Author: Danielle Levy

–Our prejudices may be depriving us of an answer—We think of Shariah law as an outmoded and cruel judicial system cutting off the hands of thieves, so typical of a religion we do not trust. But Islam is thankfully more than our perception of it, and is not limited by our ignorance. The Koran forbids usury. As a result religious Muslims and Islamic states have developed banking systems that in conforming to the anti-usury laws also avoids the excesses of capitalism. University Bank in Ann Arbor, Mich, owned and operated by two Catholic brothers created a whole subsidiary to comply with Shariah laws in order to serve their Muslim clients. It has since shown that the resulting “mortgage alternative” type of financing for residential and commercial real estate can be profitable and avoid the pitfalls that have blighted our economy. Last week as the market plunged, University Bank had one of its best periods, recording the sale of 11 homes.
Early in March the fifth World Islamic Economic Forum meeting in Jakarta suggested the West should adopt Islamic financial practices as part of overcoming the global economic crisis. Some even urged undertaking “missionary work” to promote it. When the missionaries come, or even if we need to begin the work ourselves, we ought to put our prejudices away and listen to how “mortgage alternatives” can be used to everyone’s advantage.

–A legal decision in France could serve as an example for the U.S. past with slavery–Quite recently France’s highest court did something many thought it would never do. It recognized the state’s responsibility when it deported or facilitated the deportation of tens of thousands of Jews during WWII. For those who may not know, during a portion of that war the French government set up in Vichy collaborated with Nazi Germany. While that led to the conditions that would make people like Charles de Gaulle and others national and international heroes, it also set the stage for the arrest, internment and deportation of Jews. From 1942 to 1944 it is estimated that 76,000 Jews were rounded up by the Vichy authorities and sent to concentration camps. Although the main transit camp of Drancy was under the overall control of the SS, it was run by the Paris’s police force. Some 63,000 people were sent to their death from there.
It is a historic ruling ending legal timidity, and many taboos, for until then the idea that France as a government had been responsible for institutionalized anti-Semitism and its consequences was not an accepted topic.
If France can begin to confront its past, maybe the United States, now that it has elected an African-American president, can begin to confront its role in slavery.

Racism if defined differently by whites and by blacks. We ought to factor in that difference if we want to begin a meaningful conversation–Because February is Black History month, there has recently been a few stories about the state of race relations, and as part of that emphasis our Attorney General made a provocative statement about us being cowards when it comes to discussing race. This provoked discussion, although not the substantive one we need nor the one he hoped for. One fact came out, as it does year after year, that African-Americans view the state of racism differently than whites. For blacks, the picture is far less perfect. Why is this a surprise? Why do our polls not seem to integrate that, as much as the experiencing of it, African-Americans and whites define racism in different terms? Words that remain triggers for blacks, for example, are not so for whites. Perceptions too are at variance. For many whites the fact that our current President is black means prejudice has been overcome. For blacks, it tends to instead stand as a bridge to truer equality. There are also deep generational differences. African-Americans old enough to have heard MLK or march, or be involved in civil rights, do not have he same perception of race relations than their younger cohorts. It’s a bit like the dichotomy of seeing the glass half-empty or half-full.
Call it compassion, honesty, equality… it comes down to the same thing: All of us ought to be more sensitive to the definitions of others racial groups and factor in their perceptions if we want to be able to understand each other and engage in the needed meaningful conversation about race.

Couldn’t the Oscars not be more than the epitome of worldly success?–The Oscar hubbub is behind us and the winners have been declared. Despite the goodwill and graciousness of those who didn’t get Oscars, the event seems to be saying: We have one winner and four losers in each category. The whole thing has become so institutionalized not only in the movie industry, but in the general culture that we are loosing our objectivity, and what the presentation was meant to mean, can mean, does mean and how it could be reformed to be more meaningful. Does the performance of one actor over that of the others really deserve the special treatment conferred by winning an Oscar? It’s hard to see the distinction this year as it was in past years.
Several years ago the announcement from the stage was far more blatant, as the presenter would announce, ”And the winner is.” Now the phrase is, “The award goes to”. No matter, the thinking behind it is the same. And despite the talk that being nominated is award enough, the idea still is winning the statuesque.
As they stand the Oscars are the epitome of worldly success—Couldn’t they be a lot more and enrich us all rather than just those who stand to monetarily benefit?