Religions are political ideologies. They are based on historical myths, stories, messianic prophecies, and are supposed to provide blueprints for everyday behavior. This is why religion is as open to criticism and public debate just like any other ideology. Which brings me to the Notre Dame controversy.
The same Catholic bishops who are protesting President Obama's visit to the campus and the university's decision to honor him with a degree are the ones who did not say a word when the same school awarded President George W. Bush an honorary degree in 2001 despite the fact that Bush had signed over 140 death warrants while the governor of Texas. The same Catholic clergy did not say a word about withdrawing this honor from Bush after the information about torture camps, Gitmo, and illegal wars came to light. Why didn't they say anything? Because Catholic bishops use their robes to hide their deeply seated prejudices from the public eye. The cloak of religion is supposed to awe us into giving the Catholic Church immunity from exposing their silly and prejudiced beliefs to public scrutiny like we do with any other political institution/ideology.
In the case of abortion, the Catholic Church espouses the worst kind of misogyny--old gray-haired men (most of whom have never engaged in sex supposedly) deciding the fate of women's wombs. Their obsessive desire to control human behavior, and in particular, sexual behavior of women, should be condemned at every step of the way. Their quotations from the Bible in support of their prejudices should make us even more eager to confront their hate and call it what it truly is: superstition. The hypocrisy that the Catholic Church (just like every other institution of every other organized religion) has displayed with the hiding of pedophiles, turning the Pope into the biggest stock investor in Europe, to mention a few, is simply due to the fact that to repeat again, the Vatican is a political institution.
So these Catholic bishops cannot hide behind the cloak of religion and expect us all to cower in awe and not criticize their stupidity and resist their hate-mongering.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well, you know how I feel about this, so my post will be an exercise in preaching to the choir; pun intended.
The politics of the Catholic Church and Joseph Ratzinger are only handled with kid-gloves in so far as politics can claim itself to be in identity with the sacred; thus ipso-facto deserving of (undue) respect or even deference. Of course, the Catholics are not alone in this rhetorical gesture, nor are they even this worst offenders in this regard.
However, its embarassing that we allow organized religion to get away with this rhetorical rearguard action. And the sad thing is, there are people out there on the political Left, who out of a supposed spirit of ecumenism or multiculturalism, think that religion and its truth claims should be off limits for public criticism.
Its fine with me that religious people or even religious organizations want to take part in public discourse. I don't think it is realistic to tell someone whose morality and ethics are completely informed by a religious ontology to "be quiet" or only frame their arguments in secular language. However, the believer must understand that if these moral, ethical, and political values rest upon a religious foundation, then this foundation is also subject to criticism.
Think of a debate with libertarian free-marketeer. Not only might you point out the empirical evidence that his theory is incorrect, you are also liable to criticize all of the foundational ideas upon which his free market ideology is predicated; the rational, atomistic individual, the sanctity of private property, and so on. In fact, it would put you at an enormous rhetorical disadvantage if you didn't address these foundational ideas and criticize them apropriatley.
Now imagine if that free-marketeer were to say "You can't criticize these concepts because they are sacred to me. I believe the holy texts of Hayek and Friedman, peace be upon him, should not be defamed."
Now of course this is ridiculous, but this is precisely the sort of privilege that many believers asking for in public discourse. Not only do they attempt to make the embarrassingly transparent claim that their politics are inspired by something extra-politcal or that transcends politics (as a famous Slovene once put it, "there is nothing more political than claiming that something is beyond politics"), they also expect that we leave this ridiculous claim unmolested. That takes balls.
In academia we pride ourselves on taking on sacred cows - the Enlightenment, Nationalism, Gender, ect - even at the risk of potentially shattering what is most sacred to some people. So how/why are some multiculturalists making an exception when it comes to religion?
Again, this argument only holds if one accepts the proposition that religion is essentially different from other social phenomena, such as nationalism, trade unionism, or anarchism. An argument for religious exceptionalism has to be made - that it exists as something more than social phenomena and that religious experience that the believer has when she listens to the church is somehow different or more "authentic" than that of the nationalist who comes to tears over a patriotic anthem. An argument, of course, that I believe to be utter bullshit.
Okay, just to be disagreeable, I take your point about the Catholic church. But can we distinguish between religion and the Catholic church?
Faith experiences, whether through organized religion or not, have a place in public discourse. I draw a sharp distinction between dogma and experience. Public policy doesn't benefit from attacking faith experience, any more than it benefits from attacking intellect. People of faith are part of our communities. In many cases, they are highly valuable members of our communities. Remember that the end of Indian colonialism was at least partially precipitated by a pious little man.
Religious dogma, when it attempts to supplant public discourse, is certainly open to critique, but I wonder if iconoclasm is the appropriate approach to a world view that doesn't rely on reason.
Hey Ross,
How are you doing man? Still living in SA?
I didn't say that religion "shouldn't be allowed" in public disclose, merely that if it is going to enter into political discourse, its foundational truth claims are subject to the same criticism as, in my example, a the ideology of the free market. I am not calling for the exclusion of religion from the public sphere, merely its desantification. Noone should be allowed to make a political statement, claim that it has as its inspiration some extra-political (in fact extra-wordly) authority.
On experience - to be honest, I don't think there is such a thing as "religious experience" as described by those who "experience" it. Sure people may experience a sense of beauty, ecstasy, ect. within a religious context or during a moment of worship or observance, but this still doesn't validate the report of the religious witness.
In fact, it is largely due to the fact that the witness is experiencing the world through a religious ontology that this "religious experience" is phenomenally experienced as such.
For a though experiment - imagine I go to a Manchester United game. I sing "Blue Moon" and really get into it. Man U beats Chelsea and its the best night of my life. I feel an enormous amount of elation, to the point that I can't even put it into words. But I know better than to say something vulgar like "I felt the hand of God that night" or to project some sort of divine will or meaning to it.
A few days later, I sing in my church choir. Again I feel elated and a sense of ecstasy. But this time I do say, "I felt the hand of God" without embarrassment, and I do believe, in all my heart to that it was a moment of divine inspiration.
What is the difference between example A and example B? The social context in which each moment takes place as well as the acceptable language through which we may report upon our phenomenal experiences, of what is "observable" and what is not. People used to say they could observe withes and demons - they don't anymore. The observation language has changed, and with the appropriateness of such truth claims.
As for Ghandi, if India had chosen his rout of pastoral spiritualism, the country would be in even greater poverty and underdevelopment than it is.
But I will say this - religious organizations do maintain networks of secular social capital that secular organizations haven't (yet) come to replace.
Pug, just a quick note (or at least that is my intention), since we don't want to take over the blog.
What is the difference between example A and example B? The social context in which each moment takes place as well as the acceptable language through which we may report upon our phenomenal experiences, of what is "observable" and what is not. People used to say they could observe withes and demons - they don't anymore. The observation language has changed, and with the appropriateness of such truth claims.Two problems here. First, people do actually still claim to see witches and demons. You just have to be in the right community to hear that. (Just imagine the fun at my family gatherings!)
Second, I'm not sure what room this leaves for the subject. If I report my experience as fundamentally religious, who are you to deny that? So, I end up at my original position, which is that it isn't helpful to attack the experience. Rather, it is important to attack attempts to force this experience onto other people. If you believe that God loves the Red Devils of Old Trafford, that's fine. But if you try to force me to believe that, we have a problem.
Sure, I wouldn't want Gandhi's pastoral vision (most days), but I can't deny the religious experience that underpins satyagraha.
SA is okay. For now.
_If I report my experience as fundamentally religious, who are you to deny that?_
I am not just trying to get the last word in, but I think this, taken to its logical conclusion, is a sort of solipism. This is essentially the argument that William James makes in _Varieties of Religious Experience_ It rests upon a conclusion that "incorrigible feels" must be taken at face value without any further inquiry. In reference to my first post, for me to take your report at face value as a religious experience, I would have to believe in religious exceptionalism - that is, I would have to believe that what you experienced could only be described in religious language, and that it somehow existed beyond all secular discourse or explanation. In short, I would have to be a believer(of some sort.) Of course, your welcome to insist that what you experienced really was divine, but there is absolutley no good reason for me to believe you, take your claim seriously, or refrain from pursuing a seperate explanation.
This is sort of like saying that "love" like God, is something that can only be experienced subjectively by the lover/believer. I'm sorry, I don't by that. I'm just not going to stop there - even something as intimate as love is subject to the inquiries of psychoanalysis. Why do we love what we love?
To illustrate my point, there certainly are, as you say, people who believe they have seen witches and UFOs. But we don't take their reports seriously do we (with exception to a guy in the history department at UI c2003-2004)? Thats because the language with which we report our observations has evolved to the point at which people who do make such claims are often ridiculed. We simply don't take their word for it and chalk it up to some other explanation - mental insanity, "misinterpretation" of datum, ect.
That is not to say that scientific discourse is more "objectively True" with a big "T," just that, from a pragmatic perspective, its much better at coping with reality, recognizing regularities, and making future predictions than a mystical or enchanted ontology.
I don't think there is much room for conversion here because we have different objectives. Yours seems to be philosophical in nature, where mine is more directed to answering the question: how do I interact with people of different ontologies?
To be clear, I am not claiming to have had a faith experience, although my wording led you quite naturally to that conclusion. Sorry for creating an unnecessary confusion.
This is my last post on this. I promise.
Right then. You are right, mine is philosophical in nature, but what I am saying is that philosophy - even philosophy of religion, should be "public."
Post a Comment