Questions on Islam

Please post any questions you might have for Zeyneb here (and bring them with you to class).

"Islam" by Richard Foltz

"Islam" by Richard C. Foltz was a fascinating article. Seeing that my research paper is on Islam, I found a lot of interesting and useful information in this essay. Seeing that 1.2 billion people around the world today identify with Islam on some level immediately shows that it is a global religion followed by many. Most people don't identify Islam as a religion that seems to be in touch with the environment, but this essay presently proves otherwise; Islam is very much an ecologically oriented religion. I like how Foltz made sure to define how he was going to use the word "Islamic" in his essay. The way he chose to define words gave me a lot of guidance on how I should be clear to use certain words in my essay and how I should make sure to define these words in the right context. Foltz described Islamic environmentalism as "an environmentalism that can be demonstrably enjoined by the textual sources of Islam". And then he went on to describe Muslim environmentalism, which "draws its inspiration from a variety of sources possibly including but not limited to religion." Foltz explores a lot of different aspects of ecology in Islam throughout his essay in an interesting and fascinating way so it was pleasant for me to read.

Zoya

Islam: An Overview

The entire reading was so interesting to me because I am doing Islam for my paper and because even though I grew up hearing various things about Islam, this article taught me numerous things that I have never heard before. In regards to the environment, I liked how Fazlur Rahman stated how, in Islam, the entire universe and its content are declared by the Quran to be Muslim, but whereas nature obeys God’s law automatically, humanity ought to obey it by choice. This brings up many issues about the complexity of the human mind and human action. I like how he said that nature doesn’t have a choice but humanity does. I guess this is why we have “good” and “bad” people and why heaven and hell also exist in this religion. Another very interesting fact I learned was how Rahman makes the statement about how Islam originated out of Arab roots, not Judeo-Christian roots. This is intriguing to me because I feel that most people, including myself, would say that because Islam is the third monotheistic, Abrahamic, religion that it originated out of the religions before it. According to Rahman, “Islam grew out of the problems existing in an Arab Meccan society.” The reading did a good job in discussing Sufism, which is very foreign to me. I liked how they were basically credited the spread of Islam because many were merchants and spread the religion in their travels. Also contributing to the spread of Islam was the Islamic acceptance of the Iranians. As an unrecognized nationality, acceptance of the Iranians was a huge thing for them, and many converted to Islam. One of my favorite parts about the article was the brief explanation about the expansion of Islam and the treatment of Muslims to non-Muslims. Rahman uses the word “jihad” here to describe how the Muslims just established Islamic rule. Muslim rule in conquered territories was generally tolerant and there was no policy to convert non-Muslims, “the purpose of jihād was not conversion but the establishment of Islamic rule.” Nowadays, we think of jihad as a religious war, mass killings of people because they aren’t Muslims, or suicide bombing in the name of God. That is obviously not how the word was originally intended to be used. Overall, I really enjoyed the article and all the information it had to offer.

Soraya

"Branching Out" by Fred Dobbs

The major theme of the second half of the Judaism reading was ecotheology. One passage that really interested me was, Zionist thinker, Aharon David Gordon’s. Gordon posed labor as combating the ecological crisis and bridging the gap between humanity and God. I really liked the statement about how the reconnection with the natural world will not be based on dominion as exploitation (as the relationship has been in the past) but on reunification through labor and how it culminates the union of the worker working with God and His creation. The section was interesting how it essentially made the case for Jews and wanting to save God’s beautiful earth, but then it closed with how nature is violent and unforgiving. I agree and disagree with this statement. I didn’t like how it sort of put nature down, because God controls nature and saying that nature doesn’t care about humans is like saying God doesn’t either. But also I agreed because, through the violence of weather and natural disasters, nature is communicating with humanity or God is communicating to humanity through nature.
“Branching Out: The Growth of Jewish Environmental Literature” reviewed by Fred Dobb discussed similar topics as the first reading. I found it interesting how Jewish law states that if an industry wants to pollute, it must provide compensation to everyone whom it affects. This shows the historical roots of Jewish environmental thought. In addition, eco-Judaism and classic midrashim (way of interpreting biblical stories) give the environmental crisis a new outlook. A story of the Messiah planting a tree provides metaphors for how we should treat the environment. Overall, like the first reading, this article opened my eyes to different aspects of the Jewish faith that I did not know. Through this eco-feminist movement we are able to gather a new insight on how Jews really view the environment.

Soraya

Judaism by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson

As I was reading, one passage that particularly stuck out to me was the one about Rabbinic Judaism and prayer. Rabbinic Judaism has a unique practice in which Jewish worshippers recite prayers over natural phenomena including the morning, the evening, a tree blossoming or even a storm. This is incredibly intriguing because despite the recitation of a prayer over an environmental entity, prayer does not place holiness on that entity. This seems ironic to me because the inherent nature of a prayer is to indicate holiness. Instead, prayer recognizes the power of God who brings about these changes and places an emphasis on Gods’ command over nature. I think this raises some severe problems for environment in that as Jews praise God for natural phenomena, they are able to over overlook nature and become disenfranchised with it. In my opinion, it would seem difficult for a true appreciation of nature as well as a commitment to preserve it to develop when there is a lack of admiration and understanding for it other than God’s command over it.

Another passage that caught my eye was the one regarding social justice and ecological well-being. The book suggests a reason for ecological degradation that “the corruption of society is closely linked to the corruption of nature. In both cases, the injustice arises from human greed and failure of human beings to protect the original order of creation.” This statement seems absolutely accurate and is visibly reflected in the world today, none more so than in big business. Large corporations are so motivated by profits that they are willing to exploit nature and degrade and destroy it. I absolutely concur that greed is a primary cause behind the destruction of the environment.

Chasen

Judaism: An Overview

I have not yet received the opening blog post for this reading, but wanted to open it up for you. Please leave your comments as normal.

Research Topics

Please list the religion you wish to study, your interviewees, and the place of worship you plan to attend below.

Eastern Orthodoxy

“For it is in the sacraments that the world not only looks back in historical time to the moment of creation and to the event of incarnation, but also simultaneously looks forward in sacramental time to and even anticipates the redemption and restoration of all things…” (96). This quote took me a while to digest but I think that it encompasses a lot of what the Eastern Orthodox believe. They use the commandments to see “purely mundane” things as “deeply mystical”. They use the commandments to show that everything created by God is inherently beautiful and that nothing is excluded from the sacramental principle. Therefore, Orthodox Christians have a closer relationship with the earth and God’s creation. To me, these passages were vaguely similar to Pagan religions beliefs in sun gods and moon gods in that they believed nature was sacred. This closer relationship with the earth is good in that it promotes taking care of it for future generations. If Western Christianity were more like this, there is a good chance that people would be more inclined to help the environment. The Orthodox Church believes heavily in the lastingness of all things and therefore believes in the importance of taking care of the environment.

Another interesting Eastern Orthodox belief was their perception of the cross. Unlike many other Christian denominations, which view it as a sign of suffering, they view it as a sign of transformation. The cross is not just a symbol for tolerationg the world but a symbol of change: everything in the world undergoes a similar cycle of crucifixion and resurrection.

Speaking of symbols, the Orthodox believe that the way they treat the earth around them is symbolic of the relationship they have with God. This is yet another reason that the earth is considered to be sacramental and why preserving the earth is important to them.

Ellyse

Christianity: An Overview

This overview of Christianity is quite extensive, and I found myself a bit confused at many points throughout this Encyclopedia entry. As the author states early on in this excerpt, the history behind Christianity is immense, and books much larger than his don't fully catalogue the full history of Christianity in it's entirety. The prevailing message I got was that Christianity and the singular doctrine which identifies it as the religion of Christ are hard to pinpoint, and debates over necessary ideals have created new sects within the Christian umbrella that attempt to refine their religious beliefs. Although the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist stand as a universal for Christians in both the east and the west, even these two constants have sparked debate over adult versus infant baptism, and Christ in spirit and power versus Christ in body and blood. It isn't the case that Christianity is a violently divided religion, but there are so many distinct versions of it, which has lead to competition colonialism and stewardship throughout history. I thought the author's distinction of visible versus invisible hierarchy in society and membership to the Church and thus salvation was very interesting, if not novel, then definitely a part of history I took for granted. This is also a hugely divisive factor in Christianity, of whether or not the members of the church are on the truest and most successful path to salvation and eternality of their soul, or whether it is the most pure laypeople practicing Christianity. The terminology for those who discuss Christianity and its doctrines seems to have changed, the author describes early theologians as saints and priests and monks, and modern day theologians as merely scholars and theorists, which brings up the dialogue of Christianity and what age it truly belongs to. This extensive history involves a majority of the world's scholars, as the author bounces from Thomas Aquinas to Charles Darwin, and I found this incredibly interesting. There will always be a debate over the minutiae of Christianity, as well as the reformations that may need to be made. In this sense Christianity must be fluid and organic to survive, the more time passes from the age of Christ, the more the aspects of Christianity are looked upon to be revised in the context of society.

Julie

Lynn White's "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis."

After reading White’s “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, I do agree with what I think is the gist of the article. With this excerpt, White takes some things that people generally regard as true, and links them to his ideas making what he is saying in the article make a lot of sense. For this reason, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what’s stated in the article. First off, I find it extremely interesting how he uses a timeline in order to depict human’s progression with religion, development of science, development of technology, and then how the last two individually began to separate after all coming from religion. In the beginning of the excerpt, the phrase that stands out the most to me was “scientific power means technological power over nature.” I suppose that I had always known that science at times was not the most favorable to nature, but I had never really thought about its direct relationship with nature and how science and technology are “masters” of nature. After reading how White put it however, it all made sense. Second, White begins to describe around the time when man’s relationship with nature started to take a turn for the worse, and how religion, in a way, endorsed it. White says that “first, that viewed historically, modern science is an extrapolation of natural theology… and second, voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of man’s transcendence of, and rightful master over, nature.” It is difficult for me to disagree with this because, again, what he’s saying makes sense. In their questioning of nature, it did lead to humans abusing it. They started experimenting with nature, not caring about what it would do to it. At the end of the excerpt, White asks for a solution, and introduces the concept of re-evaluating Christianity. I see this as a plausible yet impossible thing to do because over hundreds of years, Christianity has definitely evolved and has divided itself into different sects. I don’t think a re-evaluation of a religion that has been around for so long can simply be re-evaluated. Who would have the right to do this? Who would give someone the right to do this? I don’t know if forming a new religion is also the way to go about this, but by spreading the information in this article that could be something that ends up happening.

Megan

Subrubia

Here is the opening theme to Weeds, a television show that I imagine most of you have at least heard about. I think it is a very good example of what Kunstler discusses in his book.

Julia Child

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Julia Child, whom Michael Pollan references in the article that you read for class, here is a video of the "potato pancake incident," both by Julia herself and by Meryl Streep as Julia Child in the film Julie and Julia.

The Geography of Nowhere by James Howard Kunstler

James Howard brings up interesting points throughout these readings, though nothing that I feel like I haven't heard before. I agree with most of his statements, that the highways lined with huge shopping malls, fast-food restaurants, and covered with cars seem to be a step for America in the wrong direction. Besides American towns losing their personal identity and anything that makes them unique from the millions of other towns, this development kills the environment. As Howard says, the mega malls and giant complexes are built over once lush cornfields or land. THis destruction of the natural environment, I think, leads to a disconnect between people and the world they live in. I think that no relation to nature will lead to a less intelligent, observant, and generally less happy population.

Maggie

Michael Pollan

I have not yet received a blog post, but I want to open this so that you can respond. Please just post your comment as normal below.

WALL-E

Besides Wall-E just being a Pixar masterpiece, the Disney film calls into question some very interesting societal issues. Wall-E highlights the irony of social networking and its ability to “connect” people. Also, The film comments on the nature of our societies’ growing demand for consumption and instant gratification. The “Big and Large” store that is involved in every aspect of life on Earth and in space (as characterized by the advertisement on the moon) is an example of this. However the most prominent issue addressed in Wall-E is that of environmental destruction. The film depicts a future that is the result of years of environmental degradation and thoughtless consumerism.
The most powerful element of film used in the movie was the setting and place. The setting for the first 30 minutes of the movie was a dark and colorless trash ridden city on a silent Earth. Wall-Es interactions are initially only with his environment. The trash is his life: his enemy, and his only friend through his passion for trinkets and old films. The Earth at that point in history is a barren landscape without life. However it is ironic that the only life left, being the humans aboard the Axiom, exists in the hostile and lifeless environment of space. However the human environment aboard the Axiom is more like a virtual resort or rather a survival arc. The environments in which the humans live blind them to the truth of their existence. Both settings of the movie, the destroyed earth and the spaceship, share some commonalities. For example, the earth is lifeless at this point in time, similarly the humans aboard the ship become more and more “lifeless” due to their inability to think independently or relate to others. By this point the robots, designed and programmed by humans, are able to function more independently than their creators.

Jon Arthur

Corrigan and Film Analysis

Because 2001: A Space Odyssey has little dialogue during the
introductory scenes, the camera angles and filming techniques are of
utmost importance. The opening of the movie is a simple black scene
followed by an image of the earth from outer space. The purpose of the
blackness is to create suspense and make the first actual image that
appears be all the more dramatic. The scene following that of earth
consists of various shots of the animals and apes that inhabited the
barren planet some time ago. These shots are mostly wide frame shots
with the focus on the group of animals rather than any one individual.
In the background of many of the shots is an expansive landscape that
allows views to see the vast emptiness before humans inhabited the
earth. As the story progresses a large black monolith appears and the
apes surround it. The shot is taken from the bottom of the monolith;
the angle roughly where the apes are standing. As one ape discovers
how to use a bone as a tool, the camera begins to focus on this
leader. Because of the strong focus on this individual ape, the
filming emphasizes his dominance and importance. As the other apes
catch on, the camera shifts back to a wide shot showing their
inclusion with the lead ape. The camera shifts back and forth between
both ape factions to show each reaction. The scene ends with iconic
shot of a bone flung into the air that transforms into a space craft.

Alex Belak

2001: A Space Odyssey and Neil Postman

To be honest, it took me quite a while to appreciate the film 2001: A Space Odyssey for how great of a movie it truly is. The first 5 minutes of black screen were not the best first impression of a movie I have watched. However, once the movie progressed, I started to understand how the ambiguities in Kubrick film were actually filled with meaning. Essentially, I became aware that the lack of dialogue was really not such at all, but instead merely a different style of dialogue, namely: image and sound. That black screen I was so turned off from at first was actually a viewing of what there was pre-world; pre-creation. Rather, that is what I took it as, for I feel most of the film was meant to be self-interpreting.
From here, the plot was essentially broken into three revolutionary states. We begin with the apes and their development of tools. Then the plot jumps to humans exploring the stars. HAL, the 9000 computer traveling with the men, was essentially an evolved creation from the tool we saw the apes first develop. HAL was so advanced that humans literally lost control of him and Dave had to shut him down. This part of the film was essential for two main reasons. First, I thought it was very telling and scary of where we are headed. We've taken the idea of using a tool to facilitate an action and created a world interconnected by technology. How far off could Kubrick be that this web of computers could not create problem in the future? Hasn't it already with personal privacy and safety? Second, the disconnection of HAL represented the evolution beyond tools. Here, the images and plot of the movie became even more ambiguous and interpretable in multiple ways. To me, the world beyond tools consisted of new abilities in regards to time and aging. Dave found himself in a new world, at a new age and apparently existentially watching himself at an even older age.
This idea of humans being unrestricted by time reminded me of a concept I've heard of called String Theory. It is very complex and I certainly don't under it completely, but from what I understand it basically deals with the idea of dimensions and identifies new ones we don't think of commonly. Immediately, this seems related to Kubrick's idea of a dimension beyond time and age. Overall, despite my initial reaction to the movie, I really enjoyed it and it certainly provoked the idea in me that there is more creation and evolution to come in the world and beyond the world.

Deep Ecology

Shelley

The idea of deep ecology is very interesting to me. It seems to be something that is becoming more and more prevalent in todays’ society. I find it a rather difficult subject to think about. Deep ecology is defined as “a sense of personal responsibility, not simply to persons living now but also to future human generations.” This is quite a large responsibility. Shallow ecology on the other hand, is not caring about the future and treating the environment however you want. It’s our land, and we can do what we want with it. I am quite impressed with our community’s new found “environmental awareness,” because personally, I find it rather easy to fall into the “I don’t care what happens after I die” mentality. This may be a little harsh, but if you think about the selfish world we live in, I don’t think it’s too far off.
You can argue both sides of this ecological debate, but when it comes down to whether we should preserve the environment, I think the obvious answer is yes. In Chapter 1 of Weisman’s text, “A Lingering Scent of Eden” I got a nice reminder as to why this preservation is beneficial, maybe not to us, but to our children and theirs. The only reason we are able to witness the “half-million acres of the Bialowieza Puszcza” and the one hundred and fifty foot high oak, and really, the last remains of wilderness in Europe, is because the generations before us were kind enough not to completely destroy the earth they inhabited. Weisman really highlights the beauty of the world we live in. He discusses the natural glory of nature and personally, after reading these chapters, I feel more obligated to do my part in preserving the environment in order to ensure that the generations after us get the chance to observe the same natural wonders that we were lucky enough to witness.

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson

I really enjoyed reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring because it is a book that actually affected change. After reading Silent Spring, many Americans heeded Carson's advise and reduced their usage of broad-spectrum pesticides and Congress passed the Endangered Species Act. Silent Spring was published in an era when biology was not considered nearly as important as chemistry or physics. The emphasis was on constructing things as large and as quickly as possible. The scientific culture of the post Cold War period focused on America as a supreme power over everything: including the natural environment. Carson began to change this way of thinking when she presented evidence that pesticides can cause some types of cancer and do irreparable damage to many vital organisms.

I found it interesting that Silent Spring had a sort of poetic feel to it even though Carson still presents many statistics and facts. I think this is because she truly cared about what she was trying to convey to her readers and this passion showed in her writing. The fact that she was personally struggling with cancer and yet did not let that slow her down from her work shows her dedication to spreading the word about environmental degradation.

Ellyse

The first reading was an introduction to Rachel Carson’s work, Silent
Spring, by Linda Lear. Lear describes Carson’s revolutionary life and
struggles in a man’s world. Targeting the general public with her
work and submitting work only with her initials put her on an almost
even playing field with male scientists. In fear of technology moving
faster than man’s morality, Carson challenged the government to take
action.
The second chapter of Carson’s book titled “The Obligation to Endure”
touched on many topics of pesticide use as Lear’s introduction
addressed. Carson believed that the natural world and its inhabitants
adjust over time, naturally. Yet, in the modern world, life does not
have time to adjust. The radiation of nuclear bombs and humankind’s
chemicals is not natural and takes radiation to a new level. Carson
addresses humanity’s war against nature’s “pests” as ludicrous and
holds human beings as accountable. Furthermore, she describes a
spiral since DDT that we are creating a new evolution of insects
because they become immune to the chemicals and we increase them and
the cycle continues. Why doesn’t anyone say something? We are risking
the mutation of our own genes, for what? In addition, I really like
the quotation at the end of the chapter that reads: “the obligation to
endure gives us the right to know.” We should not stand by while
important decisions about the fate of the world are put in the hands
of government officials who are ignorant of the consequences of what
they are doing.
The final section, the afterword, by Edward O. Wilson emphasizes how
Silent Spring really jumpstarted the environmental revolution. He
gives Americans a little bit of an excuse for being so careless with
chemicals when he addressed the Cold War. During this time Americans
were rewarded for science and technology and were almost unpatriotic
to question it. I agree with Wilson in that because of its timeless
nature, the book will always be regarded and looked back on. Carson
was truly a pioneer in American Environmentalism.

Soraya

"The Beautiful Places" by Kathleen Norris

Kathleen Norris provides a comprehensive look into the significance of Dakota in her life as a spiritual topography, both defending and questioning her own motives for staying in such a sparsely-populated area, in The Beautiful Places. She finds conviction in the Benedictine monks which have made Dakota their permanent home, despite the instability which is characteristic of the land, "We have become as indigenous as the cottonwood trees...If you take us somewhere else, we lose our character, our history- maybe our soul." While other inhabitants of the Great Plain lose faith in their motives to stay in such a grossly underpopulated area, the monks retain a symbiotic relationship which their environment, steadfastly remaining in the land which supports them. She also sees the beauty in appreciating the subtlety within nature, as her heart steers her away from the suffocating atmosphere of cities like New York City, instead favoring the force that is nature with its ethereal elusiveness. She has a confidence and resourcefulness which has allowed to her stay in Dakota, which are necessary traits to have in order to persevere in a town where its majority has left. I think in some ways this takes a simplistic, environmental, almost transcendental view about the world, if even established indirectly. She has a patience and tranquility which allows her to thrive in an area with seemingly low levels of stimuli; she cannot escape the nature that surrounds her by flocking to humanity and its groupings, and yet she feels a sense of calm and comfort. This is the essence of a environmentally sound being, and yet she makes no reference to priding herself on being green. Precisely because she is so effortless, and precisely because she has faith in the Great Plains, with its fluctuations and its angels and its Benedictine monks, Kathleen Norris may just be one with the environment.

Julie

For the Time Being by Annie Dillard, Chapters 5-6

Amongst the many things that I appreciated in Dillard’s writing was her emphasis on the banality of statistics. In one section of “numbers” on pages 130-131 she begins with the statistic that all of your family members and close friends don’t even amount to a sampling error. That is, your whole world could disappear and the rest of the 6.6 billion people on earth would scarcely notice. Yet, effects of the loss of a loved one are much more real than the 2,000,000 children who die a year of diarrhea. At a certain point numbers become inconceivable, even meaningless. It is at this point that it is easy to sever all emotion from even the most horrific catastrophes, in which case the catastrophes become statistics. This detachedness from external events makes it painfully clear that when it comes to death: quality is always more important than quantity. Admittedly, it is difficult to resist succumbing to apathy simply because it is difficult for me to put 1000 deaths into perspective, much less 1,000,000. It is an arduous, yet worthwhile, struggle to prevent human suffering from merely becoming “table talk.” Dillard’s frustration in dealing with the statistics of death is matched by her doubt in an omnipotent God. On pages 164-167 Dillard makes the argument that it is senseless to try and subject “our partial knowledge of God to the rigors of philosophical inquiry.” I empathize with Dillard on the notion that it is impossible to use earthly logic to try and define a “universal” being. Arguments attempting to reconcile genocide alongside an omnipotent God come out flimsy.

Alex Leeds

For the Time Being by Annie Dillard, Chapters 1-2

The first two chapters of Annie Dillard's For the Time Being are very rich with content and definitely a little challenging to understand but I want to address the section about the terra cotta warriors in China.  Dillard describes this excavation in detail but the most interesting part for me was her description of the warriors coming out of the ground as if they were coming out of the earth.  She says on page 15: "The clay people were earth themselves."  This idea of beings coming out of clay reminded me of the second genesis story we read yesterday that said God molded man from clay, literally molded man from the earth that God created.  Dillard refers to man coming out of clay again on page 57 except here she is speaking about death and that when a person dies they once again re-enter the clay, and re-enter the earth.  I think Dillard uses this imagery to discuss man's relation to God as well as the environment.  If we all arose from the earth than must we keep it sacred?  She also discusses the sheer multitudes of people inhabiting the earth and how many have walked before us, and a tilled the soil before us just like the Chinese peasants.  This is Dillard's way of mentioning the impact we have on the earth and how we must protect it rather than trample on it.  Overall I really liked this reading I think it is tying these two things: Environment and religion, together well in just the first two chapters.  God created man from the earth, and therefore man must protect where he came from.

Andrea Edman

Radiolab

In light of today's class discussion I want to link you to a great source for our class and a fun radio show. If you have not yet heard about Radiolab, you might want to investigate this website. Radiolab is a New York Public Radio show that looks into science and its relationship to other phenomena that we do not always associate with science such as our ability to choose, falling in love, language, music, laughter, etc. The link I am providing you with is for a short (about eighteen minutes) podcast that they did for Darwin's Birthday. There is no obligation to listen to this, but I think you might find the whole thing rather interesting...and potentially this website may be a good source for your research.

http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2009/feb/24/darwinvaganza/

Creation

xinyue said...
“Creation” is such a good movie which made me cry a lot. This movie basically talked about the life of Charles Darwin. He married a woman who is related to him and therefore had Annie, one of their children. She is not strong enough to go against the illness, so she died. After her death, Darwin started to avoid the truth of her death and stopped talking with his wife. He also believed that he should be responsible for Annie’s death. Well, I think the reason why he paid that much attention on Annie is not just because Annie is his first daughter, but also Annie is the only one in the family who has the same understanding about the nature as Darwin did. At the beginning in the movie, everyone at the time believed that good Christian value can change the way Barbarian acted. However, they failed. Darwin believed that natural selected the survival, and man was selected in the same way. Darwin is not a religion believer but his wife was. Consequently, their marriage is not that happy.
After watching this movie, I think that religion and science do not have to be opposite terms. If we think in the different way, like God created this earth, and scientist just tried to explain why lots of species disappear. I mean if we continue to ask “why” to every solution that scientists made, I do not believe that they can answer all of them. I also think that both religion and science side should try to accept each other. In the movie, that pastor just went away because Darwin did not believe in the religion and one of the scientists even thought what they were doing was a battle. They thought that they would “kill the God” which means kill the religion. I truly love this movie!

Darwin's God

Zach reminded me of this article from the New York Times magazine a few years ago. In light of our class discussions, and especially of the film Creation that you are currently watching for homework, I think it is especially poignant. If you like, this can be another text that you use to place in conversation with Dillard's text.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html

A Cre@ation Story for Naomi

As I mentioned in class, here is information on the play that you may attend for extra-credit. Once you have gone to the play write a one-two page (double-spaced) reflection and submit it to me by February 2.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=127193590676509&index=1

Descartes' Bones by Russell Shorto

I will only occasionally add extra threads to this blog, if I discover of think of something interesting that I want to share with you. I am currently reading the book mentioned in the title of this post and this paragraph stood out to me in light of the Karen Armstrong reading. Feel free to incorporate it into your response to the Introduction from A Case for God.

"When we think of science and the spark of modernity, we tend to think of astronomy: Galileo crafting his telescopes and peering into the skies above central Italy; locating sunspots, moons around Jupiter, craters on the earth's moon, and other irregularities in a universe that the church had taught was perfect; amassing data that corroborated the theory that the earth revolves around the sun; encountering the systematic wrath of the Inquisition. In our perennial effort to understand who we are and what it means that we are 'modern,' we choose astronomy as a starting point in part because it provides a sturdy metaphorical peg for thinking of the massive change that humanity underwent in the seventeenth century, when we--seemingly--left our mythical, biblical selves behind and reoriented ourselves in the cosmos. In 1957--the year of Sputnik and the dawning of the space age, a time when people had a simpler, clearer sense of 'modern' than they do today and felt ready to embrace what they thought the word meant--a best selling book expressed this idea in its title: the change was 'From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe'" (4-5).

For the record, I want to add that I think that all of those irregularities that Galileo found are precisely what makes the universe beautiful and "perfect." I also wanted to add this excerpt because we spend a lot of time thinking about cosmologies / understandings of the universe in this class. This quotation helped me understand why I have been inclined to organize the course in this way. I think it will help enlighten our discussion in class tomorrow.

Karen Armstrong's Introduction to A Case for God

Steven

Throughout the introduction, Author Karen Armstrong made various good points in her discussion about God. One thing she wrote that I never really thought of before was "We beg God to support 'our side' in an election or a war, even though our opponents are, presumably, also God's children and the object of his love and car". It is pretty ironic that people pray to God in hopes that "he" will assist them, even if it means harming another one of his "children" in the process.

Another very valid point Armstrong made was that humans are responsible for the various doctrines and scriptures in which religions follow. How are we expected to follow these readings without questioning their validity? I also believe that somewhere down the road some messages were lost in translation.

Armstrong also made a few interesting points about myths. From what I understand after reading the introduction, a myth is a story that is passed on to help us understand certain aspects of humanity and to help us develop particular moral values.

Updated on Wednesday, 01/12/2011 2:50 PM by Elizabeth 

Karen Armstrong’s introduction to The Case for God exposes an interesting perspective about how we should approach religion. She describes how in the pre-modern world people tended to subscribe to two main aspects of life: logos and mythos. Logos represented rational, pragmatic human thought whereas mythos helped people to identify with things they couldn’t explain logically, such as emotions. Religion was therefore mystical in way, and offered insight into the depths of one’s self.

In modern times, many tend to carry out religion by looking at it scientifically and logically, often taking scripture literally. However, it was not meant to be read this way and it takes away from the “unknowing” in religion. The fact is that God or a higher being is beyond our comprehension. I agree with Armstrong’s assertion that to add science and logic to religion takes away from its original, mystifying purpose. I think that many people today feel the need to rationalize religion, because I think they are scared to enter the realm of the unknown

Prothero and Griffiths on Religion and Cultural Literacy

Created on Monday, 01/10/2011 2:45 PM by Madeleine

The assigned readings were rather long, so I will discuss only that which stuck out to me most. Stephen Prothero's Religious Literacy: What Every American Should Know spurred many questions in my head as I read through both the interview and through his "Worshipping in Ignorance" from The Chronicles. Prothero emphasizes the importance in writing for the general public as a way to teach a secular view of religion to the masses. Teaching religion is not to be feared, and it is not prohibited by the Constitution, for teaching and preaching are drastically different. Prothero discusses a major paradox- the main concept of his book- that while the United States is one of the most religious countries in the world, Americans know very little about even their own religion, much less about the religions of others. Religious illiteracy poses both civic and international problems. Civic in that it is important for people to engage politians and others who utilize Biblical references in their arguments about social issues like gay marriage, capital punishment, the environment, and war. International in that if we do not understand the religious meaning of the issues abroad in which we become involved, how can we make informed decisions on the best form of action? A perfect example is the US involvement in the Iraq war. In the US, and perhaps across the globe, religious illiteracy is growing. After the Second Great Awakening, religion became more emotional and moral, letting doctrinal studies fall by the wayside. Today, many declare themselves a religion of which they know almost nothing. Only 20% of Muslims speak Arabic. Most have never read the Quar'an. Many Christians have never read the bible. And that got me thinking. Why affiliate with a religion if you don't understand what it is? Why fight other religious groups when you don't understand their religion? Perhaps what religion means to some people is not believing in the doctrines of their religion, but affiliating with certain people, certain traditions and behaviors, belonging to a community. What does religion mean to people today if they are not religiously literate, if they do not know the beliefs on which their religion was founded?
And that is where Paul J. Griffiths' "The Very Idea of Religion" comes into play. He points out that while religion is given an impressive amount of attention and discussion in the lives of Americans- in universities, Congress, Supreme Court, local/state/national organizations, meetings, journals, books, etc- hardly anyone seems to really understand what they are talking about. There is no real definition of what religion is. The word religion came from the Latin word religio, for which there is no clear Greek translation. The word religion appears only about four or five times in the King James version of the Bible. Augustine defined religion as the act of worshiping God, and therefore defined any improper worship as "false religion". As a Catholic, to Augustine the Catholic religion was the true religion. For centuries, Christians didn't view Christianity as a religion among many, but as the only religion; They viewed Judaism as the precursor to Christianity, Islam was not yet in existence, and they didn't know of the religions of India or China. While literature now teaches of other religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, Christian literature tends to suggest that Christianity is the proper religion.
So what is the real definition of religion? And how can you believe in a religion if you don't understand its foundations and beliefs? Many are born into their religions- they affiliate with the religious groups of their families and communities. There are, of course, many exceptions, but why choose to believe in a faith if you don't even fully understand it? And whose job is it to teach the basic ideas of different religions- the religious groups themselves or the schools?

As Maddie mentioned, it is very important to recognize that there is a religious way of talking about, or preaching, religion, and then there is a secular way of teaching it. Prothero mentions that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of bringing religious education into schools and his suggestion for doing so seems to strike a good balance between biblical literalists and those who practice other world religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism. Offering a Bible class would help many Christian students understand their faith better and offering a world religions class would help students understand some of the religious conflicts that are occurring in countries across the world. 

From a domestic angle, having basic religious knowledge will almost certainly reduce international disputes. When US ambassadors to Iran know nothing about Islam and high ranking governmental officials don't know that Al Queda is a Sunni Muslim group, something in our education system needs to change. Religious literacy is also becoming increasingly important as both democratic and republican politicians use biblical references to substantiate their arguments and policy stances. Democratic candidates are now realizing that being the "non-God" party might not be the best position to be in and are now incorporating Biblical stories, like the Good Samaritan Story, into their speeches. It is up to the public to understand these references and be able to decide for themselves whether they are being correctly applied. 

Another interesting point that these two articles make is that, even though most people seem to know very little about their religion or religion in general, many people pick their political parties based on their religion. Young people generally tend to be more liberal and some feel they can't be liberal and Christian at the same time. If their religious literacy were better, they might feel differently. It is disconcerting that someone can get a Ph.D. but not be able to name the four gospels of the Bible. This is why religion courses should be taught, and required, in public schools. This will almost certainly help solve domestic issues as well as international ones. 

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 1:25 PM by Ellyse 

 

As Maddie mentioned, it is very important to recognize that there is a religious way of talking about, or preaching, religion, and then there is a secular way of teaching it. Prothero mentions that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of bringing religious education into schools and his suggestion for doing so seems to strike a good balance between biblical literalists and those who practice other world religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism. Offering a Bible class would help many Christian students understand their faith better and offering a world religions class would help students understand some of the religious conflicts that are occurring in countries across the world. 

From a domestic angle, having basic religious knowledge will almost certainly reduce international disputes. When US ambassadors to Iran know nothing about Islam and high ranking governmental officials don't know that Al Queda is a Sunni Muslim group, something in our education system needs to change. Religious literacy is also becoming increasingly important as both democratic and republican politicians use biblical references to substantiate their arguments and policy stances. Democratic candidates are now realizing that being the "non-God" party might not be the best position to be in and are now incorporating Biblical stories, like the Good Samaritan Story, into their speeches. It is up to the public to understand these references and be able to decide for themselves whether they are being correctly applied. 

Another interesting point that these two articles make is that, even though most people seem to know very little about their religion or religion in general, many people pick their political parties based on their religion. Young people generally tend to be more liberal and some feel they can't be liberal and Christian at the same time. If their religious literacy were better, they might feel differently. It is disconcerting that someone can get a Ph.D. but not be able to name the four gospels of the Bible. This is why religion courses should be taught, and required, in public schools. This will almost certainly help solve domestic issues as well as international ones. 

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 1:25 PM by Ellyse 

 

Prothero’s article “Worshipping in Ignorance” and the forum about his novel both more or less discuss the religious illiteracy plaguing the world and America in particular.  In compliance with Maddie and the article, Prothero’s statement of how America is one of the most religious countries and yet Americans know so little about religions is very interesting. In contemplation, I realized I do not fully understand this but assume it to mean that Americans worship blindly; or that they do not truly know what they are worshipping or what they believe in?  This goes a long with the religious illiteracy of the country.  I agree with Prothero in that it is a serious issue, not only in the religious and spiritual aspect but also in the aspect of being an intelligent member of society.  I also agree with Prothero’s proposition to install two mandatory courses in schools: one on world religions and the other on biblical texts.  As Americans, in order for us to understand politicians, journalists, and even artists who may reference the bible, it is imperative that we understand this important text.  In order to be well-rounded individuals it is important to be versed in other religions a part from our own.  People seem to be in compliance with installing more religious courses in society, as the Supreme Court urges this and as Prothero mentioned, when put into a religious course, very few opted out. As a Muslim, I appreciated Prothero’s reference to Islam and highlighting their Muslim faults in practicing the faith. I found it interesting, though not surprising, that only 20% of Muslims are even able to read the Qur’an. This coincides with my blind faith theory and that Muslims and other believers hear religious teachings and memorize religious words without reading the most fundamental aspect of the religion. Is this what Prothero means by America being the most religious but knowing the least about religion?

Anyway, Prothero’s article and forum coincide with Griffiths’ article and the blind religious ways of the Americans.  I appreciated how Griffiths wrote of Americans having a lot to say about religion but that no one has any idea of what they are talking about. This also plays in to the religious illiteracy theory and the importance of religious knowledge in being an intelligent member of society.  I also agree with Ellyse in that religion is also becoming more political.  It is very true that Christianity and conservatives are associated with the Republican party and that Christians cannot possibly be as liberal as democrats. 

Overall the two articles were very important pieces of information and really broadened my view of America and Americans.  I was appalled to learn how little our society knows about such a trivial part of human life.   I hope laws will be implemented that coincides with Prothero’s propositions and as Prothero said the only way to

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 11:38 PM by Soraya

 

Stephen Prothero’s article “Worshipping in Ignorance” and the transcript were very enlightening. His idea of religious illiteracy is extremely relevant. He points out that Americans are extremely ignorant when it comes to knowing basic facts about religion. This is unacceptable as religion is the foundation and motives for many individuals and countries’ actions. It also serves a political purpose in the United States (as Ellyse mentioned).

I particularly liked how Prothero offers a solution to this problem of religious illiteracy, and he does so in a diplomatic way. He describes how we can use the school systems to educate people about religion. It is just a matter of people learning to talk about religion in a secular manner rather than in a religious way.

While I did not fully grasp Paul J. Griffiths’ article “The very Idea of Religion”, this is what I determined from it:

From my understanding, he describes that the word “religion” comes from a Christian origin and ultimately holds a Christian bias. He then proceeds to explain why the study of religion can only be approached theologically, because the word is theologically based. While many argue that religion can be studied scientifically, Griffiths’ points out that most attempts have failed and the study of religion only serves to confuse rather than enlighten. He suggests other scholarly disciplines as alternatives to religion such as history and anthropology because they already fulfill the purpose that religion cannot.

Does this mean that because there are so many interpretations of religion and there is no solid consensus on its definition that it cannot be taught objectively?

Wednesday, 01/12/2011 12:27 AM by Elizabeth 

 

Stephen Prothero's article "Worshipping in Ignorance" and the forum's debate on "Religious Literacy: What every American should know", both highlight Prothero's stance on America's alarming religious illiteracy. He states that there are a huge amount of people today who know nothing about World religions and its influence in our society. Prothero is keen to illustrate how religious ignorance imperils our public life, and a key reason for this is that the vast majority of public and private schools don't require a single course in the subject. He is alarmed by the fact that many of our recipients of degrees know little in the way of religion. Conversely he declares a need for a world religions course in which students would be better equipped to understand what is at stake today for Muslims, Christians and Jews. Unfortunately there is a widening gap in the United States between what we actually know about religion and what we ought to know. What is the necessity to know about religions? Well, first of all he states that we need to learn about the Bible to see what it says about family values. Moreover we must be aware of what Islam says about those things, too. Plothero is keen to highlight the fact that Americans want their children to learn more about religions, but in order for this to be successful the middle path here is instruction that takes believers seriously but refuses to plump either for or against what they believe. 

In the forum on "what every American should know", Prothero says that the United States is one of the most religious countries on earth, but Americans worryingly know nothing about religion. He uses his religious illiteracy quiz published in his book to emphasise this. Moreover he says that the problem of religious illiteracy is not only evident in domestic issues, but also in the International arena whereby many don't know about the religious conflicts in other countries. i.e the continued tension between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iraq. Finally in conjunction with the Griffiths article, Prothero says that America was founded upon religious values and that in every household up until the late 19th century a bible was owned. Unfortunately times have changed and religious teachings need to be reinstated for normal Americans to fathom not only domestic but also international issues. 

Wednesday, 01/12/2011 8:39 AM by Douglas 

 

After reading Stephen Prothero's article "Worshipping in Ignorance" as well as Paul J. Griffiths’ article “The very Idea of Religion”, I had come to a realization that I can attest to the religious illiteracy of Americans. With the majority of figureheads of society (politicians, lawyers, judges, law enforcement, etc.) being Christian, it is remarkable how little they know and understand about other people's religion and even their very own for that matter. How can policy makers in our society make certain decisions without fully grasping the significance of religion. Throughout history, religion has been a driving force to fuel domestic and international disputes. Perhaps if society as a whole understood religion we would not have invaded Iraq or continue a war in Afghanistan in present day.

Also, one idea that stood out to me Prothero's article was the question about why do people associate themselves with a certain religion if they know little about it? I agree with Maddie about how humans need to have a sense of belonging - that they are loved and needed by people like them. This however, is not a new notion. This is more of an existentialism notion. To read more about it you can read this article all about it: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/

Wednesday, 01/12/2011 9:22 AM by Sami

Zach

It was very interesting when Professor Prothero gave his reason for why he thought Americans were becoming less religiously literate. I wasn't raised religious so it was interesting to read about the difference

of inter-morality between being moral in a "bedroom sort of way" and being moral in a "more fulsome way." His argument for having the three religion classes was very compelling but with regards to having the class

about the bible I don't see how politicians would be able to get around to mandate such a class without negating the establishment clause. I think that it is very important for people to be educated about religion in

general and world religions, especially with regard to foreign religious conflicts, but it seems like an oddly difficult task to incorporate classes like this into public schools. At my own high school we had a world

religions class that was extremely popular but I wonder if it would've been as popular if the school had required people to take it.

Does anyone think that Christianity--and/or biblical references--is entrenched enough in our society to declare it the de facto religion that all Americans should know about?

Also if Bible references and Christianity are so dominant in American culture should it be up to parents to enroll their children in Sunday school programs or the Government?

Does religiousness vary from religion to religion or do all faiths share the common thread of 'religion'?

I found this article very interesting because after reading only the first page I realized that I am one of the people the article discusses. I was born and raised Jewish and attended Hebrew school as an adolescent yet, when I really think about it, I do not really know what it means to be a Jew. I am wondering if any of you can relate. I find it quite ironic that people claim they are of a certain religious faith but when asked what separates their faith from others, they cannot give a substantial answer. I also found myself kind of embarrassed when Stephen Prothero said "Most Americans probably don't know that reference to David and Goliath", because I am one of those people. Did anyone else feel like they too suffer from 'religious illiteracy'?

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 2:45 PM by Steven 

 

David

These two articles offer an interesting and colorful contrast on traditional conceptions of religion and their impact and repercussions. What stuck out to me most in Paul J. Griffiths' "The Very Idea of Religion" was his implicit focus on the arbitrary nature of religion, something that he harkened back to frequently in his discussion of Parson Thwackum, a fictional character whose narrow perspective of religion reflects a lot of religious intolerance and naivete. The ultimate result, he posits, is a complete inhibition of religion as a serious field of academic study and as an objective field. Any true, objective knowledge we have, he implies, exists in spite of a narrow understanding (biased toward Christianity). The panel discussion on religious literacy offers a strange unifier of most major people when it comes to religion - which is a lack to fully understand it. That, compounded by a biased, narrow view made to seem prevalent in the first article, creates a generally illiterate world, where religion can be misused and abused as a tool of politicians, one of many egregious examples. Professor Prothero's discussion of Mormonism on page 15 was enlightening because it revealed a powerful example of religious illiteracy becoming a genuine interference, which it did during Mitt Romney's 2008 campaign. Together, these two articles create a very dreary portrait of a variety of religions unified by a general lack of understanding and marred by bias. 

I agree with Steven on the point of "religious illiteracy," that second article especially made me question how much I really know about religious tenets, many of which are spouted as if they are common. It definitely had me looking up specific references.

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 6:09 PM by David 

 

Xinyue

  I really like this article! As Professor Prothero mentioned that:"the United States is one of the most religious countries on earth, but Americans know nothing about religion, their own religions or the religions of other people." I really think this sentence sort of talking about a truth. one of my friends told me that she is a christian, however she doesn't go to churches that often, and she said she doesn't read Bilble everyday which means that she is not a "real" christian. In china, people are not really that faithful to be Butthist except they want to get some luck from Buddha. I also agree with Prothero that if you do not know religions very well, then it will not be easy to understand the meaning beyond some historic things. In China, people who believe in Buddha and people who believe in Christ think in different aspects about the same questions. which I think that is because they want the results to fit their religious meaning somehow. I like this sentence and I want to quote it here:" So religious illiteracy is a problem, not only for Americans to understand what's going on here with Democrats and Republicans, but also to understand what's going on in the world." it is true that if we know other people's religions, then it will be easier to solve the War or more serious political problem, because we can find the reasons why we have arguments.

  I really like the points that Professor Prothero made in this article!

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 9:04 PM by Xinyue 

 

Chasen

Although the influences of Christianity are widespread and thoroughly rooted in many aspects of American culture, I am disinclined to label it as the “de facto religion that all American should know about.”  This is not to say that educating the population about Christianity is a poor idea, but rather in an increasingly globalized world, more benefits would stem from an improved understanding of all world religions. This then raises the question, how can this measure be achieved.  At the present time, the most feasible option would be to integrate these topics into the education standards for all institutes of public education. Now, not all students will be inclined to learn and comprehend the backgrounds and teachings of the world religions and in no way is this an end result. But, at the very least, it is a step in the right direction.

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 9:58 PM by Chasen 

 

Katrina

Zach certainly brings up a common, and indubitable, concern with his fuss over the establishment clause of the First Amendment, but I believe that trepidation has evolved into a great misconception.  The Establishment clause simply mandates that there be no official state religion, but it does not state that there cannot be mentions of religion. In other words, the possible existence of a Christian God, of the verity of the prophet Muhammad, or what have you, CAN be taught, so long as those things are taught as beliefs that many people share, and not as truths.

Professor Prothero advocates two mandatory courses on religion: one on the Bible and one on world religions. Perhaps we will later find, should such a learning policy be implemented, that an additional class, featuring the beliefs of the non-religious—agnostics, humanists, Richard Dawkins, etc.—will be added to keep the curriculum in the realm of the legal. The instruction must be kept objective and balanced, which, as Prothero said, would probably require some prior training for teachers.

I, for one, believe Prothero’s proposition is a fundamentally good idea. Zach questioned “whether or not biblical references are entrenched enough in our society to declare [Christianity] the de facto religion that all Americans should know about.” These courses, however, would not be declaring Christianity the de facto religion of anywhere or anyone (if they do, they should be banned), but are rather informing students OF Christianity, in addition to other world religions. Various estimates state that approximately a third of the earth’s population associates itself with some denomination of Christianity. Clearly, then, the religion is of some importance. Not only that, but understanding religion is vital to gaining a proper understanding of history and art (in fat, the latter is indicative and part of the former).  Christian themes were a monumental part of the work and livelihoods of Renaissance and Baroque artists; of Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian, Rubens, and Rembrandt, just to name a few. How can we, for example, aspire to be “Renaissance men/women” in the style of Michelangelo, when we don’t even have a clear understanding of what he did?

Of course, it’s not just Christianity that’s important. It is vital that our students—especially those who aspire to join the State Department, to be politicians, etc.—to have a grasp on the way the world works, and religion in its respective areas plays a huge part in international politics. 

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 10:41 PM by Katrina 

 

Celia

I must admit, at first I was very skeptical of Professor Prothero's proposal. It seemed easy enough to agree with him that America is becoming increasingly religiously illiterate. He had the facts to prove that. My immediate problem fell with his solution to this civic problem being mandatory bible and world religion courses in public school. Having grown up with hints of various religious teachings but choosing to not follow any in particular, I initially saw this, as Zach referenced, a clash with the establishment clause. However, throughout his speech and answers, Prothero has for the most part swayed my opinion. Whether fortunate or not, Prothero makes respectable claims that Christianity it dominant in our political system. Although often associated with far right Republicanism, it can surely be seen throughout the entirety of the US political spectrum. Therefore, as a US high school student will soon be a member of the US electing body, it seems entirely necessary to be learned in the religions referenced so frequently by those we vote for. This alone, however, did not persuade me. It was the repetitive and important point that religion can be taught secularly. The idea of discussing religion is school has been made taboo, at least as far as I have seen. Prothero argues this does not have to be the case. And this, as a disbeliever in religion but a strong believer in education, is something I can easily support, as I'm sure many others could as well.

However, I see two initial problems with Prothero's proposal. First, is my faith in the intolerance of the US population. Although I am sure Prothero will be able to persuade many various citizens (of all different religions), there is no doubt there will many who will be immediately scared away from the association of "public" and "religion." They can't even hear the word secular as public religion is still ringing in their ears. Second, I question how this will affect the future. Yes, now the US political world is dominated by Christianity, but is this not on its way to changing? Perhaps the increase of our religious illiteracy is facilitating the secularization of government? Would Prothero's proposal set this back if not reverse it all together?  

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 10:43 PM by Celia

 

Zoya

I really enjoyed reading this article. I must admit, I did feel really uneducated about the world religions after the readings. As Celia said, Professor Prothero has all the facts to prove the large amount of religious illiteracy in America but his solution is almost a bit too extreme. In my highschool we were required to take a world religions course our freshmen year. I enjoyed it but there were many people who were unhappy with the course just because it was a requirement. Professor Prothero's suggestion of mandatory world religions classes and bible classes could be a great way to educate a large part of the American population but it could also create a negative impact if people feel like religion is being forced upon them. Being an international student, I had also never realized the large role religion played in American politics until I read this article. It was disheartening to see religion being used to manipulate the general public, especially because it can sometimes be very personal.       

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 11:14 PM by Zoya

 

Maggie 

Prothero brought up many points in his article that I can relate to.  His observations of the religious knowledge that most Americans lack definitely made me feel better that I, like many, cannot name the four gospels or list all ten commandments without a struggle.  When Prothero claims that, though the United States is one of the most religious countries on Earth, most Americans know nothing about religion, their own religion, or the religions of others, I could tell from my own experiences that there is validity to this claim.  What I like most about Prothero's delivery is that he explains the danger in ignorance and how important it is to educate yourself in religion.  For example, he says that the impact of religious illiteracy on foreign policy is significant.  We may have been able to understand the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan better if we understood their religion, and the fact that many of the people are motivated by their religion. 

Tuesday, 01/11/2011 11:24 PM by Margaret 

 

Jon

I found Protheros argument very striking as I could relate to some of his points. I grew up in a Protestant home and consider myself religious however I was embarrassed and how inadequate my theological knowledge really was. For the majority of “religious” Americans the ideology surrounding religion has become less of a theologically based belief system to more of a relationship-based system that provides a sense of belonging and enlightenment for the religiously “illiterate”. This correlation relates the changing interpretation of religion with the decrease in theological knowledge. Many Americans identify with a religion merely for belonging to a moral or political system. The danger of this trend lies in the ignorance of Americans to what we don’t know. I’m referring to Protheros statement that a major concern of American politics and foreign affairs is that we go places “where we don't know that we're ignorant, we don't know that we don't know stuff”(Prothero37). This doesn’t mean a mandatory religion class is the answer for the American public but rather classes should be available to educate students so that future generations can be more considerate of the importance of religion when dealing in foreign affairs. As Maggie noted I agree that given more consideration to the importance of religion in Iraq and Afghanistan, the situation today could have been very different. 

Wednesday, 01/12/2011 9:38 AM by Jonathan 

 

Shelley

In Griffiths’ article, Griffith stresses the lack of a universal definition of religion. There is really no “definition” of the word. Because it is such a personal concept, there are many very personalized definitions of it. This may be to some extent, why American’s are so religiously illiterate and maybe even a little ignorant in the field. I grew up in a Jewish family, but to me, my religion is more of a cultural aspect of my life rather than a spiritual one. I identify with Jewish traditions and customs, not really what one may learn in Hebrew school. So when Prothero says, “There’s this Sunday school, synagogue, churchy mosquey way of talking about religion, which is the way religious people talk about it… Then there’s the other way of talking about religion, which is more secular,” I can relate. I feel that a topic so personal should be handled from a secular standpoint, especially in public. Prothero’s proposal is an interesting one. From one side, I’m not sure how I would feel about being forced to study something as private as religion in high school. On the other hand, Prothero has some valid points. I think that all together, America is a rather ignorant nation and it is important to broaden the knowledge of American citizens, and where better than in public schools? Religion is an important part of history both in the past and in the present, as Prothero states in reference to the war in Iraq. I think that if the classes were approached from a very secular point of view, in the end they would greatly benefit the American society.

Wednesday, 01/12/2011 10:00 AM by Shelley 

 

The point that Jon brought up, about Americans identifying with a religion to belong to a moral and political system, is very interesting. I'm still undecided about my stance on it but it seems to be either one of the things that is disheartening about the U.S. or makes it great. I see a lot of benefit in the idea that more people, all over the county, are linked by a common thread of similar beliefs. For example, following 9/11 the U.S. became a much more religious country and people were brought together through their faith and communities. On the other hand, all the points mentioned in previous posts dictate the negatives that identifying with a religion, solely for political reasons, can bring to the surface.

Also the point that Celia brought up, about religion being seen as a taboo topic in schools, is an important one. Regardless of whether or not we feel that a religion class should be mandatory, religion is a crucial part of history, as Katrina brought up, and it is unavoidable to discuss most major religions, at least on a historical level. It was horrible to hear about the teacher unable to answer the question about thanksgiving purely because it would incorporate religion into the classroom. I wonder if it's possible to look at the history of a religion without incorporating its teachings and beliefs? 

Wednesday, 01/12/2011 10:11 AM by Zachariah

 

Alex

Many parallels can be drawn between the ways people view religion and the ways people view science. In general, there are low levels of literacy for both science and religion yet many people claim to ascribe to both. The majority of people believe in the power of science, the same way that the majority of people believe in God. There have been numerous studies, conducted in a similar fashion to the one performed by Stephen Prothero, that show how scientifically illiterate people really are. The findings of these studies show that people lack an understanding of basic scientific phenomenon much in the same way that people lack an understanding of basic religious facts. I find it astonishing that people (myself included) can know so little about key parts of our world and of human life.