By S.R. Brown

Special to the Pflag

“How do we deal with the fear of Islam and the consequences of our own fears?”

This question was the subject of the Austin Area Interreligious Ministries’ “emergency” session of the “The Red Bench: Interfaith Conversations that Matter” dialogue series, held the evening of Aug. 31 at Congregation Beth Israel in Austin. Specifically designed to address fears about Islam, Muslims, and the “Ground Zero mosque” situation, the ultimate objective of this meeting was to provide a “safe space” for people to talk about what’s on their minds, meet people of varying backgrounds and concerns, and perhaps come away with a better understanding of Islam.

I was informed of this event just after my last column, “Challenges and Thoughts on the New York Mosque” was published in this paper. I immediately jumped on the chance to attend, intrigued by both AAIM’s mission and the subject matter. And, I wanted to hear and share the concerns of local citizens to keep this subject alive in the public conversation.

First, a bit of background on AAIM and the Red Bench: Current CEO Tom Spencer (familiar to those who watch PBS funding drives) states that the organization is, and its volunteers are, “…individuals who are committed to building healthy, respectful relationships between the faith traditions.” AAIM offers a variety of programs and venues in which to get to know (and aid) others of different beliefs and backgrounds, including a spirituality book club, refugee roundtable, and the annual CROP Hunger Walk.

The Red Bench was so inspired by a Dr. Betty Sue Flowers, who – when writing about the need for conversations that build lasting relationships – recommended that corporations place red benches in their public spaces; occupants of these benches would signify to others that they were interested in meaningful conversation. This notion took form a year ago in the creation of AAIM’s monthly round table dialogues, hosted by various faith groups. Past meetings have included discussion of subjects such as the moral virtues; e.g., compassion, forgiveness, and gratitude.

Now, to the session itself:

As I arrived at the meeting site a little after 6 p.m., Tom Spencer and several local faith leaders were just finishing up a press conference in a room that was girded by the precautionary presence of local law enforcement. I applied my nametag and seated myself at one of the 25 or so round tables set up for conversation, each to be led by a table facilitator.

I was quickly joined by eight other friendly folks of various ages. Tables filled up rapidly; in fact, several more had to be hauled out to address the numbers who did not RSVP!

Once everyone was settled, Mr. Spencer and his staff introduced three “panelists” – Naeem Randhawa, a Muslim filmmaker who directed “American Ramadan”; Rabbi Alan Freedman of Congregation Beth Shalom; and Professor Whit Bodman, professor of Comparative Religion Presbyterian Theological Seminary – who gave their thoughts on the subject to open the dialogue. While all of the commentators made incisive points in their remarks, I was especially appreciative of this statement by Mr. Randhawa, “Learning to trust, and building on that trust, can get you anywhere!” – perhaps the unofficial theme of the evening.

After the panelists concluded, table talk was set to commence. Despite the fact that I grew up in a faith tradition that does not actively encourage interreligious dialogue, I felt completely comfortable with the discussion arrangement, especially since the table rules don’t allow for cross-talk and heated remarks (all participants verbally agree to such before conversation commences).

Our facilitator asked each of us to state our name, religion (optional), and initial thoughts on the topic for the first turn around the table – each person would hold a small stone to signify “having the floor” until it was passed on to the next person.

At my table: Three Episcopalians, a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Unitarian Universalist and a Reform Jew; one other person (and I) did not state a religious preference (my background is in a small, Bible-based religion). I think that the organizers would have preferred a Muslim at every table to address direct questions about Islam, but that was not mandated.

Nevertheless, the door was open to revelations and concerns that I would likely be unaware of outside of such a gathering, including:

• One (Christian) participant has a son who became a Shi’ite Muslim as a young adult. After her initial fears subsided regarding his salvation, she has grown to respect his choice and appreciate elements of the Qu’ran.

• Another participant, a professor of theology, has a friend who is a “hardcore” Muslim who wants to implement Sharia law, something that strikes fear into the professor’s heart. He and his friend have agreed to disagree, though he notes that some Christians want to use the Bible as law- “so how is this different”?

• Yet another participant, a professor of political science, declared that Americans have historically thrived on fear; he cited The Red Scare of the 1950s (“for starters”), and indicated that people need to deal with the unfamiliar by getting to know others and moving forward.

• The Jewish participant told us that she feels safe worshipping in her own congregation, but fears involvement in activities with large groups of Jewish people, such as at the Dell Jewish Community Center, because of the potential for terrorist activities against them.

When the stone passed to me, I noted that fear of “the other” is usually bred during times of economic uncertainty such as we are seeing now; and that my concerns are not about Islam, but of fear-mongers who capitalize on crowd hysteria about “Scary Outsiders” to do their bidding (e.g., Germany was financially devastated post-WWI paying war reparations; people were looking for a savior and a scapegoat, and along came Hitler and his thoughts on the Jews …).

After these initial thoughts were aired, it became very clear to all that such a gathering was long overdue.

Unfortunately, we only had time to ask a couple of questions and make statements about how our faith helps us with our fears on the second turn around the table. Few people directly addressed the latter, but beseeched the group for help on issues such as, “How do I tell my friend who sends me horribly inaccurate e-mails about Islam that I don’t want those e-mails – without damaging the friendship?” (Proposed solution: “I love you but I don’t like the content of your e-mails – please take me off your list”). Though most Red Bench dialogues allow for two hours of discussion, this session was hastily called during Ramadan and had to conclude by sundown; thus giving us just under an hour to tackle such questions.

With time constraints in mind: Did AAIM successfully attain its goal of helping people deal with their fear of Islam, and the consequences of their own fears?

Though we were unable to fully complete our thoughts and come up with comprehensive solutions to take to the world at large, everyone agreed that efforts were not wasted. In fact, when an informal count was taken regarding whether to resume the dialogue on another date, nearly every hand in the room (including mine) was in the air.

And, as one of my tablemates stated, “I couldn’t find a parking space when I got here – that’s encouraging!”

A follow-up e-mail from Tom Spencer indicated that over 300 were in attendance, and that AAIM plans another session on this topic. The meeting date, time and venue will be published with my next column, which will address concerns regarding halal and Sharia laws, as well as delve into the following sentiment from Mr. Spencer,

“We ask Austinites of all faiths [and those with none] to stand up for our heritage of religious freedom and with AAIM as we combat fear one relationship at a time.”

AAIM welcomes (and I personally encourage) everyone to learn more about their mission and to attend their Red Bench sessions and other events; details can be found at aaimaustin.org.

S.R. Brown lives in Pflugerville and is a marketing consultant.