The following video is a public forum on the impact of religion in the public square. The forum includes notable writers and journalists such as Jon Meacham, Alan Wolfe and Reza Aslan. It is a fascinating dialogue on how religion has shaped American history and culture since our very conception. My purpose for posting it here is to try and instigate some further discussion on this topic.
Enjoy!
16 comments:
Thank you for this great video. I have always been - or so I thought - against "religion", per se, in this country, but I realize - as these people said - it is not "religion" but these so-called religious bodies that call themselves such but have no idea of true faith or religion. The speakers here bring up some very valid points, and I simply have to agree that a lack of religion - real religion - is to blame. This truly helped me gain a fresh perspective & helped me realize I was looking at things incorrectly. A sincere thanks for sharing.
Brad,
Don't have a lot to say except I thought this video discussion was excellent! I agree with the concept that all (except for one if I remember right) of the panelists agreed with, that being that more true religion is needed in the public square and less political 'religion' from the right and less religious cynicism from the left.
Maybe the panelists agreed too often with each other, I got the sense that they didn't really agree as much as they let on? But I think they did sincerely believe that more true religion would be a good thing for this country.
How that religion shows itself in the public square is maybe the more interesting question?
From where I stand, it seems as though religion is constantly looking for a "foot in the door" opening to get into government.
.
Politics being an element of government, having religion in politics actually puts it in our government--front and center. We got it big time. Only the blinded fail to see that.
.
Religion is such a strong cultural force that now is the time it should be made a subject of study in our public school systems. That would give us the opportunity for some serious deconstruction.
.
It was interesting to hear what the panelists had to say about the religiosity of GeeDubyawh.
Tim:
I completely agree. The panel would have benefited from some dissention. With that said, I also found the overall theme of the discussion -- i.e. more true religion being needed and less political nonsense mingled with Jesus from the religious right -- to be very convincing.
As to you last question on religion in the public square...what say you??? =)
Phil writes:
"Politics being an element of government, having religion in politics actually puts it in our government--front and center. We got it big time. Only the blinded fail to see that."
I'm not so sure that our founders would consider politics as an element of our government, Phil. Yes, I agree strongly that religion and government should be kept in separate spheres, but religion and politics would be virtually impossible to separate. You cannot separate a person's morals and ethics -- which are usually inspired from religion -- from how they choose to vote...nor should we seek to make this separation in the first place.
.
Brad writes, "You cannot separate a person's morals and ethics -- which are usually inspired from religion -- from how they choose to vote...nor should we seek to make this separation in the first place."
.
I think you are correct and I certainly agree with you on that. I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought the two can be separated.
But, my reaction is that religion needs to be a subject of study in our public schools. Maybe as a part of American History? How can anyone learn anything about America in a history class that ignores religion? And, I think including religion in American History classes would infuse a new and exciting interest in students.
.
Our religiosity could be greatly benefited from some healthy deconstruction.
.
.
"Deconstruction" implies an agenda, not a study, to me, Phil. But we all seem to agree it would be good for kids to understand it. These kids become adults someday, and worse than that, voters! In fact, I wrote awhile back that some religious right-fundamentalist understandings of the Bible could benefit from a more neutral study.
I roll my eyes sometimes when antitheists give ignorant readings from the Bible, but I also see them from those who thump it.
Should we "deconstruct" your last post, Tom?
.
Easy enough.
.
Brad,
"As to you last question on religion in the public square...what say you???"
Well, I guess I walked into that; but I'll trust that if I make a stab, you'll do likewise.
But first, I have to say that as much as there could have been more dissension, it was kind of nice for a change to have people find the agreement in what was being said instead of having to fight one another. Feels odd saying it, but religion is such a hair raising/splitting subject, it's rare you get that many respected people in the room who can "go with the program" so to speak.
I'll also say I that it was very significant that both journalists pointed out the huge role their profession plays in misrepresenting religion and non-religion in the public square. A whole talk on that would be probably one of the most fruitful discussions, especially if other journalists were listening!
Ok, onto the question at hand. Truth is, I'm not sure I'm completely clear on this, but I'll give it a whack. For starters, bible studies initiated by students held at school. They're ok as far as the law goes, as long as same access is granted other groups/clubs who ask. That can be some of the best religion though not the most public; though what they do outside of that bible study may be an important reflection on the study itself...
Staying with the public school theme (mainly high school), prayer at graduation. This might get people riled up?! I think it's fine to have someone in the class give a prayer, so long as the class government has decided to do this themselves, and the student gives/writes the prayer themselves. If the student government decides not to do/allow this, that's fine too. But that's who should decide it, not the courts. I know you will say minorities get shut out; and we can discuss if you'd like.
On the college grounds, we have a preacher here at the University where I work that stands in a common area and preaches some pretty crazy stuff. I know the person from high school; he was not like that in high school. I think it damages Christianity greatly, but I think it must be allowed. He has been barred from campus for two years recently because he was deemed a nuisance. I have mixed feelings on this, but will say this is true religion. As much as I disagree with his style and message (i.e., if we drink a beer, we are going to hell), it is religion. Obviously not constructive religion; at least not if you're Christian!
Well, those are three examples, all related to students. I'll let you provide some adult ones if you'll oblige. Thanks for the invite to put in my two cents.
Deconstruct away, Phil. Your agenda's pretty clear. Mine? I've already done a manifesto or two, if anyone was listening. I place much more value on questions than answers.
To re-touch on the idea of the desirability of the Bible being studied in a "neutral" fashion, things like students doing Bible study as Mr. Polack suggests is more of the blind leading the blind, IMO.
As evidence, I present a quote from Franklin's autobiography:
"Revelation had indeed no weight with me..."
I've seen this used often. Misused. Now let's deconstruct the entire quote. Read it, think on it, and tell me what it says to you.
"Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such, but I entertained an opinion, that, though certain actions might not be bad, because they were forbidden by it, or good, because it commanded them; yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own natures, all the circumstances of things considered. And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favourable circumstances and situations, or all together, preserved me through this dangerous time of youth, and the hazardous situations I was sometimes in among strangers, remote from the eye and advice of my father, free from any wilful immorality or injustice, that might have been expected from my want of religion. I say wilful, because the instances I have mentioned had something of necessity in them, from my youth, inexperience, and the knavery of others. I had therefore a tolerable character to begin the world with; I valued it properly, and determined to preserve it."
Now read the entire section of his autobiography.
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/bios/franklin/chpt4.htm
Did your understanding of it all change? Deepen, intensify?
I'm all for deconstruction, Phil, as long as it's not destructive, where what made sense to the author is turned into nonsense by the deconstructing reader.
I present this example because if we can't understand Franklin---and I've seen so many people who don't---we have zero chance with something millennia-old like the Bible.
.
My thought6s about you and deconstruction, Tom, were that you are "easy enough" to see through.
.
My agenda, as you say, is to discover truth. Yours seems to be that you have a certain ideology you continue to project. I have no qualms about that. Being different is one of the good things about life.
.
.
I look forward to your thoughts on the Franklin passage, then, Phil.
Tom writes, "'Deconstruction' implies an agenda, not a study, to me, Phil."
.
Well, I think you are all alone in that thought. Deconstruction definitely involves study and depending on the subject to be deconstructed, great study may be involved. Saying something is so doesn't make it so, Tom.
.
Tom continues, "But we all seem to agree it would be good for kids to understand it.
.
Understand what, Tom, religion or deconstruction?
.
And, "These kids become adults someday, and worse than that, voters!"
.
What is it that are you getting at here, Tom? Since when does getting to be a voter, make one worse than just being an adult? I don't get it. Am I missing something?
.
.
Tom offers, "Now let's deconstruct the entire quote. Read it, think on it, and tell me what it says to you."
.
Don't hold your breath. I'm not very interested in that issue.
.
My mind is fairly settled on Benjamin Franklin. I think he was a deist plain and simple. And I think that played a role in his motivation to be such an inventive person.
.
.
Tom, go ahead and put the quotation in some context of what's been written so far in this thread and Brad's post or the video.
.
If it's something you want to take apart and analyze, I'll try to help. Maybe others will also want to get involved.
.
But, I need some direction here.
.
????
Thx. Jonathan's latest post picks up the topic. Seeya there.
Post a Comment