Comments on: “Trust me” http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/18/trust-me/ Secularism, religion, and the public sphere Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:32:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Penny Edgell http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/18/trust-me/#comment-1803 Penny Edgell Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:51:15 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=217#comment-1803 I take Prof. Sherkat's point very seriously -- as it currently stands, public religious discourse is too often exclusionary and driven by the same logic of expediency that governs so much of public discourse. I do believe, however, that there is the possibility for religious discourse to serve as *one* basis -- not the only basis -- for public discourse rooted in what Weber would have called substantive rationality, or for value-based and identity-based claims about the public good. For this potential to be realized, however, speakers must acknowledge the particularity of their own identities -- and that is not happening now. [Of course, Prof. Sherkat and I will never agree about whether or not "the religious market" is a good metaphor, but that is one of the reasons he is so much fun to debate.] I also take Mr. Eberle's comment to heart -- individually, people are generally quite intelligent, considered, and thoughtful about their own religious convictions and about their public expression. My comments were more about the logical possibilities for expression in a venue in which the discourse has already conflated a particular, politically-anchored understanding of "compassion" with religion and with the public good. Finally, I am not familiar enough with the Texas case to comment in detail. I do think it is crucial that we continue to pay close attention to how discourse codes certain groups, individuals, and actions as "moral" and "authentic" versus "immoral" or "debased." I take Prof. Sherkat’s point very seriously — as it currently stands, public religious discourse is too often exclusionary and driven by the same logic of expediency that governs so much of public discourse. I do believe, however, that there is the possibility for religious discourse to serve as *one* basis — not the only basis — for public discourse rooted in what Weber would have called substantive rationality, or for value-based and identity-based claims about the public good. For this potential to be realized, however, speakers must acknowledge the particularity of their own identities — and that is not happening now.

[Of course, Prof. Sherkat and I will never agree about whether or not "the religious market" is a good metaphor, but that is one of the reasons he is so much fun to debate.]

I also take Mr. Eberle’s comment to heart — individually, people are generally quite intelligent, considered, and thoughtful about their own religious convictions and about their public expression. My comments were more about the logical possibilities for expression in a venue in which the discourse has already conflated a particular, politically-anchored understanding of “compassion” with religion and with the public good.

Finally, I am not familiar enough with the Texas case to comment in detail. I do think it is crucial that we continue to pay close attention to how discourse codes certain groups, individuals, and actions as “moral” and “authentic” versus “immoral” or “debased.”

]]> By: Christopher Eberle http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/18/trust-me/#comment-1795 Christopher Eberle Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:47:33 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=217#comment-1795 Professor Edgell finds much to be desired in the Compassion Forum: entitling the event the Compassion Forum, rather than the Religion Forum, "makes it hard to fully imagine moral claims not rooted in religion"; the forum "obscured the particular identities and statuses that informed its claims by cloaking them in faux-universal language"; the forum "can be understood as one long claim made in defense of patriarchy, a personally-based system of distributing power, resources, and rewards…." Perhaps this is just infelicitous phraseology, but these complaints strike me as strangely lacking in focus. If criticism on these kinds of grounds is deserved, then surely the candidates, who were there, deserve the lion's share of the blame. Senators Clinton and Obama, not the organizers of the event, much less the event itself, had ample opportunity to express their disagreement with the manner in which the forum was organized or the shared assumptions on the basis of which the conversation was conducted. So, for example, merely by reminding us that not all moral claims are rooted in religion, either participant could have helped their listeners to imagine that easily imaginable possibility. In short, Professor Edgell's criticisms of the Compassion Forum seem best addressed to its participants and, if sufficiently serious, provide reason not to support them. For myself, it is sufficiently clear that moral motivation needn’t be religiously grounded that I didn’t need either Senator to tell me that. I very much doubt that my compatriots have a hard time imagining that possibility either. Consequently, I don’t hold it against them for addressing other issues. Professor Edgell finds much to be desired in the Compassion Forum: entitling the event the Compassion Forum, rather than the Religion Forum, “makes it hard to fully imagine moral claims not rooted in religion”; the forum “obscured the particular identities and statuses that informed its claims by cloaking them in faux-universal language”; the forum “can be understood as one long claim made in defense of patriarchy, a personally-based system of distributing power, resources, and rewards….” Perhaps this is just infelicitous phraseology, but these complaints strike me as strangely lacking in focus. If criticism on these kinds of grounds is deserved, then surely the candidates, who were there, deserve the lion’s share of the blame. Senators Clinton and Obama, not the organizers of the event, much less the event itself, had ample opportunity to express their disagreement with the manner in which the forum was organized or the shared assumptions on the basis of which the conversation was conducted. So, for example, merely by reminding us that not all moral claims are rooted in religion, either participant could have helped their listeners to imagine that easily imaginable possibility.

In short, Professor Edgell’s criticisms of the Compassion Forum seem best addressed to its participants and, if sufficiently serious, provide reason not to support them. For myself, it is sufficiently clear that moral motivation needn’t be religiously grounded that I didn’t need either Senator to tell me that. I very much doubt that my compatriots have a hard time imagining that possibility either. Consequently, I don’t hold it against them for addressing other issues.

]]> By: Darren Sherkat http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/18/trust-me/#comment-1780 Darren Sherkat Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:27:34 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=217#comment-1780 As always, Professor Edgell's commentary about our new moral code for Christian America is on the mark. The "religious" awakening infecting the Democratic party is more properly a particular variant of moderate Protestant Christianity. Other faiths do not have a place in the public square, and moral discourse outside of Christian particularism is unwelcome. Of course, I quibble with the point that somehow religious rhetoric in the public square provides some counter to market driven values or bureaucratic rationalization. Indeed, this public confessional is simply creating a religious market where everyone is forced to consume a particular religious faith. And, it's being put forward in the cultural marketplace and backed by bureaucratic institutions. It's selling a particular brand of faith to the American public, and amplifying that other faith expressions--from prophetic Christianity to secularism to Zoroastrianism--are unwelcome, less worthy, and will get you nowhere in the American status hierarchy. As always, Professor Edgell’s commentary about our new moral code for Christian America is on the mark. The “religious” awakening infecting the Democratic party is more properly a particular variant of moderate Protestant Christianity. Other faiths do not have a place in the public square, and moral discourse outside of Christian particularism is unwelcome. Of course, I quibble with the point that somehow religious rhetoric in the public square provides some counter to market driven values or bureaucratic rationalization. Indeed, this public confessional is simply creating a religious market where everyone is forced to consume a particular religious faith. And, it’s being put forward in the cultural marketplace and backed by bureaucratic institutions. It’s selling a particular brand of faith to the American public, and amplifying that other faith expressions–from prophetic Christianity to secularism to Zoroastrianism–are unwelcome, less worthy, and will get you nowhere in the American status hierarchy.

]]> By: Winnifed Sullivan http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/04/18/trust-me/#comment-1757 Winnifed Sullivan Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:10:53 +0000 http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/?p=217#comment-1757 A similar dynamic is present in the coverage of the law enforcement actions taken in Texas against the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints. Echoing constitutional jurisprudence, universalist words are being carefully used to separate religion (morality) from culture (predatory male sexual behavior). A similar dynamic is present in the coverage of the law enforcement actions taken in Texas against the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints. Echoing constitutional jurisprudence, universalist words are being carefully used to separate religion (morality) from culture (predatory male sexual behavior).

]]>