esther that seems to be all about chance is really about “God’s presence working itself out in ways we can’t quite understand.”

 

The Shakers

 

BOB ABERNETHY, host and correspondent: Now, a visit with the surviving Shakers, the Christian group known for its devotion to God, demanding lifestyle, beautiful furniture, and joyful songs. Before the Civil War there were nearly 6000 Shakers in 23 communities. Today, there is just one active Shaker village left, with just three members.

Just above Sabbathday Lake, in central Maine, the last Shaker community straddles an old road in the midst of 1800 acres of forest and farmland. At its peak, there were nearly 200 members here. Now, the three remaining are Brother Arnold Hadd, 53. He came here when he was 20. Sister June Carpenter is 72 and too shy for an interview. She has been here for 21 years. And Sister Frances Carr is 83. She was brought here when she was 10.

SISTER FRANCES CARR: I hope and I pray with all my heart that we are not the last three Shakers.

post02-shakersBROTHER ARNOLD HADD: As long as we do God’s work I believe in the essence of my soul that there will always be vocations sent to this way of life.

ABERNETHY: Shakers originated in England in the 1700s, an ecstatic offshoot of the more sedate Quakers led by a charismatic preacher Shakers call Mother Ann Lee. Like today’s Pentecostals, Shakers who felt the Holy Spirit would roll and twirl and speak in tongues. Shaking Quakers they were called—Shakers. Mother Ann taught that lives devoted to God could best be lived in isolated and disciplined communities in which members would share all they owned, as did the earliest Christians.

BROTHER ARNOLD: It’s giving yourself and all that you may possess to God and to the community.

ABERNETHY: The goal was nothing less than working to become perfect and to achieve salvation and heaven in this life.

BROTHER ARNOLD: It’s a prefigurement of the kingdom, and the whole idea is to live the kingdom life here and now. The things that we do—we’re not motivated by gain, or selfish gain. It’s not private. It’s not for ourselves. It’s for God and for this community. The personal pronouns have to be changed. It’s not me, my, and I. It’s ours.

ABERNETHY: So in the Sabbathday Lake cemetery there are 150 individual graves, but just one all-inclusive marker.

post01-shakersSISTER FRANCES: We think of Father-Mother God, not just as God as a Father.

BROTHER ARNOLD (praying during Shaker worship service): Eternal God, our Father and Mother, we thank you for bring so many good friends…

SISTER FRANCES: God is all spirit, and God has the strength of the male and the tenderness and love of the female.

ABERNETHY: It followed that men and women must be treated equally. But they were strictly separated. Mother Ann thought sex and marriage interfered with devotion to God.

BROTHER ARNOLD: It was to imitate the life of Christ. So we are celibate because Christ was celibate. We live in community because Christ and his disciples lived in community. We’re pacifists because Christ was a pacifist.

ABERNETHY: I asked Brother Arnold how a Shaker deals with celibacy.

BROTHER ARNOLD: You just deal with it. I think that has to come as a gift from God. I really do. You have to be married to Christ. I mean Christ has to be your lover. It doesn’t work any other way, because you have to feel so attuned to that spirit and so in love with God that it can fill any void that you might have in your life.

post03-shakersABERNETHY: Shakers were widely admired for their craftsmanship, such as graceful chairs and other furniture—also for their hundred or more inventions, such as the flat broom.

BROTHER ARNOLD: Everything that we strive to make, either for our own use or for sale to the world, is done as perfectly as we possible can.

ABERNETHY: At Sabbathday Lake they grew herbs and sold herbal medicine and seeds. They have 19,000 apple trees, far too many for them to manage. So they rent the orchard out. As an elder, trustee, and spokesman, Brother Arnold has many responsibilities. He also feeds the sheep and Scottish cattle twice a day.

BROTHER ARNOLD: Our founder Mother Ann said, “Hands to work, hearts to God.” So for us work is worship. If you did something so menial as cleaning a toilet that can be actually an act of worship, because it’s not being done for yourself, but it’s being done for God. It’s being done for others.

ABERNETHY: Every summer members of the Sabbathday Lake support group Friends of the Shakers come to visit. Brother Arnold and one of the young visitors called the people to Sunday worship. The friends filled the meetinghouse—women in through one door, men through another, and inside the genders separated and facing each other. There is no preacher. The elders read Scripture and comment on it.

SISTER FRANCES: If we turn to that love of God there is hope for each one of us this morning.

post04-shakersABERNETHY: And then came the singing. Shakers are said to have 10,000 songs, of which the most famous in “Simple Gifts”:

(singing): “Tis a gift to be simple, tis a gift to be free, tis a gift to come down where we ought to be…”

ABERNETHY: And then came voluntary testimony.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN (speaking during Shaker worship service): So that’s what I want to do is every day is seek that Spirit of God.

ABERNETHY: While each person spoke, one of the elders chose a song that complemented what was being said.

(singing during Shaker worship service): “Mother has come with her beautiful song—ho, ho, talla me ho.”

ABERNETHY: And then another testimony.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN (speaking during Shaker worship service): You can find God in everyday life and in a continuing life in community. It’s lived out every day here, and it can be lived out every day in our lives.

ABERNETHY: In many ways, Shakerism has been the victim of progress. The industrial revolution lured away many young men, and Shaker craftsmen could not compete with mass production. The states began looking after orphans, which Shakers had done, hoping they would become members as adults. More recently, changing attitudes toward sex made the celibacy requirement, for many, an insurmountable obstacle. But Shakers say for those who actually try the life, celibacy is not the biggest problem.

post05-shakersSISTER FRANCES: Usually those who have been here and have left have found it too regimented.

BROTHER ARNOLD: Obedience. That’s the—she’s absolutely right. I think almost no one’s left for any other reasons.

ABERNETHY (speaking to Brother Arnold): The obedience was the greater problem than celibacy?

BROTHER ARNOLD: Absolutely.

SISTER FRANCES: I wouldn’t have been here all my life if I didn’t love this life, but I can’t say that it has been a heaven on earth. I can’t say that there aren’t days when it’s far from heaven.

BROTHER ARNOLD: I’m not a fool to think that it is, but the concept, the whole life is to live the heavenly life.

SISTER FRANCES: As much as possible.

BROTHER ARNOLD: And, as we have also been told, to make it as little hellish as possible for everybody else. When I was a young believer, I had a problem with somebody in the community, and my elder told me—I said, “I just can’t love them—I just don’t like them,” and he said, “Well that’s your problem. You don’t have to like anybody. You just have to love everyone.” That is probably the greatest advice I’ve ever had in my whole life.

post06-shakersABERNETHY: I asked Sister Frances about the friends of the Shakers. Might some of them become converts?

SISTER FRANCES: While they are very good friends and are in with us in many ways spiritually, they are not about to give up their husband, their wife, or their homes and come and live in community.

ABERNETHY: Meanwhile, the Shakers themselves do not want to change any rules to attract converts.

SISTER FRANCES: They come, and they try the life, and usually it is on our decision that they don’t remain. We don’t want it to continue in any way that is diluted from what we have lived. In our morning prayers—and each of us take a turn leading the prayer—Brother Arnold says something about the thousands who are going to be coming here.

BROTHER ARNOLD: Well, that’s my hope, and I don’t see why not. God did it once before, and I don’t know why God can’t do it again.

ABERNETHY: I asked Brother Arnold about the Shaker legacy.

BROTHER ARNOLD: I think that what Shakerism has proved to the world is that it is possible to live the fullness of the Christ-life here and now, to really start making that heaven on earth.

(singing during Shaker worship service): “When true simplicity is gained … ”

BROTHER ARNOLD: It has taken some very ordinary people and has allowed them to live extraordinary lives.

(singing during Shaker worship service): “…til by turning, turning we come round right.”

Congressional Hearings on Muslim Radicalization

 

KIM LAWTON, guest host: The House Committee on Homeland Security this week held the first in a series of controversial hearings examining what it called “radicalization in the American Muslim community,” and there was widespread religious reaction. The hearing was called by chair of the committee, New York Republican Peter King, who invoked the memory of the 9/11 attacks.

REP. PETER KING (R-NY): Today, we must be fully aware that homegrown radicalization is part of Al Qaeda’s strategy to continue attacking the United States. Al Qaeda is actively targeting the American Muslim community for recruitment. Today’s hearings will address this dangerous trend.

LAWTON: First up on the witness list was Congressman Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, and the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives.

post01-radicalizationREP. KEITH ELLISON (D-MN): It’s true that specific individuals, including some who are Muslims, are violent extremists. However, these are individuals, not entire communities. When you assign their violent actions to the entire community, you assign collective blame to a whole group. This is the very heart of stereotyping and scapegoating.

LAWTON: Ellison became emotional as he described a young Muslim paramedic who was killed on 9/11.

ELLISON: Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be identified as just a member of an ethnic group or just a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow Americans.

LAWTON: But several witnesses testified that the US Muslim community is not doing enough to counter radicalism in its midst. Family members described how two young American Muslims were recruited by extremists and persuaded to commit terrorist acts. The president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Zuhdi Jasser, said his faith is being hijacked by what he called a “theopolitical” movement that is promoting radicalization.

ZUHDI JASSER, M.D. (President, American Islamic Forum for Democracy): We have a problem internally. Where is that? It’s a minority, but there’s an ideology that exists in some mosques. Not all. Not a majority. But in some mosques. And it’s a significant number.

post04-radicalizationLAWTON: Throughout the week, religious groups mobilized around the hearing. In New York, interfaith supporters joined thousands of Muslims who rallied to show their support for America and their opposition to violence in the name of religion. A smaller counter-rally alleged that Muslims are linked to terrorism, and some in the faith community said Congress should be looking into this.

JORDAN SEKULOW (Director of International Operations, American Center for Law and Justice): Name another religion where there is an international coordinated effort today, where there can be an imam in Yemen talking to a member of our military in Texas to carry out an attack on troops, or young people recruited. It’s not happening. You can’t name another religion other than Islam.

LAWTON: US Islamic advocacy groups repeatedly accused Congress of unfairly singling out their community. On Capitol Hill, a coalition of prominent leaders from several faith traditions gathered to show their solidarity with American Muslims.

RABBI MARC SCHNEIER (President, Foundation for Ethnic Understanding): I feel Congressman Ellison’s pain. I share the pain. I share his concern that these hearings will only exacerbate anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia in our country.

LAWTON: The group acknowledged that Congress has a responsibility to examine violent extremism, but objected to how this hearing was framed.

post03-radicalizationREV. MICHAEL KINNAMON (General Secretary, National Council of Churches): I can imagine hearings that would come under the heading of the role of religion in promoting violent extremism that would be able to address the real problem, not a group of people the vast, vast majority of whom have nothing to do with the problem, but rather are part of the solution.

LAWTON: Muslims in the group were grateful for the support.

IMAM MOHAMED HAGMAGID ALI (President, Islamic Society of North America): I do believe that by isolating and singling out a community we’re really feeding into the stereotyping and discrimination against the community. But this is the America that I know that is standing with me here—the America that I love.

LAWTON: The leaders announced a new interfaith initiative called “Shoulder to Shoulder,” which they said would promote tolerance and fight anti-Muslim bigotry. Congressman King said he thought the hearing generated a productive and worthwhile conversation. He plans to move ahead with other hearings on the topic in the future.

Joining me now is Gustav Niebuhr, associate professor in religion and the media at Syracuse University and author of the book “Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America.” Gustav, welcome. There certainly was an extraordinary conversation around religion this week. What do you think it says about this particular moment in the American religious landscape?

post05-radicalizationGUSTAV NIEBUHR (Syracuse University): Well, it’s really an extraordinary moment and somewhat ironic, too, given that the dominant images of Muslims are people fighting for freedom and human rights in North Africa at this point. But in terms of the United States, it says that there’s a lingering suspicion of Muslims as a community. It also says, given the push-back against the hearings, that there are a great many people who are invested in supporting American Muslims as part of the American community and interfaith dialogue.

LAWTON: We did see a big mobilization in the religious community, prominent leaders standing behind Muslims. But at the congregation level, at the pew level there are these questions lingering about links between violence and Islam. How big of a challenge is that for interfaith relations?

NIEBUHR: Well, it’s a big challenge. For one thing, the dominant media image of Muslims, say between 9/11 and up to 2009, was one of people who were associated with terrorist groups abroad. It was of fighting in—between U.S. troops and terrorists in Iraq. But I think things have begun to change over the last two years. For one thing, you had a tremendous and ultimately unsuccessful uprising in Iran against the disputed elections there, and then, as I say, very recently you’ve had a popular revolution sweeping across North Africa giving us a completely different image of Muslims, and I hope that does filter down to the pew level—that people do see that there are Muslims abroad and certainly Muslims in the United States with whom they can agree with.

post06-radicalizationLAWTON: And we did see diversity within the American Muslim community this week. A lot of people think of it as a monolithic body, but it’s really not.

NIEBUHR: It’s anything but. It’s anything but. There are, what—50, 60 different ethnic groups. There are people who are wealthy. There are people who are white-collar. There are all sorts of professionals. There are blue-collar people. There are people who have been here since the 1960s, people who’ve recently arrived, and geographically the community is very widespread.

LAWTON: How do you think the hearings, the images of this hearing is playing overseas among some of those people you were talking about?

NIEBUHR: In some ways I am concerned about that, because at the very time that you’ve got people fighting for freedom and human rights in North Africa you have internationally televised hearings questioning the patriotism of at least some American Muslims. On the other hand, what’s hopeful is that people from the administration, the national administration all the way down to the pew level, have stood with Muslims and stood with Muslims as Americans in this country, and I hope that the latter is received more strongly than the former, at least for American interests abroad.

LAWTON: All right. Gustav Niebuhr, associate professor of religion and the media at Syracuse University, thanks a lot for being with us today.