Religious Vandalism or Interfaith Hospitality? Reflections on the Non-Proclamation of the Adhan from Duke Chapel

Last updated on: April 29, 2015 at 7:47 pm by Guest Contributor

Religious Vandalism or Interfaith Hospitality? Reflections on the Non-Proclamation of the Adhan from Duke Chapel 2015-04-29T19:47:47-05:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The proposal to proclaim the adhan or Muslim call to prayer from the top of Duke Chapel’s bell tower today provoked a number of reactions. These ranged from the vitriolic and vengeful to the dismayed and discomforted. From the deluge of emails the university received and the long strings of comments posted after articles covering the issue appeared on websites, these overwhelmingly negative reactions came not just from Christians but also from Jews and those of no faith. One could have predicted that, in the current climate, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo killings, any such action would provoke such a strong reaction. Yet it seems that those who initiated the proposal to proclaim the adhan did not anticipate it. An interesting feature of the situation is that the proposal did not come from Muslim student groups on Duke’s campus, but from the Chapel’s associate dean for religious life. Not anticipating the strong reaction seems to be why the wider university was not consulted or given advance notice of the plan, so there was little time to prepare for or reflect further on the ramifications of such an action. Yet, as with any such gesture, the action is in the reaction.

So what reaction did those who made this proposal seek? It had three aims. The first was to enable the ‘interreligious reimagining of a university icon’ by which was meant that the proclaiming of the adhan would demonstrate how different faith traditions can occupy the same shared space while still retaining their distinct identities. The second was to communicate ‘to the Muslim community that it is welcome’ at Duke. And the third was to challenge ‘media stereotypes of Muslims.’ It is an understatement to say these aims were not achieved. While the intentions were laudable, the reality is that the action generated a deeply counter-productive reaction that undermines all three of the stated aims.

What the action does raise is the question of how should we undertake inter-faith relations in a time when the relationship between different faiths and political life is under intense, often violent negotiation at a local, national, and international level throughout the world. This is no small matter. What should be the response for those who, like the leaders of Duke Chapel, are seeking to find a pro-active and constructive response to events in the world and thereby show a better way of fostering a peaceable common life? Is such a response best undertaken by religious professionals and specialists, and conceived of as a directly religious action, as happened at Duke? Or is it best to find ways to manage inter-faith relations from “above” by governments and the likes of university administrators? Or should such responses emerge from bottom up, peer-to-peer, relationally driven initiatives understood as forms of civic rather than religious practice?

The university is a microcosm of the broader public sphere in which these questions are being both constructively and negatively addressed. On campuses in the US and UK one observes three basic approaches to addressing religious diversity. The oldest is the establishment model. As a legacy of an institution’s history and customary practice, a confessionally Christian chapel has the status of being first among equals and is the means through which other traditions of belief and practice, notably Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, often gain access to university resources and are credentialized. In the case of Duke, the Chapel largely functions in this way. Religions on this model are seen to have a valid and important public institutional presence within the broader life of the institution as a whole.

Read the rest here

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 17, 2015

An Open Letter to Presidents and Deans of Theological Schools in the United States

Next Post

January 19, 2015 Cornel West: A Tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Amy Steele Andre E. Johnson Book Reviews/Series Brian Foulks Call for Chapters Carol Howard Merritt Classes Conferences Contributors Crystal St.Marie Lewis Daniel White Hodge Earle Fisher Eulogy Fredrick Robinson Guest Contributions Henry McNeal Turner Institutes Interviews Joseph Boston Katherine Whitfield Kimberly Peeler-Ringer Lectures/Roundtables Natalie Bullock Brown R3 Book Series R3 Contributor Rashad Grove Readers Reflections Symposiums Teaching Traci Ellis Travis Harris Uncategorized Video

Select a Month June 2020 February 2020 December 2019 November 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 October 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz