During a recent (slightly heated) conversation in which everything political was put on the table for discussion – from the Cuban Revolution and the “natural” democratization of Latin America in the 1980s to the shortfalls of Reagan’s domestic policy – the role of religion in American politics inevitably came up. Since the faith of our current president provides much of the explanation, if not the motivation, for the vast majority of his policy decisions, it was a natural transition.
What was striking, however, was the unwillingness of the gentleman with whom I was (heatedly) speaking to discuss religion with the same tit-for-tat exchange of facts and ideas with which we had just discussed politics. He did agree with my statement that unquestioned dogma is most dangerous when applied liberally to politics. But that was as far as he would go. The conversation took a quick and decisive turn back to politics.
If one claims to be a person of faith, and readily acknowledges the perils of dogma-infused political positions, but refuses to openly discuss their faith (which, they admit, forms the basis of their political outlook), what separates them from the dogmatic people (usually Arab) whom they criticize? Very little.
What makes the study of political science possible is the fact that all of the forms, history, key players, etc of politics are fair game. Certain ideas are considered more radical than others, but none are considered too sacred for discussion because of some allegedly inherent personal nature of politics. If one is bold enough to espouse political views, it is assumed that they reached these views through some degree of reading or observation. Even if this person’s political views are merely the adopted views of others or the regurgitation of some radio show or biased media outlet, conversation should make this readily apparent. The fact that they exposed their particular political position makes them vulnerable to criticism and responsible for their own defense.
Espousing religious beliefs, however, does not demand the same responsibility of its adherents. It should.
In the course of the discussion mentioned above, I realized that my worldview and the worldview of the gentleman with whom I was talking differed greatly. More important than the fact that there was a difference, is where the difference began. Because one’s view of religion determines how one views the end of life, the ethical responsibilities of human beings, and myriad other ideas of immense importance, it cannot help but be the greatest determining factor in one’s politics.
If religion is such an important player in the world today, providing motivation for President Bush and Islamic fundamentalists alike, shouldn’t its merits be more defendable, and its adherents less defensive? I think so.
Obviously there are plenty of religious people that are more than willing to debate and discuss their respective faiths until all involved parties are blue in the face. The three monotheistic faiths are, unless practiced in the most watered-down forms, ultimately incompatible, and are also equally defensible, given the standard of evidence and the role of faith. This being the case, those people willing to discuss or debate (or murder, bomb, terrorize) to the death, will continue to do so to no end. And even though all of the talk of religious pluralism makes me warm inside, it is more disingenuous than realistic given the incompatibility and close proximity of the world’s religions, especially considering what is at stake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
i agree that if one does espouse a religion or faith as a motivating factor for their political policies, they should be able to explain why and how these opinions inter-relate. However, in the current political environment how much do we actually know about someone's (a politcal leader's) faith. They hesitantly mention general terms like "faith," Christian, Islam, the Bible, the Koran. Rarely do we hear Judaism, Jesus, or Mohammed. You certainly know the magnitude of differing denominational beliefs in Christianity that inspire rival politics. We now are being shown daily the manifestations of similar rifts within Islam and Judaism.
i seem to have been cut off:
i think there are a few reasons some are unwilling to discuss their religious beliefs. One, they are uncertain why they believe what they believe. As you say they are just adopted from someone else in catch phrases and terms that most people accept without question (like “faith,” “God,” “church,” feel free to replace with other Big 3 terms). Two, they don’t know how to explain their beliefs. That is to say, it is faith in something that doesn’t lend itself to “rational” justification. Three, and this is the one i think applies to most political leaders they are purposefully vague so as to endear certain people to themselves while not offending others.
None of these reasons justify the lack of discussion, especially in light of the gravity of decisions these beliefs are supposed to inform.
George W. is not the poster child for religion, so why do people continue to treat him this way? I'm not talking about the Christian Right but rather my liberal counterparts who point to George Bush as a reason religion is irrational and inherently wrong. Shouldn't we move beyond the soundbites and really examine the merits of religion?
I think that the three reasons that you gave for believers’ unwillingness to discuss their beliefs are exactly right. I also agree with your emphasis of the third scenario. While Bush does use necessarily vague language to assuage the fears of his political opponents and those who are not Christians, one does not have to search to hard to find elements of faith in his words, if not his actions. Whether or not Bush is the poster child for religion is not necessarily the question. He certainly isn’t the poster child for any GOOD religion. For many, Bush has, in fact, become the personification of ‘religion gone wrong.’ Whether or not he accurately displays the characteristics of a “leader of faith,” he is certainly touted as one by his loyal supporters. The fact that he seeks close counsel from the likes of James Dobson and Ted Haggard helps to perpetuate this image.
In the end, I agree with you that Bush shouldn’t be listed as “a reason religion is irrational and inherently wrong.” My point was precisely the same as yours, “shouldn’t we move beyond the soundbites and really examine the merits of religion.” I just tend to see very little of this actually taking place.
I tend to see discussion of religion following one of two paths: 1) Two people holding opposing views each enter a discussion having already decided that they will not concede one point to their opponent. They can argue the history, philosophy, and theology from their respective points of view. These people tend to be more interested in talking than listening. 2) Two people of opposing faiths enter into a conversation, each willing to discuss the merits and shortcomings of their own faiths. The goal of this conversation is to reach some point of agreement, perhaps a list of commonalities or shared values and principles on which these two people can base a friendship or other affiliation.
Both of these conversations are exhausting and dishonest. Because the Big 3 share so many similarities (Abraham, Jerusalem, etc), there is certainly a desire (in both religious and political circles) to achieve some sort of Ultimate Understanding. The problem lies in the fact that, as the two debaters in path one above illustrate, there is no shortage of points of contention among them. These two debaters would most likely argue, that anyone who believes in the inerrancy of their religion’s scriptures is not allowed make many of the concessions necessary to realize the dreams of most religious pluralists. Before true and productive religious dialogue can take place, those participating in the conversation have to be willing to leave the conversation with different views from those with which they entered it.
Post a Comment