This (30-slide) powerpoint presentation was the introduction to a course on Religion and Political Controversy in the U.S. Largely based on Barbara McGraw\'s "Taking Religious Pluralism Seriously" (2005), it outlines the historical origins of the American political theology behind the Constitution, frames the stakes and issues, and introduces the controversies that my students wrestled with throughout the course.
Great Challenges for World Peace book 5Miguel Cano
In this book we analyze the great challenges that humanity would have to overcome if we want to achieve a stable and lasting peace for the new millennium.
A first big problem is to end hunger and poverty in the world and achieve a global equalization of wealth.
The second great challenge of our days is to try to solve the problem of moral degradation and widespread corruption at all levels of society.
A third major challenge is to prevent the wars and conflicts between nations, ethnic groups or cultures that caused such disastrous humanitarian consequences in the twentieth century, as well as to solve the serious problem of international terrorism.
Steve Biko has gone down as a hero in South Africa. He has also been widely denigrated for the glaring similarities between his views and the 1960s classic Black Power by Stokely Carmichael. This work examines this seeming plagiarism in its socioeconomic context.
Great Challenges for World Peace book 5Miguel Cano
In this book we analyze the great challenges that humanity would have to overcome if we want to achieve a stable and lasting peace for the new millennium.
A first big problem is to end hunger and poverty in the world and achieve a global equalization of wealth.
The second great challenge of our days is to try to solve the problem of moral degradation and widespread corruption at all levels of society.
A third major challenge is to prevent the wars and conflicts between nations, ethnic groups or cultures that caused such disastrous humanitarian consequences in the twentieth century, as well as to solve the serious problem of international terrorism.
Steve Biko has gone down as a hero in South Africa. He has also been widely denigrated for the glaring similarities between his views and the 1960s classic Black Power by Stokely Carmichael. This work examines this seeming plagiarism in its socioeconomic context.
One of the most important International Relation Theory is English School of Thought. In addition, it includes wide average of International Relations Theories.
PowerPoint developed for lectures on Liberalism and delivered to PS 240 Introduction to Political Theory at the University of Kentucky, Spring 2007 by Dr. Christopher S. Rice, Instructor.
In this book, as summary and conclusion, we will list a number of basic and fundamental assertions that could be elevated to the category of universal ethical principles.
These ethical principles could help to resolve cultural, religious, nationalist or political conflicts between nations, as well as the problems of world hunger, corruption of ruling elites, social injustices and evils, and moral degradation of families and individuals.
They could also serve to regulate harmonious and peaceful coexistence between individuals, families, communities, nations and civilizations that ultimately leads to a stable and lasting world peace
We wish you joy in your celebrations during this shining season … and we thank you for all you do to make philanthropy shine. We are especially grateful to our partners in extraordinary organizations nationwide who invite us to advance their missions through inspirational donor recognition. For every beautiful moment represented in these images from 2014, there have been a hundred more … thanks to you.
One of the most important International Relation Theory is English School of Thought. In addition, it includes wide average of International Relations Theories.
PowerPoint developed for lectures on Liberalism and delivered to PS 240 Introduction to Political Theory at the University of Kentucky, Spring 2007 by Dr. Christopher S. Rice, Instructor.
In this book, as summary and conclusion, we will list a number of basic and fundamental assertions that could be elevated to the category of universal ethical principles.
These ethical principles could help to resolve cultural, religious, nationalist or political conflicts between nations, as well as the problems of world hunger, corruption of ruling elites, social injustices and evils, and moral degradation of families and individuals.
They could also serve to regulate harmonious and peaceful coexistence between individuals, families, communities, nations and civilizations that ultimately leads to a stable and lasting world peace
We wish you joy in your celebrations during this shining season … and we thank you for all you do to make philanthropy shine. We are especially grateful to our partners in extraordinary organizations nationwide who invite us to advance their missions through inspirational donor recognition. For every beautiful moment represented in these images from 2014, there have been a hundred more … thanks to you.
Excerpts from the 2011 World Day of Peace Message from Pope Benedict XVI on Religious Liberty. It ends with an American perspective on religious liberty during the constitutional debate of 1788
The Human Rights and their deficiencies book 6Miguel Cano
Human rights, despite being an example of values accepted almost universally, seem incomplete and insufficient, since, by placing exclusively the emphasis on individual rights, they relegate to the background the responsibilities of people towards others.
Therefore, human rights are difficult to accept by many of the traditional Eastern cultures that emphasize, instead, family and community duties.
Thus, in order to achieve the desired goal of world peace, a global intercultural and interreligious consensus should be sought in a shared core values that harmonize traditional cultural values with modern democratic ideals.
Defining CultureCulture as a Shared System of Meaning.docxvickeryr87
Defining Culture
Culture as a Shared System of Meaning
Culture: the knowledge that people in groups share and learn, which helps them to interpret and generate behavior
Components of Culture
Abstract body of knowledge expressed in various things throughout society
Beliefs, values, ideals, expectations, explanations
Ways of acting and interacting
People in groups (can not have a culture of one)
Culture as communication from individuals to the group
Cultures spawn subculture (subset of larger culture)
Subcultures have more of an impact on an individual’s lifestyle because they are more specialized
Have mostly to do with how you construct your reality, although you are still part of the national culture
What are some subcultures that you belong to?
Enculturation: the process of learning one’s own culture—also known as cultural learning.
Primary learning period is from birth to age seven
Continue learning throughout entire life
Dual-process of enculturation
Tacit: understood learning (observed/experienced learning)
Tacit learning is more valuable
Explicit: stated or written
Formal codes, laws, institutions
Sanctions: system of rewards and punishments
*Example of cultural learning: Southern California freeways. How does being able to survive on the freeways of Southern California require a combination of tacit and explicit cultural knowledge?
Cultural knowledge helps you interpret behavior and generate your own behavior
Allows individuals to act among others and be understood
Evolves and changes
Question to consider:
What are some examples of the way cultural knowledge has changed over time?
For example, look at the way we understand
gender in the contemporary moment—how has what it means to be a woman changed since even the beginning of the 20th century?
Set of ideas to defend/rationalize the distribution of power
Inequalities are arbitrary in that they are socially constructed/socially agreed upon
So what does this mean?
System of beliefs about the world that involves distortions of reality at the same time it provides justification for the status quo.
Ideology serves the interests of groups in the society who justify their position by distorting social definition of reality.
Social control? Gives “us” a definition of reality that is false, yet it simultaneously orders our comprehension of the surrounding world, it constructs our reality.
Ideology: system of justification (or to make right) of arbitrary inequalities
A social construction, or social construct, is an idea which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society.
Social constructs are in some sense human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature.
Obvious social constructs include such things as games, language, money, governments, universities, corporations and other institutions.
Less obvious social constru.
Week 1 What is Global Social JusticeIntroductionSimply put, .docxcelenarouzie
Week 1: What is Global Social Justice?
Introduction
Simply put, social justice is the concept of a "just" society based on a foundation of human rights. Most agree with the idea of basic human rights for all, yet, the nature of human rights varies dramatically around the world. When you consider social justice on a global level, think about the challenge of achieving a "just" society for every human being. What is considered "right" or "just" for all? Is it possible to have a universal acceptance of one interpretation of social justice?
This week you consider varied interpretations of social justice. You explore classic documents and analyze them for Western bias and universal applicability. Finally, you explain your personal ideology regarding social justice.
Learning Resources
Please read and view (where applicable) the following Learning Resources before you complete this week's assignments.
· Enter your MyWalden user name: ([email protected]) and password (3#icldyoB1) at the prompt. (if necessary)
Readings
· Book Excerpt: Wronka, J. M. (2008). Chapter 2: Before and beyond the universal declaration of human rights. In Human rights and social justice: Social action and service for the helping and health professions (pp. 43–65). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
· Book Excerpt: Gil, David G. (2008). Foreword. In J. M. Wronka, Human rights and social justice: Social action and service for the helping and health professions (pp. xvii–xviii). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
· Book Excerpt: Wronka, J. M. (2008). Part I: Human rights as the bedrock of social justice. In Human rights and social justice: Social action and service for the helping and health professions (pp. 5–36). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
· Book Excerpt: Wronka, J. M. (2008). Preface. In Human rights and social justice: Social action and service for the helping and health professions (pp. xix–xxiii). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
· Article: The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (1789). Thebill of rights. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
· Article: Roosevelt, F.D. (1944). The economic bill of rights. Franklin D. Roosevelt American Heritage Center Museum. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from http://www.fdrheritage.org/bill_of_rights.htm
· Article: United Nations, International Forum for Social Development. (2006). Dimensions of international justice and social justice. In Social justice in an open world: The role of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/ifsd/SocialJustice.pdf
· Article: United Nations. (1948). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Media
· Interactive Map: Social Justice Issues
Transcripts of the Interactive Map, "Social Justice Issues," are available at the following links:
IntroductionHuman Rights ViolationsCausesInterventionsSocial Justice Outcomes
.
Week 6, Reading Section 6.1 IntroductionIntroductionAs you wi.docxcockekeshia
Week 6, Reading Section 6.1: Introduction
Introduction
As you will recall, from Week 3, the Plagues of the Fourteenth Century had disastrous effects on Europe. Many of today’s developments can be traced as having their root, causative factors in that Century. There were two others: the Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and successive Religious Wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War, 1618-48 and the English Civil War, 1642-48. In the wake of these events, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, respectively, Philosophers began to question all the presuppositions of Life.
You are about to encounter another such development, which grew from this questioning: Social Contract Theory.
Resource: Social Contract Theory [PDF]
Up to the times of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, few, if anyone, in Europe, questioned the origins of Society and the State. The prevailing theory was Aristotle’s, as it had been imported into Western Christianity, by Thomas Aquinas. This theory said that human beings were “Social Animals.” The underlying interpretation of that position is that human society is a given of human existence and has always been that way.
Week 6, Reading Section 6.2: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
II. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
The questions that Social Contract theorists, starting with Thomas Hobbes and continuing with John Locke, asked were: What were the origins of Society? What makes a “good” form of society? How does the State (meaning “government”) come into being?
Both Hobbes and Locke started from what they called the “State of Nature,” a wilderness, where all “men” (Hobbes speaks only of “men”; one wonders from whence he believed “men” came, without mention of women;) begin, having absolute rights and equality. Put another way, if one “man” encountered another, and a conflict arose about a resource, like food, came about, the right to kill would, regrettably, still be available to both. Fortunately, it occurred to our species that that was a lousy way to run a planet. Thus, the idea of “forming society” by “social contracts” occurred to someone. That was the moment that human beings left “the State of Nature,” and founded Society (a/k/a “Civil Society”).
A. Hobbes
Resource: End-of-Life Decisions [PDF]
Hobbes, being a friend and confidant of the Stuart Family, was a monarchist, and presupposed the existence of a “Sovereign.” In The Leviathan, Hobbes suggested that, in forming the Civil Society, people had to surrender their rights, in exchange for two things: (1) protection from each other, and (2) protection from outside threats. The question was: to what or whom did they have to surrender those rights? Hobbes’ answer was “the Sovereign,” a/k/a “the Leviathan,” an allusion to a mythical sea creature. What Hobbes meant was that “the Sovereign,” was the English Monarchy. The Stuart Family at the time, sat on the unified Throne of England, Wales, and Scotland at the time.
Resource: Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political .
They Trusted In Something Greater Than ThemselvesDavid Turner
The founding fathers of our nation trusted in something greater than the Declaration of Independence. They trusted in the Bible and the God of the Bible. Our present leaders would do well to put their trust in the same God and the same Bible.
Similar to Rels 162.Religion And Politics In The U.S (20)
The Good News, newsletter for June 2024 is hereNoHo FUMC
Our monthly newsletter is available to read online. We hope you will join us each Sunday in person for our worship service. Make sure to subscribe and follow us on YouTube and social media.
What Should be the Christian View of Anime?Joe Muraguri
We will learn what Anime is and see what a Christian should consider before watching anime movies? We will also learn a little bit of Shintoism religion and hentai (the craze of internet pornography today).
In Jude 17-23 Jude shifts from piling up examples of false teachers from the Old Testament to a series of practical exhortations that flow from apostolic instruction. He preserves for us what may well have been part of the apostolic catechism for the first generation of Christ-followers. In these instructions Jude exhorts the believer to deal with 3 different groups of people: scoffers who are "devoid of the Spirit", believers who have come under the influence of scoffers and believers who are so entrenched in false teaching that they need rescue and pose some real spiritual risk for the rescuer. In all of this Jude emphasizes Jesus' call to rescue straying sheep, leaving the 99 safely behind and pursuing the 1.
The PBHP DYC ~ Reflections on The Dhamma (English).pptxOH TEIK BIN
A PowerPoint Presentation based on the Dhamma Reflections for the PBHP DYC for the years 1993 – 2012. To motivate and inspire DYC members to keep on practicing the Dhamma and to do the meritorious deed of Dhammaduta work.
The texts are in English.
For the Video with audio narration, comments and texts in English, please check out the Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF2g_43NEa0
HANUMAN STORIES: TIMELESS TEACHINGS FOR TODAY’S WORLDLearnyoga
Hanuman Stories: Timeless Teachings for Today’s World" delves into the inspiring tales of Hanuman, highlighting lessons of devotion, strength, and selfless service that resonate in modern life. These stories illustrate how Hanuman's unwavering faith and courage can guide us through challenges and foster resilience. Through these timeless narratives, readers can find profound wisdom to apply in their daily lives.
The Chakra System in our body - A Portal to Interdimensional Consciousness.pptxBharat Technology
each chakra is studied in greater detail, several steps have been included to
strengthen your personal intention to open each chakra more fully. These are designed
to draw forth the highest benefit for your spiritual growth.
The Book of Joshua is the sixth book in the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament, and is the first book of the Deuteronomistic history, the story of Israel from the conquest of Canaan to the Babylonian exile.
Lesson 9 - Resisting Temptation Along the Way.pptxCelso Napoleon
Lesson 9 - Resisting Temptation Along the Way
SBs – Sunday Bible School
Adult Bible Lessons 2nd quarter 2024 CPAD
MAGAZINE: THE CAREER THAT IS PROPOSED TO US: The Path of Salvation, Holiness and Perseverance to Reach Heaven
Commentator: Pastor Osiel Gomes
Presentation: Missionary Celso Napoleon
Renewed in Grace
Exploring the Mindfulness Understanding Its Benefits.pptxMartaLoveguard
Slide 1: Title: Exploring the Mindfulness: Understanding Its Benefits
Slide 2: Introduction to Mindfulness
Mindfulness, defined as the conscious, non-judgmental observation of the present moment, has deep roots in Buddhist meditation practice but has gained significant popularity in the Western world in recent years. In today's society, filled with distractions and constant stimuli, mindfulness offers a valuable tool for regaining inner peace and reconnecting with our true selves. By cultivating mindfulness, we can develop a heightened awareness of our thoughts, feelings, and surroundings, leading to a greater sense of clarity and presence in our daily lives.
Slide 3: Benefits of Mindfulness for Mental Well-being
Practicing mindfulness can help reduce stress and anxiety levels, improving overall quality of life.
Mindfulness increases awareness of our emotions and teaches us to manage them better, leading to improved mood.
Regular mindfulness practice can improve our ability to concentrate and focus our attention on the present moment.
Slide 4: Benefits of Mindfulness for Physical Health
Research has shown that practicing mindfulness can contribute to lowering blood pressure, which is beneficial for heart health.
Regular meditation and mindfulness practice can strengthen the immune system, aiding the body in fighting infections.
Mindfulness may help reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and obesity by reducing stress and improving overall lifestyle habits.
Slide 5: Impact of Mindfulness on Relationships
Mindfulness can help us better understand others and improve communication, leading to healthier relationships.
By focusing on the present moment and being fully attentive, mindfulness helps build stronger and more authentic connections with others.
Mindfulness teaches us how to be present for others in difficult times, leading to increased compassion and understanding.
Slide 6: Mindfulness Techniques and Practices
Focusing on the breath and mindful breathing can be a simple way to enter a state of mindfulness.
Body scan meditation involves focusing on different parts of the body, paying attention to any sensations and feelings.
Practicing mindful walking and eating involves consciously focusing on each step or bite, with full attention to sensory experiences.
Slide 7: Incorporating Mindfulness into Daily Life
You can practice mindfulness in everyday activities such as washing dishes or taking a walk in the park.
Adding mindfulness practice to daily routines can help increase awareness and presence.
Mindfulness helps us become more aware of our needs and better manage our time, leading to balance and harmony in life.
Slide 8: Summary: Embracing Mindfulness for Full Living
Mindfulness can bring numerous benefits for physical and mental health.
Regular mindfulness practice can help achieve a fuller and more satisfying life.
Mindfulness has the power to change our perspective and way of perceiving the world, leading to deeper se
Exploring the Mindfulness Understanding Its Benefits.pptx
Rels 162.Religion And Politics In The U.S
1. San Jose State University
Humanities Department
Program in Comparative Religious Studies
RELS 162:
Religion and Political
Controversy
Professor Jeffrey W. Danese
Spring Semester 2010
2. Introduction to the Course and to
the Assignment
Course Description
In this course, we will examine how religion is a major force in
contemporary conflicts in America, and how religion plays a
role in the ongoing political life of the United States. The
course addresses the role of institutional religions and
personal religious practice in shaping public debates.
Religious pluralism in the US and the history of recent and
contemporary events will provide us with the contexts for
examining these and related “contemporary problems (e.g.
ecology, abortion, war, gender, sexuality and race) as
interpreted by a diverse range of American ethno-religious
groups” (SJSU course catalogue).
3. The Assignment
Class divided into 7 groups of 4-5 students tasked
with reading a book selected from a list
Each Group to select controversial topic related to
the book, and develop a 15 minute video pod cast
that complies with university accessibility
standards and to be posted to SJSU’s iTunes U
web site
Based on instructor-provided format; to outline the
topic, the stakes, to ask questions, and provide an
overview of scholarly perspectives and resources
for further reading
4. The Presentations
1. Introduction to “America’s Sacred Ground”
- Prof. Jeff Danese
2. Republican Gomorrah - Group 1
3. Persp’s on Race, Ethnicity, and Rel - Group 2
4. What’s the Matter With Kansas? - Group 3
5. American Fascists - Group 4
6. Terror in the Name of God - Group 5
7. God in the White House - Group 6
8. God and Race in America - Group 7
9. Summary and Conclusion
- Prof. Jeff Danese
5. Presentation #1: Introduction to
“America’s Sacred Ground”
Primary text books for the course:
McGraw & Formicola (Eds). (2005) Taking
Religious Pluralism Seriously: Spiritual Politics
on America’s Sacred Ground, Baylor University
Press.
Fowler, Hertzke, Olson, & Dulk. (2010). Religion and
Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic
Choices, 4th
Ed. Westview Press.
6. A Place to Start…
Barbara A. McGraw and
“America’s Sacred Ground”
Problem: current polarized public debate
Solution: rediscovery of founding fathers’ idea for
American political system
2 Texts: Polemics and practical solutions
and/or
Objectivity and comprehensiveness ??
7. Building the Good Society
Traditional Christian political theory:
Premised on sinful nature of humans that
required restraint, uniformity, coercion.
Church’s moral order enforced by state
State’s authority supported by church
Top-Down
8. Protestant Reformation
John Locke (1632-1704) - secular or religious
philosopher?
Priesthood of believers
Traditional top-down system corrupt
God revealed to individuals through revelation, insight,
nature, and reason.
Government’s duty is to protect individual conscience,
inalienable rights.
The true and the good emerges from the ground-up.
McGraw sees Locke as a religious philosopher, though
most historians do not.
9. John Locke’s Political Theology
Limited government and church
Relies on goodwill of common folk
“social contract”
“spontaneous societies”
voluntary participation ensures living by the
courage of one’s convictions.
Understood “rights” as “natural” - from God
Freedom of conscience, speech, thought,
association, etc. - all necessary conditions for
individuals to create the Good Society.
10. Roger Williams’ Influence
Martha Nussbaum argues in her recent book, From Disgust to
Humanity (Oxford, 2010) and in her upcoming book, Not for
Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (Princeton, 2010)
that Roger Williams (1603-1683) is at least as important as
Locke in articulating the ideas of the American Constitutional
tradition.
“…sixthly it is the will and command of God…the permission of the
most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish or anti-Christian consciences
and worships be extended to all men and all countries.” -- The
Bloody Tenent of Persecution for Cause or Conscience, 1644
“Your Selves pretend liberty of conscience, but alas! - it is but Self,
the Great God Self - only to your Selves.” -- letter to governors
of Massachusetts and Connecticut
11. Martha Nussbaum
on Puritan Orthodoxy and Roger Williams’ influence
on freedom on conscience (speech, 2006)
12. Good Society as Free for ALL, not a
“Free-for-all”
Aiming for the True and the Good
Important Assumption or Moral Grounding
Founding fathers assumed that the “pursuit of
happiness” was not merely self-interest
Liberty understood as precondition for
expressing one’s conscience publicly
This Public Forum
makes the Good Society
possible
13. First Core Principle:
Freedom of Conscience
Whose freedom of conscience is to be heard
in the Public Forum?
Is the United States a “Christian” country? -
Depends….
Arguments for depend on extremely broad and
ahistorical definitions of the term, “christian” and are
most often made in support of a political agenda.
Arguments against depend on particular de-
contextualized quotes from key figures and assume
an extreme form of secularity.
14. Examples
“…neither pagan, nor Mohometan, nor Jew ought
to be excluded from the civil rights of the
commonwealth because of his religion.” -- John
Lock, Letter Concerning Toleration, 1690
“The insertion [of Jesus Christ in the preamble]
was rejected by the great majority, in proof that
they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of
its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the
Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo,
and the Infidel of every denomination.” --
Thomas Jefferson, “Autobiography,” 1821.
15. More Examples
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of
America is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen, …it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever
produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries.” -- from the Treaty of Tripoli,
1797
“I fully agree with the Presbyterians, that true freedom
embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo as well as
the Christian religion.” -- Richard Henry Lee, “To James
Madison,” 1784
16. Beyond even Locke’s Inclusiveness
“Locke denies tolerance to those…who deny the existence of a
god…it was a great thing to go so far…but where he stopped we
may go on.” -- Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Religion,” 1776.
“It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about
religion, but when we are making a constitution, it is to be hoped,
for ages and millions yet unborn….” -- Richard Henry Lee, Letters
from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, 1777
Other founding fathers dissented from this
broad of inclusion in the Conscientious Public
Forum, but these and other quotes indicate a
far more expansive consideration on their part
than is generally acknowledged today.
17. Second Core Principle:
Equal Dignity
Because liberty alone would eventually be co-opted
by “factions” in a constant “state of war,” an impartial
means of resolving disputes was necessary.
A judiciary and legal system based on the equal
dignity of every human being was the basis of the
“social contract” - the price for disallowing people to
take the law into their own hands.
“All men (sic) are created equal…”
Each is made in the image of God.
18. The Two-Tiered Public Forum
In her Taking Religious Pluralism
Seriously, Barbara McGraw formalizes
the Public Forum into two parts:
1. Government’s legitimate actions and
responsibilities to protect and maintain the
freedom and dignity of citizens in the
Public Forum.
2. The religious, moral, and ethical
discussions about the True and the Good
19. 1. The Civic Public Forum
Regarding the legitimate authority and actions of
government, politics, law enforcement, and the
judiciary, based on two principles:
1. No Harm: all citizens are free in beliefs and activities
as long as they do no harm to others.
2. Consistency: like a reversed golden rule, we can not
deny to another what we do not deny to ourselves.
No hypocrisy.
“Only those moral values that are compatible with the
Civic Public Forum principles are legitimate
contributions in the Civic Public Forum for law and
government enforcement.” (McGraw, p. 15)
20. 2. The Conscientious Public Forum
Regarding the individual and collective duties in
“communities of conscience” - not private but
a necessarily public practice of persuasion
and voluntary acceptance of moral standards
1. The duty to discern what conscience directs -
beyond one’s own self-interest.
2. The duty to participate, demonstrate,
discourse publicly - with honesty and respect.
21. Moral Virtue as Public Duty
All do not have to believe in the political theology of
America’s Sacred Ground - but all should recognize
that it is what makes the discussion possible in the first
place.
Freedom is not for one’s individual happiness, but for
the happiness of everyone.
Moral development and the cultivation of virtue are
necessary to fulfill the purpose of the nation: to create
the Good Society.
“To suppose that any form of government will secure
liberty and happiness without any virtue in the people
is a chimerical idea.” -- James Madison, Speech in
Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788.
22. Renouncing the Current Debate’s
False Dichotomy and False Choice
The current polarized political discourse
undermines the framework, purpose, and
principles of our nation.
“Liberals” against “conservatives” connotes a
trial between two “sides” with voters as jury in a
zero-sum competition.
NOT what the founding fathers or Locke
envisioned.
Should be broad discussions, debates,
exchanging ideas, seeking understanding in a
cooperative effort
23. False and Destructive Dichotomy
Media and politicians’ portrayal of “secular left” and
“religious right” obscures other voices and the founders’
intent.
Secularists can not explain references to God, the divine,
prayer, etc.
Religionists can not explain references to other religions,
reservations about religion, etc.
…because both are distorted extremes, both sides
have lost sight of America’s Sacred Ground.
24. Separation of Church and State
Religious right seeks to present the image of a
monolithic “Christianity” that minimizes historical,
doctrinal, denominational differences.
Secular left seeks to keep the entire Public Forum
free from any and all religious and moral language.
…BOTH are wrong and either would entail a return to
the top-down political worldview that the founders
repudiated.
They separated church and state for religious reasons!
Not Religion vs. Secularism but Domination vs. Liberty
25. False Choices
Moral absolutism vs. moral relativism
Inevitable clash of worldviews, conflict
Pluralism does NOT mean moral relativism
26. Americans are more tolerant than
the loudest religious voices would
suggest….
27. Conclusion
1. Religious right and secular left both entrenched;
reified positions, narrow reasoning.
2. Standoff glorifies the conflict, “culture wars”
… therefore both sides need to rediscover
America’s Sacred Ground
… and ALL of the world’s wisdom traditions have
ideas to offer
… and ALL ethnic, religious, and ideological
communities of conscience need to participate and
to be heard.
28. Concerns and Challenges
What role for empirical evidence?
What about the party crashers?
How to address the dominating role of the media?
Freedom of speech and hate speech?
Corporate influence on elections?
Individual rights compared to capabilities or
opportunities?
How to get minority faiths to participate more in the
Conscientious Public Forum?
29. Resources for Further Reading
Frank Lambert, Religion in Amerian Politics: A Short History
(Princeton, 2008)
Mark Noll & Luke El Harlow, Eds., Religion and American
Politics: From the Colonial Period to the Present (Oxford, 2007)
Martin Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of
Religion in America (Little, Brown, 1984)
Diana L. Eck, A New Religious America: How a ‘Christian
Country’ Has Become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse
Nation (Harper, 2002)
Djupe, Paul A. and Laura R. Olson. Encyclopedia of American
Religion and Politics. New York: Facts On File, 2003.
Schultz, Jeffrey D., John G. West, Jr. and Iain MacLean, Eds.
Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics. Phoenix, AZ:
Oryx Press, 1999.
30. Internet Resources
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html U.S. Library of Congress on-line
exhibit of documents and music from the Library's collections. Religion and the Founding
of the American Republic explores the role religion played in the founding of the
American colonies, in the shaping of early American life and politics, and in forming the
American Republic.
http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/category/religion-american-politics/ The Immanent Frame:
Secularism, Religion, and the Public Sphere is the title of this collaborative blog space
hosted by the Social Science Research Council (SSRC)
http://pewforum.org/ The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has some of the best
research, survey data, and reviews available anywhere. Good news articles and well-
organized site.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ Very good and candid explanations of terms, media
discourses on many topics involving religion. The layout is a bit plodding with many
advertisements, but very clear, direct, unbiased, and fair-minded.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ From Vanderbilt University, this is the non-profit
First Amendment Center’s Web site, featuring comprehensive research coverage of key
issues and topics, daily news, a unique First Amendment Library and guest analyses by
respected legal specialists.
Editor's Notes
General Introduction:
“Welcome to our class project. My name is Jeff Danese and it has been my privilege to teach this course on Religion and Political Controversy in America here at San Jose State University Spring Semester of 2010. Though my academic training has mostly in American Religions, Spirituality, and Cognitive Sciences and not in Political Science, the course fell to me with just a week or two of advanced notice, when senior faculty took on other university responsibilities. So the course has been an educational experience for me as I discovered along with my students the importance of recognizing the religious dimension to what are often presented as legal or political controversies - and the historical changes that have shaped the struggles of Americans as the lines between church and state shift and get redefined to fit the needs of successive generations. I also rediscovered with a renewed urgency in these troubled times, what an unprecedented and unique experiment our country is, with its Enlightenment ideals of rational discourse, its Revolution against Europe’s old aristocracy and old Church, its Constitution, and its separation of church and state - and the importance of the stakes involved in this, our American experiment…
Most of the courses I teach rely on a historical frame to the issues and problems involved and indeed, much of my academic training has been in the History of Ideas, History of Religions, and Historiography. Also, with this course, which purposely engages controversial issues that, along with the study of comparative religions, often challenge the deepest beliefs and assumptions of students, I wanted to make the best attempt at impartiality, to downplay my own biases and political perspectives, and to set a tone of respect throughout the course, so that students could find for themselves the points of respect, shared values, or even useful ideas in traditions and perspectives with which they are unfamiliar. I take it as my ethical responsibility as an educator to present the best knowledge from my discipline and to clearly distinguish it from less widely accepted knowledge in my academic discipline, as well as knowledge or ideas from other disciplines (with which I may be less familiar) as well as my own personal views or biases. So, while we touch on some very difficult and seemingly intractable controversies like gay marriage, abortion, ecology, and terrorism, I do not take it as my job to resolve these issues in this course, but ideally to present my students with the information, perspective, and theoretical tools with which they can understand the stakes involved, the language used to frame the issues in public discourse, and the tools to resolve them on their own, in their own way. But in order to demonstrate their ability to apply the information, tools, and most importantly, the scholarly criteria of impartiality, fairness, and respect to such issues, I needed an assignment that would demonstrate their mastery…
…and that was the genesis of this project. The class was divided up into seven groups with the ultimate goal of sharing the fruits of their work with other students via iTunes U. They would select a book from a list of new books representing new scholarship ranging from the very academic to the very partisan and develop a controversial issue dealt with in the book into a video presentation to include any forms of media, such as powerpoint slides, news clips, reviews of books, lectures, etc.
Here is an overview of the Groups’ presentations. My own presentations will, like bookends, frame the entire project by providing an introduction to the course materials as a place to start, and then, finally, summarize the project and assignments with a conclusion. We hope that these presentations will be informative, alert fellow students and citizens to some important issues and processes that impact our nation, provide a fair overview of the stakes involved and popular frames or discourses that shape the public debates, some analysis and considerations that may help informed citizens reach a more informed opinion of their own, and finally some quality and objective resources for further investigation. So much for an overview of the project, now we can get along to the first presentation, my own introduction to the course materials and a historical explanation of America’s unique experimentation with political philosophy or, more properly perhaps, with political theology….
Welcome, everyone to Presentation Number One, an Introduction to America’s Sacred Ground with me, your host, and instructor of RELS 162 : Religion and Political Controversy in America, Jeff Danese, here at San Jose State University, Spring Semester, 2010. This presentation will introduce you to the primary text books that I selected for the course, the reasons for my choices, my hopes for the course, and to a historically-based understanding of what the founding fathers intended with their limited democratic experiment with their constitutionally-based young republic that has become our United States of America today. After laying out a particular conception of American political theology, I will ask some obvious questions that suggest many directions that a focused inquiry could take, alert you, the viewer, to the false choices and seemingly intractable moral conflicts that popular media and public discourse perpetuate that contribute in no small part to the political gridlock that we can see in just about every local and state government around the country, and finally offer some excellent resources that meet the highest academic standards for viewers to pursue in both print form as well as on the internet.
Previous instructors for this course used and are personal friends with Barbara McGraw, Director of the Center for Engaged Religious Pluralism and Professor of Social Ethics, Law, and Public Life at Saint Mary's College in East Bay, near San Francisco - who, along with Renee Formicola - Professor of Political Science at Seton Hall University - edited the first of our course text books: Taking Religious Pluralism Seriously: Spiritual Politics on America’s Sacred Ground. With so little time to research and review texts for the course, I followed suit, and added another more standard text book in its’ fourth edition, entitled Religion and Politics in America: Faith, Culture, and Strategic Choices by Robert Booth Fowler, et al. Fowler is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and has numerous awards and published works to his credit. The first book represents a polemical solution to a contemporary problem, framed in generally fair historical context, that provides a place to begin - an understanding of the U.S. Constitution that takes into account the religious controversies, political necessities, and compelling Enlightenment ideas at the time of the birth of our Nation. As her title suggests, McGraw’s “Sacred Ground” is an idealized portrayal of American political theology as the founding fathers intended it to be and is prioritized as a solution to the current problem of polarized, uncompromising public discourse. As such, this sort of partisan scholarship can seem a bit overbearing to students who rightfully question authority and are quick to exercise their critical skills, and though the great advantage of such polemics is the practical solutions they offer to important problems of our times, I balanced it with Fowler’s text which represents the standard scholarly mandate to define useful terms and ideas, describe related processes ad events, and to organize the relevant information into chapters that present a comprehensive overview of the issues, groups, special terms, questions, concerns, and theoretical perspectives that constitute the subject area of Religion and Politics in America. Such standard text books can offer a wealth of objective disciplinary knowledge, yet can have the disappointing weakness of venturing no practical solutions. Each project has its place, and, to be fair, we can not dismiss McGraw’s project - though it may seem premature to us here at the outset of the course, because we do not yet have anything to compare it to. It is, as I suggest here, just a place to start….
From the establishment of Christianity in 380 CE and the fall of the Roman Empire through the conflicts between Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, and Pope Gregory VII during the 11th century up until the Protestant Reformation in the early 16th century, that is, for well over a thousand years, traditional Western political theory relied on the mutual support and alliance between church and state as the basis for political legitimacy. Speaking generally, because some scholars might take issue with such an unqualified distinction here, Martin Luther along with John Calvin and his Puritan followers in New England favored the social stability offered by traditional top-down state authority with a democratized “congregational” church ‘purified’ of slavish sacramentalism and ‘popish’ hierarchy. They took for granted the traditional Christian psychology of a flawed human nature due to original sin and the need for social constraint and coercion as necessary. But in England, an alternative view of human psychology was developed by John Locke that is widely considered by scholars to have paved the way for modern liberalism, separation of church and state, religious tolerance, and the social contract - all of which exerted profound influence on the framers of the U.S. Constitution as well as America’s first theologian, Jonathan Edwards, whose book, Religious Affections, is widely viewed as the theological justification for the First Great Awakening leading up to the Revolutionary War and the inception of the American evangelical tradition.
Some readers might bristle at McGraw’s appropriation of Locke as a political theologian instead of the Enlightenment philosopher that he is usually portrayed as, and yet, he was a self-identified Puritan, his parents were both Puritans, he supported the Glorious Revolution, opposed Catholic James II, and played a part in the coup that brought the Calvinist William and Mary of the Netherlands to the throne of England. Considering much recent scholarship in the history of science and religion that shines new light on the complicated yet profound influence of religious ideas on the science of Sir Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Galileo, Rene Descartes, and many other so-called fathers of the scientific revolution, McGraw’s portrayal (more fully elaborated in her earlier book, Rediscovering America’s Sacred Ground (Suny, 2003)) can not be considered radical at all. Indeed, Locke’s deep religious convictions go a long way in explaining the force and and creativity of his arguments and the integrity with which he pursued his political convictions. His training as a surgeon, membership in the Royal Society, and familiarity with natural philosophy put him in a strategic position to transpose the language of natural law to that of moral law (inalienable rights) and to yoke the legitimacy of science to that of religion, just as state and church had been during the Medieval Period. Just as any individual, with the use of reason and discipline could discern God’s revelation in nature through the mathematical precision and consistency of laws, so also could any individual by reason and intuition discover God’s revelation in the Bible through his own conscience. So traditional political top-down coercive authority would necessarily stifle God’s revelation, located as it was now in the individual through conscience and not by traditional institutions through enforcement.
Locke saw the traditional hierarchical authority of church and state as dominating and abusive - and worse, it was inconsistent with God’s unfolding plan for the world. Because God’s relationship and communications are with individual human beings through conscience and not with organizations like the traditional Church, it was the responsibility of government to protect people’s inalienable rights based on a “social contract.” On the one hand, the government would protect individuals from coercive domination by any state apparatus – including by any church authority, and on the other hand individuals would form “spontaneous societies” where their consciences could find free expression and God’s unfolding plan for the good society would evolve providentially. The founding fathers were all profoundly influenced and guided by Locke’s vision, but it was not an easy sell to everyone….
In New England, where Puritans had established their own Reformed Theology, disagreement and conflicts of conscience such as that between Ann Hutchinson and John Winthrop, with Baptists, with Quakers, and most notably, with Roger Williams – were often resolved with banishment, pressure to recant, or even death. John Winthrop famously wrote, “A democracy is among most civil nations accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government” while John Cotton said, “Democracy? – I do not conceive that ever God did ordain it as a fit government either for church or commonwealth.” But classical notions of democracy were not what either John Calvin, John Locke, or the founding fathers had in mind. They advocated for a “mixed government” of checks and balances on power, so that it could not be concentrated in any one branch or government, nor by any single political “faction,” nor by any single church. On this final point, the New England Puritans were in disagreement. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not completely disestablish their Congregational Church until as late as the 1840’s. So, I am in agreement with Martha Nussbaum that Roger Williams deserves more credit than he often gets for fighting for and articulating the American tradition of separation of church and state. The following clip is from a speech she gave on this very point…
So while historical recognition of the founding fathers’ ideas of government can be traced back to John Calvin via Jonathan Locke and Roger Williams, what is important for us to understand, and one of the main points that Barbara McGraw makes in our text is that America’s political philosophy does indeed rest on the religious ideals of the Protestant Reformation and that the American political theology that undergirds our Constitution assumed the expression of individual conscience, the enactment of religious commitments and revelation – in public, in civic discourse, and moral debates – not out of self-interested benefit, “…to provide a moral and political contest that ensures that the people have the political ability and opportunity to build the good society,” as she writes on p. 10.
McGraw emphasizes two core principles that should guide public discussions in the Public Forum: Freedom of Conscience and Equal Dignity. But his brings up the question as to what sorts or voices are to be tolerated in moral discussions in the Public Forum? What religious language should dominate the Forum, frame the issues, or have the most influence? Today, many politically-active Christians and Conservative Christian groups often make the argument that America is a “Christian” country to justify the priority of Protestant Christian morality in the Public Forum. In keeping with the goals of this course to map out the contours of the arguments without advocating one position over another, I will simply here point out that such arguments have some merit in that clearly the founding fathers broadly prioritized the basic cultural foundations of Protestant Christianity (personal virtue, hard work, public morality, individual freedom, etc.) but the Deist beliefs of many of the founding fathers are not consistent with conservative definitions of what it means to be a “Christian” today. Other strategies for making such an argument point to the period of the mid-nineteenth century when Benevolent Societies and the major denominations consolidated American culture into what can be referred to as the Protestant Establishment. But for the purposes of this course, we must understand that, as with all historical narratives, such arguments are usually motivated by and reflect the political and/or social agendas of people and groups today. And to wit, those agendas are often the result of unintended historical changes and arbitrary sociocultural influences on individuals and institutions….
For one of the most thorough examinations of the issue, see The Search for Christian America (1989) by Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden.
…Just like arguments against America as a “Christian” nation…. The agendas of so-called secular humanists engender a sanitized version of the U.S. Constitution that relies on quotes such as these that demonstrate the broad-mindedness of Jonathan Locke and the founding fathers.
George Washington himself penned much of the language of the Treaty of Tripoli and is an often-referred-to quote in support of such arguments from the far left.
While Locke himself may have drawn the line at atheists, such quotes as this one by Richard Henry Lee indicate that at least some of the founding fathers were willing to extend freedom of conscience even to those whose moral practices and civic discourse were not based on a belief in a supreme God at all. So while McGraw is fair in pointing out that the broad-mindedness of the founding fathers is probably under-acknowledged today generally, what I would like to point out is that the argument itself is based on a false premise that religion and reason are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive. Though it is beyond the scope of this presentation, the “Warfare Model” of the relationship between science and religion can be traced to historical narratives of the late 1800’s that, as mentioned earlier in this presentation, obscure the complex and deep relationships between the two as well as the limitations of both. McGraw’s central point in our text is that the U.S. Constitution establishes America as “Sacred Ground.” She blurs the commonplace and widely-accepted (false) distinction between science and religion so that we might reclaim the religious sentiment that itself makes plurality itself possible.
It is difficult for religious believers to imagine a moral community without some sort of metaphysical commitment whether a belief in God – however it may be defined, or a “divine architect” as the founding fathers often said, or cosmic intelligence or principle. And likewise, atheists can point to many a case of hypocrisy and scandal on the part of religious leaders to underscore that faith alone is not sufficient for a moral life. This debate is for a philosophy class – but here, it must be recognized that the guarantee of equal protection and equal rights was envisioned by the founding fathers as a safeguard against tyranny and oppression. Locke argued that an impartial judiciary was the necessary arbiter of the “Social Contract” – to insure that individuals would be respected and their rights upheld against other powerful individuals and organizations.
Both Nussbaum, in her study of Western Philosophy in general, and in her recent book and in her lecture on the video clip, based on Roger Williams’ thought in particular - as well as McGraw and many other scholars find it necessary to divide the Public Forum into two parts: one intended, like Locke’s judiciary, to impartially carry out the administration of government, and the second intended to be the place of public discourse regarding moral and religious issues as they relate to the public good, to building the good society.
One irony that McGraw points out – along with several other authors in her edited text – is that, though religious voices have been raised throughout American history in defense of these two core principles (amongst Quakers, Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and many others) – mostly for fear as minority religions that they would be attacked – today, religious voices are more commonly raised against these principles. But this is, as many people point out, an aggressive and imperialistic move on the part of conservative believers to assert their religious views over others. As religious studies scholar, Charles Kimball notes in his widely acclaimed book, When Religion Becomes Evil (Harper Collins, 2002), religion is quite necessary for personal and social well-being, but it becomes “evil” when adherents follow their leaders with blind obedience and when they make absolute truth claims that exclude or minimize the truth claims of other religious groups. If “My Religion” is the only “True” religion then why should I take anything other religious people say seriously? But can there be honest interreligious dialogue without absolute truth claims? Must religious believers check their orthodoxies at the door before entering the realm of public discourse?
Rita Gross, Scholar of Buddhism, in Chapter 11 of McGraw’s book, entitled “Buddhist Contributions to the Civic and Conscientious Public Forums,” writes that the absence of absolute truth claims “…in the Civic Public Forum does not involve their disappearance but the recognition of their relativity, which does not change anything about them. It only recognizes what was always the case” (emphasis hers). The incomplete, limited, and hence relative nature of human knowledge that only allows us to “see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13) can be found in all of the world’s wisdom traditions, though some (like Hinduism and Buddhism) emphasize it more than others.
Many conservative scholars, such as James A. Herrick in “The Making of the New Spirituality” (Intervarsity, 2003); Stephen L. Carter in “The Culture of Disbelief” (Basic Books, 1993), and Mark Lilla in “The Stillborn God” (Knopf, 2007) make various arguments that modern liberal democracy is anti-religious, that it denigrates religious faith, and corrodes the basis of morality.
I find merit and value on both sides of this divide, but will here offer another perspective. As Stephen Prothero emphasizes in his “Religious Literacy” (Harper 2007), Americans are hopelessly ignorant of not only others’ religious traditions – but also their own! From a Religious Studies perspective and generally from a educational perspective, meaningful religious or moral debate in either Public Forum is impossible without some basic understanding of the major doctrines, moral worldviews, and histories of the world’s major religious traditions. This fact alone, I believe, goes a long way in explaining the problems with public religious discourse today.
It is clear now, to me, that such conservative scholars are often engaging in polemical discourse against extremist actions and organizations, but what they have in common is their alarm at the enormous changes affecting all of us in today’s globalized techno-culture as I like to call it. The stakes are indeed high. With political paralysis often seen in our federal and state governments, with either declining or changing public morality, corporate-dominated media that emphasizes inflammatory rhetoric over practical news, population migrations, pluralism, environmental degradation, and precarious global economies many people sense an insecurity previously relegated to the poor or otherwise disenfranchised. Are these changes good or bad? Who gets to decide?
It is also clear to me now that the founding fathers not only expected public discourse regarding morality, religion, religious practice, and public governance, but that they also expected citizens to take their freedom seriously as the unique and historically unprecedented eventuality that is America. They saw freedom as a contractual relationship with providence, with history – no matter Who or What guides it and whatever people may choose to call It – and the responsibility of citizens is to cultivate virtue, demonstrate morality, and to recognize their own place in the struggle to create a “more just and perfect order…”
So McGraw’s model for a two-tired Public Forum carves out a middle ground between the Civic Public Forum where the administrative language of rights, contracts, legal precedent, and equality substitute for overt religious terms associated with any particular religious orthodoxy on the one hand, and the personal ethnic- group- or church-based communities of faith and conscience on the other. It is clear, that for a democracy of any sort, mixed or direct, to address the urgent and essential questions posed earlier some public debate that allows the increasingly plural voices of our rich and diverse faith communities to compete on their own terms must occur. McGraw refers to this as the Conscientious Public Forum, but where do we find such a place…?
What we often see and read in the popular media are inflamed rhetorical performances about are anything but respectful or educational. And this, my friends is the real crux of the matter: that we actually have NO Conscientious Public Forum for the resolution of moral conflicts. Therefore, mutually exclusive truth claims compete for legal recognition in the courts and for public recognition on the campaign trails of political candidates – both areas of the Civic Public Forum where, on McGraw’s view they do not belong.
The absence of practical and respectful religious and moral public discourse is itself the complex legacy of secularization that includes industrialization and corporate domination of the American economy, immigration and increasing ethnic and religious diversity, and court battles since the 19th century that have rolled back the overt signs of the Protestant Establishment in American public life. As many scholars of American Religious History have pointed out, secularization in American society forced sincere religious practice into two directions: one is the personal and private world of family, leisure, and spirituality - and the other is the world of compromise, combination, and ultimately…confusion. This second trend is easiest to find in the sanitized-yet-universal religious terms of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Transcendentalism, but also in William Herberg’s book, Protestant, Catholic, Jew (1955), and more recently in the evolution of Evangelical Protestant Christianity into mega-churches and political organizations that exploit moral controversies in order to consolidate and mobilize a conservative religious alliance.
These two unintended historical trends have diminished the Conscientious Public Forum that the founding fathers expected would allow God’s plan for America and for humanity to unfold. The distorted religious messages that we often hear may be sincere – they can certainly be passionate and compelling, but I think that, because they are often organized around political goals, they compromise the integrity of their own religious traditions, their own most sacred religious values and the intentions of the founding fathers to insure the freedom of Americans against the domination and inevitable oppression from any political faction or religious orthodoxy. By denigrating the respectful and even-minded discourse permitted by moral relativism, they prioritize and enforce their own morally absolutist authority. By emphasizing moral conflict and religious differences they create a paradigm of warfare where the “clash of civilizations” is as natural as Darwin’s survival of the fittest. And by emphasizing ethnic and cultural differences they ignore vast areas of public morality with which all might find agreement. The choices offered by fundamentalist and militant religious movements are incompatible with America’s Civic Public Forum. As Karen Armstrong has noted in many of her talks and books, but especially in The Battle for God (Knopf, 2000), the issue should be seen not as interreligious conflict between religious traditions, but intrareligious conflict – between militant or fundamentalist forms of religion born of the failures of modernity in the 20th century and traditional religion that emphasizes the golden rule and tolerance. And while McGraw’s call to reclaim America’s Sacred Ground confronts us with the violence, confusion, disrespect, and falsity that passes today as religious and moral discourse, it is not exactly clear how to proceed.
One place to start is to recognize that most Americans (70%) and even most Evangelical Christians and Catholics do not buy into the absolute truth claims that religious leaders use to justify their moral and political positions. Check out this news report on the 2008 Pew Charitable Trust poll on religion in America….
Moral conflicts like gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, and school prayer seem intractable because they are used again and again and again to mobilize people for political purposes. If these are the only moral issues of our times, how are we supposed to think about the profligate manipulation of financial markets by Wall Street executives? Is the power wielded by corporate money and lobbyists in Washington and on campaign trails not a moral issue? Are poverty, discrimination, and hate crimes not moral issues? If conservative religious leaders would stop competing for a slice of the Civic Public Forum – and recognize that by sacrificing their own most sacred values of trust, love, and tolerance for votes and a few calls from the White House, they diminish the Conscientious Public Forum where their guidance and influence is most effective. As McGraw writes on p. 253, “…that way the conversation can move past the issue of which competing worldview will prevail and toward the question of how can Americans all live together considering that they have different views without undermining the fundamental framework and principles that make these conversations possible in the first place” (emphasis mine). She calls on religious minorities to make their voices heard in the Public Forum and for religious leaders to develop “theologies of tolerance” much like the authors in her book on Hinduism and Buddhism describe.
For the purposes of this course, McGraws model of American political theology gives us a framework for asking questions and prioritizing issues that is indeed prescriptive or normative – that is, she is telling us how America’s Sacred Ground is supposed to or should work. As such, I hope it is a good way to start out this series of presentations, but there are other questions and issues like the ones here that may also be important as my students research and struggle to understand their particular topics.
What follows here are just some of the best and most scholarly-recognized print and internet resources for further study.
Thanks for your attention. I hope this presentation has been useful and that you go on to consider some of my students’ presentations.