When talking about religious resurgence today, Gabe was discussing the infeasibility of faith-based diplomacy in certain situations with the illustration of Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden working things out together in a room. Someone was quick to jump on this illustration saying OBL does not represent all Muslims. I sat there puzzled for a moment because there was a murmur throughout the class and a bunch of head-nods. Did the majority of the class believe that Pat Robertson represents all Christians, or even all Evangelical believers?
I think my narrative about class is ultimately less a critique about American society and the way we treat religious belief but more so a commentary on how religion is so often left out of the academic discourse. When we talk about being tolerant and open minded in a university setting, we automatically assume acceptance of non-Christian religions. To really have a serious discussion about religion in the political sphere and international arena, we are going to have to do a better job comprehending and acknowledging the role and assumptions of ALL religious backgrounds, no matter how common or unique they may be in society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Or, as I like to think about it, begin to distinguish between 'practice' and 'analysis' as categories in which to insert religion. As a category of analysis presumes that X, whether that's religion or something else, is problematic in and of itself and starts from there. As a category of practice means analyzing uses or deployments of religion in a given space-time particularity. I'm a bigger fan of the latter - in case you were wondering :-)
Post a Comment