I have been talking with many of you about our Puritan readings, and it has become increasingly apparent throughout our discussions that many people are adverse to the portrayal of god in a historical text. I was thinking about this, and I thought about how much God has fallen to the background in society. Not only that, but in many ways it seems that religion is in many ways unwelcome in public society. Whenever someone uses the words “God”, or “Jesus”, or especially “according to the Bible” it seems to immediately draw a plethora of scowls. Some things as simple as the substitution of “Merry Christmas” for “Happy Holidays” go to further support my point that religion is now looked down upon in many ways. People get especially upset when we start talking about religion in school. “Separation of church and state!” I hear that nearly every time religious values are put forth in a public setting, and the statement is usually uttered to dismiss whatever was previously stated.
So this is my question to all of you. How/why did this happen? How have we become so secular to the point where religion is in many cases scoffed at? Is it at all hypocritical for a society that professes to be so “understanding” to be so anti-religion? Why does religion bother people when talked about in a public setting? How has our evolution as a society lead us to the point where it is no longer politically correct to mention religious values in public? I know the argument is often that when one speaks about such matters in public he/she is forcing his beliefs upon others, but is the mention of God really that bad? Why do we detest the way in which William Bradford writes? I’d like to know people’s opinions.
Oh and….
E A G L E S EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 MORE TO GO!
(Kevin Trainer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
While there are times when religion is scoffed at in public, I don't think that that's the case most of the time. I think that we replace words like "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" because we are aware of the myriad of religions and don't want to step on anyone's toes.
Another reason may be because of what has happened in the past. Religion has been known to cause many problems, hence the whole separation of church and state. I think that some people don't want have to deal with those problems at all and think that the way to do that is to scoff at it whenever it comes up.
Also, I don't think that we detest the way Bradford writes. From my understanding, we don't like the way he writes because we aren't able to really comprehend what he really is trying to say without reading it really carefully (at least for me, anyway).
So basically, I think religion seems to be 'scoffed at' because people try to be understanding and want to avoid conflict (although I don't think that it's the right way to go, but that's the way it is).
I think we prefer to keep God out of history is because we like to believe that history is factual, whereas we cannot prove a god to be factual. Plus, we generally like to think that in history, one event happened to everyone who was there. So to introduce one god for a Judaeo-Christian version, we'd have to have a god for all other religion's deities. That's A LOT of different versions of one event just to have a religion based history.
As for the whole general dislike of religion in public, I don't think it's a dislike of religion itself. I think we're just taking advantage of our dear old democracy. Within the past 50 or so years, civil suits based on religion have sky rocketed. I believe people like playing the victim and claiming we're being religiously influenced by our government is an easy way to become one. It's not that the government is really forcing us into a Christian set of beliefs when they put a nativity scene in front of the post office. But we know they can't, so we tell on them. It makes the public and the government hush up about relgion to avoid suits. Scare tactics?
Plus, we don't like looking like idiots when we wish our Jewish neighbor a Merry Christmas...
(Megan)
I agree with both Mary and Megan but would like to bring up an additional point. I think the reason it's sort of looked down upon by many to bring up religious discussions in public is because religion is so important to many people. There are undoubtedly some topics that are touchy, to say the least. It's not because people "scoff at" these topics or do not believe them to be pertinent but so as not to rabble-rouse. Religion ranks very high on the list of things that people become personally offended about. Though our english class is a different story many people are nonconfrentational. They do not want step on toes or to offend other people personally. It is more socially correct to argue about other topics because religion is so important to some.
Therefore the reason that religion is less discussed in the public forum results from the numerous types of religions in our society and our disinclination to start arguments.
(Molly Dunbar)
As a society, we're not really "anti-religion", as you put it. It's merely that we try not to offend and exclude others. Mr. Lazarow spoke a little while ago of circles forming within circles; religion has a tendency to create "groups". We only have to look to the Middle East today to see that. Thus, today in society we try to minimize possible exclusion that could result from religion.
For instance, a non-Christian might be offended by constant mentions of Catholicism. It's not that we consciously avoid and dislike religion (much to the opposite, actually), it's just that we don't want to impose our beliefs on others. Integrating Christian values and the government might make sense to you, Kevin, but it might not to a non-Christian.
Granted, sometimes we take it too far, such as with the whole "Happy Holidays" matter, but there are good reasons why there is separation of church and state.
(Eric Wei)
I have no problem with referencing God and religious topics in discussion, whether it be at school or outside of school. Like the comments before me have said, we've become a circumspect (YAY!) society. Offending one's person beliefs has become a strict no-no.
It's odd, but I think that whether religious talk is acceptable or not depends on the ambience. Freshman year, almost every short story that we read alluded to the Bible in some form. Each student in the class was responsible for identifying these sorts of figurative language, despite their religious background. I thoroughly enjoyed the process, I felt that I could relate to it. Was there something inappropriate going on, though? All is dependent upon preference.
We can't forget basic reasons like science, too. Whomever said that our society was a materialistic one is right. Has this materialism gone so far that we now yearn to disprove anything that is based on faith and lacks concrete groundings? How are we supposed to explain that which cannot be explained? (I hope that makes sense.)
I feel that religion, when referred to neutrally, is perfectly acceptable.
(Sam Maliha)
To propose that religion has somehow been marginalized in modern society is contrary to any obvious observations. Over 90% of the US populace believe in some sort of God, so we are hardly a secular country. As many have already mentioned, religion is a sensitive (I'd say more sensitive than it needs to be) topic, and many fear alienating friends and acquaintances with a nice theological throw down. The idea that somehow religious values and morals are under attack uses much of the same skewed logic identified with the "War on Christmas." People like to feel as though they are oppressed, or as though they're beliefs are being encroached upon.
Furthermore, the way Bradford writes is quite insightful, and his work can be considered as a legitimate historical record. After removing the pro-Puritan biases and correlating his account with our own clear-cut version of textbook narration, we get an in-depth, personal telling. It is important to understand Puritan dogma, as it has manifested itself innumerable times throughout the history of this country.
(Taylor)
Eric points out that society isn't exactly "anti-religion" as Kevin sees it, while Taylor does not share Kevin's belief that religion has been "marginalized." Here's my question: can we truly make a definitive statement that society is "religious" or "anti-religion"? How exactly can we, if (sorry for sounding like a broken record) we all have differing definitions and perspectives? It's no wonder some of us disagree. Like almost everything we have discussed in this class, we again come down to the basics of Hayakawa: definitions and intensional maps.
Religion is of course particularly difficult to discuss, not only among ourselves but also in society, because of its lack of a "factual" basis (as Megan mentioned) and its spread over a huge population that likes to form circles on itself, as Eric reminded us. I'm sure we've all heard the expression telling us to avoid discussion of "money, religion, and politics" in certain social situations. In general, I agree with Molly that religion is seen as one of these three because there are so many different kinds of religions and because people generally wish to avoid unnecessary argument.
(Janet Lee)
I think Kevin's point is interesting. In such a "tolerant" society, why have we become so intolerant? Or has our definition of "tolerance" merely changed...
To answer Kevin's question, one thought I have regarding why this has happened is the fact that some religions hold the belief that there is absolute truth, and in a world so contrary to this concept, it's natural that people would shy away from this standard, and criticize the belief, the religion, or those that hold the belief. Absolute truth is "pushy", because it implies the "I believe that I am right and you are wrong" mentality. This is a contradiction of this idea of "tolerance", which implies that "whatever works for you" is okay. Absolute truth denies this.
I think people, in general, are averse to absolute truth because of the mentality that is generally associated with it. But, as with everything, absolute truth cannot be defined by only one mentality. If a person truly and honestly believes in what s/he is professing, doesn't it seem natural that s/he would want to share this belief with everyone else, and doesn't it seem natural that s/he would want others to adopt the beliefs that s/he has found so encouraging or life-changing?
Emily T.
Post a Comment