Pilgrims is the name commonly applied to early settlers of the Plymouth Colony in present-day Massachusetts. Their leadership came from a religious congregation who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm of Holland in the Netherlands. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America…Their story has become a central theme in United States cultural identity. [wiki]
This country was born because people desired the freedom to worship their God in their own way. To me, that is so American.
To have the freedom to be yourself, to be entitled to respect, to experience tolerance instead of persecution…these are the central themes with which I define my American identity.
What else is American? E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. One cultural identity, comprised of hundreds of influences, origins and traditions. If you take a step back and ponder it, America seems like a miraculous idea; you start to respect the safeguards put in place to protect people. One of the most significant? The separation between church and state. This is where things get complicated, but that’s not a bad thing. Everyone is complicated, why should we expect our nations not to be? Yes, there are religious words on money and everyone knows that there is a Judeo-Christian foundation to a lot of what is considered American…but there is also respect for other ideas. Or at least, there should be. At the very least, there should be the freedom for others to worship their God, in their own way, no matter what you or I think about it. There should be mutual respect. There should be.
A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the Senate’s morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors’ gallery.
Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple in Reno, Nev., gave the brief prayer that opens each day’s Senate session. As he stood at the chamber’s podium in a bright orange and burgundy robe, two women and a man began shouting ”this is an abomination” and other complaints from the gallery.
Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an AP reporter, ”we are Christians and patriots” before police handcuffed them and led them away. [NYT]
No, you are Christians and fools. Way to make Team Jesus look awful, as you misrepresent everything that the man stood for and preached.
For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be ”seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god.” [NYT]
Yes, because the prayer he offered was SO offensive to actual Christians, agnostics or those who have been touched by a noodly appendage:
Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: ”We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.”
As the Senate prepared for another day of debate over the Iraq war, Zed closed with, ”Peace, peace, peace be unto all.” [NYT]
Let me tell you something about what that Uncle said– it was far kinder and more welcoming than a lot of what I heard in Catholic school, especially if the Pope was involved. For shame. Perhaps the most offensive aspect of his spiritual offering was its emphasis on peace?
Zed, who was born in India, was invited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Speaking in the chamber shortly after the prayer, Reid defended the choice and linked it to the war debate.
”If people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus,” Reid said, ”all they have to do is think of Gandhi,” a man ”who gave his life for peace.”
”I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace,” said Reid, a Mormon and sharp critic of President Bush’s Iraq policies. [NYT]
As several of you pointed out via email, news tab and flaming arrow, THIS is the money quote:
Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest ”shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it’s clear they mean only their religion.” [NYT]
What these Jesus-freaks are forgetting is that Christ was a man of peace. He didn’t surround himself with the pious and faux-righteous; he called those people out, as he deliberately and controversially chose to befriend the lowest of the low, tax collectors, prostitutes and the like. Was there ever a better example of tolerance in the Christian faith?
As I bitterly read the articles about this troubling, hurtful incident, I am reminded of those who persecuted Jesus, for what they perceived as his “blasphemy”. Two thousand years later, some of his so-called followers have become so drunk off of hate and fundamentalism, they cannot see straight, they cannot grasp that if this were two millenia ago, Jesus would be the man in the orange robe and they, they would be the hypocrites who attacked him and then cheered at his suffering.
You are the one who said “Hindu land” and that is exactly what I am being careful of– the comment which got my attention asked someone why his parents left “Hindu land”. Leave his parents out of it, please.
so unless we’re now considering Catholics to be polytheists
muslims and jews have both debated whether christians are polytheists (see the ashkenazi jewish debates about whether a christian church could be reused as a place for jewish religious meetings contingent upon whether it was a polytheistic religion or not). i think the consensus is that they aren’t polytheists, but muslims and jews have no doubts about each other.
shaad, you are correct – it was added after a campaign by the knights of columbus. this addition was the focus of newdow a few years ago, but they never got to the substance of the issue because of some technical issue (standing). it would be interesting to see how the supreme court would rule if it got that far again.
Organized religion pretty much sucks. Keep it at home. There are far too many low IQ religious zealots, that cause way too much harm to society in the name of almighty. I would like to see the disappointed faces of all these zealots in afterlife….if there is such a thing
actually, regarding the prisoner issue, i have to think about that more. i understand the law requies states to accomdate religion. hmmm.
So I\’m a lawyer – you don\’t have to be a jerk about it 🙂
This supreme court. 5-4, with Breyer writing a passionate and emotional dissent.
Or is it that Fundamentalists, by their definition, are fully religious, which is at odds with values of contemporary society? Perhaps “problems” of fundamentalism are nothing more than a conflict between religion and secular humanism. Moderates walk the line, fundamentalists and atheists don’t.
this is a complicated question. my own opinion (and that of many scholars) is that fundamentalists are a relatively new movement (the first “fundamentalist” revolution was sola scriptura based movements against roman catholicism during the reformation, a later one was the late 19th century american one against influences percolating in from germany and the higher criticism). it isn’t necessarily easy to place them at the antipode from contemporary society: fundamentalists of all stripes are often very selectively traditionalist. consider the rejection of older styles of religious worship by fundamentalist groups. the fundamentalists do reject the mainstream, but that is not because the mainstream is necessarily secular. salafist movements in the muslim world are rebelling against the local sunni establishment (hanafi, maliki, etc.). protestant fundamentalists rebelled against catholicism, not secularism.
and of course by their own definition fundamentalists are fully religious. but so are non-fundamentalists. religion is a matter of interpretation, even fundamentalist religion (after all, fundamentalists except for some salafists in saudi arabia don’t accept the geoncentric universe implicit in the older abrahamic texts).
What is with the backslashes? You’re not typing on the Unix command line!
Perhaps “problems” of fundamentalism are nothing more than a conflict between religion and secular humanism. Moderates walk the line, fundamentalists and atheists don’t.
HyperTree: I think creating a dualistic antagonism between “religion” and secular humanism is reductive and simplistic. As ANNA has many times illustrated, Christianity can be (and is) more nuanced than a fundamentalist interpretation of Biblical Scripture. Again, insert religion of choice in the blank. It’s the old argument about whether religions are static, fossilized sets of beliefs and behaviors, or changing, evolving institutions like law and government.
I think you’re right on in saying that both fundamentalists and atheists don’t walk the line; I find both irritatingly inflexible.
“i understand the law requies states to accomdate religion. “
but in practice it only accommodates some religions. no state could accommodate all permutations of dietary restrictions after all (muslims are easy insofar as they can eat kosher food).
Actually, I bootstrap my OS with toggle switches in binary every time I leave a comment.
I think you’re right on in saying that both fundamentalists and atheists don’t walk the line; I find both irritatingly inflexible.
as an atheist i can say that many of “my kind” admire fundamentalists because we believe that they encapsulate the real nuttiness of religion. but, as i’ve gotten older and read more i have to the conclusion that that’s a cop-out because even fundamentalists engage in a lot of interpretation. fundamentalism strikes many atheists as authentic because they often fulfill many of our caricatures, but that doesn’t mean that they really have more legitimacy than a more nuanced understanding of religion.
p.s. and just to be clear i do think that fundamentally all religion is rooted in psychological impulses no different from a bunch of papuans circling a wooden phallus which represents their god or some such superstition. but the reality is that there is still a lot of variation in how religion plays out in the world no matter its fundamental root assumptions (e.g., religion has been the inspiration for art & ethics, to name two points.
really? then how to explain this from rahul’s link:
does anyone know the name of case in which this was decided?
100 & 102: Personally, I don’t particularly care whether Mormons are labelled polytheists or not (a single deity is one too many for me). That said, I’d like the labelling to be consistent. If Mormons are polythesists, then so are Catholics. Finally, “righteous Mormon males” do not “become gods of their own universes” according to their scriptures. They merely seed new worlds for the “Lord”.
really? then how to explain this from rahul’s link:
i said in practice. muslim, hindu and wiccan prisoners have encountered a lot of resistance in getting their religious customs accommodated. they have to take it to the courts where their co-religionists plead their case and ‘reasonable’ accommodations are sometimes made. but, what if you are a member of a religion of one or a mystic with sincere by very personal views? you are probably screwed. so like i said, there’s a bias in the system for larger organized religions because they can appeal and have their particular superstitious rites respected by the law. if you are a smaller religion you are probably screwed (islam in the prisons went through this phase as it was initially not given much accommodation).
115: Apologies for the typo; I have no idea what “polythesists” are.
Finally, “righteous Mormon males” do not “become gods of their own universes” according to their scriptures.
religion is more than scriptures in practice (you can personally hold to sola scriptura, but that doesn’t mean others have to). Although it is not found in any of Mormonism’s Standard Works, an expression which precisely defines the LDS teaching that men can become Gods was coined by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God! According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation … They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).
On page 115 of his book entitled The Gospel Through the Ages, LDS Seventy Milton R. Hunter wrote, “No prophet of record gave more complete and forceful explanations of the doctrine that men may become Gods than did the American Prophet.” If eventual Godhood was such a common teaching among early Christians (as Mormons insist), why do we have to go to Joseph Smith to find out about it? If there was indeed a cover-up, it was surely one of unbelievable magnitude.
http://www.mrm.org/topics/salvation/god-man-may-become
Thats one of the reasons I don’t do religion too many hypocrites who call themselves people of god or whatever they are worshipping. Those same god fearing and bible toting folks will be the first to burn a cross in your yard go figure.
People with too many Ph.Ds.
in regards to the original post re: hindus and the american religious scene, this is, i think, the upshot: at some point hindus will become as accepted as normal members of the umbrella of patriotic religions as catholicism has become for most evangelical protestants. it will take, perhaps generations, but it will happen. ultimately the only people who are probably most certainly outside the bounds of acceptably are probably the unbelievers who simply don’t express beliefs which one can establish commonality with.*
Kusala: I did not mean to suggest a dichotomy between humanism and religion, and that they are antagonistic; only that there could be conflicts between them.
As Razib had suggested, I do think fundamentalists are being authentic: What can following a religion mean when you follow only certain precepts, those that you think do not conflict greatly with humanism. Isn’t this then an implicit rejection of religion?
But Razib’s comment was interesting that even fundamentalists reject many precepts, and pick and choose. In effect then, everybody rejects religion and only atheists are being authentic.
Yes! My ungod can beat up your god!
I’m glad you spoke out against this Anna. Yet again, the “model minority” learns that not everyone is so accepting of its cultural and religious modes. And yes, I am conflating, but to the man on the street, we may as well all be cow worshipping heathen or “dotheads.”
but that would be Satanists.
What can following a religion mean when you follow only certain precepts, those that you think do not conflict greatly with humanism. Isn’t this then an implicit rejection of religion?
well, take a look at a christian bible. or a talmud. or the koran. or the hadiths. though fundamentalists disagree, there really isn’t a way that you can logically fulfill all the precepts enumerated within because there are contradictions and conflicting injunctions. so you have to pick and choose, place it in its proper context, see what it “really means.” consider this anecdote about the rabbi hillel: Hillel, on the other hand, converted the gentile by telling him, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it.”
only atheists are being authentic
I used to be anti-absolutist. Now I’m just ambivalent.
Personally, I prefer Zen Buddhism. There seems to be quite a bunch of slapping involved. Usually as a strategy to avoid answers.
Razib, religious precepts are very much like our instincts then; numerous, useful in certain circumstances and frequently contradictory.
They’re then like our ancients’ justice system and legal code.
They’re then like our
ancients’justice system and legal codeWell said, kusala #130. You stole the words from my keyboard.
Razib, religious precepts are very much like our instincts then; numerous, useful in certain circumstances and frequently contradictory.
yes. the “problem” is that religious precepts are embedded in ontological assumptions about the universe and hooked up with the construct of a divine being which is the focus of a lot of emotional feeling. i believe that humans have particular evolved instincts which make their “prosocial.” but when you conflate your own instinct with what god wants then it takes on a new dimension. and so you have jihads, crusades and mass movements. some of this has been for the good (e.g., william wilberforce was convinced that slavery was wrong in part because of his christian faith and eventually he pushed the british navy to clamp down on the world wide slave trade). some of this has not been for the good (forced conversions, or relegation of marginal groups to “outcaste” status).
130, 131: was that a facetious jibe at the contradictions within the Indian or US legal code? Coz the Indian code is way way worse.
I wasn’t making comparative jibes at the Indian legal code vs. the US legal code.
Rahul #131: My keylogger can beat up your keylogger.
i wouldn’t bet on it. kennedy has been known to interpret the EC very broadly, and is for separation of church and state e.g. in school prayer. sometimes the SC has been thoroughly predictable, but there are some instances where the justices really do surprise you.
In effect then, everybody rejects religion and only atheists are being authentic.
well, only in regards to religion. the lack of internal consistency of human cognition is pretty normal. it isn’t that religion is special in exposing contradiction or selectivity; rather, it is typical of systems of human thought (e.g., see Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases for what i’m talking about).
Can you point me to an example? I don’t know details of his rulings or opinions in this area.
After an unfortunately unsurprising year, every surprise that scotus can deliver is welcome!
All hail kusala’s almighty keylogger!
Razib, do you then think that something other than religion can give shape and vent to our pro-social instincts? Secular Humanism certainly does not seem upto that task.
Rahul, so I suppose crusades and wars are a result of people compensating for their smaller keyloggers?
Community blogs.
And Steve Jobs. Oh wait, I said no religion.
Have you met a Mac enthusiast?
All hail kusala’s almighty keylogger!
Any SpoorLam sightings lately???
143 and #144: posts crossing 🙂 All hail the almighty mockneck and the shiny phallus he holds up.
uh oh, you talked about phalluses, now PG will be here to scold us on lingams and Indian men and something something
That reminds me. It would have been great if Zed had lifted up his dhoti on the dais and threatened the protesters with his giant saffron balls.
Razib, do you then think that something other than religion can give shape and vent to our pro-social instincts? Secular Humanism certainly does not seem upto that task.
sure. gov & politics for example. but, i don’t think religion is about pro-social instincts, it simply channels them (as it does many things, like philosophy or art). i think religion is about gods and the human sense that there is supernatural agency and order in the universe. most humans have a strong suspicion about these things for cognitive reasons (it’s one of the biases i’m alluding to). i don’t think anything will change that (i suspect most atheists are part of the minority in the human race who are psychologically a little aberrant, i don’t think it is a coincidence that most atheists are men and have a reputation for anti-social nonconformity).
and, to be practical, i think the strong need most people have for religion should force us atheists to be aware that there are different kinds of religion out there with different tolerance levels. even if we think that liberal and fundamentalist christians are both at the root bowing down before non-existent idols, it is important to remember that the former are less likely to force us to bow down before the nothings than the latter.