After
reading the Foreword and Chapter One of Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief, do you agree or disagree with Carter's view of the relationship between religion and public life in America today? In responding to this question, consider specific examples Carter mentions. Does Carter offer a convincing reason why we should change or alter our approach to the way religion is discussed in public life? Please respond in at least 7-10 thoughtful sentences and include references to the book.
I totally agree with Carter's view about religion and the role it plays in the United States. People are religious, but many people are told to hide that they are and to not be proud of it. Religion is something sacred to each and every individual, and I feel like for the country to say keep your beliefs to yourself, well thats not right. Our country is about free speech and I believe that anybody should be able to say whatever they want about religion. I also agree with the example he gave where he talks about the Jewish couple getting divorced and getting a get, a divorce where the lady can legally get married again and although people use that against the Jewish community, they don't believe in it. They aren't Jewish so they can't just come into the religion and nitpick something that they agree with or something that they like and run with it. That's exactly how gay rights is thought of. Many people say it is written in the bible or it is a sin to be gay, but thats a CHRISTIAN view on it, not a human view. I agree with Carter but disagree with how people use religion to deny rights.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and analyzing Stephen Carter's "The Culture of Disbelief" my previous beliefs on religion in today's society were validated (in my mind). I am completely in agreement with Carter in that I believe, as a whole, our society has a disturbing and disappointing lack of respect for the religious beliefs of its own people. Do I believe that every single person in every single religious group is pure, holy, and devout to the morals of their Word? Absolutely not - not by a long shot. However, I think that our society has blanketed a looming, grey cloud over an umbrella idea of religion and stereotypes of "religious people". I think it's extremely unfortunate that on one end, religion can be used as a weapon in a corrosive way by some devout followers so overly zealous of a faith that they can fall ignorantly blind, but on the other end, it can reversibly be used against a religious community to belittle their beliefs or treat its people as a different class of people.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the Forward and the first chapters of "The Culture of Disbelief" Carter pointed out some key events that brought home his overall point in regards to the lack of respect our society has developed for religion as an important entity. I was blown away when I read about the backlash Hilary Clinton received after wearing a cross to her husband's inauguration. I think it was ludicrous for the media to attack her because they felt that her cross was "inappropriate". Announcing that you are a believer of God and that you claim a faith shouldn't put you in the public eye as some sort of villain. I was not quite as shocked about the non-Judeo-Christian religions being villainized, because it's become acceptable in our culture to mock and ridicule those who believe in "other" things - even though we've made a habit of mocking Christians and Jews as well.
I honestly just think that our society has become overly secular in the way that we think, but I also believe that a lot of the images and experiences that many Americans have faced in regards to religion have been tainted, and therefore detrimental to us as individuals. More and more people are looking to live without any type of religion, almost in some sort of spite to Religion, as category, or to the religious figures that have corrupted their views on religion, instead of vying to make their own spiritual journeys. I definitely believe that religion, in many cases, has been tainted, deformed, and corrupted through the WRONG types of people. For some religions, I think people need to explore their texts on an individual, personal basis, and make decisions based on their own research and understanding, and the Church (I'm using this term loosely to represent a community of people who all follow the same religious ideals or Word) should not make up your mind for you or hinder you from questioning and exploring your own faith. Religion, beliefs, knowledge, faith - those are things that are personal to those who possess them, and as long as they remain respectful of other people and the laws that they have chosen to abide by, people who practice any type of religion should be allowed a sense of respect as well. It's about respect and boundaries. We're a country that was formed with the intention (a fervent plea) of allowing religious FREEDOM, which is not the case of our current state. I think if more people (religious, non-religious, and semi-religious) could acknowledge and respect each other's rights, feelings, and individuality then religion wouldn't have to be as big of an issue in today's society, and it wouldn't cause such a huge fissure between its people.
I agree with Carter on the point that, as a whole, our society does not respect religion when it comes to openly practicing and spreading individuals religious beliefs yet, I do not think that we are forcing people to only practice their religion privately and as a "shameful secret". I personally think that religion should be separate from the governmental system and moreover a personal affair rather than a public one but I strongly believe as individuals and ultimately as a society, there should be religious tolerance for every religion and everyone should be able to openly practice their own beliefs without facing repercussions for "showing off" their religion. It's appalling to think that we can forcibly remove a teachers bible from his desk and ban him from silently reading it during class and then turn around and state we are a tolerant country from all sides of the spectrum. In the end, I agree with Carter, we need to accept religion into our society and show respect for it but I disagree with his opinion that religion should play a bigger role in the government.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with Carter that preference is given to more "mainstream" religions in public life in America today. The comparison of peyote in Native American rituals to wine in Catholic rituals made me realize the extent to which I had been "trivializing" many faiths in my own thinking. Carter is right that "a magnificent respect for freedom of conscience, including the freedom of religious belief, runs deep in our political ideology" (8); oppressive laws aside, one wonders if Catholicism was given similar preference in rhetoric during the Protestant Reformation. However, I'm skeptical that religion as a whole is trivialized in politics when I consider how vital a candidate's faith is in an election, how frequently politicians are expected to make an oath with a hand on the Bible, etc.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this preference given to Judeo-Christian faiths actually effectuates the trivialization of religion, rather than disproves it. If the majority of Americans felt belittled by politics the same way Pagans and Hindus probably do, the population may have called for a change in rhetoric long ago. As a politician is unlikely to patronize members of his or her own religion, one can conclude that there is preference given to Judeo-Christian faiths simply because most politicians are Christian. Maybe the real problem, the source of this trivialization, is a widely held idea of Christian exceptionalism: Your religion is fine, but I'M going to Heaven.
Carter does convince the reader that religion should be approached differently in public life, mostly with examples of inconveniences inflicted upon followers of religions outside of the mainstream. I wasn't especially convinced by examples of oppression through language only, such as the Supreme Court decision that recognized a worker's "'right to select the day of the week in which to refrain from labor'" (5), which didn't impede Jewish people's ability to observe the Sabbath but vaguely implied that "religious choice is essentially arbitrary and unimportant" (6). I did, however, speculate that there could be a connection between incidents like these and more concrete conflicts, like being required to was ashes from one's forehead on Ash Wednesday. I think that the real danger of condescending rhetoric in American politics is the way it can snowball into more oppressive events (even oppressive legislation), rather than its capacity to hurt people's feelings.
I read through the forward three times just to make sure that I fully understood what Stephen Carter was saying, and I believe that I agree with him. I take Carter's main statement to mean that people in contemporary American society sense pressures to suppress their religious/cultural views in order to be taken seriously or seen as rational. I think his opinion is very valid as an umbrella term for American society (corporate, educational, government, etc.). The vast majority of Americans keep their religion under wraps unless it is explicitly pointed out for either positive or negative reasons. This is not because they don't believe in religious freedoms, but because of the awkward gray area of subtle discrimination against religion. Carter states, "it is not and has never been my contention that the public square...is hostile to religion." I agree America is not hostile, but simply finds religion to be an unimportant factor in public life. The "public square" believes religion should not help or hinder any sort of decisions made, but is only an afterthought. Religion, in society, is not regarded as a part of people and their everyday lives but instead something that can be swept under the rug at any moment. I think that in a country that is supposed to be welcoming and accepting of all people, and their religions, we are very choosy about that acceptance.
ReplyDeleteCarter's point regarding the importance of religion is valid, but I think that he underestimates the difficulty of acknowledging all religions. Part of the reason that religion is so interesting is because no two religions are identical, and even within a broader religion, there are sects and denominations and varying beliefs. So, while I think that it would be awesome for our government to equally acknowledge all religions and ensure that no religion's rights are trampled upon or trivialized, there is no way to make everyone happy, and while we can try to avoid making people unhappy, I cannot think of any way in which everyone can get their way. Overall, I think that Carter's desire for religious recognition across the board is unrealistic, and instead of focusing on Hillary Clinton wearing a cross or the issue of a get, he should focus on other matters that are actually hateful, because acts of hatred are more detrimental to our country than how Hillary chooses to accessorize.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Carter, in some ways. In the foreword, on page xv, he says "First, it is not and has never been my contention that the public square-the place where we debate public policy-is hostile to religion[...] I argue that in the public square, religion is too often trivialized, treated as an unimportant facet of human personality, one discarded, and one with which public-spirited citizens would not bother." This statement really stuck with me as I read the rest of the assigned pages. Because I thought it was an interesting distinction, the difference between hostility and trivialization. And on one hand, I agree with this. I think it makes sense. But I think in a lot of ways, it is hostile to religion, just religions that aren't Jewish or Christian or considered common or normal. Perhaps hostile is not the way to say it, but that it looks down on those religions or considers them to be outside of what's normal. But on the other side, I think they are also trivialized. Like, if religion isn't being trivialized then it's being criticized. And also, where is the line between trivialization and too much consideration? The question that Carter poses at the end of the foreword is key, I think, "how to preserve the separation of church and state without trivializing the religious convictions that tens of millions of us hold dear" (xx). Because you'll never be able to please everyone. As I've mentioned a few times in class, I very much believe that religion, for the most part, is a personal thing. Even if two people are Catholic, they're not going to believe the same exact things or in the same exact way. And even larger than that, there are quite a few different religions. I think Carter makes a good point, but I don't know that there's necessarily an answer that will solve the problem as opposed to just shift it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carter that many people are afraid of demonstrating how much religion means because people would think less of them. I personally feel the need to sometimes hide what you believe in because you fear the disapproval or even the rejection of others. I also agree with the fact that many people do not respect religion. People are always complaining about how disrespectful people are when the try to convert you but many other disrespect religion. I believe in having the freedom to believe in whatever you want and try to practice it but some practices conflict with government and society. "Religions that most need protection seem to receive it least", I found this sentence very interesting by a number of different reasons. First I found interesting that he mention religion as needing help since I Never thought of religion needing help. Nor did I thought someone would be helping religion since it seems everybody is trying to get rid off it. Then I thought about the great amount of issues conserning certain moral issues and realized that religion still a great deal in America. The second interesting thing about this statement is that I don't usually think about other religion besides the most 'popular' ones. I can relate about being a minority, and I can understand what if feels like to believe in something most people would find weird or even ridiculous. I believe that religion is an individual concept and that it should be extracted from politics, but it should be respected. This includes every belief including non-religious.
ReplyDeleteIn the foreword Carter says, "religion is too often trivialized, treated as an unimportant facet of human personality, one discarded," I thought this statement brought forward a concept that not many people would think of, that religion is just an unimportant trait of a person. I agree with Carter's idea that people do not give enough respect to religion, and the role it plays in many Americans' lives. People shouldn't have to hide what they believe, just because it is not well-accepted by the public. I also agreed with Carter's belief that state and church should be separate, but even within this belief he is still able to see that religion is not given the respect it deserves. If Americans truly had freedom to religion than they would be able to wear religious items, say religious ideas, and practice their religion without hiding it from the outside world. Carter at one point also calls religion a "fad" as though people just add religion into their life when they think it will add something to their life at the moment and they can just drop it as soon as they like. I thought the "fad" phrase was a really interesting way to see what religion has turned into for many Americans. I throughly agree with Carter's point of view of how religion has become an unimportant and hidden aspect of American culture.
ReplyDeleteStephen L. Carter wrote. “ … those who believe in God- are encouraged to keep it a secret, and often a shameful one at that. Aside from the ritual appeals to God that are expected of our politicians, for Americans to take their religions seriously, to treat them as ordained rather than chosen, is to risk assignment to the lunatic fringe.”( Page 4) I agree with Carter on his definition of religion in America. Religion is part of our history in America. It is what makes every person unique. We should be allowed to embrace it and practice freely. The interference that politics has had with religion does not make sense to me. Yes, some matters are based on religious customs, but do we really care that Hillary Clinton is wearing a cross. I agree that church and state should be separated. Religion is about several communities and their relationship with G-d, and politics should not have to interfere. ALTHOUGH, I agree with Aldo, that many of the political issues that we are concerned with today deal with moral codes, which brings religion into it. I applaud Mr. Carter for writing this book because I think we get a clear idea of his views and who he is as a person and I thank him for sharing his views with the world!
ReplyDeleteI’m not so quick to jump the gun and say that Carter speaks the truth. While I completely agree with him on the view that America has grown to be distrustful of religion, I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing. I said in my previous blogpost that I believe morality and religion are inherently linked, and I stand by that statement. But listening to discussion this past week, I’ve started to wonder whether or not the link is as strong today as it was a hundred years ago. As a foundation, morality will always need religion. But our society has started to do this great thing: we’re teaching morals without religion. We’re growing past the foundation and building up—and at this point, I have to ask myself what good religion’s doing if we can learn morality without it. A lot of what it does is provide laws and make demands. Like, I don’t know, you can’t have a blood transfusion or else you’ll go to Hell. When Carter mentioned this, I don’t exactly know the reaction he was trying to get from me, but I don’t think he got he was looking for. I’m all for respecting religion—the president’s wife should be able to wear a cross in public—but I can’t, personally, understand a God that would call saving a human life wrong. So, I cross the line there. Because at that point, religion isn’t doing us any good in the world we live in, here and now. I think educating people about religion is important, and yes, America could be a little more accepting of people who aren’t Christian, but Carter didn’t convince me that religion should play a bigger part in public life that it does today. Sometimes, when we’re taught not to flaunt something, it’s for a reason.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't really say that I agree with what he says, but on the other hand, I do think that some of the points that he brings up are not something to dismiss so easily. He does say that religion definitely deserves a place within the political spectrum, and that I do disagree with. Religion should not hte the deciding factor in the political careers of many people. It should maintain a large role in their personal life, and govern them from there. Speaking of that, I do agree that people should have their own religion, and not be afraid to let everyone else know that they are do have a faith. They should not keep it a secret, yet not go the extra mile where they are the sort of bible thumpers that would deny others rights.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm saying is that I'm with Carter, and opposed to Carter. I feel that religion should be a part of someone's personal life, (if they choose) and not a part of their public life. They should not have to fear what anyone has to say about them, and should allow others to know how they feel without preaching to them about how they should change.
From what I've read so far, Carter makes a convincing argument that religion is trivialized. In fact, many of the examples he brought up--like the outcry against Hillary Clinton wearing her cross or rules against a teacher leaving his bible out on his desk--are clear examples of anti-religious fervor. But some of his other examples, while presented in a way that compels the reader to agree with him, make sense to me. I can completely understand a reluctance to allow drug use even if it's part of a religious compulsion. As for the Jehovah's witness' beliefs against blood transfusions, most people would feel compelled to save that person's life, even against their will.
ReplyDeleteCarter has succeeded in convincing me that a general attitude of negativity exists in relation to the idea of religion in public life. So the attitude is there, but Carter still hasn't shown me how exactly to go about removing that attitude, or even if it is something that can be avoided. It doesn't make sense for the words "it's my religion" to be an automatic free card to do whatever you want to do. Carter's examples, for the most part, are the more "reasonable" religious duties. It is easy to agree that the right to wear a yarmulke should be defended, but what about the people who truly believe in wrong and universally immoral practices? With that in mind I understand a push to keep religious needs out of public policy as much as possible. I'm not saying they should be, but I think I'll wait to see what Carter proposes in terms of solutions to see if he has a point can be applied to religions indiscriminately.
In a country where a majority of the population believe in some sort of higher being, I agree with Carter that these ideas cannot be trivialized. To discount an entire body's opinion as archaic, as Carter argues is done, would be barbaric. Carter summarizes on page xx of the preface by asking, "how (do we) preserve the separation of church and state without trivializing the religious convictions that tens of millions of us hold dear." Although I agree with the question, I disagree with Carter's answer in chapter one.
ReplyDeleteThroughout this section, the author continuously refers to religion as one unified body. Carter cites specific examples from varying religious sects, such wearing kippahs, crosses, etc., however he fails to note that religions are often at odds with each other. Throughout the multiple court cases Carter sites, how would the government be able to weigh every religious belief while making their decision? It is impossible and absurd, not to mention conflicting with Carter's earlier statement of separation between church and state. It seems that although Carter refers to "religion," he should probably just say "Christian."
Does Carter really believe that "the consistent message of modern American society is that whenever the demands of one's religion conflict with what one has to do to get ahead, one is expected to ignore the religious demands and act...well...rationally." (13) Following this agenda and the respect for all religions which Carter has requested, how would society function? What counts as a religion and what does not? These questions are unanswerable and therefore a limitation must be set. What makes the United States admirable is the ability for such a diverse population to thrive, but an attempt to "respect" every religion by allowing days off, sacrifices, etc would result in chaos.
Perhaps Carter's 1994 argument has become somewhat outdated; I wonder what he thinks about politics currently, because I see a glaring religious presence currently. I'd have less infiltration of religion in government. What is more fair than to limit them all? Beliefs are beliefs and thus should be kept as so. I understand you believe that your old book is holy, but there is another guy up the street that thinks the same thing. Sure, have your religion and opinion, but why does it matter if you have to tell everyone else about it? As much respect as their should be for religious beliefs there should also be for nonreligious beliefs. This is incredibly unrealistic, but the ideal way to fix it would to live in a society of people content with themselves enough to not share and to just be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteConfessedly, I am writing this blog at a rather late hour after a particularly physically exhausting weekend with no access to Carter's book, so forgive me if all eloquence (and likely, adherence to the chapter's concrete points) goes out the window. I may not even agree with a good deal of this in the morning.
On one hand, I think that virtually every point that Carter makes in this chapter is 100% valid. I take issue, however, with the underlying message of his otherwise objective observations concerning intolerance of public religious displays. Yes, society is regrettably squeamish in regards to religion, and yes, religious practices have been trivialized, etc. etc. All very true. However, Carter stacks example after example of this concept on top of each other to bring to the forefront one looming proposal: said trivialization is a travesty to the degree that significant adjustments are unquestionably crucial and ultimately beneficial. That notion is largely unrealistic and, quite frankly, dangerous. It would be absolutely dandy if everybody could wear their religions egregiously plastered to their chests and face no repercussions, but the fact of the matter is, small discomforts such as being a bit more private about one's Christianity than is ideal are the least of our worries. In some respects, they keep things in check. "Religious freedom" - with however broad of a definition tacked on to it - is the ultimate goal. Nobody should be getting prosecuted for their beliefs and personal practices. In such a diverse world filled with inherent hatred and bigotry, that's a difficult achievement, but it's one that we're working towards and cannot ignore, being as religion is such a massive part of life. But simply *dulling* your religious fervor for the *public* eye so as to avoid negatively tinted preconceived notions? Not ideal whatsoever - but if it's what keeps matters RELATIVELY tranquil, albeit somewhat stifled - then that's a necessary evil. I think that Carter is asking for too much.
I do not really agree with Carter on the subject of religious persecution in America. I think he overreacts to specific instances in which people discriminate against or judge Christians but makes hardly any mention of the fact that it is just as easy, if not easier for religious people to hate anyone else, whether they are atheist, agnostic, or of any other religion. For instance, when he comments on how people reacted to Hillary Clinton being seen wearing a cross at public events, he said that people judged her for openly wearing a religious symbol, while not saying anything about how the president puts his hand on a bible when he is sworn in.
ReplyDelete