The idea that liberals and cultural elites suffer from religious illiteracy is now widely accepted, by both the accusers and the accused. New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet confessed to NPR’s Terry Gross that “media powerhouses don't quite get religion.” Former Obama White House staffer and evangelical Christian Michael Wear went further , arguing that liberals are “disdainful” of religion and that there's a “religious illiteracy problem in the Democratic Party.” Nicholas Kristof, also of the Times, suggested last May that universities, otherwise bastions of tolerance, are intolerant of religious diversity, choosing “liberal arrogance” over “fairness” to evangelical Christian perspectives.
Although this critique fits well with the anti-elitism of the right and the reflexive self-criticism of the left, it is false. Understanding why it’s false is an essential first step toward addressing the actual religious illiteracy that I encounter every semester as a professor of religious studies, which affects this nation as a whole — and, perhaps surprisingly, conservative Christians in particular.
The real definition of “religious literacy”: It’s about more than just familiarity with Christian practices
First, it’s important to recognize there’s a bait and switch being pulled with the term “religious.” Take the recent dustup over a Republican National Committee statement that praised this Christmas as good time to welcome a “new King.” Some liberal members of the media reacted strongly, taking the phrase as an allusion to Trump, when in fact the word King, capitalized, is routinely used in reference to Christ. Condemnation of liberal ignorance followed immediately. “Today in ‘religious illiteracy in the media,’” tweeted CNN political analyst and USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers about the controversy, a response widely echoed by conservative pundits .
However, what Powers and others mischaracterize as “religious illiteracy” is really the far narrower category of “unfamiliarity with the practices of certain present-day Christians in the United States.” Yes, many non-Christians have never heard “new King” in reference to Jesus — though, to be fair, some Christians also found it odd. And yes, our body politic would be well served if non-Christian liberals expanded their knowledge of Christian practice and vocabulary.
But that’s only a tiny fraction of religious literacy. True religious literacy requires engagement with the enormous variety of beliefs, practices, and motivations found in different religious traditions, and, for that matter, within a single tradition, or even a single church. Religious literacy requires awareness that religions have changed radically over time, and will continue to do so, often for non-theological reasons. And when it comes to politics, religious literacy requires thinking through the difficulties inherent to disputes over matters of faith in a religiously diverse community, and recognizing how our political system has developed in response to such difficulties.
Once you factor in these other categories of knowledge about religion — and how could you not? — the evidence shows that agnostics and atheists (followed closely by Jews and Mormons), as well as those who self-identify as liberal, are more religiously literate than their Christian and conservative counterparts.
In the 2010 Pew survey of religious knowledge , a battery of questions about the Bible and Christianity, world religions, and religion in public life, scores were appallingly low across the board, with respondents averaging around 50 percent. Only half, for instance, knew that the Quran is the holy book of Islam, or that the Golden Rule isn’t one of the Ten Commandments. Fewer than a third knew that most Indonesians are Muslim, and that public schoolteachers in the United States are allowed to read from the Bible as an example of literature in class. But when broken down by demographic, atheists and agnostics outscored other groups even after controlling for different levels of education .
It’s no objection to claim the Pew survey was biased against the sort of “religious literacy” valued by white evangelical Christians, who scored (only slightly) higher than their nonbelieving counterparts on questions about their own faith. A historical familiarity with the practices of one’s church and some passages from the Christian Bible is not religious literacy, and in isolation may lead to myopia about religion. To understand humanity’s relationship with the divine, you have to apply critical thinking skills to facts about multiple faiths including your own, across cultures and throughout history.
What my students show me about the real problem with religious knowledge in America
Every year I teach students who are surprised to learn that Jesus and Mary appear in the Quran; that Buddhism is historically descended from Hinduism; that virgin birth narratives and flood myths appear in many traditions; that believers in the same religion will exhibit dramatic variation in their beliefs and practices depending on historical and cultural context. Most have never thought to analyze religiosity using psychology or economics.
Instead, the majority of my students — most of whom are white, Protestant Christians from Virginia and the East Coast — are familiar only with the thin slice of modern Christian religion they’ve been exposed to, and are often baffled by religious ways of life that differ from their own. Perhaps the best illustration of this happens when I invite a rabbi in to speak about Judaism. Without fail, the most perplexing aspect of Jewish faith proves to be its lack of a definitive teaching on heaven, and he always fields the same question: “Why would Jews be good if they don’t believe in heaven?”
Why would Jews — or Hindus, or Buddhists, or agnostics, or atheists — be good if they don’t believe in heaven? That’s the sort of religious illiteracy we should be worried about, not unfamiliarity with evangelical names for Christ — religious illiteracy that assumes features of one’s own tradition are essential to ethical behavior. It will never be eradicated if religious literacy is defined in terms of uncritical familiarity with a single tradition.
The Pew survey also provides sobering evidence that Christians, in general, are ignorant about their own tradition. Half of Protestants can’t identify Martin Luther; half of Catholics don’t understand the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is something I see reflected in my students: I teach students who, despite being practicing Christians, don’t know that Jesus harshly criticizes divorce and never speaks about homosexuality, or that the “Old Testament” was originally the Hebrew Bible, a collection of diverse texts compiled over time by ancient Israelites. For many believers it is the classroom, not church, that provides their first opportunity to reflect on the long history of Christian debate over whether Genesis should be taken literally, or the potential problems with having multiple translations of a divine revelation.
Other religious studies faculty have confirmed my own experiences, and if our students — bright, young, open-minded thinkers who elect to take courses on religion — are religiously illiterate, how much truer must that be of Americans unlucky enough to have a narrower vision of the world, and who are less motivated to broaden it. (In Hillbilly Elegy , J.D. Vance recounts how he explained to a fellow Marine that Catholics were a type of Christian.)
In light of all this, it should be unsurprising that high-quality education is the most important factor in fighting religious illiteracy. Holders of postgraduate degrees are by far the most knowledgeable about religion, an “elite” demographic that skews strongly Democratic (57 percent to 35 percent). Controlling for overall education, taking a college-level religion course increases scores 3 points over the national average.
Religious education is about understanding religious experience, not just facts
Though the Pew survey is a helpful reference, I’m afraid that using it to justify education about religion may actually sell that education short. My students learn much, much more than facts. Believers and nonbelievers alike are forced to think through the coherence and implications of their views, instead of merely reaffirming them with sympathetic friends and family. They discover that for some faithful, religion is about never doubting certain key beliefs, while for others belief is secondary to community and ritual. They challenge their peers’ presuppositions as well as their own.
Being educated about religion, in other words, is an experience, just like the experience of being religious. The two are not mutually exclusive. Classically liberal education does not dismiss individuals’ experiences, religious or otherwise, but rather seeks to avoid the moral and intellectual evils that result from failing to consider the experiences of others. True, certain beliefs are difficult to hold in the context of that educational experience — the sinfulness of homosexuality, say, or the “natural” subservience of women — but that’s an argument against the beliefs, not the education.
Religious illiteracy is not a liberal problem. It is a function of two key factors: insularity and lack of education. And though genuine religious literacy tends to complicate people’s confidence in the manifest superiority of their own faith, and tends to discourage less tolerant forms of religiosity that are often embraced by right-wing politicians, this does not mean higher education is “biased” or “anti-religious,” any more than biology is “biased” against creationism.
Nor, for that matter, is it liberal arrogance to point this out. It is simply a statement of fact that, like many statements of fact, makes some of us uncomfortable, but should not be avoided on that score, lest we allow courtesy to obscure reality for the sake of false balance. It would be the height of PC nonsense — the same nonsense derided by so many on the right — to deny the virtues of higher education in order to avoid offending those who don’t (yet!) have access to it, or because it produces people who challenge your sacred cows.
Disdain for those who do not hold one’s own religious beliefs is not exclusive to liberal elites
What liberal “elites” — believers and nonbelievers — find objectionable is not religion, but rather a partisan twist on religious literacy that privileges one tradition, excludes historical-critical study, and maintains, against all evidence, that education and exposure to multiple perspectives creates religious ignorance instead of dispelling it.
What liberals find objectionable is shameless propaganda that turns Christianity into a wedge issue — the war on Christmas! secular baby killers! destroying God’s vision of marriage! — as if there were no Christians who say, “Happy Holidays,” or believe God is fine with same-sex marriage, or think abortion should be legal.
What liberals find objectionable is a politicized vision of authentic faith that amounts to a simple set of core beliefs, best discovered by looking at a ballot or into a mirror. It is this dangerous and mistaken vision that explains why nearly half of Republicans think, incredibly, that if Obama doesn’t agree with them politically he must belong to a different religion.
Disdain for those who do not hold one’s own religious beliefs is certainly a problem, but as anyone who has taken a world religions class can tell you, it is not exclusive to liberal elites. Thinking otherwise, I’d say, is a much clearer sign of religious illiteracy than mistaking “new King” for a reference to Donald Trump.
I was unaware of either an alleged "liberal religious illiteracy" or the "new King" kerfuffle, so this article was something of an education for me.
I'm not surprised that the author has found American religious illiteracy to be much more widespread, though. The conversations I have had around the Bible or Christ or Islam... have almost always revealed very little beyond a narrow knowledge of a few verses.
For example, the historical context of the Bible is practically unknown, leading to anachronistic reasoning that would be funny if the people expounding weren't so deadly serious.
''Disdain for those who do not hold one’s own religious beliefs is certainly a problem, but as anyone who has taken a world religions class can tell you, it is not exclusive to liberal elites.''
This disdain has always been around, it is nothing new. I am not a Christian but have ''experienced'' the Christian distain of anything that isn't the same as their beliefs. Even within the various Christian sects there is this division. Sadly they have forced, in different ways, their belief system onto others.
I am reminded of Red Jackets speech to the Christian missionaries in 1805.
In 1805 a Boston missionary society requested Red Jacket’s permission to proselytize among the Iroquois settlements in northern New York State. Red Jacket’s forceful defense of native religion, below, caused the representative to refuse the Indian’s handshake and announce that no fellowship could exist between the religion of God and the works of the Devil.
Link to speech...
Regarding the use of the bible and or in the case of the ''papal bulls'' to secure what wasn't theirs, thus the ''doctrine of discovery'' was used for those that they considered pagan/savages/non believers/followers of Satan.
Lack of understanding their own religion is not a surprise, it was been manifested for centuries. The teaching of the bible and or Christ are interpreted by each to fit their wants and needs. To me it's as simple as that.
I would have to agree here.
Christianity is too often left to the interpretation of those that do not want to understand.
And thru that with the ideal that a book written by a man is god, you have people that use the beliefs of said religious conviction like a weapon.
Which it was never intended to be.
Much like the zealot extremist Muslims are doing to Muslims that do understand.
All religious ideology is an interpreted, instructed and imposed farce. It is spirituality that counts, one man and his god and that only comes from the heart, it cannot be taught.
NWM,
All religious ideology is an interpreted, instructed and imposed farce.
"Love your fellows."
"Love God and your neighbors."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Interpreted?
Instructed?
Imposed?
Farce?
Thank you, I see that you can still miss the point.
NWM,
OK, maybe I was being too clever for my own good. Please allow me to reformulate:
You said, "All religious ideology is an interpreted, instructed and imposed farce."
Would you please explain how that sentence squares with Christ's message:
"Love your fellows."
"Love God and your neighbors."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
How are these principles an "Interpreted, instructed and Imposed Farce?"
From Red Jacket's speech:
We understand that your religion is written in a book; if it was intended for us as well as you, why has not the Great Spirit given it to us, and not only to us, but why did he not give to our forefathers the knowledge of that book, with the means of understanding it rightly?
This is an impossible quandary for fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, whatever). A "God for all people" must be a "God of all people".
A true Christian understands that if the Great Spirit encourages Red Jacket's people to "love their fellows", then they are following His path... even though they have never heard of Him.
This kind of thinking -- finding the common threads that prove that your God is my God and mine is yours... this is possible only if we both make an effort at "religious literacy". I must learn enough about your God to accept Him, and vice versa.
The alternative is a sectarian God... unworthy of our respect, much less our worship.
A question that I have asked some of the fundamentalists is, ''how many Gods are there''...The answer of course is one, the one that they worship.
Which of course leaves a huge part of the world without a God, even though they believe in a God it's the wrong God.
So, the next question is, will there be a war of Gods to settle this problem. We can't have numerous Gods running around heaven, can we.
It is the proverbial merry go round.
IMO, a God of all the people is a nice fantasy, but in reality I don't see it happening.
There are as many gods as a secular people need to serve their needs. And yes they can create so many that they envision whole relationships and societies of gods. (just look at the Romans for example, Greeks for another, and yes, they had wars amongst themselves)
and group think, your god must be the same as mine. Results in the same thing.
Catholicism, one god, and many, many minor gods (saints)
All religions are stuck with group think when it comes to a social society and everyone eventually, unofficially comes to a conclusion that one belief is best for a society.
Problem becomes when there is one mandated belief. That is one thing I learned about the Indian beliefs, each member of the tribe had his own relationship with the great spirit, it may have fit into the overall tribal belief in what that was, but each member was allowed to sort it out for himself the best he can and ask for guidance when he needed it.
Pure freedom of religion within the structure of society.
I believe that is what the founders wanted to create here, but the ideology of religion fights against such. And as time passes and we get away from that belief, we become much more sectarian in our beliefs and religion becomes a means to a societal end rather than a system of understanding self.
This is why I consider my self a christian, but I hold to no ideology. No man ca get between me and my god, or great spirit as the natives would call it.
If I allow that then I will be in tune with society and not god. As for myself in such a situation, I would be nothing but a cog in the overarching purpose of an ideology. Which is to control people en-mass.
A man cannot be a man until he comes to terms with his self, what his purpose is, only then can he know which way to go.
A question that I have asked some of the fundamentalists is, ''how many Gods are there''...The answer of course is one, the one that they worship.
I've got a better answer.
Kavika,
I'm impressed! You succeeded in asking two questions of a fundamentalist. They usually are impossible to track on the first one...
It is the proverbial merry go round.
Yes. There's an "amusing" aspect to conversation with fundamentalists, something like chatting with Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts. Some ideas are so incompatible with the real world, have such cognitive dissonance, that we're left a bit groggy.
IMO, a God of all the people is a nice fantasy, but in reality I don't see it happening.
God is of all people. Being "of all people" is an integral, essential, inevitable part of being a "God of love". The fact that some people do not understand is of no impact on God!
Let me clarify my comment. It's meant not that there isn't a God of love, but that followers of different religions will, IMO, never concede that it's possible that their religion/God isn't the right one.
With in the Native religions (religion for lack of a better word) we do not build churches or have pictures or statues that are suppose to be of it's likeness. It is called ''the great mystery'' and has no color nor gender. We don't worship it, but understand that the earth and all it's creatures are part of a great circle in which we are a cog connected to all other things. Gakina Awiiya (we are all related) doesn't mean just that we are related to other humans but to all living things. Simply put, the earth is our mother.
Each person makes this connection in his or her own way. There is no special day to worship, there is no special way or dogma that sets a practice of doing it ''this way''..There is no special day that we acknowledge it's existence. Each person does it in the way that best suits them. There is no right or wrong way to us.
This has allowed us to accept things that bedevil the religious followers of today. The battle over homosexuality within the religions of today isn't something that is of importance to us. We simply call them the ''Two Spirit'' people and they are accepted into our society just as any other person is.
We do not ''spread the word'' or try to convert people to our beliefs, that in itself is not acceptable to us. Free will is important, each must find their own way.
The Red Road or the ''Teachings of the Grandfathers'' is our life style.
That is beautiful, Kavika. Calling that "religion for lack of a better word" is doing it a disservice. Religions are ugly in comparison.
Kavika,
Each person makes this connection in his or her own way.
I like this particularly.
It seems to me that there are only two options: either there is a "dogma", with all the problems of who/how it is defined and to what degree it is obligatory for membership in the community... or there is no "dogma" and each of us is both free and obliged to find our own way.
Let me add a bit more.
The Midewiwin (the original way) is what we believe in. The Midewiwin, or Grand Medicine Society are the healers of our people. To us this is the heart, spirit, body and soul. One cannot be healed without the others.
There are some interpertation's of the Grand Medicine Society by non native writers, it's mostly guess work or their interpretation of the society. The best explanation of the midewiwin is a book written by Edward Benton Bandi named the Mishomis Book (grandfathers book) the world view of the Ojibwe.
Most of the teaching of the Midiwiwin are kept within the people. Our name for us is Anishinaabe which means the first or original people or to some of the ancient ones means the ''good people''. Ojibwe is a French word and not representative of who we are or what our name really is.
One more thing that is frustrating for us is the constant refrain of ''religious freedom in the US''...It is only freedom of religion if your a Christian. The Midewiwin and most all native religions were outlawed by the government in the late 1800's and it wasn't until 1978 that our religions were given the right to worship as we choose. So the complaining of some of the US society falls on deaf ears when they really don't understand what freedom of religion really is.
Well enough of that, thanks for indulging me on this.
Well enough of that, thanks for indulging me on this.
I cannot speak for anyone else, Kavika, but for me at least, your posts about your faith are both educational and inspirational.
Thank you Bob, a few other books that are very informative regarding native world views and beliefs are, ''Black Elk Speaks and The Sacred Pipe''...Black Elk was a spiritual leader of the Ogalala Lakota.
Another is Wovoka (Jack Wilson) a Northern Paiute and spiritual leader. He was the originator of the ''Ghost Dance'' that was completely misunderstood by the US government and resulted in Wounded Knee and the outlawing of native beliefs.
Christianity was made legal in the Roman Empire in 315 CE, and became the official religion in 380. Christians have been killing "non-believers" and "heretics" ever since.
I do have to say one thing.
I've reread the article three times, the overall take is average uneducated americans need more religious understanding.
Preferably more education.
And especially more religious education.
That the average American is essentially ignorant when it comes to religion.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. BUT YES, Americans are ignorant of religious ideology, and that is a good thing.
The more one is indoctrinated into an ideology the more they lose free will. They give up self to the teachings and beliefs of others. (the religious "leaders" so to speak)
When the christian god says if you want to know, all you need do is ask, and it will be revealed to you.
Why do people think that they need to indoctrinate others in what they believe rather than allowing them to make their own judgment?
I mean the only people of faith are those that follow?
That thought is abhorrent to me.
And seems to me to be what this article is preaching.
NWM,
True religious literacy requires engagement with the enormous variety of beliefs, practices, and motivations found in different religious traditions, and, for that matter, within a single tradition, or even a single church. Religious literacy requires awareness that religions have changed radically over time, and will continue to do so, often for non-theological reasons.
Perhaps a fourth reading... ??
No, three times was enough. I think I got it's point, not the point you took from it obviously or the point you want to make.
But you see I was never a big believer in a society having overriding sway over it's people.
That's a socialist thing.
Have fun discussing such irrelevancy...
NWM,
Please. If you have something to say, please say it... but if someone -- me or anyone else -- finds flaws in what you say, they're going to ask you about them.
You said, "The more one is indoctrinated into an ideology the more they lose free will."
That is perfectly true, so I gave you a quote from the article to show that "indoctrination into an ideology" is not at all what the author means by "religious literacy"... rather the opposite, in fact!
If you misread an article 180°, while saying you have read it three times... Yeah! Somebody is going to suggest a fourth reading.
Don't get mad! At least... don't get mad at me! You did this. You made an unequivocal statement... that was dead wrong. I showed it was dead wrong. I made a statement of fact. I did not attack you, personally.
Don't shoot the messenger.
NWM,
... you see I was never a big believer in a society having overriding sway over it's people.
That's a socialist thing.
Are you sure you're Replying in the right article? These sentences have nothing to do with this seed. Nothing at all.
1) The article is one mans opinion. In a world full of opinions, I found nothing in the article that is overly convincing enough to warrant any change in my behavior and outlook.
2) If there is such a thing as a supposed "religious literacy problem", it's something the entire world is guilty of, not just the US.
3) The problem isn't religious literacy per se, it's one of toleration. Characteristics such as mercy, charity, forbearance and compassion do not require any in-depth understanding of a religion. These are human qualities which many of these same religions neglect teaching. In fact, many of these religions reach an US vs Them mindset that causes intolerance. They certainly don't act the part.
I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
He's lucky the Christians were so tolerant of his intolerance.
Considering he spent his life in India where Christians are a very distinct minority, what does that matter?
It is a very good example of intolerance and we all can learn from it.
And there is a very tenous connection to being the actual words of Ghandi.
There is only one place where they actually appear in print while Ghandi was alive. You have to accept the word of two reverends that he actually said them.
The actual quote is this.....
"I love your Christ, but I dislike your Christianity."
Was published by the The Atlanta Constitution, 7 February 1926, p. F14. as a snippet from a book review done by the Reverend W.P. King (then pastor of the First Methodist Church of Gainesville, Georgia)
The book he reviewed was....
E. Stanley Jones's 'The Christ of the Indian Road' (published in 1925 by The Abington Press, New York City)
The snippet....
Dr. Jones says that the greatest hindrance to the Christian gospel in India is a dislike for western domination, western snobbery, the western theological system, western militarism and western race prejudice. Gandhi, the great prophet of India, said, "I love your Christ, but I dislike your Christianity." The embarrassing fact is that India judges us by our own professed standard. In reply to a question of Dr. Jones as to how it would be possible to bring India to Christ, Gandhi replied: First, I would suggest that all of you Christians live more like Jesus Christ. Second, I would suggest that you practice your Christianity without adulterating it. The anomalous situation is that most of us would be equally shocked to see Christianity doubted or put into practice. Third, I would suggest that you put more emphasis on love, for love is the soul and center of Christianity. Fourth, I would suggest that you study the non-Christian religions more sympathetically in order to find the good that is in them, so that you might have a more sympathetic approach to the people.
The book (which is supposedly available on Google Books, but I can't find it, Worldcat is a no go also) does not directly say whether this was a direct saying of Ghandi's or a paraphrasing of an ideal by Rev Jones.
Therefore it cannot be directly attributed to Ghandi.
"First, I would suggest that all of you Christians live more like Jesus Christ."
Christ is an imaginary character with superhuman powers. If someone suggested you live more like superman, where would you begin?
Second, I would suggest that you practice your Christianity without adulterating it.
The religious doctrines of Christianity have beeen shown to be so bastardized over time that they don't even resemble the original texts. The average Christian is blissfully unaware of this, as evidenced by the frequent quoting of 'cast the first stone' from the fabricated story about Jesus and the prostitute. It's an impossible suggestion.
The point is missed. The idea is that Christians generally don't act like Jesus, the man they claim to worship. Who or what said it is irrelevant. I agree with that sentiment. Today's Christianity in the US is hypocritical and warped beyond belief.
I didn't miss the point, if you read my posting up at the front of the threads you would see that.
However, the ideal may be accurate, and Ghandi may have even related something similar, but he didn't say that exact thing, at least it is not recorded anywhere.
Why is this important, cause by attaching his name to such it would tend to lend credence to said statement, credence that it doesn't deserve.
That was my only point of actually researching the quote.
The sentiment may be valid, and in my opinion it is. but it shouldn't be given any extra weight from one such as Ghandi.
Not a reference to the ideal, but what others may take from such inaccurately.
Your opinion of Gandhi is irrelevant and not the issue. As is, I didn't cite a name to that quote because it was irrelevant. Stick to the OP.
Now that is the aeonpax I remember.
nice to see you again too
Can't have a free flowing discussion, gotta have that control.
To each, their own.
NWM,
Why is this important, cause by attaching his name to such it would tend to lend credence to said statement, credence that it doesn't deserve.
You're probably right to doubt the historicity of the quote. OTOH, it "sticks" in popular culture because it is doubly credible: it fits the man and (sadly) it fits Christianity.
The point in Christianity is not to act like Jesus, it's for imperfect beings to try and follow the guidance and try to act as Jesus would act. That most fail at it is not the point.
it's for imperfect beings to try and follow the guidance and try to act as Jesus would act. That most fail at it is not the point.
Good morning, Dean...
Another day, another brainless one-liner!
He's lucky the Christians were so tolerant of his intolerance.
... showing that either you know nothing of the brutality of the British occupation of India... or that you think mass slaughter is a laughing matter...
Aeonpax,
... I found nothing... to warrant any change in my behavior and outlook.
I don't think that was the purpose. Apparently, in some quarters there's a kerfuffle about "liberal religious illiteracy". The article is a reaction, try to re-frame the definition of "religious illiteracy". Since the kerfuffle is strictly American, the author speaks mainly about America. He teaches to American students in an American school.
2) If there is such a thing as a supposed "religious literacy problem", it's something the entire world is guilty of, not just the US.
Since the kerfuffle is strictly American, the author speaks mainly about America. He teaches to American students in an American school. But I can see nothing in the article to make me imagine that he would not agree with you entirely.
I spent quite a bit of time in Tunisia professionally, some years back, before the Arab Spring. I had the opportunity to chat about religion. The Muslims' ignorance of their own religion (much less any other) was astounding!
3) The problem isn't religious literacy per se, it's one of toleration. Characteristics such as mercy, charity, forbearance and compassion do not require any in-depth understanding of a religion. These are human qualities which many of these same religions neglect teaching. In fact, many of these religions reach an US vs Them mindset that causes intolerance. They certainly don't act the part.
I agree. And if people have no knowledge of religion other than what their narrow-minded preacher tells them, the situation can only get worse. The more a group isolates itself, the worse "US vs Them" becomes.
Genuine religious literacy, as the author describes it, is a means of interrupting intellectual inbreeding.
Yeah it interrupts intellectual inbreeding, nice collection of words, but it sure disenfranchises a lot of peoples core beliefs.
Doesn't it.
I'll leave you to your article now Bob.
Enjoy the mental masturbation trying to prove how intelligent you are.
NWM,
Enjoy the mental masturbation trying to prove how intelligent you are.
Ummm... yeah! I use words of more than two syllables. I have a good vocabulary, and I use it. I think words have meanings, and using the most precisely correct one is a form of respect for the person I'm talking to.
Yeah it interrupts intellectual inbreeding, nice collection of words...
If you think my words are too abstract, then there's a time-honored formula that is applicable: "Hey, Bob... would you mind putting that in words of two syllables?"
... but it sure disenfranchises a lot of peoples core beliefs. ... Doesn't it.
I don't see that at all. Would you please explain?
I'll leave you to your article now Bob.
I'd rather you stayed and participated.
I don't understand why you get so angry, so quickly. If I have said something offensive to you, please point it out. There must be a misunderstanding, because I have certainly not meant anything that way.
For a man as well written and read as you claim to be, I find it logically impossible for you to not understand how insulting and condescending this.....
"Hey, Bob... would you mind putting that in words of two syllables?"
....is to another that understands equally well and is at least as well educated.
I'm not going to hang around and be insulted by you or anyone.
Is it intentional or are you educated so well that the people you consider beneath your level just don't matter?
NWM,
Don't be paranoid. Aeonpax asked me to reformulate. I asked PJ to reformulate.
I use florid, long, and/or obscure vocabulary. Not just when I write. If you don't understand something, I am perfectly aware that it may be because what I wrote was too... whatever.
It's no big deal. Just ask me to express it differently.
NWM,
Take a look at what Aeonpax did . I got too fancy, so she just asked me to reformulate... which I did. Nobody got excited.
I am who I am. I use the vocabulary I have. I do not "talk down" to anyone, because (in my mind) that would be insulting -- presuming something unproven. OTOH... the result is that sometimes people do not understand what I say.
All they have to do is what Aeonpax did, and we eventually get it sorted.
Two peas in a pod.
I also think you've lost everyone,
Just too elite, for the rest of us stupid people.
NWM,
Have I ever said you are stupid? I have not.
You complained about my language. And I recognized that sometimes I get a bit lyric. If our speech is not synchronous, we must do something, or we cannot understand each other.
I cannot know that you see one of my posts as gobbledygook unless you tell me.
So... Instead of getting angry, just ask me to reformulate. You will be doing a service to both of us.
The writer, just isn't that good. If he was writing for the choir, then the way he phrased his discourse was appropriate. Outside of that, as someone not in the choir, it just was not convincing work. That's just the way I see it. I do agree however, across the board, most religious adherents of their particular faith is tragically limited. In college, I was allowed to audit two semesters of a Catholic intro course on the structure of their catechism and canons. It comes in handy in an argument, but other than that, has no practical value, for me at least.
"Intellectual inbreeding?" You lost me there.
Aeonpax,
"Intellectual inbreeding?" You lost me there.
I'm thinking about the "intellectual process" within a fundamentalist church. The members exchange the same ideas forever and ever. Novelty is not admitted (heresy!!), so inevitably the dogma becomes more and more restrictive.
I'd guess this kind of "inbreeding" is inevitable in any closed community, not just religious... (Hatfields and McCoys!) but we're on the subject of religious narrow-mindedness and how to do better.
The writer, just isn't that good. If he was writing for the choir, then the way he phrased his discourse was appropriate. Outside of that, as someone not in the choir, it just was not convincing work. That's just the way I see it. I do agree however, across the board, most religious adherents of their particular faith is tragically limited. In college, I was allowed to audit two semesters of a Catholic intro course on the structure of their catechism and canons. It comes in handy in an argument, but other than that, has no practical value, for me at least.
"Intellectual inbreeding?" You lost me there.
Imo if there is a literacy problem it was created by the messengers and representatives of said literacy. Many of those being accused of this literacy problem I would venture to say, don't have a problem at all. What they have is an awakening. After watching the constant hypocrisy of those "believers" and how they use religion as a shield to hide behind or to abdicate their constant sins against others, liberals have decided to turn these teachings and words of God around to be used as a mirror for Christians to reflect upon. The problem is they don't like what they see when they look in that mirror.
I'm not following you at all, PJ.
Would you mind reformulating? I literally do not understand what you are trying to say...
Sorry 'bout that...
I guess what I'm saying is who cares. It's all BS anyhow so it doesn't matter what is being said or what is being heard.
We get what we put into something. Although I do like your point about the intellectual inbreeding. It's actually what I thought of when I first read this piece. It's the story that is told over and over again and each time it is tweaked to meet the interpretation of the story teller. What we have now is not what was originally intended.
I can't get beyond the fact that the premise is imo just a fairy tale.
PJ
I guess what I'm saying is who cares. It's all BS anyhow so it doesn't matter what is being said or what is being heard.
...
I can't get beyond the fact that the premise is imo just a fairy tale.
I can understand a desire to just say "Yech!" to the whole mess, and try to ignore it.
The problem is that the fundamentalist do not ignore us. We are about to see a considerable rollback of women's rights, largely driven by fundamentalists. This isn't sterile intellectualism. It's a real-world battle for hearts and minds.
Bob - Knowing that people care so little about women in today's society is the most heart wrenching reality that I've had to accept....even from members here on NT.
If common sense cannot win then the time for words and understanding is over. We are starting to see a shift in society. Things are becoming more and more volatile. I imagine we are transitioning into a time in which we must fight for our rights. Fundamentalists don't understand any other way.
PJ,
It's depressing, isn't it?
Fundamentalism is a great refuge for people who cannot accept being inadequate... which we all are!
A fundamentalist just turns herself over to her preacher! She is doing God's will! She needn't think...
"Religious literacy" is part of the fight against that sort of willful ignorance.
The time for talk is over. Religious literacy will not change the fanatic. They will never accept anything other than what they believe because it fits their inadequacy as you point out. Faith isn't based on reason so you can't reason with someone who has blind faith.
PJ,
The time for talk is over.
What's the alternative?
I'm a proponent for breaking up the States. The United States is an old dream. One that seemed great in a time when women and other minorities were second class citizens. Some what those days back. I can't go back. I say we should have a choice to live in the society we find ideal. If it's a religious State - move there. If it's a State that dominates women and minorities- move there.....you get the picture.
You can move to any one of a number of countries that suit your needs and personality better. Breaking up the country? There's no reason to do that. Religion seems to be far more a problem for people that don't believe in it, than those that do.
Gary,
Religion seems to be far more a problem for people that don't believe in it, than those that do.
That would be true if the religious people did not try to impose their "values" on everyone. Sadly...
I'm a proponent for breaking up the States.
I don't know, PJ. I can see both advantages and disadvantages. But I can't see running a continent, state by state. European states have been independent for a long time... and have chosen to unite.
sigh.....I'm sure you're right. lol
I am sure that I am right when I say, "I don't know"...