Interfaith Engagement and the Public Square: A Self-Critical Review and Suggestions for the Way Forward (Keynote Address)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A personal and critical essay written by a Muslim religious leader and scholar about the changes they have experienced and witnessed in the ways interfaith dialogue intersects with the public square. The author draws upon twenty-five years of experience, highlighting specific examples affecting the Muslim community, mostly in the United States. The author argues that interfaith dialogue can create space for engagement on issues of public policy and common concern, but that no encounter is ever naïve, and since digital and social media have facilitated the spread of misinformation, such encounters are more complex than before. Further, research on the disproportionate attention negative displays of emotion attract puts minority groups, typically stereotyped as angry and irrational, in a difficult position to express themselves authentically as they try to defend their rights and dignity. Principled interfaith engagement can achieve effective policy results and provide vital moral support to a beleaguered faith community and may create a principled foundation for engagement on other issues. However, this is not always the case, and various parties might express disappointment, even betrayal when “the other side” does not show up for their cause. Nevertheless, continued engagement that allows politically misaligned interfaith partners to express their views according to terms they consider authentic helps avoid greater polarization that is corrosive to social cohesion. At the same time, conveners of interfaith dialogue should be attentive to the structures of power embedded in the programs they create to avoid reinforcing patterns of hierarchy and exclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".