ONE RAMADAN, many celebrations, Islamic pluralism in action

This article at Huffington post is about how Muslims deal with diversity and differences. America's spirit of freedom touches every soul, no matter what religion or tradition they follow.

The essence of Ramadan is to become humble, simple and free from ill-will, anger, meanness and hate. Let's fill our hearts with goodwill and honor Ramadan by saying "Eid Mubarak" or Happy Eid to everyone who celebrates on a different day in the same town. The essence of Ramadan is joy and let's not prick any one's bubble; God has not signed a pact with any one behind others back, let's rejoice the differences of interpretations. If you want to celebrate every day, go ahead and do it. Eid is not getting hung up but rejoicing with friends and families.

Please share if you like it, and at the link in Huffington Post you can click Like, share on facebook,  twitter or with your groups.  

 

Full article at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/one-ramadan-many-celebrat_b_3710856.html

 

Eid Mubarak!.
 

 

Texas faith: Is it more important to do the right thing or to have the right beliefs?

One of the joys of being a pluralist is to play Mr. Spock, and I would conclude, “Religion is a system of beliefs and rituals designed to bring tranquility to an individual and guide him to live in balance with what

surrounds him/her; life and the environment. Now turning to the religious folks to find what does it mean to be religious, we will run into three sets of people within each tradition; literalists, pragmatist, and essence-ialists. Mike Ghouse

URL - http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/07/texas-faith-is-it-more-important-to-do.html

TEXAS FAITH: Is it more important to do the right thing or to have the right beliefs?
By Wayne Slater | wslater@dallasnews.com
12:34 pm on July 30, 2013

What does it mean to be a religious person? Is it about what you do or what you think? A new study finds that about two-thirds of Americans say being a religious person “is primarily about living a good life and doing the right thing.” About a third hold that being religious “is primarily about having faith and the right beliefs.”The report was just published by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution.

The study suggests that political orientation influences on how people think about what it means to be religious. Or maybe it’s vice versa – the way you think about being religious guides your political orientation. Religious progressives are more likely than religious conservatives to say being a religious person is mostly about doing the right thing, not holding the rights beliefs. And that difference– thinking vs. doing – is not just an intellectual exercise. It says something about how people view social problems and what to do about them. For example, 8-in-10 religious conservatives agree that if enough people had a personal relationship with God, social problems would take care of themselves. Only about 3-in-10 religious progressives believe that.

No doubt, living out one’s faith is a virtuous thing. But is that what it means to be religious — or simply virtuous. To invert a Christian idea, are works without faith dead?

What does it mean to be a religious person?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and speaker on interfaith issues

If Mr. Spock were to be hired to study various religions and present a report, he would study each tradition from Aztec to Zoroastrianism, and how individuals or groups live with the teachings, and struggle when he or she is off the course on a given set of norms.

One of the joys of being a pluralist is to play Mr. Spock, and I would conclude, “Religion is a system of beliefs and rituals designed to bring tranquility to an individual and guide him to live in balance with what surrounds him/her; life and the environment.

Now turning to the religious folks to find what does it mean to be religious, we will run into three sets of people within each tradition; literalists, pragmatist, and essence-ialists.

Each individual is driven by the politics of life –what is in it for me (selfishness), insecurity, and self preservation (greed).

To the literalists and conservatives, life is a simple affair; to be religious is to obey God! They believe in God and follow the Bible, Quran, Torah, Bhagvad Gita, the Gathas, Granth saheb, Pali or the other books to the literal meaning of the word, and most of them tend to be ritualistic observers.

Some of them literally believe in the Sodom and Gomorrah story and want to make life difficult for those who do not comply. To some, it is about making a business of calling others tradition a ‘false religion”, and to some, stoning an adulterer to death or waging jihad is religious. Their faith is the only true faith and all others are not, such is the simplicity of these folks. As long as they live in silos, they can actually live a happier life.

The pragmatists believe to be religious is to mind your own business, your own God and go on living a comfortable life. Their focus is not going to church, to them being religious, “is primarily about living a good life and doing the right thing.”

The essence-ialists are folks who see the beauty and wisdom of each religion in bringing solace to individual and building cohesive societies where no one has to live in apprehension, discomfort or fear of the other. They understand the value of religion and follow its essence without the rituals. To them, to be religious, “is about living a good life and doing the right thing.”

To read the other ten panelists thoughts, please go to Dallas Morning News at : http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/texas-faith-is-it-more-important-to-do-the-right-thing-or-to-have-the-right-beliefs.html/

. . . . .

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Texas Faith: Should evangelicals push for immigration reform?

Texas Faith: Should evangelicals push for immigration reform?

The time for immigration reform is now and most Americans support it. In a Gallup Poll released in June this year, 87% of Americans support reform, so now it is the responsibility of our elected representatives to pass it into law. Would they dare lose in the mid-term elections by opposing the will of the people? No. This is their last hope to remain elected.

Texas Faith: How hard should evangelicals push for immigration reform?
By Bill McKenzie / Editorial Columnistwmckenzie@dallasnews.com
10:55 am on July 23, 2013 | Permalink
 

Leaders of the Evangelical Immigration Table will meet on Capitol Hill Wednesday to continue praying for and advocating for a broad immigration reform. In other words, they want a package that goes beyond simply securing the border.

This group has a long list of supporters. They represent evangelicals from both conservative and liberal traditions. And they have a set of principles that guide their work. You can read all of this at this link:

This group also gathers regularly and continues to press for reform. Their outreach includes meeting with legislators, reaching out to media and generally lifting up Capitol Hill in prayer. They also are attracting press because evangelicals were not as outspoken for change back in 2007, when the last immigration debate took place. Here is an article from The Atlantic that details their work.

But this debate is about to get into some brutal politicking. The GOP-led House is clearly not interested in going as far as the Democratic-led Senate in crafting a comprehensive plan. For example, most House Republicans do not appear very eager to grant illegal immigrants a chance to earn citizenship or some kind of legal status.

Yet evangelicals could be the trump card. The Atlantic piece described the role of evangelicals this way, quoting Ali Noorani of the pro-reform National Immigration Forum: “Pro-reform groups view these efforts as essential. ‘I don’t think a House vote happens without evangelicals,’ Noorani said. ‘The only reason it happens is because evangelicals are engaged.’”

So, my question is this: How hard should evangelicals — or any other religious groups in favor of immigration reform — push for change?

This debate is not likely to move ahead in the House without a great deal of arm-twisting. But is that the role for people of faith?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and speaker on interfaith issues

The time for immigration reform is now and most Americans support it. In a Gallup Poll released in June this year, 87% of Americans support reform, so now it is the responsibility of our elected representatives to pass it into law. Would they dare lose in the mid-term elections by opposing the will of the people? No. This is their last hope to remain elected.

I am glad evangelicals are more practical now than ever before. A series of losses in electing their candidates has taught them a lesson in compromise, and I welcome their new avatar. They will be at best a catalyst in garnering support from other religious groups. But they will not be the springboard to reform, although attention is shining on them.

Evangelical influence is over-rated. In January 2012, a group of them met in Houston to prop up their presidential candidate, who did not go anywhere. They also thought Obama was done with when he supported same sex marriage. They even supported a presidential candidate who called for self-deportation, but failed again.

Indeed, evangelicals once were opposed to immigration reforms, writes Jenny Yang in Washington post, “In 2006, evangelicals were polled to be the most anti-immigrant among other religious groups surveyed.”

What brings change? Many things.

Among them is the Dream Act, which tilted the Hispanic vote towards Democrats. Their vote was a key determinant in winning the 2012 race. Predictions were made that Romney needed 51% of the Hispanic vote to have a chance to win. He only got 27% and did not make it. Even the Asian community, which is driven by immigration, gave a whopping 73% of their votes to Obama.

Church demographics are changing as well. While membership among the traditional evangelicals is declining, Hispanic membership is increasing. That signals evangelicals need to be a part of the change and not get sidelined.

The immigration issue is certainly breaking the monopoly of any particular group on public policy. Indeed, no single group will determine the outcome of immigration reform.

While appreciating evangelicals for their change of heart, as people of faith, we need to come together and beef up our support for the religious, civic and political organizations committed to reform. After all we are a nation of immigrants.

To read all other opinions at Dallas Morning News - http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/texas-faith-how-hard-should-evangelicals-push-for-immigration-reform.html/

My Speech, " We need immigration reform now"  at the Immigration rally in Down Town Dallas, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrjU0KULv-Y
. . . . .

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Texas Faith: Was it moral to shut down the Texas Senate?

Texas Faith: Was it moral to shut down the Texas Senate?

Demonstration in the gallery of the Senate, or a filibuster are not the healthy way to affect the decision-making process, but when people are apprehensive of the imminently dangerous decisions, they resort to those tactics out of sheer frustration. Let’s say, if they would not have demonstrated and Senate had passed the bill, would people have gladly accepted that? We need to improve our systems to ensure our liberties are not hacked by the Senate mob in the first place - Mike Ghouse

Texas Faith: Was it moral to shut down the Texas Senate?
Dallas Morning News, published on July 3, 2013
Editor: Wayne Slater

Last week’s week’s filibuster in the Texas Senate stopped an abortion bill and catapulted Sen. Wendy Davis to national political attention. Television stories beamed pictures of hundreds of cheering, jeering protesters who shut down Senate business while Republican leaders struggled to regain control. In the end, the bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy failed and Gov. Rick Perry called the Legislature back into another special session on Monday.

The protesters – criticized as a mob by some and hailed as heroes by others – were very much a part of the story, if only because it’s rare democratic institutions in this country are brought to a halt by people chanting from the balcony in a legislative chamber. The episode has been the focus of heated debate in terms of politics and ideology. Set aside which side you’re on. What if the roles were reversed. When is it ethical and moral to shut down a institution of government?

The question: Was it moral to shut down the Senate? Not whether it was politically successful or tactically expedient or even whether your side prevailed or not, but was it moral?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism

Oscillate I did, it was a difficult issue, but indeed it was moral for the mob to shut down the senate.

We have a greater dilemma of chicken and egg to deal with; the Senate has an august responsibility to make decisions that are sustainable. Would it be moral for the Senate, and not necessarily legal for them to pass a bill because they have the majority of votes on party lines? If it were, the decision remains questionable, and any decision pushed on an unwilling people is not sustainable. Would that amount to mob rule in reverse?

Our morality is driven from the ideal that all men are created equal, and when a decision does not factor in that ideal, and legislates women to be obedient in the matter of abortion, then we have lost the ideal that our society was founded upon; women would not be equal. How are we better than the Taliban mob who imposes their will on their women folk?

Obama’s health care bill was pushed through the first time because of the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, but when the Republicans got the majority they made several attempts to undo it. There is a lesson to be learned, consensus is critical for a decision to sustain.

Demonstration in the gallery of the Senate, or a filibuster are not the healthy way to affect the decision-making process, but when people are apprehensive of the imminently dangerous decisions, they resort to those tactics out of sheer frustration. Let’s say, if they would not have demonstrated and Senate had passed the bill, would people have gladly accepted that? We need to improve our systems to ensure our liberties are not hacked by the Senate mob in the first place.

It was certainly immoral on our part, the part of public not to have demonstrated against the evil wars. Had we done that, our nation would not have lost our sons and daughters, would not have racked up budget deficit, would not have witnessed break up families, loss of jobs for millions of Americans, foreclosures, and record personal bankruptcies.

After all, we are the government of the people, by the people and for the people. If Texas Senate or US Congress becomes a mob, we have the right to be the counter-mob and take action to protect our freedom.

To read what other panelists say, please visit Dallas Morning News at: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/texas-faith-is-it-moral-to-shut-down-an-institution-of-government.html/

. . . . .

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links. 

.....

Texas Faith: Are Interfaith Marriages Good for Couples?

Interfaith couples must be admired by one and all. When couples are having difficulty in getting along, they are setting a new standard: respecting the otherness of someone else and accepting the God-given uniqueness of each other. They may have grown up in different religious traditions, but yet, religion is not a barrier. The poet philosopher of the East, Dr. Allama Iqbal, says, Religion does not teach one to have ill-will. 

Texas Faith :Are Interfaith Marriages Good for Couples?
Dallas Morning News | Published on June 18, 2013
By Bill McKenzie  
 

Naomi Schaefer Riley has a new book out with the title Til Faith Do Us Part: How Interfaith Marriage is Transforming America. You can read about that book at this link and then this link.

Interestingly, Riley, a former Wall Street Journal editor who has written extensively about religion and culture, notes that 45 percent of all U.S. marriages in the last decade were between people of different faiths. Naturally, we may look at that as a sign of greater acceptance and tolerance, which a broad society needs to remain dynamic and growing.

But Riley also reports that marrying across religious lines may be very difficult for the couples involved. Their deeply-held differences may eventually become a problem, especially when it comes to raising children.

There are a number of ways we could go with this question, including why dating couples may spend more time worrying about political differences than religious distinctions. Feel free to chime in on that aspect, if you like. But the main point I would like you to consider is this: Interfaith marriages may help the broader society, but are they good for the couples?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism

Marriage is between two individuals who are willing to commit to each other’s well-being. They dedicate their lives to each other till death does them apart. The couple marries as a fulfillment of their desire for each other, and there is rarely a consideration to help the broader society.

However, interfaith, inter-racial and inter-ethnic marriages have paved the way for others in the larger societies who were once denied the right to pursue their happiness. Stories abound, where the lovers were prevented, harassed or killed by the parents, society or the clergy. We must appreciate their sacrifice, even though that was not their intention.

I must add a couplet from Urdu and Hindi Language, written by the Master Indian poet Mirza Ghalib:

Ishq par zor naheeN, hai ye woh aatish ‘GHalib’
ki lagaaye na lage aur bujhaaye na bane

Love is such a flame Ghalib (pen name),
you cannot lit or extinguish it, it just happens.

Like all couples, the interfaith couple also endures similar strains in their relationship, (8.4 and 7.9 marital satisfaction on Riley Scale) but it may take the avatar of faith if they are at each other’s throat. It is always easy to blame the religion for our failings. However, interfaith and other inter-relationships tend to be stronger.

Political differences provide humor to some couples. My father and mother voted differently but never had a fight over it except the occasional cold wars. I am a Republican and my wife is a Democrat, and we make attempts to convince each other, but back off as quickly as we initiate it, when she quotes me the Quran, “That you cannot compel your spouse to believe what she does not want to believe.”

Interfaith couples must be admired by one and all. When couples are having difficulty in getting along, they are setting a new standard: respecting the otherness of someone else and accepting the God-given uniqueness of each other. They may have grown up in different religious traditions, but yet, religion is not a barrier. The poet philosopher of the East, Dr. Allama Iqbal, says, Religion does not teach one to have ill-will.

I am a marriage officiant and have performed a range of interfaith marriages as a part of my pluralism work.

To see all the other responses, at Dallas Morning News at:http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-faith-are-interfaith-marriages-good-for-couples.html/
.......

Added: Interfaith marriages performed include; Jewish-Christian; Hindu-Christian; Muslim-Jain; Hindu-Muslim, Atheist Hindu and  Jewish-Muslim and other combinations. For details, please visit: http://www.interfaithmarriages.blogspot.com/

This is my 133rd contribution at Dallas Morning News

......
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links. 

Texas Faith: Where’s the outrage over the atrocities in Syria?

As a Pluralist and a Muslim, who has stood up and spoken against every possible atrocity, prejudice and massacre, and who organizes the annual Holocaust and Genocides commemoration in Dallas since 2006, I am guilty of not giving due attention to the atrocities of Assad on the people of Syria. Shame on me! We have the moral responsibility to restore the safety of every human.  This note is a token of my repentance.

Mike Ghouse
.....

Texas Faith : Where’s the outrage over the atrocities in Syria?

By Bill McKenzie /

| Dallas Morning News | Published on June 4, 2013

What about Syria? Why aren't we hearing many protests from religious leaders in the U.S. about the atrocities that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is bringing down upon his people? As this Reuters report states, 80,000 of his countrymen have been killed since they started protesting his government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-syria-russia-missiles-idUSBRE94T05S20130530

I raise that question because there is a general sense in the country that Americans don't want to get involved with Syria's meltdown. Polling data is clear about that.

But shouldn't people of faith in the U.S. at least be making a cause out of the deaths that are happening there?

After Rwanda, many Americans said we can't let a massacre like that happen again. Well, a leader is brutalizing his people and there aren't many howls about it. There may be the occasional statement, but not much more than that.

Is this because of a fear of American power getting out of hand? Is it because we are weary of the Mideast? Is it because we don't know what to do about the situation? Is it because we don't want to side with any of the players? Is it because of something else?

I would like to hear your thoughts about this issue. It's one thing to not get involved militarily in Syria. But do religious leaders and institutions in the U.S. not have some responsibility to speak out against the atrocities, pray for the victims and raise moral questions?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism

As a pluralist and a Muslim, and as one who has stood up and spoken against every possible atrocity, prejudice and massacre, and as one who organizes the annual Holocaust and Genocides commemoration in Dallas, I am guilty of not giving due attention to the atrocities of Assad on the people of Syria. Shame on me!

Thanks for the opportunity for repentance through this blog entry. There is no excuse for our nonchalant attitudes given the scale of the massacre. Mr. McKenzie is right: We, as people of faith, should be making a cause out of the deaths that are happening in Syria.

A Syrian friend had shared with me videos of bombings and children being killed during his visits to Syria. However, there was that glimmer of hope that Assad would lose and people would determine their own destiny.

But this conflict is morphing into a battle between the Shia, Sunni and the Alawites. And that could deepen the chasm between the groups.

So, what can people of faith do? We have to do what spiritual masters like Jesus, and Muhammad have done, and that is mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill. We might consider a delegation of Shia, Sunni, and Alawite Muslims, along with Christians and Jews, to invoke humility. Let’s not discount the power of prayer to communicate to the Syrians that we care.

What can the United States do? A lot of things besides the rhetoric. We need to get the Organization of Islamic Conference, a body of 56 Muslim-majority nations, to negotiate and bring a closure to this conflict. What is the point of having a body, if they can’t do that?

What we should not do is arm the rebels and cause more fighting, nor should we bomb like maniacs. We cannot be a party to death and destruction, as we have been in the past. Nor should we allow Americans to get burned at home through this conflict.

The last choice is to drone the guy and take him out with least collateral damage.

We do have the moral responsibility to restore the safety of every human.

Added note:

This conflict is indeed morphing into a battle between the Shia, Sunni and the Alawites and could deepen the chasm between the groups. Patrick Buchanan in his op-ed at the American conservative calls it Islam’s civil war and throws two powerful ideas of natural boundaries and who dares, wins. If these two ideas have merit, we may have to consider those options to end the conflict and stop the massacres.  ...........

To see all the other responses, at Dallas Morning News at: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/06/texas-faith-wheres-the-outrage-over-the-atrocities-in-syria.html/

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes his work through many links.

 

Texas Faith : Should Americans boycott sweatshops in places like Bangladesh?

We can demand graduated improvements in working conditions, but must be willing to pay a few pennies more for the same goods and services, if not we would be contributing to those conditions to maximize the returns on our Dollar. 

URL - http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/05/texas-faith-should-americans-boycott.html

Texas Faith : Should Americans boycott sweatshops in places like Bangladesh?

  

By Bill McKenzie /

| Dallas Morning News | Published on May 23, 2013 

That’s the question many people are facing after a horrific fire in a Bangladesh sweatshop recently killed more than 1,100 workers. But it isn’t always an easy one to answer.

As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof explains in this link, workers in some underdeveloped nations see a sweatshop as preferable to conditions they otherwise might work in. Here’s how Kristof put it in a 2009 column:

“I’m glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories. Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty. At a time of tremendous economic distress and protectionist pressures, there’s a special danger that tighter labor standards will be used as an excuse to curb trade.”

In essence, sweatshop employees may be making a rational decision to work in places most Americans would not set foot in. The demand for their goods leads to jobs that pay better than in other parts of a developing nation’s economy. And in better conditions, as hard as that might be to imagine

On the other hand, our demand for their goods is why sweatshops exist. And while those facilities may be better than others in a country, they also can be exploitative and even deadly.

I am also including a link to an interview that ran in The Dallas Morning News Points section. The Q&A is with Texas Tech professor Benjamin Powell, author of the forthcoming Sweatshops: Improving Lives and Economic Growth. He explains why he thinks Americans should not boycott sweatshops.

What do you think?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, and Speaker on interfaith matters, diversity and pluralism

There is always a balance we need to seek, between the disgusting working conditions of the sweatshops, and the jobs they provide to those who need to sustain the basics of their families.

As an individual born and raised in India, I have seen utter poverty. It was humiliating to see people beg for food, just food, not the steak, and receive the left-overs to sustain themselves and their children. For nearly forty years, I gave up eating cake, as it reminded me of a kid who stretched his hand for it when I was eating. The looks on his face made me sad, very sad – he probably never had a piece of cake. I gave him what I had in my hand and did not eat another piece for a long time. However, it was a joy to see him share that piece with his brothers scrambling for food in the pile of trash at the corner of the street.

When I went to see the Taj Mahal, I saw what Nick Kristof saw. It was deeply troubling to see the conditions of the sweatshops there, particularly the child labor and the inhuman conditions they worked under to make a buck, the buck that puts food on their plate for the whole day.

My late wife and I decided to visit a famous restaurant to eat one of the Indian delicacies that we wanted to eat all our lives.. But what we saw on the way in turned us off and we chose to go back without eating. We endlessly debated about supporting a place where they did not treat their employees well, particularly the children, and denying them a buck and their livelihood.

We were glad to be Americans to have been blessed with the opportunities, and also glad to have the mindset to feel guilty for the living conditions of those who provide our goods and services.

As Americans, we can positively encourage competition by giving business to those sweat shops who treat their employees better, and who do not employ child labor and or offer education opportunities for the same children.

We can demand graduated improvements in working conditions, but must be willing to pay a few pennies more for the same goods and services, if not we would be contributing to those conditions to maximize the returns on our Dollar.

...........

To see all the other responses, at Dallas Morning News at:http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/05/texas-faith-should-americans-boycott-sweatshops-in-places-like-bangladesh.html/

....Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel,India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.