Teachers are dedicated individuals. They are willing to take our children from their earliest years, and labor diligently to transform them into model citizens – clear-thinking, well-educated, perceptive, sophisticated. They teach our children math, reading, science, history, literature and world affairs. They have the expertise in fields of which parents can barely scratch the surface. And somehow they come up with the resources and energy to take them far afield, to the aquarium, the State Capitol, the museums. What would we do without them?
Naturally, there will always be a few bad apples in among the barrel of exceptional educators – the undereducated, the abusers, the lazy. Realizing such teachers can only damage the system, the administration will try to locate these and reprimand them, remove them, reeducate them, or reassign them, a task which is often made more difficult by tenure.
As the students grow older, the scope of the teacher’s task in enlarged, until at college level, there are few areas in which an educator, any educator, would not feel it is his legitimate duty to correct, enlighten, instruct or counsel. College students will soon be released into the world and, by that date, they should be qualified for adulthood.
What adulthood requires, the parameters of maturity, have varied over the decades. But among secular educators of the past century, one task stands out clearly: students must be taught to deal with reality up front and not be deceived by false concepts and superstitions. Any instructor who is unable to convince her students that the earth revolves around the sun, or that black cats across one’s path spell disaster, or that crossing one’s fingers brings good luck, has failed as a teacher.
This is the Enlightenment view, the modernist view, and it has held sway over education for more than a century. The Positivist philosophy, that “what we see is what we get,” easily equates all reference to the supernatural as superstition. One can imagine how frustrated a good teacher might be when a student comes to them holding stubbornly to the concept that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour days. Is it a question of the student’s ignorance or her disobedience, and how might it best be remedied? Many heated battles between high-school administrations and School Boards have been fought over this issue.
However, by college level, all that is, supposedly, behind us. The educators have succeeded at their task, and the students know to keep their opinions to themselves. But have the teachers really triumphed? Every so often, there comes a student who believes in the supernatural, or that the earth was created in six days, or the Jesus is still alive. For the educators, this is even more frustrating than it was in the high schools: these students should know better! And, therefore, the corrections tend to be even more harsh and insistent – Stop believing in that or you will not graduate! Or pass this course! Or get an “A!” Only stupid, uneducated, or brain-dead people believe those things, and no student of mine will leave my care until I have cured you of this disease. I care about you too much!
The critiques can get creative: “Why do Christians even bother to study genetics when they don’t believe in evolution?” “Why do Muslims bother taking Political Science classes when all they want to do is blow things up?” “Any student of mine who attends a lecture in the Big Bang and the Origins of the Universe will automatically fail this class.” “Catholics who don’t use birth control are ruining our demographics.” “Jewish bankers are undermining the economy.” “Mormons are deluded.” “It’s all right for African-Americans to believe in God, since they’re not smart enough to know it’s impossible.” “Students are supposed to lose their religion in college. That’s how they reach maturity.”
The campaign is partially successful. Many college students do give up their faith during these years. I did, as a result of Berkeley’s gentle ministrations. The number of believers drops from 50% on entrance to 20% four years later. And many more young people are left feeling stupid, wrong, and bad about themselves, their parents, their parish, and their ethnic heritage.
Richard Rorty outlined the teacher’s task pithily, as only Rorty can do. Students, he says, are fortunate to “have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents,” and end up in the care of university professors who are planning “to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.” He warns those parents that “we are going to go on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist community of dignity, trying to make your views look silly rather than discussable.”*
And that, of course, is exactly what we want from a great university.

*”How Richard Rorty Found Religion,” First Things, May 2004, Jason Boffetti.

A Reflection and Conversation with The Self on the Matter of Ones’ Character and Etiquette –
Asma Uz-Zaman, July 26, 2011

Elders always advised
to look no further
than the house
to learn to be splendid creatures
but as I reflect
I say, look no further
than this being
than this heart
in perpetual bow,
constantly remembering
that it only breathes a borrowed life
so much that it refuses
to cease for any act
except the constant habitual remembrance
of He that wills it to be,
and it is.

While the ribs are upturned in prayer
two hands raised, everlastingly in dua,
two strong bosomed sentinels,
rise and descend in vigilance
to protect the pith of this existence.

I become conscious, that i must delve
into the distants of my soul
For everything begins from a pure
pristine beginning,
a clear clean slate for the markings to begin
a record of this limited life
actualized in the eternal life-after-death
thus
‘coz when i smile,
in my mind, this simple accord of kindness
hopes to spreads sweetness,
for when you smile,
it warms and softens
this heart.

The key to realization,
that this one piece of flesh whose state
reflects on the outside.

A fine precision of acts,
an imbalance between the good and unjust,
so clearly drawn upon the countenance.

For me undermining your pain,
only hardens my heart,
so it becomes oblivious
to the trek,
to the ache,
no pangs, the humble nimbleness gone
to reveal that in here rests a weight
lifeless, cold stone
that all words fall as blunt edges
not piercing through as blessings

But say, if I were to love thee
for the sake of He,
This heart would blossom
knowing that it pleases its creator

out of its caliber,
out of its worth and character
sought after,

for this identity is
so much more than a few hand movements
and bowing and prostrating
but a constant remembrance,
so that this heart can be humbled
out of its rigidness
to be able to yield to His blessings and Rahmah

Suddenly I awake from this reverie
in which I watched this musing carry on,
a conversation between the mind and heart
innately this being was made to vibe
soundly with each of its many parts
just like every one of us is needed
to make this Ummah stand as one.

If I were not to improve myself
from the inner-self
tune this heart to the frequency
of simple kindnesses, to see
really see the injustices
and take a step to justice
and learn to forgive
and really give
out of consideration
of others of this nation
just for the sake of He
that bestows countless blessing on me
to represent pride-fully
that this identity
is shaped in dignity
to strive graciously
to blossom into splendid creatures!
……………………………………………………………….
Dear God – Tariq El-Gabalawy – 2011

Dear God
I mean material
I mean God
I mean I’m to confused to tell the difference
My tradition suddenly seems antiquated
Because I’ve been busy reveling in mortality
To ignore that the quran tells me that this world is temporary
While warning of immortality
Dear God
I mean cutie and beautiful
I mean God
I mean I’m to confused to tell the difference
I remember you have a beckoning too
But my athan sounds like a cat call
I’m just trying to be honest
I’ve run much faster to possible pleasure than I have to any masjid
Dear God
I mean self
I mean God
I mean I’m to confused to tell the difference
It seems more and more I’ve made me from the kiln of creation
Used my own brains and energy to mold the figure that stands here
And it really pisses me off when your scripture discredits my work
Because I never once prayed for a hand out
Dear God
I mean God
Please God
I’m confused because I know the difference
But I’m too alone to admit it
So I hide behind denial hoping you’ll accept my lies
Even if I don’t believe them
Dear God
Please God
Yes you God
Help me I mean heal me
I’m too confused to tell the difference
……………………………………………………………….

Praise – Ippolito Caradonna – 2011

The prayer of my father comes forth with every breath
Deeper and deeper closer to the pinnacle the zenith
The rest of the scenery talks to me but they won’t hear mine
The shrubbery takes over me but not always contributing to the shrine
The crown of thorns has sacrificial offerings to give
But who will wear the kingdom bearing down on how we live
The life of convenience the life thats comfortable with benefits
Who will be the warrior that will decide to be contesting it
What is it? The niche the style the way the paradigm
The talk the walk the way we interpret heavenly signs
Because sometimes the interpretation is somewhat altered
By this little thing called ego and we don’t know now we faltered
When it came down to solving situations with the Lord
The strength of our union is stronger than any wooden board
That’s why we blast through doors with the spark of dynamite
That’s why we see everything from the being of its godly flight

No sooner than the slaughter of innocents in Oslo, Norway was dismissed as was the accused assailant than on of the Sentinel’s contributing columnists slipped right back into a litany of anti-Islamic generalizations I’ve read before. Aug. 6: “We need perspective on Norway’s terror attack.”
The noun/adjective, Islamist, has any number of usages, not all related to some form of “fundamentalism.” One can use the term to denote “a scholar who is knowledgeable in Islamic studies; a learned person especially in the humanities; someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines.” Or, it can mean ” … an orthodox Muslim.”
The Sentinel columnist said that “Many Norwegians resent immigration of so many Muslims,” as well as multiculturalism, increased crime rates, rapes of girls as young as 12 throughout Scandinavia and the cost of providing welfare to these newcomers. There is resentment and outrage that citizens “know that the criminals will be protected by multicultural laws from being identified,” They denounce multiculturalism, as if Europe was some homogeneous entity. These are old canards often used against “others.”
The culprit responsible for the slaughter of people in a mass shooting spree and a bombing was shrugged off, and all Islamists could once more be the whipping dogs.
A contributor to Religion Dispatches notes that the assassin’s “atrocious acts, in fact, were a veritable 21st century media strategy.” Cold War-era communist terrorist groups too, “produced extensive texts to communicate their revolutionary theories; their authors wanted to be — and indeed were — intelligible to a wider public that either was not or was not yet radicalized …” The Norway assassin, Anders Behring Breivik, appeals not only to a slim network of extremists, but to those who claim that the “Islamization of Europe” is a matter of life and death for European and Western civilization.
Breivik admiringly and extensively quotes another writer: “In more and more cities across the continent, non-Muslims are being harassed, robbed, mugged, raped, stabbed and even killed by Muslims. Native Europeans are slowly becoming second-rate citizens in their own countries.” Screeds like this are repeated over and over again in different forums, he points out.
He claimed to be acting on behalf of Christendom, but his claims could just as easily be used as a strategy that can adhere to nationalism, to race, to anything that makes people identifiably “different.” He believed that Europe is homogeneous — religiously, ethnically, and culturally, though it is fraught with a history of centuries of migrations, cultural, ethnic and racial mingling.
There are among the Islamists many thinkers who do embrace representative government, accept equal rights for women and non-Muslims. The ideas of justice and development are embraced as part of a strategy of moderation.
Raymond William Baker in “Islam without Fear: Egypt and the New Islamists” points out that “Often there are two extreme views represented by the secularists and the fundamentalists.” The New Islamists, he says, “belong to neither.” Their emphasis is on “constructive social action with an emphasis on educational reforms.” Theirs is a “preference for culture to politics.”
Ad hominems that treat Islamists as if they are all the same without distinction are unfair because they’re inaccurate. There is, in the West, the Islamist too often, and too quickly associated with radicalism and violence. But there is too, the scholar, the learned persons, who by long study have gained mastery in one or more disciplines — and they exist right in our own community of Santa Cruz. Perhaps not in great numbers, but certainly up in the university on the hill. And I’ve listened, and noted how these young people are feeling the brunt of anti-Islamic rhetoric, and they are stressed about it.
Humanity, like this world we occupy, is developing and evolving, constantly. The only real issue is whether we can learn to develop or evolve cooperatively, or are we destined always to compete in any violent manner we think will get us “on top?”

1. The fattest knight at King Arthur’s Round Table was Sir Cumfrence. He acquired his size from too much pi.
2. I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island, but it turned out to be an optical Aleutian
3. She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.
4. A rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class because it was a weapon of math destruction.
5. No matter how much you push the envelope, it’ll still be stationery.
6. A dog gave birth to puppies near the road and was cited for littering.
7. A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France would result in Linoleum Blownapart.
8. Two silk worms had a race. They ended up in a tie.
9. A hole has been found in the nudist camp wall. The police are looking into it.
10. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
11. Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
12. Two hats were hanging on a hat rack in the hallway. One hat said to the other: ‘You stay here; I’ll go on a head.’
13. I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger. Then it hit me.
14. A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab center said: ‘Keep off the Grass.’
15. The midget fortune-teller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.
16. The soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran.
17. . A backward poet writes inverse.
18. In a democracy it’s your vote that counts. In feudalism it’s your count that votes.
19. When cannibals ate a missionary, they got a taste of religion.
20. If you jumped off the bridge in Paris, you’d be in Seine.
21. A vulture boards an airplane, carrying two dead raccoons. The stewardess looks at him and says, ‘I’m sorry, sir, only one carrion allowed per passenger.’
22. Two fish swim into a concrete wall. One turns to the other and says ‘Dam!’
23. Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly, so they lit a fire in the craft. Unsurprisingly it sank, proving once again that you can’t have your kayak and heat it too.
24. Two hydrogen atoms meet. One says, ‘I’ve lost my electron.’ The other says, ‘Are you sure?’ The first replies, ‘Yes, I’m positive.’
25. Did you hear about the Buddhist who refused Novocain during a root canal? His goal: transcend dental medication.

Although ostensibly directed at a select group – in this latest case, Jews – hate speech hurts us all. Those who perpetrate it are usually anonymous, not surprisingly, as it is a crime. They hide their identity because they know they are wrong before they even begin. And, because they are cowards, they strike in the darkness and without warning, like terrorists, and like terrorists, their aim is to inspire fear and confusion.
But only in their chosen group.
The rest of us hear of these atrocities and breathe a sigh of relief. This time, it wasn’t OUR group. And next time it might not be, either. We’re safe – so far. And we hunker down just a little bit lower, so that none of our enemies might notice us and get the same idea.
This is what really hurts us – the desire to distance ourselves from the victims. The rest of us could be thinking, “If the terrorists will only concentrate on the Jews (or the gays, or the Catholics) our group might go unnoticed.” These are crazy people, we know, and who knows what religion they might get it into their heads to attack next.
It’s like having a shooter in the building. Perhaps the shooter hates jocks. We can thank our lucky stars we were never jocks, and sneak out the back door. Or maybe he’s going for his History teacher – and whoever is in History class at that moment. Good thing we were in the chem lab!
But if we hunker down and keep a low profile, we might not be attacked, but neither can we be of help to those who have been attacked. And our silence gives nerve and power to the enemy. If nobody stands up to him, he’ll just do it again – sooner. The way to stop bullies is to stand up to them.
Some of you may be familiar with the famous quote from German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller at the time when the Nazi Secret Police were rounding up all the dissidents in Germany.

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

We might add to that:
“Then they came for the Buddhists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Buddhist.
Then they came for the American Indian Lodge,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an American Indian.
Then they came for the Asian Baptists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an Asian Baptist….”
Let us remember the Second Great Commandment as Jesus spoke it, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself,” and let us speak out against any harm towards our neighbors, the Jews.

Posted by Pamela Urfer 2/4/11

“The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air.”
Galadriel, Lord of the Rings

Most people don’t like change. It can be extremely uncomfortable. But there’s very little one can do about it, except grumble. Change comes to us all, especially now, as the change from Modernism to Post-modernism is at last making itself felt in everyday life. The death knell of Modernism was sounded a hundred years ago with Albert Einstein’s Relativity Theory of 1907 and Werner Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle of 1920. But it has taken all these years since for the consequences of their discoveries to trickle down to you and me.
Theories of cosmic “uncertainty” and “relativity” may be unsettling, or they may be freeing, depending on how we look at them. Those who look for certainty and absolutes will find few in Post-modernism. But those attributes of Modernism – certainty and absolutism – which we had come to take for granted, and think of as “normal,” had certain disadvantages we might be happy to shed.
One is the need to prove certain views, and certain persons, “wrong,” so that we can know, and make others know, what is “right.” Once that is done, we believe we can relax and stop our restless search for certainty, happy in the knowledge that we have found it. Post-modernism insists that the search for this elusive treasure is ultimately self-defeating. There is no person, no human, whose judgment on those matters is wholly untainted by their personal prejudgments or bias. The best we can achieve in this area is the courage of our own convictions.
This is especially true in religion. What to one person is religious superstition and backwardness is, to another, enlightenment and knowledge of God. The historical Enlightenment, the clearest form of modernism, made that dichotomy clear. To the “Enlightened” mind, truth lies in reason and it sees the traditions and “superstitions” of religion as an obstacle to true knowledge. This is the position the secular University has held for some time.
And with some justification. Religious practitioners had retained, and even cherished, misconceptions about the cosmos and human nature that needed correction. Many of these ideas were not among the core beliefs of any faith, but rather were hopeful attempts to mandate morality or to provide justification for claims of the inevitability of capitulation to one god or another. Some sort of compromise between science and faith had to be reached, and in many instances that realization was the price of a secular university education.
But like all true believers, the proponents of the superiority of universal, autonomous reason had their blind spots, their prejudices and biases. The fictions of perpetual progress towards peace and plenty, the neutrality of reason in the recognition of truth, and the need to subsume everything, including the creation of humanity, under the rubric of “science” eventually led to its downfall. The secular evils of World Wars I and II, Stalin’s atrocities, and the Holocaust, eroded faith in the ultimate goodness of reason alone. The failure of Communism sealed the deal.
Post-modernism can be understood as the loss of confidence in the rational as sole guarantor and deliverer of truth, coupled with a deep suspicion of science’s answers . This paved the way to a revaluing of myth, a reorienting of attitudes towards faith, and a provision of new spaces for religious discourse.
Fortunately, the secular University, which has valued the insights of post-modernism for many years, is beginning to act upon those insights. Religion is now being given a voice in the public square, and many of its benefits – compassion, mercy, community, the ability to talk about the unseen world and debate values – are being recognized as a necessary part of the process of education. At least, as far as the administration goes. It may take longer for the faculty to be convinced.

UCSC provides an interesting example of how these changes came about. In 2003, the then-Dean of Students ordered all religious groups off-campus, citing as her rationale the principle of the “separation of church and state.” There was to be no use of government facilities, no rental of rooms on campus, no advertizing at bus stops. The stunned members of the Interfaith Council eventually went to the Chancellor, Denise Denton, to ask for her help. She agreed to do what she could, replying that she knew very well what it was like to be marginalized.
We’ll never know what Denton may or may not have done, for in four months she was dead. But something was happening, for that summer the UIC was asked to take part in the Memorial Services and grief counseling that was planned to the students’ return in September. Since then, the UIC has been given a home under the auspices of Student Affairs, a mail-drop, e-mail privileges, the right to reserve rooms, and the blessing of the university. 9/11 may also have been a factor in these decisions, as all of America began to recognize the power of religion for both good and evil and to realize the need for better understanding and communication. God was not dead, at least not as dead as people had hoped, and they found that the cost of excluding religious groups from discussion is often higher than letting them in.
Still, the closet doors were opening, and believing students, staff and even faculty are now able to publically acknowledge their faith without penalty. And nothing says acceptance more than the Secular Students’ Alliance application for membership in the Interfaith Council.

Posted by Pamela Urfer 12/13/10

European missionaries to Africa in the 19th century, influenced by the Enlightenment, brought with them a materialistic view of illness. For them, everything could be explained by natural causes. They knew that diseases were caused by germs, not demons or the ill-wishes of others. Yes, there were demons at work in the world, but only to steal souls from God.
The natives they encountered had a different view of the world which the missionaries declared to be mistaken. The natives believed in the reality of malevolent powers at work in the community. And, so, even though they went to church in the morning, they would visit the shamans secretly after dark.
Their hearts and souls were divided because they knew that illness was more than just an accident. They knew that it signifies a disruption in the physical, mental, social and spiritual environment. It is a calamity that not only strikes a particular individual but also indicates a disruption of social relationships. Ultimately, for them, illness is a communal concern.
As Africa moved into the 20th century, germ theory found wider acceptance. But not necessarily at the expense of belief in supernatural causes. AIDS is a primary example. AIDS is community disruption at its height. It kills one or both parents, orphans the children, overburdens the grand-parents, deprives the village of its wage-earners, and robs the nation of a generation.
Yes, AIDS is spread by a sexually transmitted virus. We all know that now. But why is it so widespread? Who is most vulnerable? Who is most responsible? What societal disruptions have led to this disaster? And how can we go about fixing it? These are the questions that must be asked and answered if the disease is to be controlled. And these are the questions that Africans at putting to the Church.
Jean-Marc Ela, a Cameroonian Roman Catholic theologian, insists that in Africa sickness is inseparable from the spirit world and healing must be addressed within this symbolic universe. “In Black Africa, the world of the Night or of the Invisible is perhaps the privileged place in which we must understand the good news of the descent of Jesus into hell (I Pet.3) in order to announce liberation to the African menaced by occult powers.”
For the sake of believers, the church must find a way to replace the tribal healer with the power of Christ. The image of Jesus as Healer prevailing over evil powers features prominently among the African Initiated Churches. But this view is not shared by all African churches. As John Pobee, a Ghanaian Anglican, points out, “The churches founded by missionary bodies in Europe and America have been reluctant, if not unwilling, to accept this healing and exorcism by the power of the Spirit, especially if it is through Africans.”
To counter this, Jesus must be allowed supremacy over every form of evil operating in the universe, whether physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, social, or in any other sphere of life. He must be seen as the one who defeats all that is life-negating instead of life-affirming.
This is not a huge step for Africans accustomed to dealing with fetish priests already operating in the realm of the spiritual. As Ghanaian Catholic George Hagan says, “The association is already there in the minds of our people. If you have come to say that Christ is a Redeemer, and yet a redeemer who did not have the power to heal, it would have sounded very odd in the ears of an African.” But he heals not only of the physical body. As healer, Christ not only comes to heal but to counsel, to show us the way to live, to bring fullness into our lives. Jesus Christ embodies everything.
Sometimes the Christian ministers must damp down the people’s unrealistic expectations. Bishop Palmer-Buckle relates his experience of parishioners coming to him and expecting instantaneous, miraculous cures, some of whom are “shattered” when he not only prays with them but advises them to go to the hospital.
The healings that do occur are, according to Ela, not merely proofs of Jesus’ divinity, but rather they reveal the inauguration of a new age, the fulfillment of messianic hope in the presence of god’s kingdom in the world. Instead of furthering the tendency of some forms of mission Christianity that have condoned present suffering in hopes of future bliss in heaven, Ela takes a strongly liberationist approach, depicting Jesus healing ministry as an indication that he is the Messiah announced by the prophets and awaited by the poor and oppressed.
Ela challenges Christians to examine the roots of sickness in the unjust organizations of African societies, and to live the gospel by totally restructuring the living conditions within those societies. After all, there are so many ways Jesus can heal. As Kiarie says, “He can touch you, he can put mud or saliva on your eyes, he can command the spirits. By his word, he can even heal at a distance, like this Roman soldier, “You just go, your son is healed.” He can even speak to forces, so he is a real miracleworker.” A popular Swahili song played on the radio: “Nataka uguzo – uguzo wa Yesu.” ‘I want to be touched, to be touched by Jesus.’
Certainly, further reflection and action is needed concerning the liberating dimension of the gospel in relation to health issues, such as corrupt health systems, the AIDS pandemic, the lack of potable water, the scandalous proliferation of preventable diseases, and politically induced famine. As John Mbiti says, “The greatest need among African peoples is to see, to know, and to experience Jesus Christ as the victor over the powers and forces from which Africa knows no means of deliverance.”

Posted by Pamela Urfer

(This article was originally published on the Diversity and Inclusion webpage http://studentaffairs.ucsc.edu/diversity/ – in August, 2010)

The University Interfaith Council (UIC) is composed of the dedicated representatives from twenty different faith-based groups – Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha’i, Hindu, Sikh, American Indian and Christian – who work together to provide a wide range of support programs for students of many different faiths, both those students who arrive on campus as members of a faith group and those who choose to embrace a faith and spirituality as a result of their time spent in the UCSC community.

In many ways, the work of the UIC is similar to that of the Ethnic Resource Centers on campus, and plays a key role in creating and maintaining a positive climate for religious diversity at UC Santa Cruz. According to the 2006 CIRP survey, 48.9% of incoming UCSC students self-identify as practitioners of a religion. 52.1% will have attended a religious service in the past six months and 33.8% have discussed religion with their peers in the past year. Roman Catholics, at 17.5% are, by far, the largest self-identified group.

These figures mandate a positive and pro-active approach to the needs of these students, especially those first-years who have recently left behind a close and caring faith community. These students’ faith heritage is a basic and powerful aspect of their identities which can help them survive the changes and challenges incorporated within the university experience.

It is the goal of the UIC at Santa Cruz, working together with Student Affairs, to build a stronger sense of choice for students to practice and find their faith community on campus, provide and enhance opportunities for developing leadership skills, and link students to community service opportunities. To this end, our programs include celebrations and interfaith gatherings, worship/ meditation, educational events including religious study courses, community service, and spiritual care and counseling to students, faculty and staff.

The UIC also works to create a space for interfaith relationship building between students from different faith groups. The Student Interfaith Council is a loosely organized gathering of students interested in meeting with one another to share a meal and discuss their spiritual journeys and the values of their own faiths. Some of these students will form the core of the new UCSC Spirituality and Faith Theme House opening in Fall 2011.

The UIC attempts to provide a safe space for students to talk about their spiritual paths and aspirations, seek new growth experiences, and deal constructively and appropriately with negative reactions to their beliefs or cultural background. We champion any in the university community – student, staff or faculty – who suffer from religious bias and will work, through our involvement in the Chancellor’s Council for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, to put an end to any such illegal and damaging practices.

Membership in the Interfaith Council is open to any faith-based group focused on serving the UCSC campus community. Representatives may be either adult ministers/rabbis/priests, interested lay persons, or student leaders of student-run groups. The loving co-operation practiced by the UIC’s members can be looked upon as a workable model of diversity and inclusion and belies the common misperception that religion inevitably leads to discord. We invite the entire UCSC community to celebrate their own faith walk with us and help promote tolerance, peace, and understanding toward all faiths and religious traditions.

Posted by Rabbi Shlomie Chein

Our sages state: If not now, when?
One may add: If not now, what?
One may conclude: If not now, naught!
We often think of the present as the link between the past and the future. i.e. there was a past, there will be a future, and in order to tie it all together, we have something called a now. We revere the past as vast and the future as infinite, yet the present is often perceived as a mere fleeting moment. We can spend endless hours studying history, and millions of dollars planning our destiny. But what time or consideration do we give the now?
This morning I said a prayer, tomorrow I will recite it again, but for now I would like to share what it means for the present.“The L-rd reigns, the L-rd reigned, the L-rd will reign forever”. The prayer is quite simple, and better yet, really short. But its format offers a deep appreciation of the now. When viewing the line of time we usually speak of the past, present and then future. The order of this prayer, however, mentions the present first, then the past and future.
From this prayer’s perspective, the present doesn’t merely link the past to the future; it creates them. First and foremost there must be a present; only then can we speak of a past or a future. Any memories you have of the past, any visions you have of the future, only exist because there is a present. If you didn’t exist in this moment, no other moment would exist in you.
The now is thus a powerful antidote to the past/future syndrome. Let’s use Jewish identity as an example. A big question amongst scholars and rabbis, global politicians and searching Jews is, what makes you Jewish? From a technical Halachic standpoint the issue depends entirely on the past. What makes you Jewish is simply your familial genealogy. If your mother is Jewish you are Jewish. From a homiletic perspective, one looks to the future. A cute (non-binding) thought has been circulating lately which maintains that one can be considered Jewish if his/her children and grandchildren are Jewish; i.e. if s/he managed to pass the torch along to the next generations.
Now, whilst both of those perspective attempt to define being Jewish, neither of them says much about living Jewish. The past and future can’t account for living Jewish. To live Jewish one must look at the present. Granted, you have a rich Jewish history, and yes, you hope to eventually contribute to the Jewish destiny; but what does your Judaism mean to you today? Aside from your parents or plans for parenting, how is your Jewishness expressed?
Thus the prayer puts it eloquently: all of G-d’s miracles of the past, and all of G-d’s promises for the future, begin with G-d’s relevance in the present. Ironically, the biggest challenge to the now is the very past and future it sustains. Often as soon as we start thinking about the importance of now, we immediately try to recall if every prior moment was lived, or if every future moment can be lived, to these standards. But that’s the problem. Those thoughts are essentially a return to the past/future perspective rather than the now! When we think of the power of now we are not supposed to think about every other now we had or will have. We are supposed to focus on the current now.

In his magnum opus, the Tanya, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi describes the perfect achievement for the average Jew. This is not the level of Tzadik (sainthood) which he says is reserved for few, rather this is the level of the Beinuni (average), a state of being each and every Jew can accomplish. He describes it as a state of being in which one never did, nor will ever do, anything wrong.
At first glance this seems impossible if not contradictory. Are we really to believe that every Jew can achieve this? Do you even know of any Jew who has achieved this? Furthermore, how can something be achieved if its ends leave no room for the various stages of its means? I.e. how can someone ever overcome fault when the definition of overcoming means he never had fault?
But these questions only arise and remain in the past/future perspective. Rabbi Shneur Zalman, on the other hand, is focused on the now, and with this statement he is highlighting the power of the present. When he speaks of never did or will never do, he is not speaking of a time called the past or an era called the future; he is speaking of the wholesomeness of this moment.
His definition of perfection asks one question: In this moment, today, right now, are you beyond wrongdoing? If the past and future were to be shaped by the now, how would they look? If we were to view your entire life through the lens of now would we see a hint of past, or a likelihood of future, wrongdoing? It is so easy to abuse and neglect the now because of a stigma from the past or a concern for the future. This is because we think the now merely serves as a link to times bygone and times to come. But the now is much more than that. The prayer places the now first instead of having it get lost in the middle, to teach us that the now is the foundation for everything that was and everything that will be.
Perfect the now, says the rabbi, for if you perfect the now the past and future will mirror that perfection. After all, the latter merely exist as extensions of the former. Now, before you move on to the future leaving this article in your past, think about this: if there is truth to the adage “If not now, naught”, can you imagine the gift of a utilized present!

Posted by Pamela Urfer

Getting back to the original question asked in Lisa Miller’s Newsweek article – How can college-aged men and women best resist peer pressure to have sex, or, at least, resist the kind of sex they don’t want? As Donna Freitas says, Students “want the right to demand more from their peers when it comes to sex and relationships – more joy, more satisfaction, more commitment – and less sex.”
Perhaps we could think of this choice as one between “high level” and “low level” sex. I’m not talking here about the quality level of the sex act. There are plenty of books for advice on that. I’m talking about the emotional, relational, and spiritual level of sex. It may be hard for some to imagine a “spiritual” component to pre-marital sex, but many who are sexually active on campus are searching for precisely that. They want to know how to conduct an affair that is respectful, responsible and constructive for the persons involved. They want to know how to practice kindness, consideration and truthfulness in a relationship, and how to refrain from using the other to satisfy their own selfish needs.
For a moment, let’s imagine the unimaginable: two college or grad students, perhaps even Christian students, begin a serious affair, moving in together. If they were older, out of school, they might have planned a wedding. But they both know this is not the right time to marry. In an earlier, more “Biblical”, age this couple would have been married off by their families as soon as they reached sexual maturity – at fourteen for girls and perhaps sixteen for boys – a natural remedy for their burgeoning sexual urges and desires. Surely this is what Saint Paul meant by advising “it is better to marry than to burn.”
But this is America, and education trumps nature. Careers , and enhanced earning power, await and must be prepared for. This is the path we as a culture have chosen and the young must suffer for it. God is not the only, nor, perhaps, the most important, person expected to have a say in such matters. The young people have not finished their studies, and neither family would countenance marriage at this point. Their families counsel restraint – perhaps for years. Easy for them to say. But the young people must acquiesce. After all, it’s the families who are paying the bills.
Couples who choose pre-marital co-habitation cannot be considered “spouses,” with the (perhaps illusory) permanence that entails. But they should aim, at the very least, at being “friends,” people who act towards each other in a trustworthy, caring and reliable manner, like non-sexual friends. They shouldn’t have to think of the one with whom they are having sex as a rival, enemy, liar, user, or traitor. Although these relationships are not, at the moment, permanent, neither one of the couple should have to wake up in the morning wondering if their partner has left in the night.
In scripture, God has given us much good advice in conducting relationships, from “A gentle answer turns away wrath” to “Do not let the sun go down on your anger,” to “Love is patient and kind, it is not jealous or conceited or proud. Love is not ill-mannered or selfish or irritable. It does not keep a record of wrongs.” If we could all achieve relationships like this, life would be happier all around.
What these young people should be learning are the skills needed to argue constructively, avoid pushing each other’s buttons, and treat each other with respect and kindness. If the arrangement fails to become permanent, as lots of marriages do, at least the skills learned here may help create a stronger tie with partners who come later. And it might even lead to marriage itself. Mine did – going on forty-four years now.