正文
God help us | Religion's role in America
By Dave Brown and Glen Hiemstra
Special to The Times
PREV 1 of 2 NEXT
Glen Hiemstra
Dave Brown
The airwaves, the blogosphere and the print media are awash with stories about conflict around the role of religion, now and in the future. As we turned the calendar page to a new year, the conflict showed no sign of cooling down. It is time to change the conversation in 2007.
In January, Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, took the oath of office on the Quran. His decision led Rep. Virgil Goode, a Virginia Republican, to call for immigration restrictions, "so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives." Apparently Goode did not notice that the first two Buddhists ever elected were sworn in at the same time.
As the field of presidential candidates becomes established in the first half of 2007, we can anticipate that religion will play a significant part in the campaign. Each candidate will be expected to explain the role of religion in his or her life while making targeted appeals to particular faith-based constituencies.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has already hired Burns Strider, who has been the head of religious outreach for the House Democratic Caucus since 2005, as a consultant for her 2008 presidential campaign. These appeals will comfort some while antagonizing others who feel that religion has become far too intertwined with politics and public policy.
We live in a time of debate over the role of religion in our society. The religious diversity that has taken root in this nation ensures that the debate will not simply go away. The diversity itself will continue to grow.
Fifty years ago, America's religious landscape was dominated by Protestant churches, Catholic cathedrals and Jewish synagogues. Things have changed! In 2007, America has become the world's most religiously diverse nation. Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs and other religious traditions that were once considered "world" religions are now "American" religions. While the exact number is unclear, the number of Muslims in America is equal to or greater than the number of American Jews or Episcopalians or Presbyterians.
Religious diversity is a reality. Some resent that diversity and feel America is to be a Christian nation, while others resent the increased expressions of religious convictions in public settings and policy debates. How do we move forward? Best-selling author Sam Harris ("The End of Faith"; "Letter to a Christian Nation") and others suggest that religion poses such a threat to world peace that the only way we can survive is for people to give up religion altogether. This viewpoint is, of course, countered by fundamentalists of all stripes who believe that their religion will prevail because it is the true faith.
The current conflict among religions and the debate between those who want to abolish religion and those who want to strengthen a particular religious heritage avoid what we believe is the central issue: How can people with different religious views, or no religious view, live together in the world, a nation or, for that matter, a neighborhood?
Even if one agrees with Harris that religion is a baseless superstition, the bottom line is that religion will always be with us. Religion may evolve. There may be new forms of religious expression. What is a given is that the vast majority of human beings will continue to be meaning-seeking and spiritual creatures. Whatever forms the religious expressions of the search for meaning may take in the future, it is likely they will clash with each other as they do now.
In such a reality, the most important question becomes not how to abolish religion or uphold one type of religion, but how can we do religion better? In the answer to this question lies a way to a peaceful future. We suggest four roads we might travel to help us move forward.
• We need to change the political conversation. In the current political climate, candidates deal with religion by articulating the way their faith has shaped their lives. Political pundits suggest that the inability to do this contributed to John Kerry's loss in the last presidential election. Countless articles have been written about the newfound faith on the left-hand side of the political spectrum.
The contest to out-faith each other needs to change. We do not need elected leaders who can talk about their own faith as much as we need elected leaders who can articulate the truth of our situation: that we are struggling as a nation to live with religious diversity, which includes those who choose to not be religious.
We need leaders who can change the political conversation from what my faith means to me to how can we move forward as a nation in light of our growing religious pluralism. Naming the problem is an essential first step to finding a way forward.
• It is time to create a "National First Amendment Day." The First Amendment provides the guidelines we need for the future. All too often there seems to be confusion about what the First Amendment permits and prohibits. In times like these, we need to understand the prohibitions and protections guaranteed by the Framers of the Constitution.
A National First Amendment Day would invite the public to study and celebrate this cornerstone of the American enterprise. It would provide an occasion for teach-ins, town meetings, media features, essays by schoolchildren, proclamations by officials and sermons by religious leaders on the topic of religious liberty in a religiously diverse nation.
It is time to build a coalition of legal, religious and political leaders to advance this idea.
• We need to examine how we handle both religious diversity and people who are intentionally not religious, in our public-school systems. For many of us, public-school classrooms were the first places we encountered children who came from families with worldviews different than our families'.
In the supercharged atmosphere of distrust and suspicion when it comes to religion and schools, do we do enough to assist educators to work appropriately with the religious issues that come into their classrooms? We all know the horror stories of teachers being accused of either limiting religious expression or promoting only one form of it. In their education, were these teachers helped to understand religious diversity and appropriate responses?
Our classroom teachers already face immense challenges. Perhaps local districts or the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction can help. It may involve new staff and additional resources. Yet, the funds spent will be an investment in the future.
• We each need to examine our own attitudes of tolerance versus exclusion or even bigotry when it comes to people who do not share our religious viewpoint. Do our attitudes andbiases deprive us of new friendships and understanding that would enrich our lives?
The possibilities for tolerance over conflict came home to us in October 2006 in, perhaps surprisingly, Istanbul, Turkey. It was Ramadan, which meant the Muslim majority fasted during the daytime and broke the fast at sunset. One evening, the Blue Mosque was surrounded by large festive crowds breaking their fast at food stands. The mood was joyous as people walked arm in arm while eating corn on the cob, lamb sandwiches and all types of sweets.
The crowd reflected the diversity of Istanbul. This was particularly evident in the dress of the women. Some of the women dressed traditionally, wearing a black niqab with only their eyes visible. Others dressed like any professional woman in New York or Seattle, while respecting custom by wearing in the traditional manner a brightly colored head scarf. Other women chose to not wear any head covering.
What was remarkable to a Western observer was that the religious or lack of religious dress was apparently not an obstacle to friendship. Women in Turkey (and men, for that matter) often walk arm in arm with each other as they walk and talk. That night in Istanbul, conservative women completely covered in black walked arm in arm with observant women who wore a head covering and with secular women who left their heads uncovered, enjoying each other's company.
We do not pretend to know what was going on in the lives of the women walking arm in arm on the streets of Istanbul. Yet, the friendship and mutual acceptance that were witnessed between people who approached religious observance in very different ways might say something to us as we struggle with growing diversity within the religious community and the growing anger toward religion by those who are fiercely anti-religious.
The challenge is substantial. There are voices on all sides of the debate that care more about either eradicating religion or converting the world than they do about creating peaceful communities rooted in respect and understanding. That will not change. Yet, our sense is that a sizable middle prefers to see a future where we learn to live with difference and diversity. Exploring how we get to that point is the question religious and secular leaders should be pondering.
The Rev. Dave Brown is a writer, consultant and pastor of Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Tacoma. Glen Hiemstra is the founder of Futurist.com and author of "Turning the Future Into Revenue" (John Wiley & Sons, 2006). Hiemstra, of Kirkland, and Brown have an ongoing program, "Will Religion Be the Death of Us?" that has been presented at the World Future Society's annual conference and other venues. Brown and his wife, Ann, were in Istanbul in October.
Copyright © The Seattle Times Company
By Dave Brown and Glen Hiemstra
Special to The Times
PREV 1 of 2 NEXT
Glen Hiemstra
Dave Brown
The airwaves, the blogosphere and the print media are awash with stories about conflict around the role of religion, now and in the future. As we turned the calendar page to a new year, the conflict showed no sign of cooling down. It is time to change the conversation in 2007.
In January, Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, took the oath of office on the Quran. His decision led Rep. Virgil Goode, a Virginia Republican, to call for immigration restrictions, "so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives." Apparently Goode did not notice that the first two Buddhists ever elected were sworn in at the same time.
As the field of presidential candidates becomes established in the first half of 2007, we can anticipate that religion will play a significant part in the campaign. Each candidate will be expected to explain the role of religion in his or her life while making targeted appeals to particular faith-based constituencies.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has already hired Burns Strider, who has been the head of religious outreach for the House Democratic Caucus since 2005, as a consultant for her 2008 presidential campaign. These appeals will comfort some while antagonizing others who feel that religion has become far too intertwined with politics and public policy.
We live in a time of debate over the role of religion in our society. The religious diversity that has taken root in this nation ensures that the debate will not simply go away. The diversity itself will continue to grow.
Fifty years ago, America's religious landscape was dominated by Protestant churches, Catholic cathedrals and Jewish synagogues. Things have changed! In 2007, America has become the world's most religiously diverse nation. Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs and other religious traditions that were once considered "world" religions are now "American" religions. While the exact number is unclear, the number of Muslims in America is equal to or greater than the number of American Jews or Episcopalians or Presbyterians.
Religious diversity is a reality. Some resent that diversity and feel America is to be a Christian nation, while others resent the increased expressions of religious convictions in public settings and policy debates. How do we move forward? Best-selling author Sam Harris ("The End of Faith"; "Letter to a Christian Nation") and others suggest that religion poses such a threat to world peace that the only way we can survive is for people to give up religion altogether. This viewpoint is, of course, countered by fundamentalists of all stripes who believe that their religion will prevail because it is the true faith.
The current conflict among religions and the debate between those who want to abolish religion and those who want to strengthen a particular religious heritage avoid what we believe is the central issue: How can people with different religious views, or no religious view, live together in the world, a nation or, for that matter, a neighborhood?
Even if one agrees with Harris that religion is a baseless superstition, the bottom line is that religion will always be with us. Religion may evolve. There may be new forms of religious expression. What is a given is that the vast majority of human beings will continue to be meaning-seeking and spiritual creatures. Whatever forms the religious expressions of the search for meaning may take in the future, it is likely they will clash with each other as they do now.
In such a reality, the most important question becomes not how to abolish religion or uphold one type of religion, but how can we do religion better? In the answer to this question lies a way to a peaceful future. We suggest four roads we might travel to help us move forward.
• We need to change the political conversation. In the current political climate, candidates deal with religion by articulating the way their faith has shaped their lives. Political pundits suggest that the inability to do this contributed to John Kerry's loss in the last presidential election. Countless articles have been written about the newfound faith on the left-hand side of the political spectrum.
The contest to out-faith each other needs to change. We do not need elected leaders who can talk about their own faith as much as we need elected leaders who can articulate the truth of our situation: that we are struggling as a nation to live with religious diversity, which includes those who choose to not be religious.
We need leaders who can change the political conversation from what my faith means to me to how can we move forward as a nation in light of our growing religious pluralism. Naming the problem is an essential first step to finding a way forward.
• It is time to create a "National First Amendment Day." The First Amendment provides the guidelines we need for the future. All too often there seems to be confusion about what the First Amendment permits and prohibits. In times like these, we need to understand the prohibitions and protections guaranteed by the Framers of the Constitution.
A National First Amendment Day would invite the public to study and celebrate this cornerstone of the American enterprise. It would provide an occasion for teach-ins, town meetings, media features, essays by schoolchildren, proclamations by officials and sermons by religious leaders on the topic of religious liberty in a religiously diverse nation.
It is time to build a coalition of legal, religious and political leaders to advance this idea.
• We need to examine how we handle both religious diversity and people who are intentionally not religious, in our public-school systems. For many of us, public-school classrooms were the first places we encountered children who came from families with worldviews different than our families'.
In the supercharged atmosphere of distrust and suspicion when it comes to religion and schools, do we do enough to assist educators to work appropriately with the religious issues that come into their classrooms? We all know the horror stories of teachers being accused of either limiting religious expression or promoting only one form of it. In their education, were these teachers helped to understand religious diversity and appropriate responses?
Our classroom teachers already face immense challenges. Perhaps local districts or the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction can help. It may involve new staff and additional resources. Yet, the funds spent will be an investment in the future.
• We each need to examine our own attitudes of tolerance versus exclusion or even bigotry when it comes to people who do not share our religious viewpoint. Do our attitudes andbiases deprive us of new friendships and understanding that would enrich our lives?
The possibilities for tolerance over conflict came home to us in October 2006 in, perhaps surprisingly, Istanbul, Turkey. It was Ramadan, which meant the Muslim majority fasted during the daytime and broke the fast at sunset. One evening, the Blue Mosque was surrounded by large festive crowds breaking their fast at food stands. The mood was joyous as people walked arm in arm while eating corn on the cob, lamb sandwiches and all types of sweets.
The crowd reflected the diversity of Istanbul. This was particularly evident in the dress of the women. Some of the women dressed traditionally, wearing a black niqab with only their eyes visible. Others dressed like any professional woman in New York or Seattle, while respecting custom by wearing in the traditional manner a brightly colored head scarf. Other women chose to not wear any head covering.
What was remarkable to a Western observer was that the religious or lack of religious dress was apparently not an obstacle to friendship. Women in Turkey (and men, for that matter) often walk arm in arm with each other as they walk and talk. That night in Istanbul, conservative women completely covered in black walked arm in arm with observant women who wore a head covering and with secular women who left their heads uncovered, enjoying each other's company.
We do not pretend to know what was going on in the lives of the women walking arm in arm on the streets of Istanbul. Yet, the friendship and mutual acceptance that were witnessed between people who approached religious observance in very different ways might say something to us as we struggle with growing diversity within the religious community and the growing anger toward religion by those who are fiercely anti-religious.
The challenge is substantial. There are voices on all sides of the debate that care more about either eradicating religion or converting the world than they do about creating peaceful communities rooted in respect and understanding. That will not change. Yet, our sense is that a sizable middle prefers to see a future where we learn to live with difference and diversity. Exploring how we get to that point is the question religious and secular leaders should be pondering.
The Rev. Dave Brown is a writer, consultant and pastor of Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Tacoma. Glen Hiemstra is the founder of Futurist.com and author of "Turning the Future Into Revenue" (John Wiley & Sons, 2006). Hiemstra, of Kirkland, and Brown have an ongoing program, "Will Religion Be the Death of Us?" that has been presented at the World Future Society's annual conference and other venues. Brown and his wife, Ann, were in Istanbul in October.
Copyright © The Seattle Times Company
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
