There was a time in American culture, only a few generations ago, when religious differences were major. Baptists were not Methodists, and both were definitely not Presbyterians. Catholics were absolutely not Protestant, and Protestants doubted that Catholics were even Christians. Jews and Mormons were whole other species. Non-religious Americans were beyond the pale. And Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus were heathen living in faraway places. The problem with that world, we now see, was the destructive bigotry, misunderstanding, conflict and sometimes hatred that went with it. Let us call that world one of sectarian conflict.
We have come in America today to a very different world, which we might call liberal whateverism. This outlook reacts against sectarian conflict by dramatically discounting the claims of religion. The more aggressive side of this view asserts that religion per se is pernicious and should be eliminated or radically privatized. The more accommodating side says religion is fine as a personal lifestyle commodity, but that religious inclinations are ultimately arbitrary and should not be taken too seriously.
I have been studying the lives of American teenagers and emerging adults for the past decade. In our recently published book, "Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood," my co-authors and I describe the larger world in which liberal whateverism makes sense. Many emerging adults have few considered moral bearings, are devoted to mass consumerism, routinely become intoxicated and engage in casual sexual hook-ups, are civically and politically uninformed and alienated. Our story is not a tirade against "kids these days." It is about wider, deeper problems in American society and culture -- concerns that should trouble liberals and conservatives -- which show up in disquieting ways in the lives of youth.
Liberal whateverism was obvious among most of the emerging adults we studied. About 10 percent were militantly atheistic. But the vast majority opted for the more accommodating "whatever" default. Anyone could take religion or leave it. It was an individual "opinion" that didn't matter much.
Most interesting was the belief of a significant minority in "karma." This meant to them simply the idea that, in some mysterious way, good and bad people would get what they deserve in this life. Few emerging adults know anything about the religious traditions that seriously teach karma. "Karma" is simply a reminder that they should try to do the right thing and a substitute for anger or revenge against bad people by believing they will soon get their comeuppance. Karma is a way to try to sustain justice in our moral universe without having to appeal to a personal God or a real judgment day.
As a sociologist, I view this belief in karma as socially functional and psychologically therapeutic. But I doubt it works over time. Good and bad people do not always get what they deserve. Sometimes the wicked prosper and horrible things happen to good people. Without a metaphysical view explaining the reality and power of karma, belief in its mysterious capacity to achieve this-worldly justice can easily slide into cynicism. And from most faith perspectives, pop karma is shallow, naïve and perhaps even disrespectful to the religious traditions which teach it. Claiming it as many emerging adults do is somehow like stealing candy from the Bhagavad Gita giftshop.
Is there not a better way for all of us to take religion more seriously without descending into sectarian conflict? That is one of the most important questions of our day.
I think we need to reject both sectarian conflict and liberal whateverism and commit ourselves instead to an authentic pluralism. Genuine pluralism fosters a culture that honors rather than isolates and disparages religious difference. It affirms the right of others to believe and practice their faith, not only in their private lives but also in the public square -- while expecting them to allow still others to do the same. Authentic pluralism does not minimize religious differences by saying that "all religions are ultimately the same." That is false and insipid. Pluralism encourages good conversations and arguments across differences, taking them seriously precisely because they are understood to be about important truths, not merely private "opinions." It is possible, authentic pluralism insists, to profoundly disagree with others while at the same time respecting, honoring, and perhaps even loving them. Genuine pluralism suspects the multi-cultural regime's too-easy blanket affirmations of "tolerance" of being patronizing and dismissive. Pluralism, however, also counts atheist Americans as deserving equal public respect, since their beliefs are based as much on a considered faith as are religious views and so should not be automatically denigrated.
We as a society and a culture have much to learn about ourselves from teenagers and emerging adults, both good and bad. One of those things, I believe, is the need to get beyond not only sectarian conflict but also liberal whateverism, to a more respectful and just world of authentic religious pluralism.
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
World religions - Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Hang on. I cant let that one slide by without comment. There is no such thing as militantly atheistic so please, please, please stop using the platform to try and paint anyone that has an atheist viewpoint as "militant" - unless you descibe the opposite end of the spectrum as militant/fundamentalist christian etc.
(You wont of course because then anyone of religious faith automatically would fall in to that category!).
I dont remember that particular ad. The ones I have seen did not say God is dead but that it is probably not true so stop worrying.
If it did say that I wouldn't support it. Primarily because to say God is dead is to accept he previously existed which would not be an athiest position and so make the ad nonsense.
Yes, religion has been divisive (a source of sectarian conflict) and even violence. But I think it's important to debunk the myth that religion has been the primary source of violence. Secular (atheistic) regimes have been the primary source of violence. Some of them have (like Hitler) used religion as a kind of side kick to their godless agendas. But it is factually wrong to assume that religion is the primary source to conflict. See: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/category/blaming-religion/
As to the concept of authentic religious pluralism, yes, we will need to revitalize a culture of honor (see: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/culture-of-honor-or-culture-of-law/ ) and restore tolerance to the virtue it was meant to be instead of the politically correct distortion on offer today (see: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/when-tolerance-backfires/).
Os Guinness wrote: "In a day of exploding diversity, the real question is: how do we live with our deepest differences when many of those differences are absolute, including those of secularism?”
Also, your culture-of-honor link about how we need to revitalize culture is extremely wrong. It looks back at the earlier American culture and tries to say it was a great place where people lived by honor. It must have been great unless you were Black, Native America, Hispanic, Asian, or poor.
You might want to actually try to think about peoples' points thinkpoint.
Religion was undoubtedly a factor in many wars in the past, but far from the main factor, IMO. Spain and England, for example, would have been rivals and enemies during the years around the Armada whether or not they were of opposing religions, just as France and England had been enemies centuries before, when they were both Catholic.
A clear example of how strong religious belief can motivate strong respect and tolerance for all other beliefs is Mormonism. From its earliest days, Mormons taught the importance of religious freedom for all, and its own doctrines reflect the belief that God has favored the good in all religious traditions. Consistent with Mormon doctrines, a recent national survey showed that 100% of Mormons believe that people of other faiths can "go to heaven", a full tolerance for religious diversity that exists BECAUSE of Mormons' strong belief in their doctrines that all humans are literal spirit children of a loving Heavenly Father, who lived with him for eons before their birth, and whose return to God's presence in eternity has been enabled by Christ's atonement ensuring resurrection for all men and women of every faith or none, and assurance of a heavenly reward for good people of every denomination and faith. See this recent speech by BYU professor of Arabic: http://www.fairlds.org//FAIR_Conferences/2011_Mormonism_Islam_and_the_Question_of_Other_Religions.html
People who are committed to LW as the path to social peace get very upset (in my experience) when people with strong religious commitments assert that it is precisely their religious commitments that cause them to tolerate people with divergent religious beliefs (including atheism). The classic Christian parable of the Good Samaritan was a lesson teaching that God required the committed and orthodox Jews to tolerate and actually show love toward the heretic Samaritans, who practiced a divergent form of Judaism that rejected the prophets after Moses and the construction of the Temple of Solomon and its successors in Jerusalem.
Oh, great, so it's a complete contrast to this article. Yeah, I'm really sure it's not a tirade against the kids.
I've been thinking about how exactly the term "liberal whateverism" was hatched in the brain of Prof Smith or one of his like-minded colleagues. I have a theory that perhaps decades' worth of students have realized too late what an awful mistake it was to take one of his classes, and as they've sat there groaning and shaking there heads at his tirades about how depraved young people and everything non-Christian was, very often an exasperated whispered "Whatever!" has escaped their lips. I'm picturing classrooms full of unwilling captive audiences much more often than open give-and-take between the teacher and the students. (Some teachers have become teachers because it allows them to be tyrants and force young people to at least behave as if they respect them. It's very unfortunate.) Maybe Prof. Smith has heard many, many of those whispered, tortured "Whatever!" 's over the years, maybe they only seeped into his brain subliminally.
Those participating in the culture of faith usually have some idea of what they practice. They may not know the differences between one faith and another -- but they know there are differences. Often, the biggest difference is someone reaching out to them, making them feel important and welcome.
The biggest factors in religious intolerance are clergy -- particularly fundamentalist clergy. They rail against others, stir up the congregation to totally reject others, and demand that those who really worship God should worship as they do.
On the other hand, knowing God is a lot harder than thinking you know God. There are 25000 different Christian denominations and sects in the US alone. Every other religion has different sects and opinions also. If knowing God's will could be absolutely certain, there shouldn't be so many opinions.
Perhaps those of faith who are truly tolerant of other faiths are so because they realize that one's faith which might be a matter of where they were born geographically, not about "right faith" or "wrong faith". Faith is both cultural and individual. Western education and emphases on individualism have overcome some cultural imperatives toward prescribed belief structures.
Education promotes tolerance. Lack of education promotes intolerance.
Jesus loves me, this I know.
For the Bible tells me so.
I cannot think for myself so
I get my brains off a shelf.
Well fine let's take care of that then! No time like the present! Basic tenets, here we go! First up: Christianity!
I think you can find the basic tenets of Protestant Christianity in something called the Apostles' Creed! I could be wrong, though! But anyway, here it is!
"I believe in God the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord:
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
the third day he rose from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting."
Yep - the poor fellow was dead for three days, but then he got up, and went for a walk! No wonder he has a religion named after him!
Now you might be wondering why Protestants would be affirming that they believe in "the holy catholic church." Well nobody ever told me, so I don't know!
I also never understood what the "Holy Spirit" is! So, please don't ask me!
I also have no idea what the Holy Spirit is supposed to be. Never got an adequate explanation.
There are basically two of them, I guess! (But I could be wrong!)
1. The basic tenets of Christianity are actually incorrect!
2. God is Allah, and If you want to know what Allah thinks, you can find out by reading the Qur'an, which is a rather long message from Allah, delivered directly to Muhammad!
3. If you don't accept the previous two tenets, you'll be spending your eternal afterlife in a "blazing fire," and that's just the way it goes!
Okay, now we'll cover the Basic Tenets of Christianity:
There are basically two of them, I guess! (But I could be wrong!)
1. The basic tenets of Christianity is that all other faiths are incorrect!
2. God is Jesus, and If you want to know what Jesus thinks, you can find out by reading the bible, which is a rather long message from The One True God(tm), delivered directly to the world (via many men over several centuries)!
3. If you don't accept the previous two tenets, you'll be spending your eternal afterlife in a "blazing fire," and that's just the way it goes!
See, not too hard to do.
As for this bit:
"Pluralism, however, also counts atheist Americans as deserving equal public respect, since their beliefs are based as much on a considered faith as are religious views and so should not be automatically denigrated."
That's just silly. Atheism isn't a faith position. At its least, it's a failure to be convinced by the God-claims of believers. At its most, it's simply recognizing that "God," as commonly described, is impossible to exist. My disbelief in a three-sided square isn't also a "faith claim," is it?
the two definitions actually work together.
As for your last question--yes it is a faith claim.
You wouldn't exist without faith, television wouldn't exist without faith, nothing would exist without
faith. Faith actually has nothing to do with religion and is not exclusive TO religion. They just
claim it more vocally than anyone else and they treat it as if it were a mystery, therefore it
belongs to religion. Faith isn't a mystery. Faith is a belief that something can be done or will be
done and it underlies all of man's achievements. It is not a religious attribute per se.
But, as long as you accept the term as a 'religious term' then you will forever be mired in religious
debates of one kind or another and you will miss out on many of the great benefits this world
offers you, free of charge.
This is wrong for two reasons. One, Atheists are not making a faith claim, they are rejecting a faith claim. To say it requires faith to reject faith is either a circular argument or a tautology, I'm having a tough time deciding.
The second problem, it seems to suggest it is OK to discriminate against people that don't have faith....and when you add my first point.....