Between surfing a lot of blogs lately, reading lots of articles and other types of “religious news” pieces, and my own day-to-day work with teaching religion and religious studies, I come across a lot of stuff, some of which leaves me scratching my head, some that leaves me shaking it in disbelief, and, occasionally, some that permits me to nod it, either in agreement or in sleepy boredom.
Two pieces that fall into the “nod” category recently ran across my desk (or, more accurately, my Thinkpad screen). One is USA Today’s piece that reviews Stephen Prothero’s new book Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — and Doesn’t, available in bookstores tomorrow. The other is Martin Marty’s short little “op-ed” in today’s Sightings, out of the University of Chicago Divinity School. Marty’s article points out that the US “gets religion wrong” across the board, and he does not simply limit this to politicians. Marty calls out the secular humanists and politicians, but he is fully aware that dedicated, committed religious folks are every bit as part of the failure to get religion “right:” “Fault often lies with religious folk who agitate for the teaching ‘of’ religion – their religion – as normative and exemplary.” He goes on to note that “fault also lies with some tone-deaf academics, including Harvard faculty who ruled up and then ruled down religion requirements in the curriculum. And you can further fault the Rip Van Winkles who have been napping all these years” [note to Marty: many of them are still sound asleep, if not entirely comatose] “since religion came to be central in world affairs.” Marty knows as well as I do that there has scarcely ever been a time in history where religion has not been “central in world affairs,” but his point is well-taken. The general religious public, as much as the politicians, the media, clergy and other religious leaders, and academics are getting an F in religion, which is where Cathy Lynn Grossman’s USA Today article, “Americans get an ‘F’ in religion” comes in. Grossman’s review of Prothero’s new book points out what many academics in the study of religion already know to a certain degree, namely, that religious ignorance is a major problem for the US, and not least in terms of national security. I’m looking forward to reading the book, and Grossman gives enough quotes from it to get a sense of the implications of “bombing” the religion test: “If you think Sunni and Shia are the same because they’re both Muslim, and you’ve been told that Islam is about peace, you won’t understand what’s happening in Iraq. If you get into an argument about gay rights or capital punishment and someone claims to quote the Bible or the Quran, do you know it’s so? If you want to be involved, you need to know what they’re saying. We’re doomed if we don’t understand what motivates the beliefs and behaviors of the rest of the world. We can’t outsource this to the demagogues, pundits and preachers with a political agenda” (emphasis mine).
Here’s the rub, and I’m wondering if Prothero will address it in the book. Religious rhetoric is always political rhetoric. When Group A fears that its particular identity or worldview or ethical code is under assault by Groups B-Z, the Religious Rhetoric comes out. The thing is that Americans are bombing the test and failing the grade in the subject, so that the religious rhetoric being employed is ineffectual at best and downright dangerous at its (literally) terrifying and terrorizing worst. Rather than provide a forum for edifying debate, rhetorical ignorance, especially from the mouths of sophists like John Shelby Spong, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sam Hill, and of politicians and influential media personalities generally, sets the stage for a demonizing condemnation based completely on falsehoods, lies, half-truths, and misunderstandings, either willful or unintentional, all to ensure that “we” are ok, even if “we” are not necessarily in positions of power and influence. When we think we’re threatened, we need a scapegoat, and that scapegoat has had many faces.
The cure for religious ignorance isn’t religious or cultural relativism, but neither is it more indoctrination. It also matters little whether the individual believes in God or not or whether he or she is a committed and active member of a religious community. God’s existence isn’t the issue here, and neither is the argument that “religion” is historically more responsible for the world’s violence than any other factor and, accordingly, should be done away with. Religion is not going anywhere, and this is true regardless of whether God really exists or not. Rather than spend our time focusing on all the differences between “our” religion and “their” religion and using those as points of attack, we should be figuring out what the similarities are between us and what our mutual concerns are, both spiritually and “earthly,” and learning how each religious tradition addresses those concerns using their particular cultural expressions from their own wells of tradition. Then, and only then, can we start a dialog that discusses differences without demonizing the Other. Contrary to the popular expressions of relativistic religious pluralism, religions are not all saying the same thing. Religious traditions, including those in the same larger tradition (such as Sunni, Shi’a or Ahmadiyya Muslims in Islam or Baptist, Holiness, or Catholic denominations in Christianity) began with different answers to problems that are common to our humanity and yet which are also unique to specific historical and cultural circumstances, and they express these differently today and have entirely different goals and objectives now than they did when they started.
The immediate challenge, as I see it, is combating ignorance of our own traditions, whether we profess to be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else. Prothero’s book may be a good start, but this can’t simply be the domain of academics. It needs to get into our houses of worship, our families, and, yes, our schools. We simply have to start with the basics of our own traditions and with those religions that so clearly have an impact on our current global situation. If we fail to at least understand who “we” are, we’re going to continue to bomb a lot more than just Religion 101.
Just ask the Iraqis.
I tend to not remark too much on Islam or other religions because I know very little about them. Having a surface knowledge of their “Holy Books” which I do, is not enough to engage a person in a stimulating, intelligent conversation.
Unfortunately that’s what happens with other Christians at times, who have not taken the time to digest the Word of God. Inevitably they fall back on rhetoric and harsh words. At that point it’s time to abandon the conversation. “Study to show yourself approved…”
By: cumby on 13 March 2007
at 12:04 am
In an introductory religious studies course at UC, a professor designed the course around the hypothesis or argument that universities have invented the idea that there is something called “religion” that can be separately identified and studied (like math, for example.) The course examines how scholars have presented religion since the 19th century. He began, I remember, with Frazer and the Golden Bough, in which the common element in religions is described as myth. He then covered Freud, Marx and Durkheim, who identified the common element in psychological or political or social terms. Next came Otto, who identified the common element as a universal reaching out to a divine presence. Then he contrasted these with more contemporary approaches that are nonreductionist, such as that of Jonathan Z. Smith (Imagining Religion.) He described Eliade’s approach as transitional, between the reductionists and the nonreductionists.
What do you think about this hypothesis or argument?
By: Ken on 13 March 2007
at 10:27 am
I agree that it is a common misconception today that all the religions are saying the same thing. of course there may be some similarities that are very general but the deeper one goes into the details of each religion the more vastly different they become.
By: saintsophia on 13 March 2007
at 10:37 am
Hi Ken,
This sounds somewhat like R. McCutcheon’s take on “religion,” which probably is the generally accepted notion of religion in the academy. It’s sensible enough, as long as we’re only talking about the academic study of religion, but it sounds like this course started a bit “late,” meaning that the academic interest in “religion” predates Frazer. I tend to think that Universities didn’t invent “religion,” but instead invented a way to talk about what Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and so forth were doing and why they did what they did in ways that were not (on paper, anyway) constrained by clerical orthodoxy and dogmatism. In other words, it was an attempt to talk about “religions” without also being “theological.” It’s been ongoing ever since; a model comes along, like the “myth” model, which is shown to be insufficient, and a new one replaces it, and so on. What’s different now, as you point out, is that the reductionism itself has long been shown to be insufficient, and “theology” is making a major comeback as a result. If “god-talk” is part of understanding religions, it’s theological by definition, and also, I argue, rhetorical through and through. I have a lot more to say about the rhetorical imperative of Religious talk, which includes academese, and the “part two” of this little blog-series largely consists of that aspect.
By: Benedict on 13 March 2007
at 4:19 pm
Hi Audrey, I agree. The unhealthy habit has been to reduce all religions to one common denominator, which, as I just wrote to Ken, doesn’t really work; same is true in actual praxis of faith, so we need to recognize both similarity and difference. I suggest that the study of difference, as it’s gone for the last, oh, 1,000 years, has resulted in mass religious ignorance and stupidity, and that maybe it’s time to try something else, like start with what we have in common, again, not just in the academy, but in our houses of worship and homes.
By: Benedict on 13 March 2007
at 4:32 pm
The Ahmadiyya is not a Muslim sect, as unanimously decreed by all the leading Muslim scholars (ulama). They believe in a new prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, denying the universal Muslim belief of the Finality of Prophethood with Muhammad (pbuh).
Sunni and Shi’a are only politically different. Ahmadis are a different religion altogether.
By: shahid on 14 March 2007
at 12:54 am
Dear Shahid
Who told you that Ahmadies do not believe in finality of prophethood of Hadrat Muhammad (PBUH)? I have read their books and I believe their prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad expressed his love and passion for Hadrat Muhammad(PBUH) in such a manner that no other person and no other religion will be able to come near to him. And they believe in the finality of prohethood exactly the same way as it is mentioned in the Holy Quran. If you are really interested pls visit the following links:
http://www.alislam.org/library/links/00000086.html
http://www.alislam.org/library/links/hp_masih.html
these links shows the love and passion of Hadrat Mirza Gulam Ahmad for Hadrat Muhammad(PBUH).
And if you really want to know about the Ahmadi’s believe in finality of prophethood pls visit the following link
http://www.alislam.org/books/truth/finality.html
By: Ahsan on 14 March 2007
at 5:28 am
Dang, I hate when I reply to the wrong post
“Amen, Amen, Amen! Put much more eloquently than I’ve done on my blog – but I couldn’t agree more! Thank you so much for writing this.”
By: Jodi on 16 March 2007
at 12:02 pm
[...] first is from Aedificium. Religion is not going anywhere, and this is true regardless of whether God really exists or not. [...]
By: teaching religion « The Journey on 16 March 2007
at 12:34 pm
[...] March 16th, 2007 · No Comments F-Bombs: Failing “Religion” (part one) [...]
By: Posts I Enjoyed Reading This Week 3//07 « christiannewsanalysis.com on 16 March 2007
at 4:05 pm
There are so many excellent points in this article. Understanding other viewpoints in no way undermines one’s personal convictions; it creates an opportunity to build a bridge.
By: Christian Curious? on 17 March 2007
at 11:32 am
Hi folks, thanks for the trackbacks, pings, and so forth. And Shahid, Ahsan, Christian Curious, and thanks for the comments. I appreciate the perspectives shared.
More on this topic this week.
By: Benedict on 18 March 2007
at 8:03 pm
[...] Posts Thoughts in yet another snowstorm in central New YorkF-Bombs: Failing “Religion” (part one)A Wise Man Once Said:Control [...]
By: Cue the Donald: "You're Fired!" « Aedificium on 20 March 2007
at 8:19 pm
[...] 2007 For those readers who have been looking forward to the second part of my original “Failing Religion” post back in … what, March, was it?… I apologize for the delay. But I’m [...]
By: Failing Religion: Part Two « Aedificium on 29 April 2007
at 9:40 pm
[...] his own JSU! Award, but we may have to institute the F-Bomb Award for Religious Ignorance (see here, here, and here, all on Aedificium) as [...]
By: You too, Pat. « Aedificium on 14 June 2007
at 1:02 pm