The good folks at Faith in Public Life. org have reprinted this article by Dave Brown and Glen Hiemstra from the Seattle Times in which the reporters address the question of our current public discourse about religion in a way that cuts through much of teh garbage that currently passes for debate. Acknowledging (a) that there are conflicts within, between, and among religions, and between those who do not subscribe to religious belief and the faithful; (b) there is a vocal anti-religious movement out there that wishes to eliminate, not religion from our public discourse, but religion from life; (c) that (b) is nonsensical on its face, and distracts us from the real issue of how to discuss religion in such a way that acknowledges difference without belittling opposing points of view.
I like their suggestions, especially the business about the First Amendment. I am conflicted about what, exactly, the role of an individual candidate's or politician's faith profession should be. On the one hand, I find much with which to agree in Richard Rorty's position that religion is, as the title of an article suggests, "a conversation stopper" because there seems to be no appeal beyond a claim that one holds such-and-such a political stance due to one's faith commitments. On the other hand, we are, like it or not, stuck in the most religious of the developed nations in the world, and religion does play now, as it has always done, a role in our public life and discourse. If it becomes a matter of figuring out how to get religious talk right in public, then I think the authors are on to something.
The problem, however, is that there are those, on many sides of the issue, who are quite simply refuse to listen to those with whom they disagree. For some reason, the whole issue fills them with incoherent rage and tehey wish to silence their opponents. Since they shout the loudest, and publish the most often, these are the voices we hear, and we are forced into listening to ping-pong, "LALALALALA - I'm not listening to you!", nonsense that gets us nowhere. We are left with the impression that religion in America is represented by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the one hand; Jim Wallis and Sojourners on the other (I will admit right now I find Wallis irksome, a self-important, self-appointed media whore who is basking in a certain triumphalism right now I find grotesque; was that subtle enough a criticism?).
Discussion of religion in America needs to stand on certain premises, the first and most important of which is that it is not going away. The second premise is that there is no central voice on religious matters in America. We have no Pope, no Council, no Synod, no Head of the Church (as the Queen is the head of the church in England) - and we need to include all sorts of voices in the dialogue and debate. we need to acknowledge the limitations of our own points-of-view. Christians need to come clean about our history of anti-Jewish bigotry, anti-Mormon bigotry (now playing out over the Mit Romney candidacy). Protestants need to acknowledge a long history of anti-Catholocism. We all need to acknowledge not only anti-Islam prejudice, but a profound ignorance of its tenets, teachings, and practices. We might also want to surrender any notion that we have the keys to the kingdom, as it were, denied to all other benighted groups in the land. We are a passing breeze in the world, and even the most celebrated among us now will fade from memory, along with teachings, professions, and confessions, as times and ideas change. Humility is necessary for a reason, and that reason can be summed up in one word - fallibility.
We also need to allow real disagreements, real arguments, to take place. We should not shy away from conflict in some vague interests of civility. Civility is an overrated virtue; I would much rather argue with someone that play nice, muttering behind my hand. Discourse about religion, when acknowledging the reality of difference, and the necessity of humility, should not keep us from ensuring that we silence ourselves out of deference to the feelings of others. I can say, on the one hand, I find the persistent anti-Mormonism in America disgraceful; on the other hand, I find the tenets and teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints risible. This is the way to do public discourse. Maybe we can get move forward together now.
Virtual Tin Cup
