There's a student in my Introduction to Religion class at the University of Miami -- let's call him Eric -- who isn't Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim. In fact, he doesn't subscribe to any particular religion. But he's not an atheist or indifferent to things religious, either. Instead, he has an immense curiosity for religion and refuses to be pigeonholed. He draws from them all for his life.
Eric and others like him represent the most interesting trend in our religious landscape. We all know that the United States is one of the most religious, and religiously diverse, nations in the world. We boast a dizzying array of Christianities; more Muslims than Episcopalians or Presbyterians; more Jews than there are in Israel; and thriving communities of Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and others. Our beliefs reflect this diversity. Sixty-five percent of Americans and, remarkably, thirty-seven percent of white evangelicals believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.
But what's important isn't an increasingly tolerant "live and let live" attitude toward religion. Even that still implies an arm-length relationship with other traditions. What I'm talking about is different. It's reflected in a survey presented a few months ago by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The survey reveals that Americans everywhere are becoming like Eric. We're going to yoga and taking Catholic communion. We're studying Zen meditation and keeping kosher. We're reading up on Sufism and believing in reincarnation. Americans are mixing religions.
We're a nation moving beyond religious pluralism. A religiously plural nation is a multi-religious nation, one where religions peacefully coexist. But within pluralism, religions are still watertight compartments. People aren't allowed to belong to more than one or to borrow the ideas and practices of another, without feeling like they're traitors to their faith. That's changed. In our emerging religious reality people are shattering the compartments and becoming multi-religious. We're no longer just a multi-religious nation. We're a nation of multi-religious people.
Let's welcome this development. It's an antidote to fundamentalism at home and abroad. At home, our population and our politics pull in opposite directions. While we're becoming multi-religious, our political process still refuses to accept anything other than an openly Christian president. While we're mixing faiths, Obama answered claims he was Muslim as if he were being slurred and both he and John McCain let Pastor Rick Warren cross-examine them on their beliefs. I imagine the President himself is pulled two ways. While he's Christian, he has some Muslim roots. He must be sensitive to the possibilities of multiple faiths.
What we do at home with religion shapes what happens abroad. Conservative Christian megachurches aren't just found in Arizona or Kentucky. They've spread as far as China. American models of religion replicate themselves around the globe. Given that we remain the world's most influential nation, I can't help but wonder: what if instead of exporting models of southern conservatism we exported an approach to religion that involved delving into them all? To build a life with elements from different religions is to tear down the walls between faiths that makes fundamentalism possible.
Some might think that approaching religion in this way betrays our Christian heritage. The truth is that we already have a rich history of experimentation across religious boundaries. Remember Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists. Think of Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. Recall Sarah Farmer's Greenacre community in Maine, a place where people of different religions came together to learn from each other and experiment with various faiths. Read John Dewey and Gordon Kaufman. It doesn't go against our heritage. It's already part of who we are.
The United States has always thought of itself as a great experiment. Let's not be shy about experimenting with multiple faiths as well.
Eileen Flanagan: Changing Faith: Why It's Not a Bad Thing
Your article was very interesting. I really liked the bit about "what if instead of exporting models of southern conservatism we exported an approach to religion that involved delving into them all?" because I think it's healthier for a lot of reasons and most open-minded, in my personal opinion.
Anyway, great writer. Hopefully, I'll see more of your stuff on here. :)
--Hyjanks
I find it a bit odd that you earlier in the article excluded atheists.....I guess they aren't inclusive?
I really don't care what you or anyone else believes. I only ask you don't force your beliefs on me or my fellow citizens living in this secular society (sorry, that is the true history of our nation, much as some pretend otherwise)
I might not admire religious people for their beliefs, but that doesn't mean I am intolerant in the sense that I'm intolerant. It simply means, I think such beliefs are a bit loopy.
But hey, we have all kinds of loopy beliefs in this wonderful nation of ours. All I ask is, one loopy belief doesn't get a some kind of free pass, let alone a free pass in forming our policies.
I don't think that is mean, or all that unfair.
Oh. And give the Tooth Fairy equal time on religious TV channels.
Not to be argumentative, but I've read both, and you are wrong. They are inclusive in the sense that those that make claims and can back their claims up with the tiniest bit of evidence that is lucid or coherent, get a seat at the table.
"They're completely intolerant towards religious people. "
If you define "religious people" to mean, people with claims that are incoherent, then I will agree.....but that is not exclusive to people of religious beliefs. That is a rather broad category that does not require religious belief by any stretch of the phrase.
And I fully agree with them. Incoherent arguments should be not given any free pass, no matter what category it falls under.
"Those guys are militant atheists."
For definitional sake, I'd appreciate if you could define "militant" as you used it here. Because you apparently have a far different definition of the word than I do.
"To be inclusive about religion you've got to be willing to learn from religion. Atheists aren't."
I'm sure such an atheist exists, but it definitely isn't any of the atheists you bring to the table. Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc, not only accept religion will continue no matter what we do, it is impossible to remove in any notable fashion.
Claiming that atheists are unwilling to learn from religion is more than a broad generalization - it's an uninformed opinion based on a prejudice, and just as intolerant as your perception of Harris and Hitchens.
To me, this article is a sad commentary on the state of this country. Truth is there, but no one really wishes to find Him. The result is chaos.
Not so I could notice ... and not discernible by the actions of Jesus followers.
Anyone who thinks Jesus got everything right did not read the bible.
Let me save you some time; don't bother looking because none exist.
... to religious cartoonism.
"The United States has always thought of itself as a great experiment. Let's not be shy about experimenting with multiple faiths as well."
I couldn't agree more. Then maybe we can see how absurd it all is. I can hardly wait for the pope's little enterprise to start offering E-meter sessions.