Embedded Files
Pages upon pages of research have finally culminated into this final work. My opinion on the issue: Would Implementing Religious Pluralism be beneficial for American politics? At the beginning of my research, I would have said yes, pluralism would be beneficial for American politics. However, as my research has proved, the issue isn’t as black and white.
Pages upon pages of research have finally culminated into this final work. My opinion on the issue: Would Implementing Religious Pluralism be beneficial for American politics? At the beginning of my research, I would have said yes, pluralism would be beneficial for American politics. However, as my research has proved, the issue isn’t as black and white.
My curiosity into pluralism within politics and religion first began with the story “Life of Pi”. “Life of Pi” revolves around a young Indian boy who eventually comes to be faithful to Christianity and Islam, alongside his Hindu beliefs. The book follows Pi on a harrowing survival journey that causes him to question his understanding of the world and how his faith allows for what he sees and experiences in the universe. The author, Yann Martel, wrote such a believable and eye-opening experience. As Pi was living life day to day, dying life day to day, he had plenty of time to question what he believed. His analyzing of religions brought question to: Why are religions separate? Why do we hate and deny someone else’s religion - when at their core - all religions are the same? Each religion wishes for a greater standard of being, to treat others with kindness and live a fulfilling life. With this idea in thought, Martel crafts a impactful story about a young boy’s survival and his own validation for having multiple beliefs. But. Martel leaves hanging an interesting thought, why isn’t this the way for each person? For each culture? My original purpose, why do we not live in a pluralistic society?
As my research developed, my vocabulary improved and implemented the concepts of civil religion, procedural secularism, and programmatic secularism.
As my research developed, my vocabulary improved and implemented the concepts of civil religion, procedural secularism, and programmatic secularism.
Civil religion as understood by Robert Bellah has colored each source of information I found. As he puts, past politicians used religious rhetoric for sources of their credibility. Alternatively, without civil religion’s influence America would no longer function as it does. Yet, functioning so basely without the requirement of religion may not be a poor characteristic to lose. Civil religion is the characteristic of politics and society having a generic Religion™ which appeals to the equally generic and white vocal voting class of America. Bellah is the first to utilize the term in his article and by doing so, he provides a context for what becomes a larger discussion. What may have been more forthright at the time, Bellah does provide support for civil religion continuing in politics, however it can fall flat with how much he points at the “classless” examples of historical politicians execution of it. (Perhaps it’s only my interpretation) But from my reading of Bellah, I didn’t get a strong argument necessarily for civil religion. Again, his conclusion is For civil religion, but the evidence he provided (to me) supported the idea of civil religion being a negative characteristic. Based off of Bellah, I would have said that I do not support the idea of civil religion in politics; civil religion does nothing but suppress the already unheard voices, that it does little for the already religious (Christian) support and only further pushes the desperate further way. But as you might have learned by now, my opinion changes based off further reading.
he discusses his rhetorical strategies with credit to civil religion. Obama provides an argument on how handicapped influential speakers’ presentations (including his own) would be without the use of religious context in essays and speeches; how they would lack something significantly effective without religious allegory. With this speech, Obama completely shifted my opinion on religion within politics. I feel civil religion is now a very required necessity within American politics. Obama’s speech is summarized by one of Bellah’s previously unconnected statements: “The inauguration of a president is an important ceremonial event in [civil] religion. It reaffirms…the religious legitimation of the highest political authority” while still arguing that politicians are required to have religious piety least they lose votes. There is no denying that maybe we shouldn’t work this way, but there’s also no denying it’s not an effective model. The effectiveness of the this model is yet another part of my uncertain conclusion about pluralism within America.
Many of my argument sources provide evidence for civil religion being “The Way to Go”, the simple conclusion for pluralism in politics.
Many of my argument sources provide evidence for civil religion being “The Way to Go”, the simple conclusion for pluralism in politics.
Furthermore, Jonathan Chaplin and Rowan Williams both dissect just how religious reasoning in politics work. Chaplin refers to Williams for his own source of credibility on the subject, but provides his own conclusion. Chaplin believes that as society has grown, religions are being left outside of politics, therefore we should just exclude religion from politics.Ultimately, that there should be no civil religion. Williams believes a similar solution and provides evidence upon evidence and cross examination of ideals to support his own stance. But, what he does differently is provide argument for religious reasoning being just as impactful as “hard science” reasoning. Williams attempts to give weight to both sides of the argument. He analyzes and combs over the subject from more angles than religious and provides a compelling all or nothing solution. Archbishop Williams points to an idea of procedural secularism silencing proponents rather than providing a stage. Quoting, “legal system which is always open to being persuaded by confessional or ideological argument on particular issues, but is not committed to privileging permanently any one confessional group”, meaning that ultimately - because we can’t efficiently provide everyone a voice - then we shouldn’t use spiritual justification, but we should still strive for it. A conclusion that D.A. Carson ultimately reaches.
What came to be another popular author, D.A Carson provides a compelling philosophy on pluralism and religion as related to Christian culture and society. Carson illicit debate in the most average of thinker. He makes contradictory statements to prove just how “silly” a belief may actually be in order to boost his own argument. Within all three of his sources I reviewed, Carson implores his desire to leave God unfiltered (un-gagged). Although, he doesn’t support religious intolerance (exclusivism), instead he outlines point by point just how we should reach for a pluralistic society - specifically relating to Christianity. Carson’s ultimate driving force in life seems to be to accurately campaign for pluralism to exist within the Christian evangelicals. Carson has contributed to my belief that in order to reach peak living, we must reach harmony.
The Achievement of Harmony
The Achievement of Harmony
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Haidt paired with Carson creates an interesting outlook. Both he and Carson believe that we are reaching for (and can achieve) a higher standard of being. Haidt works within a scientific realm, calling for an idea of homo-complex. And while he provides evidence and support for working together to realize this complex, second level of man, Carson’s work provides yet an even stronger basis. Carson’s work involves Christianity mostly, but can apply to more facets. Following his idea of religious tolerance, Carson and Haidt provide a strong argument for pluralism being the key to capital T Truth. With proper contextualization, pluralism within politics and religion, American society can work together and achieve the betterment of Truth. As Carson states, “Truth doesn’t sound like a single clear resounding note, rather it sounds like a symphony of voices working together.”
However, pluralism as defined by Carson works under an idea of understanding - of being aware that there is a truth standard. By people, “recognizing the need to preserve absolutes, yet perceiving the overarching and frankly relativizing influence of culture, some Christians have sought to escape the problem by suggesting that some core of basic Christian truths transcends culture”, as Carson argues. To translate: Carson understands and shows his audience an idea of religion being relative; that religion is defined based off each person’s interpretation of the Scripture. With this idea in mind, and his support of contextualization, Carson ultimately declares pluralism under the influence of critical thinking. Critical thinking as being aware of other’s being different than you are.
Final Thoughts
Final Thoughts
So in conclusion, based greatly off of Carson’s and Williams’ arguments, pluralism can and should be implemented into politics. But! Not under the practiced civil religion; rather an inclusive all representative political sphere, a tolerant one. I would have much preferred - as the others have - to ultimately claim a neutral stance on this issue. For, as I’ve attempted to outline, each provides pros and cons. However, I think in the long term - and with the mindset that it hasn’t been done before - a completely inclusive political sphere is the only way to reach the 2nd level, homo-duplex, complex living. I don’t propose to necessarily destroy the concept of civil religion - for there is strength in religious etymology. But, in actual practice, in actual political decisions, there needs to be an easier ground for lesser heard voices to speak as supported by pluralism.
.....
Something I haven’t written of is Carson’s (and probably the more popularly accepted and understood) definition of pluralism compared to what I’ve coined as my own. By Carson’s definition, pluralism is the allowance of a stagnant “middle-ground” of acceptance, that to allow other religions to be true as well, your own in turns suffers in passion. I greatly disagree. Within my research, I have understood pluralism to be full-heartedly believing your own religion. The idea that your own religion is capable of providing layers of acceptance and fulfillment to your life, while still being aware of other people’s existing the same way; of being aware someone may worship multiple Gods, and by doing so, their life is just as fulfilled as yours - and importantly - just as valid. The debate surrounding pluralism tends to focus on one religious sect in order to contribute a justifiable reason for pluralism, but I would contend that is where each scholar suffers. By limiting the understanding to one religion, by coloring your (the writer) words with only your experience in mind, you lose sight of the core of pluralism, of civil religion, of coexistence.
To answer the question: WOULD Implementing religious Pluralism be beneficial for American Politics?
To answer the question: WOULD Implementing religious Pluralism be beneficial for American Politics?
critical thinking is to understand others are different than yourself, and this understanding provides support for pluralism within politics. America has always claimed to be a place of acceptance, but in actuality offers very little for fear of others. I propose, instead of remaining in a Civil Religion which does nothing for evolving, for reaching Truth, we should and have to truly work together - pluralistically - in order to achieve a greatness only found in thinking critically.
critical thinking is to understand others are different than yourself, and this understanding provides support for pluralism within politics. America has always claimed to be a place of acceptance, but in actuality offers very little for fear of others. I propose, instead of remaining in a Civil Religion which does nothing for evolving, for reaching Truth, we should and have to truly work together - pluralistically - in order to achieve a greatness only found in thinking critically.
Google Sites
Report abuse