Theory and Practice of Religious Studies

Reading is Believing: the Logic of "Death Panels"

2009-09-10T07:26:00.000-07:00

Just what is the logic of the continued accusation that health care reform would set up “Death Panels”? Warning! The answer may so confound you that your sense of logic will never be the same!

Former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich is perhaps the most outspoken representative of Republican reason. Here is his defense of the term “Death Panels” disclosed to National Public Radio listeners in an interview with Renee Montagne.
("Gingrich's Advice to Obama." Morning Edition. Sept. 9, 2009)

Gingrich offered two pieces of evidence in his argument: a) “The bill” would include commissions “that would have enormous sweeping power”; b) President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's brother, Dr. Zeke Emanuel, wrote a paper in which he suggested, however, unwisely, that the health care system might limit health care for certain groups of persons like the aged and those with certain disabilities.

Montagne pointed out that Dr. Zeke has clarified that he was just laying out options. Moreover, she said, it doesn’t matter because nothing like that is any proposed bill.

Hang on. Here is the reply of the learned Former Speaker of the House and head of a consulting group on health care, “Center for Health Transformation.” People actually READ Dr. Zeke’s writings. We cannot trust that the doctors and others on the commissions will not READ this kind of material. And if they are disposed to “big government,” well, who knows how far they would go?

That’s it! That’s the danger. We are left to our own conclusions. But it is amazing that READING has recovered such powers. It can turn decent, albeit “big government” loving folks, even those with medical degrees, into raving Dr. Kevorkian’s.

Now what kind of material has this kind of power? The Qur’an? The Bhagavad Gita? The Bible? The Lotus Sutra? You would think that scriptures that claim some kind of higher source in revelation or enlightenment would be the answer. But no, it is stuff that is either a) Written by the President’s advisor’s brother; or b) Suggests that health care should be limited in some cases.

I told you that you would be confounded. There is mystery here! A kind of esoteric logic that beats the best of the Gnostics! Yet the deeper inscrutability is why people actually believe this kind of logic. Or perhaps why Gingrich believes that people believe his logic.

I give it to Montagne who retrained herself from laughing at the mental gymnastics it takes for anyone to comprehend Gindrich’s logic. Perhaps she knows something , something we can conclude from this latest example of the folly of the ages. People believe what they want to believe.

In this regard, Gingrich pointed out that there is a fundamental difference of viewpoint underlying the “Death Panel” allegations. The Republicans are riding a surging wave of mistrust of government. As incredible as they are, their feats of logic simply evoke and manipulate that mistrust. Some Americans want to believe in “Death Panels” because they are afraid of “big government.” How did they get this notion? Would the deceitful behavior of the past Republican administration and the disparaging rantings of Republican leaders like Gindrich have anything to do with it?

Nevertheless, this latest excursion into the absurd has a lesson. It’s not to beware of reading. It’s to be aware of and to beware of… what you want to believe.

The Happy Hypocrites

2009-08-28T10:41:00.000-07:00

LAUGHABLE: Pictures of Retired Protesters Protesting “Socialized Medicine” While Using MediCare!!
Take a close look at the folks protesting government-run health care at the recent town meetings. On second thought, you don't need a close look. It is obvious. Many of those whooped up into an anti-government frenzy are filled with indignity that the government would actually get involved in health care. And many are anxious that a government plan might affect their precious government-provided Medicare.
Their protests leads to a simple solution that would help fund a government health care insurance plan. Let all who do not want to government to interfere with their health care take their name off the Medicare rolls. Yes... let them fund their own health care insurance, as they want those who are unemployed, suffering pre-existing conditions, or otherwise left out of our current health care system to do.
I nominate the bunch above to be the first to take their names off the Medicare rolls.

The Past of an Obsession: the ELCA and Gay Clergy

2009-08-24T10:38:00.000-07:00

In the midst of the worst economic times since the Great Depression and a fierce debate on health care reform, a liberal religious denomination has admitted homosexuals in “committed relationships” into the ranks of its professional class. The action offers scholars a case study in how an American scripture-driven denomination can adapt itself to changing moral attitudes.

With its recent action, the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church leapt over the Methodists and Presbyterians to take leadership of the sexual politics of liberal Protestantism. The action may be the tipping point in the drive of liberal Protestants to accept gay clergy and finally to perform marriages of homosexuals.

Of course, the Episcopal Church U.S.A. is on the front lines of the battle led by its hero, the gay bishop Gene Robinson. But the Episcopal Church USA’s influence is restrained. First, Anglicans in the Third World counter-balance the Americans in global Anglican circles. Second, dissenting Episcopal congregations can and do join Anglicans in the Third World, in effect creating their own alternative denomination(s). But the liberal Lutherans are not hampered by such limitations.

The liberal Lutherans have now challenged the leaders of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and the United Methodist Church to get their denominations in tow and to adopt the same measures. Now that the Lutherans have shown how to do it, the pressure to follow suit will be irritable. In the next round of church conventions, you can be sure that most other liberal denominations will get with the program of gay clergy and marriages.

But how did it happen? Let’s be clear that we are not talking about the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The ELCA Lutherans have long before handed the banner of historic Lutheranism to this denomination of more dogmatic Lutherans. We are speaking of the ELCA. This largest Lutheran denomination is a mixture of Germans and Scandinavian churches. But through a series of mergers, the now 4.85 million member franchise has moved progressively away from its European roots and toward homogeneity with American liberal Protestantism.

You can call these Lutherans, the “Nordic Nice Guys.” Just think of Garrision Keeler’s Lake Wobegon Lutherans. The heart of this denomination is the upper Midwest. Its corporate headquarters are near the O’Hare Airport in Chicago. But its spiritual center is not far from Lake Wobegon in Minneapolis where the largest seminary is located. You would not think that these nice folks would be the prime example of cutting edge liberals and they aren’t. So how did these come to inherit the leadership of the gay clergy campaign? That gets to the question of how they did it.

Church mergers are like corporate mergers. Everything goes up for grabs. In the chaos of the last merger that formed the ELCA in 1987, left leaning political forces wrestled the control of the denomination from its local clergy and the congregation they represent. How did that happen? The merger gave authority to set policy (and, as it turns out, theology) to a national convention held every two years. This was the “Churchwide Assembly” that just met. But the merger process set quotas that required certain percentages of lay and minority persons to be represented at the “Churchwide Assembly.” Thus the representation of local clergy who might have had the clout to counter the stratagems of the denomination’s corporate management was severely restricted.

The August vote on acceptance of practicing gays is an example of the adroit management of corporate executives and their supporters. Normally, the adoption of policy and “social statements” of the ELCA require a 2/3’s vote. The vote to accept practicing gays to the ranks of the clergy, however, was by simple majority vote. As it turned out it was 559 in favor and 451 opposed. This was an affirmative vote of 56%, a percentage far below the required 66.67% that most policy changes require.

An article by Marc Kolden published on the ELCA site claims that the proposal for change, now adopted, was the result of efforts of a minority of persons in the ELCA. "Marc Kolden. "Is the ELCA Too Big to Fail...?" This group, he says, has been undeterred by theological, scriptural, ethical, or scientific arguments. Kolden states, “Despite objections from a majority of synod [diocesan] bishops and at least fifteen synod [diocesan] councils, the August vote on this momentous change in the nearly unanimous teaching of the Christian Church since the time of Jesus is to be decided by a simple majority of voting members in a highly charged and politicized atmosphere.” What about the board of directors? Kolden charges that the “Church Council” (Board of Directors) just rubber-stamped the proposal.

The vote was a close call for the corporate management and its supporters who had worked on this agenda for at least ten years. Even then, the vote was carefully managed in a series of four steps. These steps insured that the corporate managers were not going to be embarrassed.

The ELCA Website conveniently published a timeline to show how the corporate executives and left wing of the denomination finally got their way. The timeline starts with 2001. But if fails to mention that in 1993, six years after the merger, the ELCA’s “Church and Society” division sent out a proposed draft to change the denomination's thought and practice on sexuality. The 1995 Churchwide Assembly was to vote on "The Church and Human Sexuality: A Lutheran Perspective” statement. However, the report caused such a uproar among local pastors and congregations that then Bishop Chilstrom begged them to “read the report” (Chilstrom: Read the Sexuality Report.” CHRISTIAN CENTURY v110n33 [Nov 17, 1993]”) Even the bishops were so displeased that they offered an alternative report.

The report said that "binding commitment, not the license or ceremony ...lies at the heart of biblical understandings of marriage." This would be a continuing theme and make possible the endorsement and support of practicing gays in “committed relationships.” Incredibly, it also opposes the church’s own ritual and traditions of marriage.

Recovering from that failed attempt to reflect the sexual revolution of the 60's, the Churchwide Assembly authorized a study on matters of homosexuality and ministry for report at the 2005 assembly. What followed was a process of at least three major studies throughout the ELCA (and a fourth “Bible study”). There were at least two sets of responses from congregations and other bodies of the denomination. Finally in March 2008, a proposed Draft Statement was released. The task force received 2077 response forms to the draft and more than 800 letters and theological statements. There were 111 hearings in synods (dioceses). Throughout this process, there were also innumerable articles in THE LUTHERAN, the ELCA’s official church magazine.

All this takes time. The 2005 Churchwide Assembly voted to postpone action on the issue until this August. Going further, the 2007 Assembly specifically directed the task force in charge of the sexuality study to make recommends on accepting gay clergy. Finally, this August, the task force offered the study on sexuality AND added recommendations for the acceptance of practicing gay to the clergy. As I stated, the recommendation on accepting clergy in committed gay relationship was adopted by a narrow majority vote. The study on “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” did require a two-thirds vote. It was adopted by exactly that percentage.
The denomination therefore spent an incredible amount of time, money, and energy on this process. The ELCA website offers the history, documents, and resources for the project including statements of the predecessor bodies. It is an impressive catalog of materials available for researchers.

Meanwhile going back to 2001, the U.S. has reeled from the attack of September 11, 2001, engaged in two wars, gone through the "dot-com bust" and now “Great Recession,” elected the first African-American President, etc. Now it is debating the most far-reaching social legislation since the legislation on the “Great Society.” But the ELCA Lutherans have been distracted from effective responses to these events by their investment in sexual politics. To be fair, the August Assembly passed a resolution by a vote of 799-128 that every person should have access to basic health care services and reasonable cost. It was to urge all involved to convey the “urgency and sense” of the resolution to government officials. That was it. The Assembly had more compelling matters to attend to.

That is the past of an obsession in one Protestant denomination. What is the future of this obsession? More to come.

It's Not about Health Care: It's about Culture Wars

2009-08-13T11:16:00.001-07:00

Like many of you, I received a message from the hastily organized White House truth squad today. That lead me to the “Health Insurance Reform Reality Check” videos. One of them features White House Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle who counters viral e-mails that quote from the health reform bill with page numbers. DeParle claims that the allegations do not appear on the pages quoted and they do not show up in any other parts of the bill.

But where do these charges that the whitehouse.gov calls “lies and rumors” come from? One source is the religious right.

To be sure, the religious right is agitating the faithful. For example, according to the MINNESOTA INDEPENDENT, Radio evangelist Jan Markell (Olive Tree Ministries, Maple Grove, MN) told her radio audience go to the town meetings and “read them the riot act—in Christian love-but read them the riot act on this issue of health care.”

Then too, the INDEPENDENT article by Andy Birkey (August 7)reported that the Minnesota Family Council, a group dedicated to promoting "biblical principles," called government health care reform “against God’s design.” Moreover, James Dobson’s Family Research Council ran a short add “After Government Health Takeover” that alleges that the government will not pay for surgery but will pay for abortions.

But what about the source of the “mis?”-information? The “Daily Kos” reprinted an article from the online magazine “Facing South” (Institute for Southern Studies). The article “Far-right religious group behind "death panels" myth...” charges that religious right is “behind other health care reform distortions.” It charges that ex-Governor Sarah Palin got her applause line about “Death Panels” from the Liberty Counsel. The Liberty Counsel is affiliated with Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and Falwell Ministries. http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/the-far-right-religious-group-behind-the-outrageous-health-care-reform-lies.html

The “Facing South” piece refers to a set a “talking points” posted on the Liberty Counsel website. The article “Far-right religious group behind 'death panels' myth...” charges that religious right is “behind other health care reform distortions.” It charges that ex-Governor Sarah Palin got her applause line about “Death Panels” from the Liberty Counsel. The Liberty Counsel is affiliated with Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University and Falwell Ministries.

Those points are comments on sections of the HR 3200 bill in the House of. Here is an example of a “point:” “Sec. 2521, Pg. 1000 - The government will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?” The Liberty Counsel posted this list.
However, the Liberty Counsel reports that it was revised and adapted from another source. It can from Peter Fleckenstein and was posted on FreeRepublic.com and his blog. He called his item by item commentary, “The HC Monstrosity-All 1,018 Pages” http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/19/the-hc-monstrosity/

This brief check of the sources shows how politics and religion are inseparably intertwined in the managed promotion of outrage that we see in the rowdy congressional Town Meetings. What blends politics and religion together? According to the mindset of the religious right and the political right, the U.S. is engaged in a national culture war. In this mortal conflict, both the conservative religious and secular forces are united in defending a vision of American society that transcends sectarian religion and partisan politics.

In conclusion, a fruitful way to analyze what is happening this August is to look at the wider cultural context of the controversy. The transcendent factor here is not religion in the limited sense that we use the word. It is culture.

Ghosts in the Medical Profit Machine

2009-08-05T11:54:00.001-07:00

Believe in ghosts? The medical profession may seem to be the last place to look for ghosts. But a NEW YORK TIMES article has spotted them in the medical journals that claim to report on objective scientific research that can be trusted for medical practice.

In "Medical Papers by Ghostwriters Pushed Therapy," Natasha Singer reports the sighting of ghostwriters in 26 scientific articles (from 1998 to 2005) in medical journals promoting hormone replacement therapy for women. The giant drug company Wyeth paid a “pharmacological communications firm” (drug advertising agency) to develop articles for respected medical journals. These articles eventually appeared in 18 peer-reviewed medical journals under the names of respected academic researches and professors without mention of their true sponsorship or authorship. The ghost busters were lawyers who took Wyeth to court, The attorneys were sponsored by the NEW YORK TIMES and PLoS Medicine (an open-access journal of the Public Library of Science).

This is not the only evidence of specter’s lurking unseen behind the scientific facade of much of today’s supposedly objective medical research. Here is more information from an article written by Sergio Sismondo (Sismondo, Sergio. "Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry?" PLoS Med 4, no. 9 (2007): e286.)

Sismondo reports that David Healy and Dinah Cattell found that the Pfizer Drug Company was behind 85 of 211 articles on “sertraline” listed in Medline from 1998-2000. That means that Pfizer drugs had “managed” up to 40% of the articles with “sertraline” in the title that were published in the most respected medical journals for that time period. The Pfizer-directed articles were in the most prominent journals, had more prestigious authors, and surely made an impact on the medical view of the drug. Unsurprisingly all the articles were complimentary and the drug’s side effects were minimized. Incidentally, what is “sertraline”? Pfizer named it “Zoloft,” a huge profit-maker.

Researcher Sergio Sismondo says that the drug company involvement in medical research is huge but hard to track down. It funds twice as many clinical trials as non-for-profits. But its role is often hidden. Practices such “honorary authorships” are common. That means, the the drug companies hire agencies or employees to dream up research articles, develop them, and then find respected “name” medical researches and professors to endorse them.

For example, the TIMES gathered evidence that a prominent professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology Dr. Gloria Bachmann signed off on an article written by an article mill (“DesignWrite”). Bachman was caught because she sapproved the outline and first draft of the article by e-mail. By e-mail, she said she made “one correction” to the draft but then said it was “excellent.” According to the TIMES, the article that Bachmann OK'd appeared in the “Journal of Reproductive Medicine" in 2005. The published version was almost exactly like the draft from “DesignWrite.” Backmann denied that she did anything wrong. She said that she lent her expertise to the article. She insisted that her role was to make sure it was accurate. But the article lists her as the author, not the reviewer. Obviously, what she gave the article was her endorsement under cover of her widely respected name.

PubMed lists a total of 56 articles that Bachmann has offered the medical profession. The case of
“her” article “Menopausal vasomotor symptoms: a review of causes, effects and evidence-based treatment options.” makes one wonder how many of other articles amount to no more than product endorsements. It also makes one wonder what her part was in what some have called “the medicalization of menopause."

Sismondo says that to catch the ghosts in the machine of the medical profession, we need to look more broadly at what is going on in this covert marketing of drugs. He calls the sponsorship, design, and development of the articles written on behalf of the drug companies “ghost management.” In sum, drug adverting that appears in medical journals as “research” is just another example of the “managed care system" of today’s medicine.

More and more evidence is coming into view that our present broken health care system is managed by the insurance companies, drug cartels, trial lawyers, and medical institutions. Now these profit-obsessed parties are trying to manage the debate on health care reform. Whether it is in drug research or political debate, they are hiring ghostwriters, honorary authors, and PR agencies to work undercover for them. It’s all rather spooky.

The Logic of Jupiter's Moons

2009-08-03T07:19:00.000-07:00

When Galileo fixed his telescope on Jupiter, he found something incredible. Four moons were revolving around the largest planet in the solar system. What Galileo saw when he applied his new scientific technology to the heavens did not fit the theology of the day. Critics of religion point repeatedly use the response of the church as a prime example of religious intolerance. But Galileo’s findings did not fit the science of his day either. And the scientific response was hardly a model of open-mindedness.

An article in the August 2009 Smithsonian magazine (David Zax. “Galileo’s Vision”) reports the finest logic of the day concerning the existence of the moons of Jupiter. The nobleman Francesco Sizzi declared, “These satellites of Jupiter are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can exercise no influence on the Earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist.”

Where have we heard logic like this before? Let’s replace the “satellites of Jupiter” with G-o-d. There you have it: the perfect proof for the non-existence of God. God cannot be caught by our sense perception or its instruments. Therefore God has no bearing on our lives. Therefore, we have no need of that hypothesis. Therefore God doesn’t exist!

You might say, “But the moons of Jupiter COULD be observed with the right instruments--instruments that Galileo had.” You might say that the analogy will not hold because God is not observable. Congratulations! You have learned the first principle of major religions such as Western monotheism, Taoism, and Hinduism. So the religions talk in apophatic terms about the God beyond human knowing, the Tao that cannot be named, the Absolute (Brahman) that has no form.

The attempt at proofs of God violate this first principle of the transcendence of God. Is this argument from the inscrutability of God a form of the ontological argument? Let’s see.

God is that which is not an object yet nonetheless is ultimately real.
I suppose the reality of the object-less reality is presupposed. But then, this argument entails the denial of the possibility of proving God’s existence—at least by empirical reason.

Can Religious Believers Be Good Scientists?

2009-07-27T08:18:00.000-07:00

Americans used to argue whether an atheist could be moral. Fortunately, that question has been laid to rest in this country. But now a similar question has surfaced: can a theist be a good (real) scientist? In his opinion piece in the NEW YORK TIMES today, Sam Harris, author of THE END OF FAITH, in effect, says “No.” (Sam Harris. "Science is In the Details." NEW YORK TIMES. July 27, 2009). That is the same kind of discrimination that is implied in the question about the morality of atheists.

Harris questions the appointment of Dr. Francis Collins as the director of the National Institutes of Health. What’s wrong with Collins? Harris is “concerned” about his religious beliefs. Harris ends with the question: “Must we entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?" What is Harris suggesting?

All arguments aside, Harris should read the Constitution of the U.S.: “… no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” (Article VI, section 3). Overlooking this protection of religious freedom, Harris is “concerned” that Collins believes in a Creator who endowed humans with souls, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, and genuine altruism. If this kind of belief would disqualify candidates for federal office, we would have few to choose from—except Harris. And we would have to scrap the Declaration of Independence that professes: "... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Let’s look at the credentials of the object of Harris’ attack. Collins was head of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). According to the Website of this project, “Dr. Collins received a B.S. from the University of Virginia, a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Yale University, and an M.D. from the University of North Carolina. Following a fellowship in Human Genetics at Yale, he joined the faculty at the University of Michigan, where he remained until moving to NIH in 1993. His research has led to the identification of genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes and the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease and Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences.” All this sounds like Collins is about the jeopardize the future of biomedical science in the U.S.

If you know Harris, you know the reasons that he is attaching the appointment of Collins. Harris believes that science and religion are incompatible. He states, “Religion and science will inevitably clash because religion clings to unfounded beliefs. Conversely, science rejects everything that cannot be proven. In principle, religion is closed-minded and intolerant of other differing notions. In principle, science is always open to new evidence and the testing of its theories” Sam Harris, "Science Must Destroy Religion," in HuffingtonPost, ed. Arianna Huffington (HuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 2006)

To the contrary the Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that science and religion are “non-overlapping magisteria”—separate fields of knowledge. “No such conflict should exist because each subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority—and these magisteria do not overlap (the principle that I would like to designate as NOMA, or "nonoverlapping magisteria"). The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)” (Steven Jay Gould. "Non-Overlapping Magesteria." The Unofficial Gould Archive.)

A supporter the theory of theistic evolution and a compatabilist, Collins has stated, ““When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.” Steven Swinford. “I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome." TIMES ONLINE. June 11, 2006.)

Which of the above views would qualify or disqualify someone to be director of the National Institute of Health? If Harris should be disqualified, how about Stephen Jay Gould? This is the kind of argument that the protections of the freedom of religion were meant to avoid. If his track record is any indication, Collins will be a fine director of the NIH. And if it needs to be proven again, he will show that religious believers can be good scientists.

Science Distinguished from Scientism

2009-07-23T12:50:00.000-07:00

See the thoughtful comments of Chris K. His post deserves a more extended answer than I can put in a comment. Here it is.

I appreciate the care applied to the reasoning of the argument. We agree on our “overreliance on western medicine,” the need for “holistic” health care and, perhaps, the possibility of "alternatives" to Western medicine. My response to the ethical question of withholding medical treatment of children for religious grounds is to say that “alternative medicine” is too strong a word. I do reject the notion of substitute methods of healing but I do propose “complementary” methods. The dilemmas that arise from cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Science are the result a regrettable and unnecessary hostility of religious believers to Western science.

But to go on, I think that we can too easily accept Western medicine as tested and “alternative” ("complementary") medicine as untested and therefore inferior. In the light of your comments about science (“nothing is guaranteed thru utilizing the scientific method”), I think that we should be circumspect in talking about tested medical treatments. Melvyn Werbach (Psychiatry: University of California, LA,) points out the flaws of the randomized controlled trial that is the best medical test procedure now available. Among these are the difficulties of finding the right placebo, making the test truly double-blinded, and ruling out the bias of the researcher (Melvyn R. "Medical Science and Scientism: When Is Belief in Science a Religion?" Alternative therapies in Health & Medicine 10, no. 3 (2004): 14-92). These flaws do not warrant the replacement of Western medicine. But to say that “modern medicine is … the most effective approach to health care” is to make a generalization. In practical cases, complementary therapies may achieve better results than Western medicine alone.

This gets to your initial and the crucial question. I was speaking of “our cultural attitudes” when I said, “Science claims to be the sole guarantor of truth.” The title of the piece was “Scientism…” You are right to suggest that science must be distinguished from scientism. You know the field of philosophy and the intricate arguments surrounding this topic better than I do. But I can refer to the field of religious studies. In a recent book, Huston Smith distinguishes science from scientism. Scientism as an ideology has two founding principles: 1) The scientific method is the only (or most reliable) method of arriving at truth; 2) Material entities that are accessible to science are the “must fundamental things that exist” (Huston Smith. WHY RELIGION MATTERS. Harper: 2001, 59-60).

When we analyze these principles, we find that scientism is a form of reductionism that narrows down our notions of reality (metaphysics) and knowledge (epistemology) to what is material. Now the scientific method rightly accepts a “methodological naturalism” that circumscribes the proper field of study to “material entities.” But it becomes an ideology when it makes claims about reality and knowledge beyond the limitations of its methodology.

I hope that you are right that scientists who are true to science avoid scientism. However, you know that science is so privileged in the academy as well as society that scientism is a real temptation. In an insightful article P. J Dawson (Research Nurse: Psychiatric Nursing Institute, Melbourne, Australia) states, “The success in increasing our knowledge and control of the world has tended to reinforce the perception that science provides the only valid tools of knowledge” (Dawson, P. J. "A Reply to Goddard’s ’Spirituality as Integrative Energy’." In the Journal of Advanced Nursing, 282-89: Blackwell Publishing Limited, 1997. 286).

That observation leads me to believe that my reference to scientism was more than a “straw man.” Dawson states that science (as opposed to scientism) is coming to realize the role of creativity in scientific investigation in addition to rigorous empirical methods. Moreover, she says that science acquiring an appreciation (in a Kantian sense) that the world it analyzes is a mental construct (287). These developments lead science in a promising direction away from scientism and toward a promising integration of science with the humanities.

I cannot help but quote Dawson when she says that “religion, like science is a form of knowledge, a legitimate and comprehensive method of understanding the world, of investing it with meaning” (287).

In that spirit she says that religion may have evolutionary benefits and that “our present fascination with, and mystification by, positivistic naturalism, the scientific outlook, may constitute a fatal aberration” (287). Like my article, Dawson suggests that religion has a role in health care. Again, I was asserting that religion should claim that historic role.

These comments, of course, have to do with the nature and limits of science. When we speak of health care, we are speaking of applied science. I am arguing that our cultural attitudes toward medicine are a kind of applied scientism. I think that this is the public’s attitude to medicine and it fuels the insatiable demand for Western medical care in America. But that view is not limited to the masses. The medical establishment acts, for all the world, as if it and it alone holds the keys to the kingdom of health. It does so as the priestly caste that alone has authority to mediate the favors of the god of scientism.

Thanks again for your stimulating response to the original post.

Scientism and the Health Care Monopoly

2009-07-21T11:21:00.000-07:00

Health care and religion have a historic close connection. Only since the Enlightenment has the West split health care from religious influence and activity. Now, for those who can afford it, religion is a optional supplement that might have psychological benefits to those who choose it. But what about those who cannot afford health care in the U.S. and throughout the world? It would be interesting to compare the ideas of the role of religion in health care in countries where health care is readily available and those who do not.

Our cultural attitudes toward health care reflect the Enlightenment mindset. Science claims to be the sole guarantor of truth. Western medicine guards its status as the sole representative of the application of science to health. This mindset insures that the medical establishment has a monopoly on health care. Anyone outside this collusion of medical professionals, hospitals and clinics, insurance companies, and drug companies cannot be certified. There are huge cultural and legal sanctions against those who try to provide health care outside this monopoly as the history of cases against the Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses show. Insurance coverage for “alternative medicine” stills lags behind Western medicine despite growing public demand.

As the recent debates on a national health care plan show, Western medical science is increasingly compromised. Rules for the protection of the public now do as much to protect the lucrative business of the drug companies, insurance companies, hospitals, and medical specialists. A good example is the fact that our laws have protected us for getting cheaper drugs in Canada because those drugs might be contaminated.

But there is a more recent example. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lauded a blog called “Hullabalo” by Digby for pointing out the influence of growing health insurance company monopolies. Digby noted that in Arkansas, Blue Cross/Blue Shield has 75% of the health care insurance market (even before government plans). In that state, insurance premiums have risen five times faster than wages. Wages of Arkansas workers rose 12 percent from 2000 to 2007. Health insurance premiums rose 66 percent.

From examples of the power of health care insurance monopolies like these, Klugman has arrived at a new theory about why Congress is stalling on health care reform. Klugman now believes that the Democrats who are hesitant to support a national plan come from smaller states where one or two insurance companies dominate the market. For instance, obviously, Blue Cross/Blue Shield would lose if a national plan were adopted. And wouldn’t you know but Arkansas Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln has resisted a government plan?

How could the monopoly of the medical establishment be broken? The detractors to a national health care plan are acting as if it were a real threat to the health care establishment. But don't bet on it. If the Congress passes a plan, we can be sure that it will be so restricted that it will not change the monopolistic structure of the health care industry.

The problem is deeper than any program of government can fix. The first thing that the public must do for a real change of our expensive and failing medical system is to quit bowing down to Western medicine as an idol scientism. Americans have begun to question the quality and safety of our food. What about the quality and safety of medical care?

Why does our risk of infection skyrocket when go the a hospital to be cured? Why do we have to watch our list of medications ourselves lest we be over-medicated—as so many elderly are? Why are our emergency rooms so crowded that it takes hours, often overnight, to get treatment? Why aren’t the comparative costs of different modes of treatment readily available to us? Why aren’t our medical records stored and accessible electronically? Why do Americans actually receive only one half of recommended medical treatments according to a 2003 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine (Elizabeth A. McGlynn, et.al. “The Quality of Health Care Delivered to Adults in the United Stated. New England Journal of Medicine. Volume 348:2635-264. No. 26 [June 26, 2003])? Why was America ranked 27th among industrialized nations in its infant mortality rate just ahead of Cuba in 2004?

If Americans would quit worshiping American medicine, we would not tolerate the poor quality of care given by the medical establishment. Workers should demand action because they are tired of supporting the increasing millions who do not have health insurance. The public should demand action because they are tired of interminable waits in hospital emergency rooms because they are clogged with people who have waited to get health care because of the lack of insurance.

Religion played a key role in the development of hospitals as a way of providing health care. Now hospitals are part of the problem. The religious institutions of American have ceded health care to the medical establishment. Perhaps they should reclaim their historic role in the wholeness (salvation) of Americans. At least religions could play a prophetic role against the unchecked greed of the U.S. medical monopoly.

Michael Jackson's Religion

2009-07-07T15:42:00.000-07:00

What was Michael Jackson's religion? He was raised a Jehovah’s Witness. He was alleged to have converted to Islam. He as counseled by a Jewish Rabbi. But most of all, he was reported to be “deeply spiritual.”

At today's Memorial Service for Jackson, a gospel choir sang “Soon and very soon, we are going to see the King” while his brothers wheeled in his gold-plated casket. Among the songs was “Jesus is Love” sung by Lionel Richie. Pastor Lucious Smith of the Friendship Baptist Church in Pasadena opened the service with an invocation. And Smith closed the service with a prayer “in the name of Jesus…”.

Observers of religion in this country are apt to be confused. The JewishJournal.com Website and had to clarify that Jackson was NOT Jewish. The MuslimMatter.org Website said that it is unclear whether Jackson was a Muslim, though it was widely circulated that Jackson had been converted to Islam through his brother Jermaine. The Andrae Crotch”Facebook” page had to post a disclaimer: “The Crouches did NOT lead Michael Jackson to the Lord, They DID pray with him, but NOT a prayer of ‘salvation’. It is a rumor that they'led him to Christ.' Please spread the ‘truth’ as quickly as the rumor has spread. (By Dave, Page administrator).”

So what are we to think? Behind the question of Jackson’s religion is the question of who Jackson was as a person, after all. As Rev. Smith said, he was an “idol, hero, and king.” But who was the person behind the mask of plastic surgery, costumes, and weirdness?

Was he a troubled victim of pop culture like Judy Garland? Was he an addict like Elvis Presley? Was he an entertaining puppet like Howdy Doody? Was he an eccentric recluse like Howard Hughes? Was he a martyr to adulation gone wild like John Lennon? Or was he just one of the finest American dancers and singers who ever came on the American stage, a combination of Fred Astaire and Frank Sinatra?

My theory is that a natural entertainer, Jackson had the gift of responding to the fantasies of his audience. Jackson was widely popular because he reflected whatever his audience projected on him. But he was so good that mutual imaging got out of hand. The more Jackson used the bizarre to hide from his devotees, the more his whitish, freakish face could become a perfect mirror. It gave back to his fanatical followers the feelings of passionate love and devotion that they gave to him. Likewise, today’s funeral service was not about Michael Jackson as a person. It was about the sentiments of his family and fellow performers and the illusions of his fans.

If that is the case, Jackson and the recent Memorial Service reflect a growing confusion about religion among a large segment of the American population. In sum, for many in this country, religion is what Americans want it to be. Most of the popular ideas about religion are not about some god, much less a higher consciousness or a sacred world. They are about the secret and individual fantasies of the believers who hold them.

Thus, the undying admirers of Michael Jackson now demand that our culture treat him as a saint. He now joins the ranks of the venerable ancestors. Soon the authorized version of his legend will be inscribed on an ancestral tablet. Soon his devotees will make the Neverland Ranch the central shrine of his cult. Soon we will be hearing reports attesting to his immortality. Already the masses are bowing down to worship his image.

So, what was Jackson’s religion? It was not HIS religion so much as OUR religion. It was the religion of the masses of Americans, a system of sacred beliefs and practice that the "King of Pop" reflected only too well. If that is the case, scholars might consider whether the concepts of “idolatry” and “illusion” should become acceptable and useful terms for their critical analysis of religion in this century. These concepts might help us cut through some of the confusion about religion in America in an age of celebrity worship.

The Non-Western Future of Christianity

2009-07-03T10:58:00.000-07:00

Religious scholarship remains tied to its Western legacy and dominated by Western Enlightenment categories of thought. We see this especially in the critics of religion such as the evolutionary psychologist/anthropologist Pascal Boyer (RELIGION EXPLAINED, 2001). Boyer’s explanation of the origins of religion is fixated on the belief in “supernatural agents,” i.e., gods. Boyer does recognize the Eastern attention to correct ritual (Boyer 308). However, his observation is buried in a parenthetical remark. Then he goes back to his arguments with William James about the origins of belief in gods

So far, because of its Western Enlightenment biases, the discipline of religious studies has not yet fully appreciated the upheavals going on within what we once could refer to as “Western” monotheism. Among the three monotheisms, the ferment in Islam is the most obvious because the turmoil is right in front of our eyes. And the State of Israel has had a huge impact on Judaism.

But perhaps the most overlooked and yet overlooked revolution is within Christianity. According to Joshua Benton in the DALLAS MORNING NEWS (July 12, 2005), in 1900 82% of Christians were in North America or Europe. By 2005, the percentage of North American/European Christians had plunged to less than 30%. Figures from researcher David Barrett show that North American/European Christians number about 750 million. That’s 39% of the 1.2 billion of Christians on the planet (Paul Wesley Chicote, Laceye C. Warner. THE STUDY OF EVANGELISM: EXPLORING THE MISSIONAL PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. Wm B. Eerdmans, 2008).

The Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops brought the shift in the center of gravity of Christianity to our attention in 1998. But since then, the implications of this new center of Christianity in the Third World have largely been lost to academic scholars except for mission-minded theologians.

Why? My guess is that the change is broad and demographic. Therefore, it is not spectacular. I also speculate that the emerging indigenous, emotive, and assertive forms of Christianity are not popular topics for scholars who are rationalists.

There is a lot to study. We have yet to even agree on the terms to describe the emerging “non-Western” forms of Christianity. One likely possibility is “indigenous Christianity.” This term recognizes that these growing types of Christianity in Africa, Asia, and South America have matured beyond their European missionary origins. It also suggest that these forms are shaped by their different cultural contexts.

Another possible term is the one I am using: “non-Western.” This term is useful because it does not confuse the emerging forms of Christianity with “Eastern Christianity.” “Eastern Christianity” designates half of Christianity that is rooted in the Byzantine Empire and that calls itself “Orthodox.” An unresolved question is whether the term “non-Western” Christianity should encompass the emerging “indigenous Christianities” and Eastern Orthodoxy. I am inclined to think that it should. But to support my hunch I would have to show the common characteristics of the two.

Nevertheless, today's religious scholars may think they know Christianity. However, generally, religious studies tends to view Christianity in terms of Catholicism and Protestantism. Most Western academics do not really comprehend Eastern Orthodoxy. However, now global Christianity is morphing before our eyes. If trends continue, in twenty years, Christianity, the largest religion in the world, will encompass an even more confusing variety of forms and an astonishingly large but varied population of believers. By that time, scholars have a lot of catching up to do.

In the meantime, in the process of transformation, Christianity will have to deal with new challenges. At the center of the struggles will be the interface of Christianity with cultural contexts that are far different than its origins. I plan to follow up this post with an exploration of religious pluralism in China. Chinese Christianity had to develop in a context where Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism have co-existed. We will see that controversies over religious pluralism surfaced early in the Catholic missionary work in China. Studying this history might clarify the issues involved in religious pluralism in our time. It also will help us understand where global Christianity may be headed. Stay tuned.

Worship with Guns

2009-06-27T11:03:00.000-07:00

An Assembly of God minister has asked his congregation to bring their guns to church (“Pastor Urges Flock to Bring Guns to Church” by Katharine Q Seelyet). Tonight Ken Pagano’s flock will hold a special worship service celebrating their American right to bear arms. And everyone is encouraged to come armed with a favorite weapon.

Well, why not? After all, Congress recently passed a bill to allow concealed weapons in our national parks. If gun rights enthusiasts have their way, soon professors in our public colleges and universities will be facing classrooms of students who might have concealed weapons.

The response of The New York Times readers to armed worship services has been overwhelmingly negative. Yet the Pew Research Center has noted a growing support of gun rights in the United States (“Public Takes Conservative Turn on Gun Control, Abortion” April 30, 2009). Of American men, 57% now favor gun rights over gun control. In contrast, 33% of American women support gun rights over gun control. So what is wrong with a worshiping with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other?

From the point of view of religious studies, the question touches on the association of religion and violence. Critics of religion like Richard Dawkins, Pascal Boyer, and Daniel Dennett argue that religion is inherently violent. If so, then this Assembly of God minister is only exposing the truth about religion.

The puzzle is why the idea of a gun toting service is provoking so much scorn ("Readers’ Comments"). The comments reveal a sensitivity that has religious undertones whether or not the comments themselves are religious.

Here are some sample objections.

Some charge that the minister’s logic is warped. Others point out the irony of the contrast between the pacifist teachings of Jesus and worship services of gun-wielding Americans who profess to be Jesus' disciples. But how far does that irony extend? Pagano points out “Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.” How can his critics explain how far mainstream Christianity has drifted away from the teaching of its founder?

A more serious criticism is the charge of “idolatry.” This objection assumes a monotheist viewpoint: the minister is giving guns the devotion that is due to God alone. Pagano is not exactly placing guns on the altar. But to use theologian Paul Tillich’s phrase, idolatry is an illegitimate “ultimate concern.” In terms more familiar to monotheists, the love of guns has supplanted the love of the One True God. Gun advocates, however, will not be disposed to see these contradictions in logic, since they associate God, Jesus, and church with the values of patriotism and the right of individuals to carry weapons wherever they go for self-defense.

I think that objections like the samples above have missed the mark. They have failed to focus on the root of the sensitivity of many of us against worship with guns. Let’s look at the background that Katharine Q. Seelye gives to her article in The Lede on June 26 . She notes that in Kentucky, you do not need a license to carry a rifle or shotgun. All you need to carry a handgun or any concealed weapon is a permit. If a public library or restaurant does not want its patrons to bring in weapons, it has to put up a notice saying so. So Seelye says, “[in Kentucky] …bringing a concealed weapon into church is perfectly legal.”

The issue, therefore, is not the right to carry guns around—not in Kentucky. The issue is bearing arms IN "CHURCH." Pagano has violated our deep cultural sense that a “church” is a sanctuary. From the 4th century Roman Empire on, “church” has been considered a place of refuge where no blood was to be shed. The reason is that a "church" is a holy place.

That sense of “church” seems to have been lost in the trend of casual worship. In much of Western Protestantism, worship spaces are now huge auditoriums with the best acoustics affordable. Despite the new relaxed attitude toward “church,” the older sense has reappeared in the form of the general distaste with the combination of pistols and public prayer.

Thus, the view that lies behind the strenuous objections is that “church” is a sacred space. You enter into the realm of the holy when you enter a “church.” You leave the conflicts and violence of ordinary life at the door—along with your clubs, knives, swords, spears, battle axes, and firearms. Believers used to honor this sense of the sacred even in the way they dressed. Now it is “come as you are.” Americans go strolling into “church” as if it were a movie theater. Now it has come to swaggering into "church" with a holster on the hip.

In this vein, let me offer this objection. The monotheistic critics have the wrong commandment. There are two relevant commandments: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” and “Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.” (I won’t give the numbers since these vary by tradition.)

In its narrow sense, the first of these prohibits the use of the “Name” of God for swearing, except, perhaps, in the most serious cases. The “Name” of God is too sacred to toss around like the name of someone's pet dog. The concept of the divine “Name” in monotheism is so rich that I must refer you to other sources. What is germane here is that the “Name” is the representation of God. To use it carelessly is to deny God the proper honor and worship that Creator and Ruler of the Universe deserves. In this monotheistic view, the minister is not swearing by God’s “Name.” Still, with this commandment in mind, the question is whether the minister is using the divine “Name” to promote something less than what is worthy of God.

The other commandment treats the Sabbath or day of rest. The Sabbath is “time out” for occupations that elevate the spirit. Thus, it is considered a day of worship. The Sabbath is to be “kept holy” as sacred time. The concept of the Sabbath again is so rich that you will have to go to other sources. However, Pagano is open to the charge that he is violating that sense of sacredness especially in the most holy time and place of worship.

This seems to be a simple case. It is easy to write Pagano off as a “nutcase” as one comment did. But when writing this post, I found that its religious aspects are quite complex. To understand the sensitivity that many have about guns in “church,” one has to appeal to a religious category. The post has spoken about the “holy” in terms of monotheism since that is the cultural context of the discussion in the Times. However, for decades scholars of religion held Rudolf Otto’s view that the awesome sense of the “”holy” is the wellspring of all religion.

Nowadays, religion in America as well as religious studies have been essentially demystified. The “holy” is not a popular or familiar notion these days. But I do not know how to explain the aversion of the majority of responses to this pistol-packing minister without it.

The Cry from the Housetops of Iran

2009-06-20T15:12:00.000-07:00

The most unforgettable thing about the continuing demonstrations in Iran happens at night. In the darkness, Iranians in their neighborhoods signal to one another, shouting their testimony from the housetops, “Allah O Akbar!”

It sounds eerie--haunting. I think about the children and what they must be experiencing. The air is thick with apprehension. It must smell like righteous anger, and determination, and undaunted hope. How could one sleep? The chanting must reverberate in your mind until it sinks down into your soul.

When the sleepy child grows up, she will probably not remember the politics of the moment. She cannot comprehend them now. But she will remember--whatever happens she will remember-the nights when the pierced the darkness of the night.
“Allah O Akbar!” “We are here! We have not given up. Our heads are not bowed. Are you there?” “Allah O Akbar!” “Yes, we are here!” The call and response must form a deep bond of faith, hope, and prayer, tying neighbors together throughout the country. It has to have a lasting effect. How could people so bonded together in the night not support one another during the day?

We know that this shouting has incredible resonances: the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah, the testimony to the faith of Islam, the first words whispered in a newborn’s ear. Most important, it is the beginning of the call to prayer (adhan) heard five times daily in Muslim societies throughout the world.

I recall hearing the adhan from the mouth of one of my students. We were visiting our local Muslim Center. Someone asked to hear the call to prayer. Without hesitation, the student stood up, put his hands to his ears, and intoned the chant in a lusty voice. The sound was so awesome it gave me goose bumps. I had the same feeling when I heard it resound over the waterways in Istanbul. And that feeling came back to me as I heard the videos of the night chanting on the housetops of Iran.

These memories lead me to reflect on how little we Americans really know of Iran and what is happening at the moment. For the past few days, we have only received snatches of action that can be captured in little clips and tweets. An Iranian student observed in the Friday New York Times (“A Different Iranian Revolution” by Shane M.) that Americans are still looking at Iran from the perspective of the Iranian revolution. Shame M. states “the cultural lives of Iranians have greatly changed in the past 30 years. The post revolutionary period has seen the expansion of education, the entry of women into the work force in large numbers, and changing patterns of marriage, and even of divorce. These all have shaped Iranian society.”

The student emphasizes that Iran is a nation in incredible flux. “Anything is possible in Iran,” he says “because very little in politics or social life has been made systematic.”

The turmoil going on in the streets is captivating us Americans. The historic events are riveting, even more so because they must come in sporadic trickles of clandestine transmissions. However, there is so much we do not and cannot see. Forces beyond what rationality can grasp seem to be sweeping the this ancient land of Persia along. There seem to be deeper dynamics than political rivalries and an aroused electorate that is angry over a stolen election. These dynamics surface in the night when the religious chants echo from house to house during the summer night. They also show themselves in the daytime as protesters shout “ Allah o Akbar!” even while running from the teargas. (BBC News. “Iran police clash with protesters.”)

A little more than a weeks ago, Hossein Moussavi was considered an unremarkable technocrat, hardly the match for a mater political operative like Ahmadinejad. This week, he became the catalyst for massive protests across the country and hero of reform. Today he is speaking of being ready for martyrdom (CNN. “Police, protesters clash into evening in Iranian capital”).

David Brooks’ column in Friday’s New York Times, “Fragile at the Core,” says, “Foreign policy experts are trained in the art of analysis, extrapolation, and linear thinking. They simply have no tools to analyze movements that are non-linear, paradigm-shifting, and involve radical shits in consciousness. As a result, they almost invariably underestimate how rapid change might be and how quickly it might come.” But then, even the Iranian student seems amazed by what has happened in little more than a week. , “It wasn’t supposed to happen this way!” he says.

We Americans can hardly keep up. Many have associated Islam with the Islamists who hate American and want to impose their own draconian brand of Islamic Law on the world. But now, we find that the primary testimony of Islam “Allah o Akbar!” is the cry of hundreds of thousands of Iranians who seek fair elections and real, not make-believe, democracy.

Brooks spoke of the failure of western foreign policy expertise to understand the current movement against fraud and repression in Iran. Our model of separation of church and state is just as incapable of helping us grasp what is happening on a cultural level in Iran and, for that matter, in many Muslim societies.

Religious Hangouts and Political Organizing

2009-06-17T10:21:00.000-07:00

Commenting on the unfolding events in Iran, Thomas L. Friedman’s latest column draws an interesting parallel between the mosque and the “The Virtual Mosque” of cyberspace. He points out that both the mosque and cyberspace are places where the masses can be organized into a political force outside the control of ruling governments.

Everyone can see how Muslim radicals have used the institution of the mosque as a key organizing tool for their program of the Islamization of society. Friedman’s adds the comparison of the role of Internet technologies for the “moderates” in Iran and Lebanon with the role of the mosque in the Islamist campaigns.

His column sheds light on one of the reasons for the power of religion. All religious leaders understand the power of gathering people together. As groups meet together they generate a communal energy that mobilizes people. In highly influential studies, D. W. McMillan and D. M. Chavis explained this group energy as a “sense of community” (“Sense of community.” [1996] Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 315-325 and “Sense of community: A definition and theory.” [1986] Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-2).

According to the seminal work of Seymour Sarason on which the theory is based, the “sense of community” is a basic feeling of belonging that “we” matter to one another and that we will meet our needs through commitment to one another. McMillan and Chavis identified four testable factors to this communal feeling: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection. They developed a widely used index to test the relative strength of these factors, the “Sense of Community Index” (SCI).

Further, the sociologists found that the “sense of community” offers individuals some very attractive features:

· Boundaries offer a sense that the members are part of the group and outsiders are not,

· Emotional Safety offers a feeing a being accepted so that members can reveal themselves to others,

· A sense of identification offers a conviction that the members share common traits, values, behaviors, etc.

· Personal investment offers members a way to dedicate themselves to something beyond their own interests,

· A common symbol system offers members a common worldview and a shared sense of meaning,

It is important to add that these attractions are two-directional. What the group gives the individual, the individual gives to the other members. The result is a sense of “mutuality” that promotes a sense of commitment and solidarity. These are important when outside forces threaten the group.

It is easy to see how religious centers like mosques are places of belonging that nurture the “sense of community” as McMillan and Chavis describe it. Recent studies also show that groups in cyberspace provide this “sense of community” (e.g. Wang, Kevin. and Gloviczki, Peter. "Sense of Community in the Virtual World: An Ethnographic Exploration of Online Memorial Groups.”).

The point is that religious leaders can turn the religious “sense of community” into a political direction and expression. When they do, they have an exceptionally powerful force to use for political purposes. Scholars of religion might explore how they do this for good or for ill.

Clerics Lurk Behind the Curtain in Iran

2009-06-16T19:24:00.000-07:00

The authority who was forced to come out from behind the scenes first to announce the landslide re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then to call for calm, and then to order the Guardian Council of clerics to look into voter fraud is the faqih Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i. The Western media call him the “Supreme Leader.” But this is a misleading term. His role in Iranian politics is little known and mostly misunderstood. Here is some basic information that might help you understand the power struggle among religious leaders that is going on behind the curtain of the Iranian protests.

According to the Encyclopedia of Modern Asia, the office that Khāmene’i holds is the faqih (spiritual expert in Islamic Law) of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Comprised entirely of clerics, the Assembly of Experts chooses the faqih. In his office he then oversees all the three branches of government to insure that they conform to Islamic Law. The faqih has the power to declare war, depose the president, and to select the supreme judge and chief of the general staff. He selects half the members of the Supreme Defense Council and half the members of the Guardian Council. Further his approval is required for a president to take office.

The description of the duties of the faqih may seem like he is a dictator of a theocratic state. However, it is much more complicated than that. According to William O Beeman (The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs") the title that the Western media give the faqih “Supreme Leader” is an incorrect, American invention. Khāmene’i does not have power as a dictator. He is but part of a religious oligarchy that governs Iran behind the scenes to make sure that it remains true to Islamic Law (shari’ah) as a Muslim state.

In a complicated mixture of Islamic and “democratic” principles, Khāmene’i’s official role is to be the chief expert in Islamic jurisprudence in the country. Khāmene’i’s appointment as faqih, in fact, was contested because he did not have sufficient credentials in Islamic Law. That is, when appointed he did not have the necessary standing as an ayatollah. But he was the favorite of the founding father of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He and pledged to continue the revolutionary leaders program.

The faqih, in fact, is an innovation of the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. In Islam, there are no formal, ordained clergy. In Sunni Islam there are schools of jurisprudence (interpretation of Islamic Law). Moreover, in Shi’a Islam there are no such divided schools of interpretation. When a teacher has standing among Shi’a Muslims as a legal expert, he becomes a “jurisprudent” (faqih). With more of a following he becomes a “practitioner of exegesis” (mujtahed). Finally he can gain a higher standing yet as a "grand ayatollah" (marja’-e taqlid).

At the time of the Iranian Revolution, Khomeini was the Iranian Grand Ayatollah with the largest following. As he devised the constitutional structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran, he conceived the idea of the velayat-e faqih or “jurisprudent.” This faqih would represent the highest authority over the Shi’a Muslim community of the country. (To understand the religious significance, you need to understand the doctrine of the twelve imams in “Twelver Shi’a Islam. (Consult the reliable sources available to you.) Khomeini became the first to hold the office.

However, the faqih does not hold absolute power, even in religious matters. The Assembly of Experts appoints the faqih and holds him accountable. Thus, there seems to be a built-in constitutional tension between this assembly and the faqih.

This is the background for the present alleged internal struggles among the clerics of Iran. Time ("Khamenei: the Power Behind the President" by Tony Karon. June 15, 2009) pointed out that the Guardian Council must certify the election. Moreover the Assembly of Experts that selects the faqih has the capacity to find a way to oust him from office. And that is exactly a possible threat that Khāmene’i faces in the present Iranian crisis.

The key leader in the Assembly of Experts is the long-time foe of President Ahmadinejad and Khāmene’i whose name is Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafanjani. Rafanjani is also a key player in the affairs of the Guardian Council. Rafanjani has a history of vocal criticism of Ahmadinejad. In turn, Ahmadinejad’s rallies have especially denounced Rafnajani. Time reported that at this time experts do not expect Rafanjani to try to unseat Khāmene’i. However, it suggested that an intense power struggle is going on inside the circle of clerics who have ultimate authority in Iran. That fight is taking place on the inside behind the curtian. On our side of the curtain, we see the continuing street demonstrations.

Religious scholars, particularly experts on Shi’a Islam, could help Americans understand political/religious dynamics such as these. This case shows that the relationship of religion to the political order cannot be categorized in simplistic terms like theocracies and secular states. When we see struggles like what is going on in Iran, we should be aware that besides engaging in contests over political power, religious leaders may well be struggling over religious issues. And, in fact one type of struggle might be a disguise the other. At least they are often inextricably tied to each other.

Essential Reading on Religious Violence

2009-06-12T10:29:00.000-07:00

In my investigation of religious violence, I discovered a religious peacemaker whose work exemplifies a constructive religious response to the religious aggression of our century. Rabbi Marc Gopin has shared his peacekeeping vision and methods in a new book, TO MAKE THE EARTH WHOLE: THE ART OF CITIZEN DIPLOMACY IN AN AGE OF RELIGIOUS MILTANCY (Rowman and Littlefield, 2009). This is a book of practical wisdom about the critical role of religion in the politics of war and peace in our time. Gopin shows how the theory and practice of religious peacemaking can be integrated and how that integration can contribute to a more just and peaceful world.
Gopin’s is book contains sections on
• Foundations of a Global Community through Citizen Diplomacy
• Global Diplomacy and Incremental Change…
• Diplomacy with a Conscience…
• Conclusions about Our Future
Gopin is a practitioner as well as a theorist. He is an ordained rabbi, professor at Georg Mason University and Director of its Center on Religion, Diplomacy, and Conflict Resolution. (See “About Marc Gopin”) The book is an inspiring condensation of his extensive experience as a global peacemaker. It especially draws on his role in the midst of the complex, volatile relationships among Syria, Israel, and the United States from 2003 to the present.
The strength of TO MAKE THE EARTH WHOLE lies in Gopin’s reflections on his motives and methods. The book is crammed with insights that share a depth of experience comparable to another of my favorite books, THE MIGHTY AND THE ALMIGHTY: REFLECTIONS ON AMERICA, GOD, AND WORLD AFFAIRS by Madeleine Albright (HarperCollines: 2006).
Here are some kernels of Gopin’s good sense that I gleaned from the book. Gopin identifies the key role of “religious exemplars” whose influence in conflict surpasses their actual numbers. Increasingly, they are key players that make the difference between violent conflict or peaceful co-existence in our global society.
This is an important insight. Common assumptions inherited from the Enlightenment hold that we have a choice between religion and its inherent violence or secularism and its possibilities of peace.
When I say that this is a false choice, some of my colleagues at my college react vigorously. Like Gopin, I respond that religion will not just go away any time soon. The response is something like, “But it SHOULD go away.”
Why does religion persist to the distress of some of my colleagues? Gopin suggests that religion has incredible power over people’s lives and world affairs because it offers the masses a vision of a better future. Religion teaches the attitudes and actions that will realize a brighter day. In doing so, religions construct realities that go beyond any rational calculation of survival. They inspire dedication to transcending values beyond self-interest. They bring people together with a sense of belonging, meaning, and shared hope. To summarize Gopin’s view, religion is growing because it answers the discontent of millions with the exploitation of global capitalism and the dislocations of worldwide urbanism.
I tell my colleagues that the rise of religion in this century is not necessary a cause for alarm. If religion can be exploited for violence, it can also be employed for peace. That is the message that Gopin’s book demonstrates. Simplistically, the key to peace or war is what transcendent vision we will choose for ourselves and our children.
Gopin is a pragmatic visionary. His vision for our planet combines secular social contract theory with religious covenant theology. He calls for the building of a new global social contract that centers of human rights. He subscribes to democracy. But in his view, human rights, not constitutions or free elections, are the basis of democracy and a just and peaceful world.
The only thing I would like to have seen in the book is an elaboration of the religious version of this social contract theory. As Gopin states, the parallel to the social contract is the biblical idea of covenant. Covenant theology is the basis of the prophetic movement in the scriptures and so it provides the religious foundation of concepts of justice and human rights. Gopin observes that religion has emotive power much greater than the influence of Western rationalism. A more extensive explanation of the symbols and rituals of the covenant would add to the force of Gopin’s articulation of his vision. It would speak especially to religious people. It would also balance his secular theory and show how it might be integrated with a religious ideal.
The goal of a new social contract/covenant seems so lofty that you might write off Gopin as a dreamer. The book proves how realistic, even calculating, Gopin is in practice. Gopin has his limits. But in his practice of negotiation, he will not let ideology get in the way of a good deal.
What then keeps him on a moral path? One of Gopin’s favorite words to describe his role in conflict meidation is “intuition.” He relies on a feel for what is right in the concrete situation. This moral intuition is based what many scholars call “virtue ethics.”
Gopin advises the religious peacemaker to act out of the virtue of compassion to save the most human beings he can. He refers to the Buddhist principle of compassion for all sentient beings. (In an uncharacteristic and unnecessary aside, he labels the teaching of sunyatta or “emptiness,” the conceptual basis of compassion, “odd.”) One powerful expression of this ideal of compassion refers to the covenant theology of Judaism without naming it. He says that the biblical litmus test for the right to possess the land is the just treatment of the stranger. We show our true motivation (our “good will”) not by how we relate to those who are like us but to the “other.”
In this regard Gopin’s story of how he embraced Yasser Arafat, gave him gifts for his children, shared a text of the Talmud with him, and blessed him is touching. It seems to me that as practical as it is in practice, Gopin’s ethic can be summarized in the seemingly impractical “love of the enemy.”
As an activist, Gopin engages in negotiation, compromise, problem-solving, and conflict resolution. But he believes they cannot be the foundation of the work of peacemaking. To solve conflict and to get along together in our global village, we have to learn something deeper—the wisdom and virtue that the rabbi teaches in his book. Most important, we need to learn how to afford the alien, the outsider, and even the enemy, the same rights we want to secure for ourselves

2009-06-11T10:26:00.000-07:00

Cartoon by Clive Goddard. Permission from Cartoonstock.com

A Question of Contextual Ethics

2009-06-10T08:43:00.000-07:00

Police are charging the man who was brutally beaten by a mob for being an alleged rapist with the crime. Police say that they have DNA and other pieces of evidence on Jose Carrasquillo. ("Police: Carrasquello to be charged..." by Robert Moran) That should make columnist Christine Flowers cheer even more loudly. She and her fellow fans of mob violence need not worry about the possibility that the vigilantes may have beaten up an innocent man. They can rejoice without any reservation knowing that they are right even though the man has not been convicted of the crime.
Meanwhile,
• The family of the child who was raped sponsored a party to honor the vigilantes at the Kensington's McPherson Square Park. (Rape victim's family honors vigilantes by Solomon D. Leach) Mayor Michael Nutter attended.
• The Fraternal Order of Police rewarded two of the mob, Fernando Genval and David Vargas, with $5,750 each. (2 Kensington men rewarded in rape suspect's capture by Morgan Zalot)
• Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey announced that the alleged perpetrators of the beating will not be charged. (Neighbors who beat man over rape won't be charged by Patrick Walters)
• An ongoing Philadelphia Inquirer poll on whether “the street justice was wrong” tallied 37% yes; 53.9% no; and 9.1% undecided of 384 responses. (“Poll: Was ‘street justice’ wrong?")
The Police Commissioner gave us a lesson in contextual ethics as he gave the reasons for his decision.
• The injuries to the head and face were not life-threatening.
• The intent was to get the man to the police.
• The men were making a “citizen’s arrest” but they weren’t trained in how to do it.
• Emotions were high in the neighborhood after the brutal rape.
The newspaper quoted Ramsey, “"I think you have to take into account the emotion. I think you have to take into account the severity of the injuries," Ramsey said, adding that he does not condone vigilante justice. "It's unfortunate that we didn't find him first” (Walters).
So let’s all party!
But wait! Perhaps Flowers has a poor memory. Perhaps she has trouble seeing comparisons. But she was the one who said, “THE FUNNY thing about lynch mobs is that they never see themselves as vigilantes or ideologues. They consider themselves avenging angels, righting wrongs and delivering a raw sort of justice” ("Christine M. Flowers: Day of the lynch mob"). In April, she charged that the New York Times, the ACLU, and others were a mob that was trying to put a noose around the Bush administration. She complained about their “blood lust.”
But what is the difference between a lynch mob and a neighborhood group making a “vigorous citizen’s arrest?” I refer to the contextual analysis of the Police Commissioner and Christine Flowers. That analysis cannot justify the beating if the man was innocent. But everyone knows he is guilty. So the men were “avenging angels, righting wrongs and delivering a raw sort of justice.”
This case shows the limits of contextual ethics when it comes to the matter of human rights. Flowers complained that to civil libertarians every right is fundamental.
(“Christine M. Flowers: Juris, prudence.”) But she cannot deny that the Declaration of Independence refers to “unalienable rights.” That means to me that there are human rights that persist regardless of circumstance.
They are fundamental.
I understand the postmodern skepticism about the difficulty of applying universal ethical principles to the complexities of our pluralistic world. But this is a good test case where the universal principles of human rights still seem both relevant and necessary.

No Cheers for Vigilantes

2009-06-08T19:49:00.000-07:00

The media’s idea of balanced reporting is that everything has to have two sides. Usually two experts represent these opposite perspectives. But NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” program this afternoon featured only one columnist. It was the lawyer Christine Flowers who discussed the “two sides” of the mob beating of an alleged rapist in Philadelphia June 2.(‘Person of interest’ in custody after beat-down” by Allison Steele).

On the show, Flowers said that she embodies two ways of looking at the incident. She repeated what she said in her column in the Philadelphia Inquirer. (Sometimes it does take a village.)

In her column, Flowers said that as a lawyer she cannot condone vigilante justice. She has to deplore that the man was beaten unconscious on the street. No, he should not be punished before he is proven guilty. No, the crowed should not have taken the law into its own hands.

Yet in her column and on NPR, Flowers also said that there is another way to look at the event. There is another part of me, she said, that wanted to cheer when she heard that some teens had beaten the man so badly he was taken to the hospital. She elaborates in her column. She can understand how street justice becomes “an attractive alternative” “despite our best instincts.” Violence had gotten to be so bad in Philadelphia that the people had become afraid or immunized. Yet the outraged Kensington Avenue neighborhood had risen up in response to the brutal rape of an eleven-year old girl. They had made what Flowers called a “rather passionate citizen’s arrest.”

America seems to have such a divided mind on many things, including torture. We know what the right thing to do is. But we also “understand” how difficult it is to do it. So we do the expedient thing “against our best instincts.” We loudly subscribe to higher principles like the “rule of law” and the ban of torture as long as they are in our narrow, shortsighted interests. But when they cost something, we have justification to set them aside.

But let’s get back to this case. When it comes to the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty; the right to be tried in a court of law; the right, after due process, to have a fair sentence pronounced and implemented by lawful government and not a mob; just what is the “other side”?

In effect, Flowers gives voice to the idea that mob rule is “an attractive alternative.” It is a sign of the shortcomings of our justice system. The idea is that the unchecked scourge of urban crime opens up questions about whether we have been too soft on criminals in order to protect human rights. Are the outraged citizens who take the law into their own hands at fault …when we are incapable of stopping repeat offenders from terrorizing the innocent? …when we fail to execute those convinced of atrocious crimes? …when we cling to our “unwavering belief that it is better to release 10 guilty men than to convict an innocent one?” These questions suggest that our democratic principles have become too costly for us.

Flowers even hints at a religious sanction for the “other side” of the case. In the biblical story of Cain and Able, Cain kills his bother. When God asks where his brother is, he asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The implication, of course, is that he should be. In contrast to Cain, the reference praises the neighborhood for coming together and becoming “their daughter’s keeper.”

That biblical allusion suggests a noble motivation. The neighborhood came together and beat the man up to protect the young innocent girl. However, there is another “side” to consider. Protecting the girls was too late. As the popular media would put it, could it be that the act was pure revenge? If so, then it was not such a virtuous thing. Revenge is a primal emotion that is blind and careless. It lashes out in thoughtless retaliation without moderation or reason. And it often results in endless cycles of violence.

Over and over again in our history, we have seen what happens when vigilante justice rules. ABC News reported June 6 that another Philadelphia man had been beaten for being an “alleged rapist.” (Wrong man attacked in vigilante injustice by Dann Cuellar). Yes, it was the wrong man. Flowers dismisses this possible objection to her feelings. The man had a police record. He wasn’t supposed to be on the street. He had it coming.

In summary, we can make a Kantian rule of what Flowers’ “part of me” is suggesting: mobs can beat up alleged rapists whenever the crime is heinous and the people are fed up. Surely our American ideals promote moral rules that are better than this. But Flowers says that our American ideals are divorced from the “reality of the street.” Perhaps instead of giving up on these ideals, we ought to apply them to problem.

Flowers knows that what she is saying goes against everything she was taught at Villanova Law School. She spent three years there. Perhaps she needs to go back. She could start with a closer reading of Thomas Hobbes who imagined what the human condition would be “in the state of nature,” without law, without government, without social order, and without any security other than brute force.

But then again, maybe another year would not do much good. We can teach the principles of democracy, justice, fairness, and morality as ardently as we can. But if the society is willing to listen to “the other side” and set our foundational principles aside, then our teaching of such lofty ideals will not have much lasting effect.

Talking Mice (Almost)

2009-06-06T07:22:00.000-07:00

A short New York Times editorial (June 8, 2009 A20) alerted readers to recent experiments at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.) The researchers have inserted a human variant of the FOXP2 gene into laboratory mice. (See the article, "A Humanized Version of Foxp2 Affects Cortico-Basal Ganglia Circuits in Mice" by Wolfgang Enardl, et. al.) ( See a video.)

This gene has to do with language, among other things. Thus, the researchers talk about “humanized mice.” The hope is to understand the role of genetics in the evolution of human language. Mice with the human language variant gene haven’t learned to talk yet. But they do utter lower-pitched ultrasonic whistles.

The editorial suggests broadly that this kind of exploration of humanness “by transplanting our genetic signatures, gene by gene, into other species” “takes some getting used to.” It even raises the specter of alien mice.

The ethical discussion of this kind of genetic manipulation seems still at the primitive stage of evolution. The brief comment suggests that reservations to the practice is a question of one of our adaptation to the idea. Then too, the comment raises a possible slippery slope argument. What would happen if the talking mice got loose?

Turning to matters of religious studies, here is another slippery slope. In “Is God In Your Genes?” by Jeffrey Kluger, Jeff Chu, Broward Liston, Maggie Sieger, and Daniel Williams (2004) Time magazine reported that Dean Hamer had found the (a?) “God Gene” in 2004. Hamer qualified that there is no one gene that disposes humans to religion. However, he said that his research identified one gene that is implicated in religious interest: VMAT2 (vesicular monoamine transporter). Those with a specific variant of this gene scored higher on a test of self-transcendence.

So if we inserted the variant of the VMAT2 gene, could we get talking and praying mice? What are the limits of this kind of scientific materialism?

But perhaps we need not worry. Walt Disney Studios taught Mickey Mouse to talk a long time ago. And he and Minnie seem quite harmless, if not religious.

Analysts Also Question the Term “Muslim World"

2009-06-04T07:50:00.000-07:00

To follow up on yesterday’s post on the term, “Muslim world,” NPR’s Morning Edition aired a short discussion that included analysts Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland and Rami Khouri, editor of Lebanon's Daily Star. Obama Was Looking to 'Change Debate' Like yesterday’s post, the analysts questioned the use of the term, “Muslim world.” But the interviewers Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne kept coming back to it.

Shibley Telhami underscored yesterday’s point that the Muslim world is not a homogenous whole:

"Clearly, the President had multiple audiences. It was a complex speech because while we talk of the Muslim world, remember he did not even use the term. He was in a way sort of understating it. Because there are different Muslim communities, different priorities. We see that in the polls. They are not all focused on the same issue. The issue of an Palestine (unclear), is not as important in it is in Pakistan or Bangladesh or some parts of Asia."

In Lebanon, Rami Khouri suggested that the term involves a “hang-up” and that it is meaningless:

“[Review of the significant points of the President’s speech] I think his focus on Islam and the Muslim World is slightly vague and really pretty meaningless because the problem is not with Islam. Most of the issues he talked about were Middle Eastern issues.

Q: …Did you hear particular subtitles in his speech that would resonate in particular, though, with Muslim communities?
I think the whole context of the Muslim community is really wrong. I think this is his main weakness. He is still responding to Osama bin Laden. He’s got to overcome this hang-up with Islam and religion. It ’s not about Islam. It’s about human beings who happen to be mostly Muslim, some of them like me are Christian Arab. And it’s the rights of people that have to be acknowledged. I think he addressed a lot of those issues quite clearly. But he kept coming back to the language of Islam and religion which is a bit of diversion… (cut off)

Q: ..he also talked about the rights of women… Is that a message that will resonate with the Muslim world?...”

I interpret Khouri’s remarks to say that the framework in which the relationship of America with the various Muslim communities is misleading. Khouri’s comments suggest to me that to put the matter in the framework of the relationship with the “Muslim world” supports the agenda of bin Laden and other Jihadists. Note that Khouri asserts strongly that the issue is human rights. This is an alternative frame of meaning to the troublesome, inaccurate, and politically unhelpful concept of a “Muslim world.” However, the broadcasters dismiss the point and insist on cramming the discussion back into the Muslim world terminology that the more informed analysts are criticizing.

On the Term "The Muslim World"

2009-06-03T09:48:00.000-07:00

The press is reporting that President Obama will make a speech to the “Muslim World” today. From the Religious Studies point of view, that term is sloppy and slippery. The BBC talked about a speech to the “Arab World” in its broadcast. That might be better. But some Muslims might object that the Arabs represent only about 15% of Muslims. What about “Muslim culture?” That is not much better because Muslims do not represent a single culture as we see in the difference between Arabian Iraq and Persian Iran.

What then constitutes the “Muslim world?” It is not so obvious. After Indonesia and Pakistan, India has the largest Muslim population—over twice as many as Egypt. Is India part of the “Muslim world?” And what about Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country? The Indonesian government recognizes six religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Protestantism, and Catholicism as well as Islam. Significant numbers of non-Muslims populate the country, especially the eastern islands.
According to Newsweek’s Katie Connolly, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the speech will “discuss how the United States and Muslim communities around the world can bridge some of the differences that have divided them. “Muslim communities” is a better term. But it is vague and the press likes the more dramatic “Muslim world.”

What is the problem with the “Muslim world?” It treats the “Muslim communities” across the globe as a single entity. But Muslims today are neither unified nor homogenous. The ferment and fractions of the “Muslim world” are far greater nowadays than those in the “Christian world,” the “Hindu world,” or the “Buddhist world.” Yet we do not think of the Christians, Hindus, or Buddhist as a homogenous whole.

The term also has echoes of past Muslims empires and the division of the world in the House of Islam and the House of War. Consider this explanation from Muslims' Place in the American Public Square, edited by Zahid H. Bukhari, Sulayman S. Nyang, Mumtaz Ahmad, and John Esposito.

“The world according to classic jurists is divided into the territories of dar-al-Islam and dar-al-hard, the regions of peace and war respectively. The Shafi school has added a third category of dar-al sulb or dar-al ahd or agreement between a Muslim state and a non-Muslim one. What determines a territory to be designated one or the other? The main criteria seems to be that if a territory has fallen under Muslim sovereignty where Shariah [Islamic law] is applied, the that territory is part of the dar-al-Islam, but it can revert to dar-al-harb should Muslim control be lost” (Bukari 43).
A further explanation clarifies that the key to the concept is that dar-al-Islam applies to those places where Shariah [Islamic law] is administered (43).

From this viewpoint, to refer to the “Muslim world” is to refer to the “House of Islam,” the territory in which Islamic law is administered. This means the “Muslim world” is a term for a political entity defined by a religion. This restoration of the territory of former Muslim empires to the political status of House of Islam seems to be the agenda of the Jihadists. The restoration of Shariah (Islamic law) not only in states that define themselves as Muslim but in non-Muslim lands is the central goal of Islamization.

Thus, the term “Muslim world” conjures up historic issues of Islamic empires, treaties and tribute of non-Muslim states to Muslim states, hostilities between Muslim and non-Muslim, the establishment of Islamic law in non-Muslim states as well as the territory of former Muslim empires, dhimmi laws of discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim empires, etc. Those who use the term should be aware of these issues of the “House of Islam” versus the “House of War” that go along with it.

In summary, when American leaders or the media use the term “Muslim world,” they are dividing the world in terms of the viewpoint of a religion. By using the term, we are allowing a religion to define the world for us. What would we say if a world leader would address Americans and European leaders as “the Christian world?” Should we refer to India and other places with Hindu majorities as “the Hindu world?” I fear that by our uninformed use of the term, we are doing what Samuel Huntington does in his “Clash of Civilizations” theory. We are unwittingly accepting what could become a self-fulfilling prophecy: the “West” against the “Muslim world.”

The Logic of Potato Chips

2009-06-02T09:03:00.001-07:00

Britain’s Supreme Court of Judicature has ruled that Pringles are, indeed, potatoes chips. Seeking to avoid special value-added taxes on potato chips, Procter & Gamble U.K. called them “savory snacks.” (Apparently in America, they lose their savoryness and become just plain chips.)

The VAT and Duties Tribunal ruled that Pringles are taxable. According to Adam Cohen in the New York Times, “'There are other ingredients,'” the tribunal said, but a Pringle is 'made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say that it is not made from potato flour, and the proportion of potato flour is significant being over 40 percent.'” ("The Lord Justice Hath Ruleth...")

Let’s see… “Pringles are made from potato flour in the sense that one cannot say they are not made of potato flour….”

Sounds like a tautology. What is the difference between saying that Pringles are “made of potato flour” and “one cannot say they are not made of potato flour”?

But consider this: God exists in the sense that one cannot say God does not exist.

All right to be fair this is the version we most often hear: God exists in the sense that one cannot PROVE that God does not exist.

So God exists because God exists. Poof goes the proof! Oh well, I didn't like Pringles anyway!

2009-06-01T06:56:00.000-07:00

If you would like to see a review of recent surveys on American religious life, see my the Webinar and slides on the Diocese of the Midwest (OCA) site. It was a presentation on "Recent Changes in the American Religious Landscape." View the Webinar with comments. You don't have to suffer through the whole presentation if you just download the slides. Go to the slides. This presentation is an example of the information on the American religious marketplace with comments that apply the information to the mission of Eastern Orthodoxy.

2009-06-01T06:40:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine, Father Michael Plekon, has written a book that has received enthusiastic reviews. Check out HIDDEN HOLINESS by Michael Plekon for an Eastern but contemporary approach to sainthood. It is published by Notre Dame Press. Go to the book announcement.

Insights from Contemplative Studies

2009-05-28T14:55:00.000-07:00

href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5Cadenre%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml">

It is the end of May and I am still stuck on brain science and religious experience. Today I came across Harold Roth’s description of the goals of contemplative studies at Brown University :

1. In general, it is to begin to give students a solid understanding—both third-person and first-person—of the range of the contemplative experiences that they may encounter in their lives: what these experiences are, how to understand them when they spontaneously occur, and how to deliberately cultivate them.

2. In particular, it is to give students practical training in a range of techniques to attain calmness, tranquility and attentional stability.

3. The attainment of states of calmness, tranquility and attentional stability and focus are important tools to use in:

a. Self-exploration and self-understanding. (If the purpose of a university education is “to know thyself,” there is no better means to do so than through contemplative training.)

b. Developing a sound grasp of the nature of consciousness as a basis for further philosophical and scientific studies.

Harold Roth. "Against Cognitive Imperialism.

Roth, Harold D. "Against Cognitive Imperialism." In Religion East & West, 1-26: Institute for World Religions, 2008. 21-22.

These goals and Harold Roth’s article stimulate the re-consideration or at least a broadening of our goals and objectives for teaching philosophy and religious studies. For a start, there is the goal of “developing a sound grasp of the nature of consciousness as a basis for further philosophical and scientific studies.”

This goal would cause a revolution in education. Our educational system teaches the understanding of just about anything except the insight into how the mind works to gain understanding. We teach right understanding but do not teach how the mind operates to arrive at what is “right.” We teach the rules of logic to avoid deception, but we do not teach the mental processes of delusion.

Harold Roth’s article may contain the secret of why it has taken me so long to develop my chapter on religious experience, a chapter that starts with the cognitive science of religion. Wrapped up in the subject are profound issues of religion and philosophy. To unwrap these in a logical and understandable way for beginning studies is difficult. Perhaps it is impossible.

For example, here is the way Roth puts one of the insights I have come to in my study:

“Following the pioneering research on the state of optimal experience called “flow” by Mihalyi Csíkszentmihályi and his colleagues, contemplative studies seeks to discover the complete

range of experiences of attention, focus, tranquility and insight and to demonstrate that even the most profound of these experiences—those deliberately cultivated in the world’s great contemplative traditions—are not of a fundamentally different kind than the most shallow. All occur on a continuous spectrum of experience that can be rationally identified, scientifi cally researched and subjectively experienced” (Roth 20).

In the terms that I use in my chapter, mystical experience is broader than religion. I have used up a lot of printer ink trying to lay out this insight that Roth expresses so well.

Cognitive Science and Reductionism

2009-02-28T15:58:00.000-08:00

Note: this post was actually written before the one on Cognitive Science and Private Spirituality.

After spending considerable time these past two weeks getting an overview of the cognitive science of religion, I have increasing reservations about its value. My tentative question of its worth may sound like just another version of the old reductionist argument. But an analogy might be the difference between valuing a work of art and explaining what the brain is doing when it views that work.

What does the study the anatomy of vision add to our aesthetic appreciation of a work of art? Brandon Keim reported Monday (February 23) on the findings of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that men see beauty with only the right hemisphere of the brain while women use both hemispheres http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/brainandbeauty.html.

Brain imaging has found that men use the region of the brain that locates objects in terms of coordinates (such as X and Y coordinates on a grid, or the cardinal directions) to perceive what they call beautiful. Women use this region but also use the area that locates things in relationship to each other (such as over, under, beside, etc.). In essence, men use the “right brain” and women use both hemispheres. That’s interesting but it hardly qualifies as a statement of aesthetics.

Regardless of what region or regions are used, the result seems to be about the same for both men and women. Moreover and to the point, the “appreciation” of the work of art involves much more than what the brain scans show. Thus, the experience of beauty may be “explained” by the activation of regions of the brain of the brain but the “interpretation” of the meaning or value of such experience is another thing.

Cognitive researchers seem to think that they have achieved something when they show that religious experience has some empirical proof. From the cognitive studies, some may jump to the conclusion that religion is not “just a figment of the imagination.” However, given that speaking of imagination is only a way of talking about mental processes that have no source (origin? cause?) outside the brain, it seems to me that cognitive research proves exactly that and only that. It confirms that religious and meditative experience is a product of certain mental processes. To say that these processes are “imagined” does not add anything to our knowledge of them. The only way that these operations could be proven NOT to be “imagined” (that is not the product of the brain) is if there were “something” outside the brain to which the experience referred. We could thus compare that “something” with the brain’s experience of it. But science cannot take a picture of that “something” but only the brain in the act of (so the subject believes) of perceiving that “something.” I’m still wondering about the contribution of the cognitive science of religion. Will it go the way of the studies of drug-induced “mysticism” of the 1950’s and 60’s?

Cognitive Science and Private Spirituality

2009-02-28T15:45:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that cognitive science can find evidence of the “construction” of religious belief. And it seems that constructivism is another way of speaking of “imagination.” Yet constructivism does not necessary rule out “critical realism.”

Cognitive science should get beyond the “reduction” of spirituality to the working of the human brain. This is the same as the past mistake in locating religion in “feelings.” The same limiting thought of an inner, privatized, solipsistic consciousness is behind both errors. Westerners seem unable to break free from this inheritance of Protestantism and the Enlightenment. Cognitive science seems to indicate that the brain as organic and pliable and not just a receptor on the one hand or projector on the other. Thus to reach a more comprehensive understanding, our exploration of religious experience must take into account the complex interaction of the brain with the environment, especially social environment. We can start with the artificial distinction between “spirituality” and “religion.” From my point of view “spirituality,” I believe, is as much of a “social construct” as “religion.”

Introducing This Blog

2009-02-16T07:19:00.000-08:00

Hello Bloggers
I'm writing a book on the theory and practice of the current academic study of religion. I'm interested your insights into the current global issues that the developing field of religious studies should address.
I have finished a chapter on religion and violence. Now I am beginning the chapter on religious experience. This chapter will present a wide variety of contemporary theories of religious experience and test their application. I'd like to hear about your favorite theory of how to interpret religious experience. I'd also be interested in actual cases of religious experience to which the theories might apply.
Here is an initial question: what is the difference between "religious experience" and [ordinary] "experience"? I'm interested to know what you think. RA