There’s a dreadfully wrong-headed article by Eboo Patel in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You can probably guess the gist if you remember that he’s one of Chris Stedman’s favorite interfaithy types. The gist is that faith is great, it doesn’t matter what kind as long as it’s faith, and it’s a kind of identity like race so let’s start making sure there’s lots of diversity of it, because faith.
Part of the rationale for 1990s-era campus multiculturalism was to remedy the racial bias in the broader society: to lift up underrepresented narratives, to remind people that many communities have contributed to the American project, to ensure that our perceptions of race were not driven by the crime reports on the evening news. Gender, sexuality, class, and ethnicity all got some airtime, but mostly we talked about race. And one form of identity was almost totally excluded: faith.
Now that the evening news is full of stories of faith-based violence, and our public discourse has a constant undercurrent of religious prejudice (Barack Obama is a Muslim! Mitt Romney isn’t a Christian!) colleges can no longer ignore faith identity. For many of the same reasons that they actively engaged race, so should they now actively and positively engage faith identity.
That’s how he gets the toe in the doorway: treating “faith” as identity rather than a set of beliefs and claims, and then treating identity as something that has to be “engaged.” But that’s a bad idea. Religion does operate like an identity in a lot of ways but it’s bad to treat it like one because it makes it less open. It shouldn’t be hard to leave one’s religion just because it feels like an identity.
What if campuses took religious diversity as seriously as they took race? What if recruiting a religiously diverse student body, creating a welcoming environment for people of different faith and philosophical identities, and offering classes in interfaith studies and co-curricular opportunities in interfaith leadership became the norm? What if university presidents expected their graduates to acquire interfaith literacy, build interfaith relationships, and have opportunities to run interfaith programs during their four years on campus? What impact might a critical mass of interfaith leaders have on America over the course of the next generation?
I have one word to offer as an alternative to Patel’s nightmare vision: secularism.
H/t to Christopher Moyer, via Jessica Moyer.
Sure, let’s expose people to religions they may have never heard of. Let’s open up a discussion between believers of different religions and see how that goes. I wonder how that will work out for people who have never been exposed to other religions? I don’t think the impact will be quite what you’re expecting Mr. Patel.
Oh for fuck’s sake.
God, what do these people do on their spare time? Wonder how they can dilute and destroy everything around them with “friendly” sounding speech?
I do not want to be part of a “religiously” and “philosophically” diverse student body. I do not want to have very basic arguments like
1. Should women be allowed to vote?
2. Is evolution true?
3. Can a husband really rape his wife?
4. Is it bigoted to think gays are inherently sinful?
I would rather have a more homogeneous group of piers that don’t picket Planned Parenthood or refuse to touch a woman patient.
Call me weird or something but that’s just how I am.
Maybe, if we’re all very lucky, in a generation or two they’d eventually come together and agree that what matters most is faith, faith is identity, and therefore atheists are the common enemy of us all. We can only hope.
The trouble with campuses are that they are generally found in places concerned with education and learning, and the problem with education and learning is that sooner or later those strong and meaningful communities are going to have to examine their foundations. But is it actually true? Then the sh*t hits the fan.
“The trouble with campuses
areis …” tchjulian @ # 2: … I do not want to have very basic arguments like …
Would you prefer that every child of a household where only False Noise and Pat Robertson’s channel never got to stay up all night debating with a feminist; that young True Believers stay in their social/educational bubbles until their attitudes have carved permanent scars in their brains; that rationally-minded students never encounter faitheists or fanatics until they’re face to face with teabaggers hijacking municipal governments?
fool @ # 5: … a household where only False Noise and Pat Robertson’s channel were allowed …
ftfm
The fundamental flaw with his argument, is that religious faith is inherently divisive, where as race, gender, class, sexuality, and ethnicity are not. Race, gender, class, sexuality, and ethnicity are not an issue of correct vs incorrect as religion is. Religion promotes a saved vs damned, sinner vs saint, enlightened vs blind, moral vs immoral mindset. It’s the claims of perfect morality/knowledge of the religion that prevent a different but equal morality/knowledge.
It reminds me of what Paul Graham said about beliefs as identities: “If people can’t think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible.” I guess Patel thinks this is actually a great thing for people to do, and it seems inevitable that the elevation of truth claims to personal identities will lead to nothing but conflict and ego-centered pigheaded ignorance of reality.
The policies we adopt shouldn’t just cater for immediate problems, but should set the environment for a better next generation.
Will those inter-faith proposals lead to a more enlightened next generation? No – it will lead to one that sees unenlightened views being endorsed. After all, those faiths can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong. And they tend to carry with them pre-enlightenment values.
Faiths are related to cultures, and may be a large part of one’s culture. Yes, cultures can feel like part of one’s identity. But cultures are not value-neutral. They can be wrong – unenlightened. Often, cultures need to change from one generation to another.
Religions are hobbies. If only we could all act like that!
By realising that religious practices (customs and rituals) are hobbies, we have the means to analyse where the boundaries of religions’ roles should be, using existing well-understood examples that successfully allow lots of disparate communities to coexist. It is a model for coexistence that can’t be criticised as totalitarian or untried or contrary to human rights.
“That’s how he gets the toe in the doorway: treating “faith” as identity”
I’ve just encountered this ploy.
Criticise faith and you attack identity.
You attack a minority identity.
You are attacking a minority.
What impact might a critical mass of interfaith leaders have on America over the course of the next generation?
Where religions agree, is generally on the really shitty stuff like their mutual love of sexism and authoritarian belief structures.
Further funding for such a massive project would mean funding for things which aren’t, in real terms, mutual wank fests.
So my guess is, it would have a largely negative effect.
All faiths are equally important and valid.
Us Purified Polytheists have been waiting for someone to agree with us on this point for years.
We’ve had no support from leaders of any of the other faiths so far. But this Patel is at last a ray of hope.
Patel writes-
I went to Villanova University. As an atheist jew, it was hardly a welcoming place when the priest required the entire philosophy class to stand every day and say the Lord’s Prayer. I refused. My first paper in the class questioned the inherent contradiction between monotheism and the holy trinity. I received my first failing grade ever. I took it to my faculty advisor. She thought it worthy of at least a B.
Catholic colleges may welcome diversity but they do not welcome criticism. Granted, this was 25 years or so ago and things may have changed. I do hope so. When it comes to the Catholic church, I have very little “faith” it can do the right thing.
Yes, let’s just treat being gay as the same as believing that gays are against god’s law. And that being a woman is the same as believing that women are inherently inferior to men.
Fuck that shit.
I’m actually for accomodating some needs of religious people. Like in my college where they labelled food with pork or alcohol appropriately. Or having rooms that can be used by all student organisations.
Oh, and please extra grants for women from Quiverful and similar movements.
Interfaith literacy came to me a bit through anthropology. Thankyou Roy Rappaport.
Deconstructing New Guinea highlander beliefs, and the behaviors they encode, is a good first step toward looking at your own beliefs with new eyes. I haven’t started offering meals to the red spirits or smoke magic woman, but I do treat the spirits of rot with the utmost respect, as they control my compost pile, and are the basis of my agriculture. I did not opt for the sub-incision.
My state U, 25 years ago, had various organizations and clubs for people of various flavors of Christianity and Judaism. I didn’t bother to attend any of them, but they were advertised and widely known to exist. Since the school took no official stance on student clubs except that they were allowed to exist, I’m almost positive that other groups have sprung up in the 25 years since then. That’s plenty welcoming, IMO. Institutions of higher learning should be focusing on recruiting students actually capable of doing the work required, not focusing on potential students’ faiths.
The problem is that religion really isn’t a cultural identity but an ideology. When people get into the idea that it’s identity it’s probably because they know that the beliefs can be exploded as ridiculous nonsense, and so they’re trying to change religion for a ‘belief system’ to an ‘identity’ so that it’s no longer open to criticism.
The problem (as barrypearson pointed out) is that cultures can be wrong so that ‘this is my identity’ isn’t a valid way of
escaping criticism.
The other end that I see a lot on these ‘interfaith’ deals is trying to move religion away from a belief system that makes precise, explicit claims into something that’s just a bunch of verbose emotional woo. The motivation, again, is to transform religion into something that, since it’s not making very specific or easy to define claims (many of which can be easily dismissed) , cannot be criticized. The end result is, by not defining *what* they believe very well, the faithful can believe all they want without having to justify it.It also might signal a truce between religions – they’ve each staked out a sphere of influence and aren’t interested in fighting each other so much any more.
He has tweeted about “the science of inter-faith cooperation.” Lulz.
I don’t see much wrong with the article, and there’s certainly much to recommend in it (the focus on the extraordinarily high level of inter-religious prejudice in the USA is welcome, for instance). What do you object to in Patel’s suggestions, exactly, and what strikes you as non-secular about them? I think the most potentially problematic one is selecting students partly on the basis of their faith, but apart from that (which I think could be robustly defended) I think the suggestions are good ones. I certainly think university graduates should be encouraged to form friendships across religious lines of difference and to learn about other religious traditions – I consider that both valuable for the individuals involved and for society as a whole. Do you really object to that?
Your points about religious identity are…odd. Isn’t the case that one’s religious beliefs – including those of atheists like us – often play a significant role in our identity? I certainly feel my Humanism is central to my identity. I know many atheists whose atheism is extremely important to them. So why not recognize that?
If “interfaith literacy” means what it sounds like it might mean, I think it’s an excellent idea. There’s nothing like a bit of comparative religious study to make you realize that there’s no good reason to belong to one religion over the other, and then you’re well down the path to becoming an atheist, or at the very least a vague sort of agnostic type who at least doesn’t get in anyone’s fucking way.
James, well, to start with, the many repetitions of the word “faith” used as a hooray-word. I dislike that; I think it’s manipulative. He could perfectly well say “religion” when that’s what he means but it doesn’t have the cuddly overtones. I dislike the cuddly overtones, and I also dislike the automatic valorization of what is by definition a dogmatic way of thinking.
To go on with, the way it makes “faith” central and also automatically valorized.
To end with, the way it blurs the distinction between religion and non-religion/anti-religion as both simply worldviews.
Oh and James I don’t consider my atheism a religious belief. I don’t like that two sides of the same coin approach.
Yes, one’s beliefs in general may be central to one’s identity. (Or not – some people just aren’t all that interested in beliefs, even their own.) But that’s not the end of the subject. Treating them as inextricably part of one’s identity is a way of placing them beyond discussion, questioning, improvement, adjustment, change, rejection. It’s a kind of secular way of making them sacred. I think people should be very minimalist about what they make sacred in that way.
Hmmm. Those are not objections to the suggestions themselves as much as to the language, which I suppose is legitimate but seems weaker than your initial post. It seems your position might be “I like the suggestions but to the language used to describe them”. In which case, it doesn’t seem quite accurate to call the piece “wrong-headed” as much as “expressed differently to how I would prefer”.
As for the word “faith” itself, it doesn’t seem clear that Patel means by it what you would mean by it. It sounds to me like he uses it to mean “faith tradition” or “religious tradition” rather than “mode of thinking with x characteristics”.
I see that, but I don’t think he’s talking abou simplyt beliefs, as I say, but about the whole of a religious tradition. I think there’s some miscommunication here because the way someone like Patel talks about things like faith and religion is very different to how we might.
No, I don’t like the suggestions, and I think the suggestions and the language are tangled up together. I think teaching comparative religion is a good idea, but “interfaith” isn’t quite the same thing. I certainly don’t think universities should be putting more (or any) emphasis on “faith” as identity.
And I don’t think this is just miscommunication and difference. As I said, the way Patel talks about it is manipulative. It’s PR speak for religion. I don’t think that’s just different, I think it’s bad.
That’s probably because they wouldn’t disapprove of you just because some of the other invariable characteristics that you have.
To learn about other religions and traditions: Good, interesting.
But I won’t treat it as something really, really special.
I most certainly won’t pay it any respect or actually make personal changes to accomodate the religious faiths of others.
jflcroft @ #23:
“Hmmm. Those are not objections to the suggestions themselves as much as to the language, which I suppose is legitimate but seems weaker than your initial post…” (etc).
“Hmmm” is the sound a swarm of blowflies makes when it discovers a pile of fresh bullshit.
Could I suggest the following useful substitutes:
1. bullshit. [ie categorically so]
2. bullshit! [ie empatically so]
3. bullshit? [ie possibly so; is that so?]
“Hmmm” is far less precise. It’s having an each-way bet: ‘I’m considering this’ and at the same time ‘I’m doubting this’. Provided it leads somewhere positive, doubt or skepticism is a good default position to take, IMHO.
I think that in the philosophical discussions we have on this excellent site, precision is what we should strive for.
Submitted for consideration by all those inclined to ‘Hmmm’.
But I use “hmm” to mean precisely ‘I’m considering this’ and at the same time ‘I’m doubting this’. What’s wrong with that?! Sometimes one does both. I use it to say “I see what you mean but all the same…”
I certainly don’t use it to mean “bullshit.”
I can’t do without “hmm.”
OK.
Then perhaps ‘bullshit?’
?
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and likewise to use ‘Hmmm’.
Its ambiguity can be a trap. Message intended may not be the one received.
Hmm is one of those vocal noises used as space fillers.
“Do you want more ice cream?” “Hmm, I don’t know.”
“Do you think Heidegger was using ‘double speak’ in when describing the ‘inner truth and greatness of this [Nazi] movement’?” “Hmm, I’m not sure.”
“Your money or your life.” “Hmm, I still deciding.”
As usual, when these faithy types open their mouths – especially when they utter the word ‘inclusion’ – I find myself excluded, yet again.
My atheism is not my identity, nor is my identity derived from my atheism. My identity, in pertinent part, is as a specific human being, with a set of values and with a morality. As a human being, my values and morality forbid telling anyone what to believe; forbid me from believing without understanding (particularly when I’m told I must believe); honor the ability of (and necessity for) each human to deal with reality; forbid me from using such authority as I may seem to have to dominate others; forbid me from accepting as true that which is obviously erroneous; … .
In short, my atheism derives from my identity and my morality. To get this order backwards is to deny my identity, my morality, and my atheism. To assert that my identity is my atheism is to deny my essence.
“But that’s a bad idea. Religion does operate like an identity in a lot of ways but it’s bad to treat it like one because it makes it less open. It shouldn’t be hard to leave one’s religion just because it feels like an identity”
But it can be very hard. And we atheists are inhumane if we don’t recognise it. To the individual their faith can seem to them like the most important part of their identity (which is why losing it can be so traumatic). Once out – sure it looks ridiculous. But it is compassionate to remember that faith can be everything to those who have it, so when it crumbles and dies, the sense of liberation can also hurt a lot. I don’t think it is reasonable to say people should easily be able to change their beliefs. When someone has invested a lot into their faith, then clearly it will not be easy. Necessary: usually yes. Easy – often not.
And I agree: we should try hard not to give faith equivalence with other forms of identity. It is not equivalent to race or gender nor close – and it is a daft idea to suggest that any flavour of faith is a good thing and we should have a diversity of it. But it can feel like it to those involved and it is inhumane to ignore that
But I’m not saying we should ignore it or refuse to sympathize. I’m saying we shouldn’t do what Patel is doing in this article, which is to urge it and treat it as a good thing.
I can recognise that religion forms a part of identity but why stop there? My father sees choice of football team as the most important aspect of a person’s identity. He has never had a problem with me and my sister dating guys whose race and religion was different but an Arsenal supporter would have been unacceptable. He was totally gobsmacked when I told him that my husband doesn’t actually like football at all. Going to football with my Dad as a kid gave me a huge insight into religion and certainly fuelled my doubts. Some girls at school once suggested to a teacher that I should be allowed to where a Tottenham Hotspur necklace to school as it was obviously my religion (religious symbols were the only jewellry permitted). Perhaps there’s something in that
Then there’s political ideologies, some people stay a member of the same party all their life. For many this is far more important than their religions. Perhaps we should treat all political ideologies equally. What about a crime of political hate speech?
I would recommend the book “Identity & Violence” by Amartya Sen for more discussion on this topic. He argues that a) our identities are multiple and overlapping, and b) that encouraging people to focus on one aspect of identity above others is conducive to violence as it easily reduces everything to them v. us.
But Opehlia you did say “it shouldn’t be hard to leave one’s religion because It feels like an identity.”
Well maybe it shouldnt be…but think it is often hard to leave ones religion because it really does very much feel like an identity.
I didn’t suggest that you were saying we should ignore or be unsympathetic to those who suffer from this delusion either.
And hopefully it was clear that I agree with you: Patel’s point is silly at best – and actually quite unhelpful.
There can be a pretty harsh condemnation of theists who see their faith to be fundamental to their identity. Of course, I’m perhaps over sensitive to this because I was on the receiving end of that myself as I deconverted. I was firmly convinced that my religion was the fundamental part of my identity (whether it was or wasn’t is quite hard to establish) but I falsely elevated that identity to give it equivalence it did not have.
Still felt pretty horrible having my view corrected quite as sharply as it was. Hence my plea for evident compassion in this discussion.