Ten of us met at the home of Sudi Pasupuleti Monday January 30th. We thank Sudi and his wife for hosting. The meeting began with some business matters. Joe passed out handouts about the group’s purpose, guidelines for communication, and a list of previously suggested topics. He also solicited future meeting hosts and topics. Tim Reichard agreed to host our February 27th meeting. The group agreed to continue meeting on the 4th Monday of each month. Woody reminded us about the upcoming banquet and its theme on youth. Joe Z spoke about past banquet displays and the goal of having the different faiths recognize common origins and purposes. Ed Heilman will be facilitating table discussion. It was agreed we will provide diner at St Paul’s Shelter on a date in March.
The meeting began with discussion of how Mitt Romney’s Mormon affiliation might affect his electability as president and his performance if elected. The consensus seemed to be it may have some bearing on the Republican run-off especially in the “bible-belt” but no affect on the general election. It was doubted that Romney would take his marching orders from the Mormon church any more than Kennedy did from the Pope. This led to a discussion of the Mormon Church being labeled as a cult. A sociological definition of cult was given and for the most part Mormonism does not fit. It was observed that it is common for powerful groups that feel threatened to attach negative labels (like cult) to those they feel threatened by. Several beliefs and practices in the Mormon faith were shared and a member argued for tolerance since their beliefs cause no harm. While Mormonism is commonly considered a Christian denomination a question was raised about the affect of a Muslim or Hindu running for president. Would candidates of those faiths raise more concern and hostility; especially given the terrorist frenzy? It was pointed out that President Obama’s name Barack Hussein was used against him.
The discussion eventually shifted to perceptions of people based on their physical appearance and the extreme measures being used to detect potential terrorists. As example, we discussed comfort levels and perceptions of the appropriateness of men; particularly American men greeting or conversing with an assumed Muslim woman. The same issue was raised of a man’s perception of a Roman Catholic nun in habit. Does physical appearance, dress, speech, etc put barriers between us that prevent dialogue and understanding and may promote fear or stereotyping. Can we recognize that dress is often a matter of cultural custom and comfort? The diversity of dress styles among Catholic nun’s and Muslim women was noted as was the fact that the openness of American society permits this in ways not available in other societies.
Please share your comments and corrections. Joe M.
