yayyyyyy God

[Birdy]

A More Inclusive Pluralism

Shortly after 9/11, journalist David Brooks came to understand what sociologists of religion have been saying for some time. “Secularism,†he realized, “is not the future; it is yesterday’s incorrect vision of the future. This realization sends us recovering secularists to the bookstore or the library in a desperate attempt to figure out what is going on in the world.†Indeed, rumors of the death of religion have proven to be greatly exaggerated. (See "Kicking the Secularist Habit").

What 9/11 did for Brooks, the culture wars have done for others—including, apparently, Cornell President Emeritus Hunter Rawlings III. As if following Brooks’ recipe for overcoming secular prejudice, Rawlings acknowledges that secularism is not the norm, and that the culture wars are at least partly the fault of secular fundamentalists among the intelligentsia. “Academic disdain for religion,†he writes, “diminishes the capacity of many academics to understand American culture and politics.†(See "Intelligent Design and the Place of Religiously-based Ideas in American Politics").

Rawlings’ address is occasioned by his concern that American culture is slouching toward theocracy. Given that liberal democracy and the separation of church and state emerged as a way out of the religious wars of previous centuries, today’s “massive movement of religion back into the public square,†he writes, would cause founder James Madison to turn in his grave. Such concerns are part and parcel of the question of modernity: How can we all get along?

Rawlings’ address reads like a good faith effort to understand a foreign tribe. Indeed, as a member of the ‘tribe’ of non-secularists, I find much to applaud in his attempt to navigate a way out of our “badly polarized state of affairs.†Most notably, his emphasis that there are two equal and opposite errors is right on the money. On the one hand, “to disdain religion is to antagonize and radicalize many Americans with deeply held beliefs.†On the other hand, “to use religion for political purposes, to create political religion, is an affront to religious values and a violation of the great American tradition established by James Madison and deepened by Abraham Lincoln.†Religious fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists alike would do well to heed that wisdom.

That said, the balance Rawlings seeks seems just beyond his grasp. First, to say that “most academics are secular humanists†is overstated. According to recent research by Harvard sociologist Neil Gross, atheists and agnostics are overrepresented among academics relative to the population at large, but “do not comprise a majority of professors even at elite schools.†So, when Rawlings writes that “we academics†have undervalued religious arguments about abortion, what he really means is “we secularists.†Academics and people of faith are, after all, often the same people.

Second, Rawlings depicts science and religion as starkly opposed in their methodology. Science hypothesizes and tests results, he says, whereas religion “emanates from authority.†Even setting aside the gross conflation of all the world’s religions, as if there were no meaningful differences in this regard among them, this generalization misses both the role of authority in science and the evidentiary nature of many religious claims. This is a caricatured and dated understanding of both scientific and religious knowledge claims. Western religions, for example, are generally grounded in historical claims. And in contrast to Rawlings’ account, they posit little to no conflict between reason and revelation.

A more interesting problem is that Rawlings sees “religion†more nearly as an enemy than a friend of liberal democracy.

Although Rawlings notes that religion is “too important a source of ideas and values to ignore or to privatize completely,†and that the deepest issues we face “require religious engagement for political resolution to become possible,†these seem reluctant concessions, as if the accommodation of religious language in the public square were a necessary evil. Anxiety about the relationship of religion to liberal democracy comes through in references to Galileo, the Inquisition, “Europe’s long history of religious conflict,†and even “the “dangerous precedent†of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. The problem, Rawlings writes, “is that the absolutist tendencies of religion frequently become incompatible with democratic pluralism.â€

In keeping with conventional wisdom, Rawlings seems concerned primarily with conservative Christians. However, academics who study religion caution that much of what we think we know about religious conservatives actually proves to be wrong. Historian Martin Marty, for example, has cautioned against conflating the categories of “evangelical†and “religious right†for twenty-five years. If we make the mistake of taking fundamentalist groups such as the Moral Majority as representative, Cornell professor of government Jon Shields writes, we nurture “the false assumption that orthodox believers more broadly are a grave threat to a democratic culture that depends on civil and reasonable citizens.†Many sociologists of religion, such as Andrew Greeley and Michael Hout, writing in their recent book The Truth About Conservative Christians: What They Think and What They Believe, make the same observation. As Shields puts it, “Christian conservatives have long been regarded as a grave threat to a democratic culture that is sustained by public civility and reason. Yet, it is also one of the least examined beliefs.â€

Rawlings doesn’t single out evangelicals, but is troubled also by Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives who have affirmed a statement that their faith informs their policy-making. Why? To Rawlings, the separation of church and state means that religiously grounded arguments are somehow uniquely undemocratic because they are grounded in assumptions not shared by all persons. “Religiously-derived arguments,†he wrote previously, “must bear two burdens: they must be clearly identified as propositions of faith; and, in acknowledging that others do not share these propositions of faith, they must be supported by other arguments.â€

Rawlings might consider being more inclusive still, and extending his critique to secularism. After all, secular arguments are no different in this regard from religious arguments—they too are grounded in propositions not shared by all persons. What is needed here is to distinguish between secularization and secularism. Secularization is the institutional separation of religion from government. This separation is essential to liberal democracy, and perfectly compatible with most faith traditions. Secularism is an ideology that essentially competes with religious faiths as a comprehensive world-view. In the end, the view that religious reasons should be excluded from public debates effectively establishes secularism as a kind of state religion, which is, needless to say, illiberal.

When religion is linked directly with state power, Rawlings points out, it tends to be repressive and exclusionist. But this only shows that secularism functions the same way as religion. When Rawlings writes of “the absolutist tendencies of religion,†one wonders what he makes of the absolutist tendencies of secularism? When he writes that “religion serves society best when it acts with restraint,†is not the same true of secularism? Violence, after all, is not a religious or a secular problem—it is a human problem.

In early modern times, following the era of religious wars, the longing for a public square cleansed of religious discourse perhaps was understandable. Today, after a century of secular wars, it is mere nostalgia. It is what one philosopher has called “a politics of a community with a shared perspective.†The good news is that there is a better way—“a politics of multiple communities†in which all persons, no matter what their religion or irreligion, have as much liberty as possible to live their lives as they see fit and to speak in the public square in a voice of their own. Simply put, this is a more vigorous—and more inclusive—version of pluralism.

But if we tolerate all traditions, including secularism, in the public square, we are back to the question: How can we all get along? This is perhaps where the secularist account of religion is most mistaken, for not only is religious faith generally not anti-democratic, but many faith traditions have resources that can be called upon to breathe life into and sustain liberal democracy.

Miroslav Volf is a Croatian theologian now teaching at Yale who specializes in conflict mediation and peace-making. Addressing the human longing for peace, Volf doesn’t pull any punches. “When it comes to violence,†he writes, “the track record of secularism is no better than that of religions. Most violence perpetrated in the twentieth century—the most violent in humanity’s history—was done in the name of secular causes.â€

The way forward, Volf argues, is not to deny or set aside differences of conviction, but to acknowledge and engage those differences. “The only way to attend to the problem of violent clashes among differing perspectives on life—whether religious or secular—is to concentrate on the internal resources of each for fostering a culture of peace.†Taking Christianity as but one example, Volf offers the following. “At the center of the Christian faith,†he writes, is “some version of the claim that God loved the sinful world and that Christ died for the ungodly (John 3:18; Romans 4:5), and that Christ’s followers must love their enemies no less than they love themselves.â€

This is not merely wishful thinking. According to Shields’ research, conservative Christians practice “deliberative norms†such as civility precisely because they understand these norms to be grounded in Scripture. Because “Christ commands Christians to love their neighbors,†he observes, “the violation of deliberative norms is not merely impolitic, it is also unfaithful.â€

Kicking the secularist habit, to borrow the title of Brooks’ article, requires one more thing. Just as latter-day Puritans must let go of their romanticized account of the American past as a Christian nation, secularists must let go of their idealized account of the American future as a secular nation.

To those who believed that pluralism would result in the privatizing or even the “withering away†of religion, the resurrection of religious faith at the turn of the twenty-first century has come as a surprise. But maybe it shouldn’t. After all, the democratic ideal of inclusion is linked to faith in more than one way.

Historian Joel Carpenter, also addressing the question of whether evangelicals are a threat to democracy, observes that evangelical students not only differ from Pat Robertson in their politics, but they increasingly differ from him in color. Why? Because of the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. New immigrants are primarily from the global south—especially Asia and Latin America—which also happens to be the most Christian part of the world. “Eighty percent of the Koreans in the US are Christian,†Carpenter notes. “Half of the nation’s Arab population is Christian.†Nowhere is this more evident than on college campuses that have prioritized diversifying their student bodies. Some campus ministries that were 100% white just 25 years ago are 90% Asian today.

In other words, not only have faith traditions contributed resources to liberal democracy, but democratic ideals have further facilitated the flourishing of faith. Generalizations about religion are almost impossible, but as for the Christian faith, it is inextricably linked as both cause and consequence of liberal democracy.

The final irony, then, is this. Secular academics and university administrators like Rawlings who would like to see religion remain private have embraced policies that ensure just the opposite. We are becoming more religious precisely because we are more diverse. Moreover, the religious faith of the global south knows nothing of the Enlightenment’s private-public compartmentalization. Secular nostalgia notwithstanding, we are headed for a more inclusive pluralism. Long live liberal democracy.

[SaggyBalls]

I'm saying governments should recognize religion, not on a document, but in their daily operation and should do their very best to be inclusive of all, if they are to ever promote the societal will to be inclusive of all.

Well...governments should probably recognize how special life is and how fortunate they are to have the privelege of working to improve it.

To me that's what the essence of 'the will of god' is. Bringing people together with the essence of goodness and support.

Who wants a hug?

[Thorgnor]

Birdy, where do I begin.

The article is interesting, although some sections seem based on less than evidence. For instance, the argument that (paraphrasing) "most wars in the past hundred years have been caused by secularism" has little to no support, my evidence being the language used by Bush in the Iraq Invasion.

But to say that you are all about diversity and finding a way to let people have their cake and eat it too...

This email just came in to me seconds ago:

Subject: Your big event

Stephanie,

The evening of Oct. 8 is Yom Kippur, the holiest night of the Jewish year and one clearly indicated on most calendars.

It is observed by 24 hours of fasting and prayer and this has been the case for thousands of years.

Please tell those who planned the event for this time that many of those who might have supported it will not be able to attend. And, further, that holding it then is at least thoughtless, if not offensive.

Sincerely,

Please! The world doesn't stop for the Jewish calendar!!

Obviously, this wasn't my response, but c'mon.... 'offensive'?? grrr.

This is less than thoughtful, considering your pontifications.

[Birdy]

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

[phishtaper]

Who wants a hug?

I'll take one.

[Birdy]

Birdy, where do I begin.

The article is interesting, although some sections seem based on less than evidence. For instance, the argument that (paraphrasing) "most wars in the past hundred years have been caused by secularism" has little to no support, my evidence being the language used by Bush in the Iraq Invasion.

But to say that you are all about diversity and finding a way to let people have their cake and eat it too...

This email just came in to me seconds ago:

Subject: Your big event

Stephanie,

The evening of Oct. 8 is Yom Kippur, the holiest night of the Jewish year and one clearly indicated on most calendars.

It is observed by 24 hours of fasting and prayer and this has been the case for thousands of years.

Please tell those who planned the event for this time that many of those who might have supported it will not be able to attend. And, further, that holding it then is at least thoughtless, if not offensive.

Sincerely,

Please! The world doesn't stop for the Jewish calendar!!

Obviously, this wasn't my response, but c'mon.... 'offensive'?? grrr.

This is less than thoughtful, considering your pontifications.

How so?

No, it's not.

If anything hopefully we'd progress to a state where having an event on Yom Kippur wouldn't cause angry Jewish people to send nasty emails insinuating unthoughtfulness because they'd realize that you know, calendars fill up.

Did you read the part about secularism radicalizing the religious?

[Kanada Kev]

What?

So you were just mad that somebody labelled you "offensive" and not the fact that the event didn't take into consideration one faith's high holiday?

You mention earlier the plight of some Muslims that don't like the fact that a University doesn't fit their timetable around their prayer breaks, but it's OK to organize events that don't fit another faith's holidays? Clarify please.

[Birdy]

Kev,

I think it's far more realistic that we would try to accommodate the daily ritual of a religious person than to assume that everyone will undoubtedly know when it's Yom Kippur, or Sikh holy day, or Greek Orthodox Christmas, or Bahai' 'we love everybody' day.

[phishtaper]

but steak and blowjob day is still on, right?

[Kanada Kev]

I think it's far more realistic that we would try to accommodate the daily ritual of a religious person than to assume that everyone will undoubtedly know when it's Yom Kippur, or Sikh holy day, or Greek Orthodox Christmas, or Bahai' 'we love everybody' day.

So, I guess it wouldn't be right then to have Muslims who require their 5-times a day prayers function as firefighters, police officers, military, etc?

Hold on, I have to put the hose down now to go and pray!

All i'm saying is that there are certain jobs/professions where specific religious requirements simply can not be accommodated. Any legislation on this part has to be adjusted accordingly.

Based on your "Biggest piece of religion pie" chart, it seems unfair that proceedings at public institutions/workplaces be halted for religious "breaks" during the day only be made for one or two religions and not for all. If it were made for all, then almost nothing would be accomplished.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

Nothing would be accomplished? What do you mean?

Muslim's prayer schedule is pretty generous... of course, there's specified times to pray but in reality, there exists within the religion a certain grace for extenuating circumstances. The salat doesn't take up an hour out of a work schedule. It can be done by allowing an employee to walk away from the hose for a few minutes and providing them with a clean and quiet place - like religious reflection rooms. Obviously this would apply to large institutions or companies; other than that, just acknowledging that your employee does have a certain faith and acting 'within reason' to accomodate that would definitely be the kind of good i'd hope for.

Assuming that 'nothing would get accomplished' because we allow employees or students to pray is kind of part of the problem, and (at least i think) kind of assumptive and not necessarily true.

[Kanada Kev]

Obviously this would apply to large institutions or companies; other than that, just acknowledging that your employee does have a certain faith and acting 'within reason' to accomodate that would definitely be the kind of good i'd hope for.

Totally agree with ya. That sounds like a fine way to operate. Only problem I see is that there are always those few that don't agree with the "within reason" and "try" and instantly will cry discrimination. How/where do you draw the line?

Assuming that 'nothing would get accomplished' because we allow employees or students to pray is kind of part of the problem, and (at least i think) kind of assumptive and not necessarily true.

I was just thinking that in a case where there is a largely diverse population (eg. University classes) that the whole thing just can't STOP because every so often a chunk of the class has to leave. Maybe it should be thought of more along the lines of what supercedes what? Much like other holidays some employees will argue that they should get the day off too, or non-smokers have to work more because they don't take 10 smoke-breaks during the day, why do classes only shut down for Christian and Jewish holidays, etc.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

Totally agree with ya. That sounds like a fine way to operate. Only problem I see is that there are always those few that don't agree with the "within reason" and "try" and instantly will cry discrimination. How/where do you draw the line?

A lot of the time (i think) it's primarily the policy existing in the first place that outlines the rules that lead people into those sticky situations when outcries of discrimination flourish. If it were to not really be covered specifically, but more like a blanket policy that states something along the lines of 'this company supports recognized religious affiliations' or something along those lines, and in that, allowed the Muslim to walk away from the hose to say his peace a couple of times a day (or within reason), that has more of a potential to work... possibly. And dealing with it in a case by case issue, where you'd pull such a coworker into your office and ask him what's going on, and have him tell you that he's saying the Salat and identify himself as one of those recognized religions, it could work. Because realistically those *few* who would be tempted to argue this, probably don't identify with religion anyway and are just looking to steal an extra break. And if it becomes an issue, by all means let them go and pray to Allah. We're not talking an extra lunch break here... that's important to make clear too. Or even just provide a clean and quiet place for Muslims to pray while they are on their breaks or lunch hour.

In the case of McGill and the Muslim students, they weren't asking for an adjustment of the time table, they were simply asking for a place to go and pray. Like i said earlier, Islam is lenient in their prayers and when they need to get done, as long as they get them done at some point... the students just wanted some place to do it.

[SaggyBalls]

Too bad the feeling is 'why should we' instead of 'how do we'.

[d_rawk]

Too bad the feeling is 'why should we' instead of 'how do we'

Wow, well said!

Fully onside with Yours Truly's comment, I have to admit that I'm getting confused by the the more general thread though. Birdy, you are talking about non-public institutions. Is your assertion that the government should mandate space and time for each religious group (and the myriad of denominations within them) within private non-governmental spaces? That seems rather radically leftist of you (I say that non-sarcastically, even).

The McGill prayer space issue is a complicated one .. I'm hesistant to weigh in on either side of it. There are very valid arguments on both sides and the solution, I suspect, is somewhere just slightly outside the imagination of both parties.

[Birdy]

No, i'm not asserting government's should mandate anything, moreso I'm just trying to explore some possibilities. My post was full of 'could's and 'possibly's. There's no point in saying 'yep that sucks' and not doing anything about it.

[d_rawk]

There's no point in saying 'yep that sucks' and not doing anything about it.

Agreed. Just trying to get on the same page. So you would like to change public perception in this area, then, moreso than public policy? That's a train I'd hop on.

(although I'd never schedule anything important on Yom Kippur .. sorry, couldn't help it)

[SaggyBalls]

How can we bring more quiet spaces to every corner of cities and towns?

How can we have prayer rooms and meditation rooms integrated into urban planning and professional design?

does it have to be a gov't mandate?

if not, how can we ensure people have the opportunity to live their lives as they desire?

[SaggyBalls]

while still having the ability to achieve professionally

[Birdy]

Agreed. Just trying to get on the same page. So you would like to change public perception in this area, then, moreso than public policy? That's a train I'd hop on.

(although I'd never schedule anything important on Yom Kippur .. sorry, couldn't help it)

haha... well, I didn't schedule it!

yep - trying to change public perception. jump on board!

Edited November 19, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

How can we bring more quiet spaces to every corner of cities and towns?

How can we have prayer rooms and meditation rooms integrated into urban planning and professional design?

does it have to be a gov't mandate?

if not, how can we ensure people have the opportunity to live their lives as they desire?

Stop being afraid, recognize polar extremes as polar extremes, fully realize we don't have all the answers, accept that our solutions to date aren't really solutions, talk to one another.

[d_rawk]

Stop being afraid, recognize polar extremes as polar extremes, fully realize we don't have all the answers, accept that our solutions to date aren't really solutions, talk to one another.

What she said, I think.

How can we bring more quiet spaces to every corner of cities and towns?

Quiet spaces for introspection (or extrospection <-- I think I just created a word) would be very useful, whether it is religiously grounded or not. We make some very poor decisions by virtue of being caught up in daily busy-ness .. breaks now and then to reconsider the bigger picture would probably be both useful and ultimately cost effective.

How to do it is an interesting logistical problem, but one that I think has actually already been largely solved. There are mosques, churches, synagogues, etc.. littered all over just about every city. And neat little hidden joints, too, that are either overtly ecumenical or willing to be ecumenical. I was surprised by the access to, say, non-programmed Quaker meeting rooms (and these are silent worship .. it can be secular introspection, Hindu worship, Christian worship, Muslim worship, etc..) in the Ottawa area until I moved here and looked them up. Including at Carleton U. (hope it is still there)

Also, you can claim them. See: earlier changeroom at unnamed electronics manufacturer post. I'm not much of a prayer, myself, but me and and the prayers claimed a space for our own silent purposes ourselves. This could actually be a social revolution movement in the making.

[d_rawk]

Also: this is one of the reasons that I think Muslims got the whole multiple prayers-per-day thing quite right. I worry, though, that it loses its value when your are doing it just 'because that is what you do' and forget that there is a reason to be doing it. Same as I hate dispassionate repetitions of the Lords Prayer (which I think is a work of absolute genius) out of convention. Great, great ideas, until you forget the reason behind the ideas.

[And please, someone call me on this, and demand a fight about the genius of the Lords Prayer. Hamilton, Marco, T.B.? I've got a book's worth of material in me that I've been waiting to spit out. And again, I'm not even a pray-er.]

[hamilton]

I'm not going to argue. As a secular humanist/atheist, I don't particularly have any use for the Lord's Prayer as a religious incantation. But I do like the "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" part - not because I think an imaginary sky-being will forgive me for anything, but I suppose it reminds people to be a little more generous towards others. And I suppose the "thy will be done on Earth" bit reminds people that they don't really have much control over a lot of the things that happen to them in their daily lives, and so it might be best not to get too worked upp over things outside of one's influence.

The problem is more to do with the fact that, as you said, I think most people find the ritual more important than the intent of the ritual.

I read a really great (and hilariously funny) book called "The Year of Living Biblically" by Esquire editor A.J. Jacobs, in which he spends an entire year trying as faithfully as possible to literally adhere to as many of the rules of the Bible (more the O.T. than the N.T., though) as he can. He starts out as an agnostic and ends up as one too, but is able to find value and meaning (whether intended by the religion or not) in some (but by no means all!) of the rules and requirements. It's not a religion-basher at all, and the dude is really fucking funny. I highly recommend it.

[phishtaper]

i have no idea what any of youse are talking about.

can't we just get back to name-calling?