Critical Summary of Article:
‘The Spirit of Generation Y: Young People’s Spirituality in a Changing Australia.’
Mason, M, Singleton, A & Webber, R 2007, The Spirit of Generation Y, Melbourne.
‘The Spirit of Generation Y’ was a joint project between Monash University and Australian Catholic University, which lasted three years and surveyed over 1600 people. The study was, in the first year, made up of around 100 intensive interviews to gain an idea of contexts and reasons for or against beliefs. In the second year of the study, 1619 people were surveyed about their beliefs.
The project aimed to study holistic spirituality, rather than simply religious beliefs or practices. This included New Age beliefs, worldviews, ethos, ‘civic orientation’ and influences. The worldviews of the interviewees were placed into one of three different categories – Traditional, Eclectic or Humanist. Interviewees’ civic orientation and knowledge of the world were also placed on a sliding scale. A qualitative part of the project, it was noted by Webber that, “it was not our aim to profile the population, or to describe typical cases, but to explore in depth a selection of cases chosen to manifest the range and variations of spirituality.” (2004, p.4) Five interviews, presenting a cross section of spiritualities were included at length in the paper. While interviewers’ questions were open and probing, they were highly varied in each interview, which may have made subjects less comparable.
The analysis of interviews is, in some cases, quite patronising towards the subjects, and critical of gaps in their worldviews. However, the range of questions and statements presented in the second phase of the project (surveys to 1619 people) were effective and offered valuable insight into the religious and spiritual trends of Generation Y. This included a drift in Generation Y away from religion. More surprisingly however, youth are not replacing religious beliefs with New Age practices, instead moving towards an entirely secular lifestyle. While there were some flaws in the analysis of data recorded, ‘The Spirit of Generation Y’ used effective research methods, and were successful in presenting a balanced picture of the spirituality of this generation.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Role of Religion in the Collective Identity of the White Racialist Movement- Betty Dobratz
Dobratz’s article, as the name suggests, is an investigation into the role of religion in the white racialist movement. The movement is based on racial pride. Some contend that they are not racist and hate other races but ‘racialist’ meaning simply that they have love for their race. Dobratz focuses on three factions within the movement; Christian Identity, although their theology is not orthodox they still have a unique Christian dogma and believe that whites are God’s chosen people. The religion of the COTC is Creativity and is described as having elements of ‘rewritten Christianity’, health faddism and histrionic racism. Odinism is a form of neo-paganism which they claim is the original religion of north-western Europe. These factions have varying beliefs, each of these religions are constructed to give meaning to the white race so to foster pride and group identity.
In some ways religion is said to be advantageous to the movement. It can be a ‘bridging mechanism’ to connect two doctrines together. Groups sharing beliefs of religion or conspiracy may be influenced to join the racial cause as well. It is also seen as beneficial because it creates choice and makes it more difficult for the government and other organisations to oppose so many unique ideas. One third of the people interviewed by Dobratz said that religion was ‘very important’ because it unites people. However, religion does not always have a positive influence on the movement. Organisations and churches, including the National Council of Churches and the Asatru Alliance, have been critical of their religious beliefs. Many responded that religion is ‘problematic’, because it creates tension which causes disunity. One said that religion is a major obstacle preventing total unity.
There have been calls to find the common denominator and stop bickering about religion. Some say that the ‘master frame’ should be ‘my race is my religion’. Some believe that religion should be a personal thing and others believe that combining race and religion will strengthen the movement. This movement has ‘problematization’ which means it is becoming seen as social problem through popular and official opposition. The long term viability of minority movements is its ability to heal and prevent divides among its followers. In this article Dorbatz presents some interesting observations that may be applied in other minority groups regarding religious factions. She shows that while in some ways these factions and their religions are advantageous, they can also be problematic and cause disunity.
In some ways religion is said to be advantageous to the movement. It can be a ‘bridging mechanism’ to connect two doctrines together. Groups sharing beliefs of religion or conspiracy may be influenced to join the racial cause as well. It is also seen as beneficial because it creates choice and makes it more difficult for the government and other organisations to oppose so many unique ideas. One third of the people interviewed by Dobratz said that religion was ‘very important’ because it unites people. However, religion does not always have a positive influence on the movement. Organisations and churches, including the National Council of Churches and the Asatru Alliance, have been critical of their religious beliefs. Many responded that religion is ‘problematic’, because it creates tension which causes disunity. One said that religion is a major obstacle preventing total unity.
There have been calls to find the common denominator and stop bickering about religion. Some say that the ‘master frame’ should be ‘my race is my religion’. Some believe that religion should be a personal thing and others believe that combining race and religion will strengthen the movement. This movement has ‘problematization’ which means it is becoming seen as social problem through popular and official opposition. The long term viability of minority movements is its ability to heal and prevent divides among its followers. In this article Dorbatz presents some interesting observations that may be applied in other minority groups regarding religious factions. She shows that while in some ways these factions and their religions are advantageous, they can also be problematic and cause disunity.
The Pagan Revival – M. Gardell
Phil Helliwell
The neo-pagan religions of Wicca, Druidism, Goddess Paganism and Asatru have been largely created in the 20th Century. All share similar features, such as an envisioned history, drawn from mythology; a mostly Eurocentric focus; a non-dogmatic, pantheist and polytheist spiritual understanding; and a focus on the physical and reconnection with nature.
Wicca is primarily drawn from Celtic mythology and celebrates many traditional Celtic festivals (Sam Hain, etc). It was brought into life in the modern world by Gerald B. Gardner and received an explosion of interest in the 1960’s, along with other forms of paganism. Both male and female practitioners of Wicca generally identify themselves as Witches, and the few hundred thousand Wiccans residing in the West consist primarily of middle-aged females.
Druidry arose out of Mason-like male-centred occult congregations in the 18th Century and have since evolved into a paganism not unlike Wicca, but instead choosing to express spiritual yearnings through poetry and music. Goddess Paganism on the other hand is very much female-centred, and almost all of its adherents are female themselves. Many beliefs and practices are interchangeable with Wicca, but their outlook is driven towards an anti-patriarchal aim.
Asatru is the modern reconstruction of paganism in the tradition of the North European Norse myths. Asatru identity is forged through a unique perspective of history that includes, among other things, Viking leader Lief Erikson founding Vinland (North America), some five hundred years before Columbus. Kindreds are self-governed religious groups, and special occasional ceremonies held resemble Viking practices. White Supremacist groups exist within the Asatru population, but they are not without substantial antiracist opposition. Asatru ethics stems from the Nine Noble Virtues: courage, honour, truth, loyalty, discipline, hospitality, industriousness, self-reliance and self-perseverance.
The neo-pagan religions of Wicca, Druidism, Goddess Paganism and Asatru have been largely created in the 20th Century. All share similar features, such as an envisioned history, drawn from mythology; a mostly Eurocentric focus; a non-dogmatic, pantheist and polytheist spiritual understanding; and a focus on the physical and reconnection with nature.
Wicca is primarily drawn from Celtic mythology and celebrates many traditional Celtic festivals (Sam Hain, etc). It was brought into life in the modern world by Gerald B. Gardner and received an explosion of interest in the 1960’s, along with other forms of paganism. Both male and female practitioners of Wicca generally identify themselves as Witches, and the few hundred thousand Wiccans residing in the West consist primarily of middle-aged females.
Druidry arose out of Mason-like male-centred occult congregations in the 18th Century and have since evolved into a paganism not unlike Wicca, but instead choosing to express spiritual yearnings through poetry and music. Goddess Paganism on the other hand is very much female-centred, and almost all of its adherents are female themselves. Many beliefs and practices are interchangeable with Wicca, but their outlook is driven towards an anti-patriarchal aim.
Asatru is the modern reconstruction of paganism in the tradition of the North European Norse myths. Asatru identity is forged through a unique perspective of history that includes, among other things, Viking leader Lief Erikson founding Vinland (North America), some five hundred years before Columbus. Kindreds are self-governed religious groups, and special occasional ceremonies held resemble Viking practices. White Supremacist groups exist within the Asatru population, but they are not without substantial antiracist opposition. Asatru ethics stems from the Nine Noble Virtues: courage, honour, truth, loyalty, discipline, hospitality, industriousness, self-reliance and self-perseverance.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
‘The Resurgence of Fundamentalism’ -Jade Houghton
Aldridge’s article expresses the notion of fundamentalism resurfacing within current day communities. Traditionally linked with Christianity, Aldridge defines tradition fundamentalism as a formal belief system whereby all truths come from the bible. All events, including miracles and resurrections that occurred within the bible are true and are accurate accounts of history. Of course fundamentalism is not just segregated to Christianity. Within Islamic faith the practice of wearing the Hijab is depicted as a fundamentalist practice. As is their objective to not only defend Muslim identity but to expand it globally. Judaism, explained by Aldridge, shows a direct pull toward teshuvah, or Jewish law. There is a huge relationship between Jewish fundamentalism and the history of Judaism.
Overall the article promotes the ideology that one cannot label fundamentalism as it differs across religious variants. Due to conflicting times, economic crisis, technology and globalisation Aldridge’s alerts us to the fact that conservative practices are making resurgences. There is a great pull to return to what once was, a social order found either within the bible, Quran, or Jewish Holy Scriptures. The revival in fundamentalism offers many a direction within life that they can longer find elsewhere. The overriding problem however comes back to the fact that within fundamentalism inner sphere of religion are built. Therefore as a result the practice of fundamentalism has gained a misunderstood label within western society, for being bigotry, ignorant, and practising fanaticism. Acceptance and diversity become rare and violence is associated. Aldridge’s article allows one to identify the mixed meanings of fundamentalism from religion to religion, whilst exposing the problematic effects it has upon a broader world. ‘The Resurgence of Fundamentalism’ successfully addresses the spheres of fundamentalism and the increasing reasons why it exists in our increasingly problematic world.
Overall the article promotes the ideology that one cannot label fundamentalism as it differs across religious variants. Due to conflicting times, economic crisis, technology and globalisation Aldridge’s alerts us to the fact that conservative practices are making resurgences. There is a great pull to return to what once was, a social order found either within the bible, Quran, or Jewish Holy Scriptures. The revival in fundamentalism offers many a direction within life that they can longer find elsewhere. The overriding problem however comes back to the fact that within fundamentalism inner sphere of religion are built. Therefore as a result the practice of fundamentalism has gained a misunderstood label within western society, for being bigotry, ignorant, and practising fanaticism. Acceptance and diversity become rare and violence is associated. Aldridge’s article allows one to identify the mixed meanings of fundamentalism from religion to religion, whilst exposing the problematic effects it has upon a broader world. ‘The Resurgence of Fundamentalism’ successfully addresses the spheres of fundamentalism and the increasing reasons why it exists in our increasingly problematic world.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Three Articles Reviewed
Phil Helliwell
[1.] Religious Diversity: Some Implications for Monotheism – Rita M. Gross
[2.] Religious Resurgence, Conflict and the Transformation of Boundaries – Gary D. Bouma
[3.] Religion in Global Culture: New Directions in an Increasingly Self-conscious World – James V. Spikard
[1.]
In her article, Religious Diversity: Some Implications for Monotheism, Gross’ seeks not only to challenge the core beliefs of monotheistic faiths, but also to promote religious pluralism. Her article works on the assumption that the main tenets of religious pluralism are true, and so religious doctrines running against these tenets are highly problematic, as they assumedly ruin the goals of religious pluralism, which are/either truth/peace/right conduct/tolerance/etc.
Gross begins with a brief and selected historical overview of the development of the world’s most famous monotheistic faiths, namely Judaism and the subsequent Christianity. She makes important observations about when these faiths became universalising - the idea that one god is the god of all - and raises good points concerning the cultural and ethnic creative forces that combine (with other factors) to produce the aptly named ethnoreligions.
But after Gross finishes her brief historical run-through of the formation of (the) classical monotheistic faiths, she moves directly onto an attack of these faiths. She raises some good points, such as the susceptibility of these religions to create an “us and them” mentality, thus creating religious tension, bigotry and violence. But though she raises these good points, it’s the underlying assumptions that weaken the articles’ validity, especially to those who do not subscribe to religious pluralism.
The primary assumption of Gross’ seems to be that religious conflict stems directly from doctrine. She explains this position through her opposition to universal truth claims, something all religions clearly do, but how the ones particular to monotheistic faiths are directly responsible for creating the most religious mischief. While it is perfectly reasonable to say that the great monotheisms have created a lot of the religiously motivated violence in human history, her reasons for this being so are stretched considerably. Surely there were and are other forces at work?
Gross ends on a call-to-arms, an offer to everyone to embrace her brand of religious pluralism, which is clearly set out, complete with stages. But to someone who is sceptical of those claims – sceptical of the possibility of society embracing such a viewpoint, of the democratisation of truth, of an alleged religious neutrality actually modelled after a particular religious doctrine, of the mutually exclusive claims of almost all religions and of the impossibility of tolerating something one actually likes – her article is problematic.
[2.]
Religious Resurgence, Conflict and the Transformation of Boundaries by Gary D. Bouma, succinctly addresses the challenges facing religion today in terms of its very defining qualities. He begins by outlining several possibilities that may explain the current resurgence in religious commitment today; traditional organised religion losing touch with the religious needs of the population (a recurring trend), failures of the justice system, the failure of the secular humanist paradigm, migration, and the rise of evangelical or “emotive” religious practices.
With the increased religious commitment comes increased religious competition and conflict, but the situation is not simply a build-up of religious fervour; the “External Other”, once the so-called great powers of Communism in times passed, is now manifested as an ideological and belief-based Other, or, a religious-based Other. But Bouma makes a poignant observation in the very lack of the traditional Other being a vacuum for ecumenical attitudes; as a “great enemy” is not present, internal religious tension takes prime focus. The resulting conflict, internal or otherwise, is strictly concerned with the drawing of boundaries. The problems that arise from this situation however is an “Imagined Other”, and if this is acted upon, serious problems are probable, as the Imagined Other has no basis in reality.
Since religious boundaries are no longer defined by the state, the forces of ideology take spotlight. For example, the event of September 11 turned attitudes from ethnic and racial differences to those of the religious. The Post-modern climate ushers forth continuous hyper-differentiation, as opposed to High Modernity, which espoused solid authority. The modern world now does not make defining religious boundaries easy. With Globalisation, the speed at which the great volume of people and religious ideas is spread exponentially increases the instances and likelihood of religious competition and conflict. Bouma’s article is insightful, brilliantly realised and probably right.
[3.]
In James V. Spickard’s article, Religion in Global Culture: New Directions in an Increasingly Self-conscious World, Globalisation’s direct effect on religion is expertly illustrated. Spickard begins with some key ideas that have been in play for the last several hundred years, which have become the cultural assumptions held universally in the modern world. These ideas, the ideas of the individual and human rights, are so commonly held that they have gravitated into a state of “naturalness” and are firmly knitted to the modern man.
This modern ideal had its genesis in the Treaty of Westphalia, which created a new idea of sovereignty, giving the State a new meaning; the power over sovereignty itself. Included in the package was Ethnic Nationalism, which grew in strength right up until after World War Two, when the idea exploded in a show of officialdom in the 1948 United Nations Declaration. But running alongside the wildfire growth of nationalism was the more pragmatic spread of the idea, which was the injection of Christian missionaries to all parts of the globe. With those missionaries, Christianity was spread, but not without the equally striking ideas of Western thought. These ideas have since stuck and have since outlasted their imperialistic origins.
The modern world has gone through continuous global shifting, and though ideas of the individual and human rights have made themselves resolutely home, uncertainty prevails in many areas. The decline of the power and importance of the state is synonymous with the rise in the global economic state, and so for many people a solid base of protection is found in religion. What the homogenising effect of Globalisation has spawned is a thirst for social certainty (not ideological certainty), a sense of solidarity, of something tangible, with boundaries; a cultural localism. And with the continuing growth of Globalisation, the economic integration will, as purported by Spickard, result in the incubation and creation of many more localisms. Thus Spickard ends with the conclusion that religious fundamentalism and ethnic nationalism have more in common than most realise.
[1.] Religious Diversity: Some Implications for Monotheism – Rita M. Gross
[2.] Religious Resurgence, Conflict and the Transformation of Boundaries – Gary D. Bouma
[3.] Religion in Global Culture: New Directions in an Increasingly Self-conscious World – James V. Spikard
[1.]
In her article, Religious Diversity: Some Implications for Monotheism, Gross’ seeks not only to challenge the core beliefs of monotheistic faiths, but also to promote religious pluralism. Her article works on the assumption that the main tenets of religious pluralism are true, and so religious doctrines running against these tenets are highly problematic, as they assumedly ruin the goals of religious pluralism, which are/either truth/peace/right conduct/tolerance/etc.
Gross begins with a brief and selected historical overview of the development of the world’s most famous monotheistic faiths, namely Judaism and the subsequent Christianity. She makes important observations about when these faiths became universalising - the idea that one god is the god of all - and raises good points concerning the cultural and ethnic creative forces that combine (with other factors) to produce the aptly named ethnoreligions.
But after Gross finishes her brief historical run-through of the formation of (the) classical monotheistic faiths, she moves directly onto an attack of these faiths. She raises some good points, such as the susceptibility of these religions to create an “us and them” mentality, thus creating religious tension, bigotry and violence. But though she raises these good points, it’s the underlying assumptions that weaken the articles’ validity, especially to those who do not subscribe to religious pluralism.
The primary assumption of Gross’ seems to be that religious conflict stems directly from doctrine. She explains this position through her opposition to universal truth claims, something all religions clearly do, but how the ones particular to monotheistic faiths are directly responsible for creating the most religious mischief. While it is perfectly reasonable to say that the great monotheisms have created a lot of the religiously motivated violence in human history, her reasons for this being so are stretched considerably. Surely there were and are other forces at work?
Gross ends on a call-to-arms, an offer to everyone to embrace her brand of religious pluralism, which is clearly set out, complete with stages. But to someone who is sceptical of those claims – sceptical of the possibility of society embracing such a viewpoint, of the democratisation of truth, of an alleged religious neutrality actually modelled after a particular religious doctrine, of the mutually exclusive claims of almost all religions and of the impossibility of tolerating something one actually likes – her article is problematic.
[2.]
Religious Resurgence, Conflict and the Transformation of Boundaries by Gary D. Bouma, succinctly addresses the challenges facing religion today in terms of its very defining qualities. He begins by outlining several possibilities that may explain the current resurgence in religious commitment today; traditional organised religion losing touch with the religious needs of the population (a recurring trend), failures of the justice system, the failure of the secular humanist paradigm, migration, and the rise of evangelical or “emotive” religious practices.
With the increased religious commitment comes increased religious competition and conflict, but the situation is not simply a build-up of religious fervour; the “External Other”, once the so-called great powers of Communism in times passed, is now manifested as an ideological and belief-based Other, or, a religious-based Other. But Bouma makes a poignant observation in the very lack of the traditional Other being a vacuum for ecumenical attitudes; as a “great enemy” is not present, internal religious tension takes prime focus. The resulting conflict, internal or otherwise, is strictly concerned with the drawing of boundaries. The problems that arise from this situation however is an “Imagined Other”, and if this is acted upon, serious problems are probable, as the Imagined Other has no basis in reality.
Since religious boundaries are no longer defined by the state, the forces of ideology take spotlight. For example, the event of September 11 turned attitudes from ethnic and racial differences to those of the religious. The Post-modern climate ushers forth continuous hyper-differentiation, as opposed to High Modernity, which espoused solid authority. The modern world now does not make defining religious boundaries easy. With Globalisation, the speed at which the great volume of people and religious ideas is spread exponentially increases the instances and likelihood of religious competition and conflict. Bouma’s article is insightful, brilliantly realised and probably right.
[3.]
In James V. Spickard’s article, Religion in Global Culture: New Directions in an Increasingly Self-conscious World, Globalisation’s direct effect on religion is expertly illustrated. Spickard begins with some key ideas that have been in play for the last several hundred years, which have become the cultural assumptions held universally in the modern world. These ideas, the ideas of the individual and human rights, are so commonly held that they have gravitated into a state of “naturalness” and are firmly knitted to the modern man.
This modern ideal had its genesis in the Treaty of Westphalia, which created a new idea of sovereignty, giving the State a new meaning; the power over sovereignty itself. Included in the package was Ethnic Nationalism, which grew in strength right up until after World War Two, when the idea exploded in a show of officialdom in the 1948 United Nations Declaration. But running alongside the wildfire growth of nationalism was the more pragmatic spread of the idea, which was the injection of Christian missionaries to all parts of the globe. With those missionaries, Christianity was spread, but not without the equally striking ideas of Western thought. These ideas have since stuck and have since outlasted their imperialistic origins.
The modern world has gone through continuous global shifting, and though ideas of the individual and human rights have made themselves resolutely home, uncertainty prevails in many areas. The decline of the power and importance of the state is synonymous with the rise in the global economic state, and so for many people a solid base of protection is found in religion. What the homogenising effect of Globalisation has spawned is a thirst for social certainty (not ideological certainty), a sense of solidarity, of something tangible, with boundaries; a cultural localism. And with the continuing growth of Globalisation, the economic integration will, as purported by Spickard, result in the incubation and creation of many more localisms. Thus Spickard ends with the conclusion that religious fundamentalism and ethnic nationalism have more in common than most realise.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Juergensmeyer Critical Review
Menreet Kaur
Juergensmeyer’s book is crucial to highlighting the vicious association with religion and violence. In this chapter, he draws a distinct relationship between the power of human humiliation, sexuality, and marginalization and how it profoundly drives religious terrorism. Also, he gives pertinent examples of how fundamental religious groups are constantly in a power struggle with the secular state.
A key term that was coined in this chapter by Juergensmeyer is "symbolic empowerment". He describes this as “an act of being involved in violence [which] provided a sense of empowerment disproportionately greater than what the violence actually achieved”. I think this is a brilliant concept because regardless of the amount of attacks that the terrorists carry out, a win is hardly in their odds, but it is that sense of power and the ethereal connection with God which pushes them forward.
He puts humiliation and the marginalized society firstly at the brunt of brewing violence through sophisticated organized groups providing them the moral justification, social support and military equipment for armed action. Here, he talks about recruiting poor youths aged 17-25 but I feel that he should have explored a younger, more pre-pubescent group.
I question his expansive view on how repressed sexual roles, both literally and physically contributes to religious violence. I feel like this stance lacks concrete theoretical basis and he seems to be stretching ones physiological needs a tad too far. It seems to be that he made women to be the object of finality for the terrorists. However, I agree with his point on terrorists not condoning “sex is out of place” with regards to homosexuals and empowered women because of their extreme conservatism.
Finally, to be respectable and credible in the eyes of the public and state, Juergensmeyer talks about how terrorist groups constantly keep their communities in check, eradicating any bad weeds and also randomly going on deadly missions for causing immediate chaos, crumbling public order. He claims that this shows how “fragile” public order is, however I disagree. It shows how strong, resilient and even tolerant the public, governments and media are of them.
Juergensmeyer provides illustrative factual descriptions and an in-depth perspective through his interviews with terrorists within each of the points that he raised in this chapter.
Reference:
Juergensmeyer M,. 2003. Warriors’ Power. Ch 10 in Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence, Berkeley, CA., University of California Press. 187-215. Via RL.
Juergensmeyer’s book is crucial to highlighting the vicious association with religion and violence. In this chapter, he draws a distinct relationship between the power of human humiliation, sexuality, and marginalization and how it profoundly drives religious terrorism. Also, he gives pertinent examples of how fundamental religious groups are constantly in a power struggle with the secular state.
A key term that was coined in this chapter by Juergensmeyer is "symbolic empowerment". He describes this as “an act of being involved in violence [which] provided a sense of empowerment disproportionately greater than what the violence actually achieved”. I think this is a brilliant concept because regardless of the amount of attacks that the terrorists carry out, a win is hardly in their odds, but it is that sense of power and the ethereal connection with God which pushes them forward.
He puts humiliation and the marginalized society firstly at the brunt of brewing violence through sophisticated organized groups providing them the moral justification, social support and military equipment for armed action. Here, he talks about recruiting poor youths aged 17-25 but I feel that he should have explored a younger, more pre-pubescent group.
I question his expansive view on how repressed sexual roles, both literally and physically contributes to religious violence. I feel like this stance lacks concrete theoretical basis and he seems to be stretching ones physiological needs a tad too far. It seems to be that he made women to be the object of finality for the terrorists. However, I agree with his point on terrorists not condoning “sex is out of place” with regards to homosexuals and empowered women because of their extreme conservatism.
Finally, to be respectable and credible in the eyes of the public and state, Juergensmeyer talks about how terrorist groups constantly keep their communities in check, eradicating any bad weeds and also randomly going on deadly missions for causing immediate chaos, crumbling public order. He claims that this shows how “fragile” public order is, however I disagree. It shows how strong, resilient and even tolerant the public, governments and media are of them.
Juergensmeyer provides illustrative factual descriptions and an in-depth perspective through his interviews with terrorists within each of the points that he raised in this chapter.
Reference:
Juergensmeyer M,. 2003. Warriors’ Power. Ch 10 in Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence, Berkeley, CA., University of California Press. 187-215. Via RL.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Gross, Howell & Lechner Articles Reviewed
There are three articles that I will review. The first article is from week two on ‘Religious Diversity’ by Gross. The second article is from week three called ‘The New Spiritualities, East and West’ by Howell. The last article is Lechner’s ‘Defining Religion’ from week four. I will discuss their main points, the significance of those points and briefly analyse a viewpoint found in each article.
Gross Article
Gross Article
The three major points that stand out in Gross’s article are concerning the problem of diversity that has lead to contention; genuine pluralism as a adequate technique for dealing with diversity and lastly how to foster Genuine pluralism.
Gross first stipulates diversity between religions has been a platform for contention rather than building a community. In each Monotheistic religion the particular claim of superiority above all other monotheistic or non monotheistic religions has been a major ingredient in creating contention rather than a sense of community amongst the vast religious community.
Gross puts forward the concept of ‘genuine pluralism’ as a viable answer to building a genuine sense of community amongst much religious diversity. ‘Genuine pluralism’ offers a safe environment for the world religions to be autonomous and distinct since it does not reduce all the religions to the same thing or try to create a singular religious system out of the plurality of the world. However, it does require that it be acknowledged, by religion, that there is no longer a possibility in our modern age to maintain the belief that a ‘unique nonhuman origin’ is the source of the founding of your religion.
There is one viewpoint in Gross’s article that I want to analyse. It is a contradiction of the concept of ‘genuine pluralism’s’ idea of diversity. The idea of diversity and acceptance of differences in different religions is key to ‘genuine pluralism’ and a positive thing, but Gross writes that diversity is also a stumbling block of contention amongst the various religious communities, particularly monotheistic traditions. His solution is to cut out the belief in a transcendent, nonhuman source. His solution is in opposition to the concept of diversity and acceptance that ‘genuine pluralism’ holds dearly to. This seems to represent a contradiction in his expounding of ‘genuine pluralism’s’ idea of diversity.
Gross first stipulates diversity between religions has been a platform for contention rather than building a community. In each Monotheistic religion the particular claim of superiority above all other monotheistic or non monotheistic religions has been a major ingredient in creating contention rather than a sense of community amongst the vast religious community.
Gross puts forward the concept of ‘genuine pluralism’ as a viable answer to building a genuine sense of community amongst much religious diversity. ‘Genuine pluralism’ offers a safe environment for the world religions to be autonomous and distinct since it does not reduce all the religions to the same thing or try to create a singular religious system out of the plurality of the world. However, it does require that it be acknowledged, by religion, that there is no longer a possibility in our modern age to maintain the belief that a ‘unique nonhuman origin’ is the source of the founding of your religion.
There is one viewpoint in Gross’s article that I want to analyse. It is a contradiction of the concept of ‘genuine pluralism’s’ idea of diversity. The idea of diversity and acceptance of differences in different religions is key to ‘genuine pluralism’ and a positive thing, but Gross writes that diversity is also a stumbling block of contention amongst the various religious communities, particularly monotheistic traditions. His solution is to cut out the belief in a transcendent, nonhuman source. His solution is in opposition to the concept of diversity and acceptance that ‘genuine pluralism’ holds dearly to. This seems to represent a contradiction in his expounding of ‘genuine pluralism’s’ idea of diversity.
Howell Article
There are two main issues examined in Howell’s article. The first is the growing trend to draw a distinction between being ‘spiritual’ and being ‘religious’ in the Western Europe, North America and Australasia. The second is the emergence of the term ‘spirituality’ to designate a new religious arena called ‘depth spirituality’ in the East.
Howell first explains the growing trend amongst people in western Europe, North America and Australasia who do not want to be identified as ‘religious’, but as being ‘spiritual’. Howell breaks down the distinction between religion and spirituality in two different ways. Howell states that an individual who identifies themselves as being ‘spiritual’ places emphasis on ‘subjective-life forms of sacred’ as opposed to ‘life-as forms of sacred’ identified with being ‘religious’. ‘Subjective-life forms of sacred’ means that the individual places great weight on inner sources of significance and authority. ‘Life-as forms of the sacred’ means that what is considered sacred and to be attained is a life that fits in with the ‘prescriptions’ set by the religious authorities.
The second main issue in Howell’s article is the rise in usage of the term ‘spirituality’ in the east, drawing mainly on examples from Indonesia. The use of the term ‘spirituality’ in the East is linked with the idea of ‘inwardness’. Its emphasis is upon personal experience with the ‘Divine’. The emergence of this new ‘depth spirituality’ is tied to the increased interaction with Western spirituality literature, education, satellite TV., growing work in trans-national companies, etc and their new western values of critical thinking and personal development with the desire to be a ‘better Muslim’. It is also emerging from anti-colonialism. The hope is to reassert their Muslim faith in internationally creditable terms which are transferable in the western, i.e. ‘spirituality’.
The significance of the article is the acknowledged commonality between individuals in the East and the West who are seeking a new 'spirituality'.
Lechner Article
Lechner’s article is concerned with religion in the global age, its identity and its role within globalisation.
Lechner’s first point is that definitions are useless and unhealthy in defining the identity of religion in a singular universal sense. This is because there is no unified universal religious view or one singular religious phenomenon that encapsulates a singular universal concept of religion. The result of any definition is restrictive and one that distorts the many different concepts of religion to produce a single definition. Lechner does admit, however, the important role that definitions do play in creating theories of religion and providing a platform from which important enquiry and research can be conducted into issues and agendas surrounding religion.
Lechner then advocates the idea that the only hope to bringing the identity of religion under a single banner is pluralism. The reason for this is that it maybe the only label that can incorporate the many differing complexities of the various different religious phenomena under one universal umbrella.
His last major point concerns the role religion has played as a source, component and interpreter or affecter of globalisation and how it fits into the various frameworks surrounding different understandings of globalization. Lechner then goes on to describe how he believes religion will have to change to fit into what demands globalism will place on religions that desire to be recognized as institutions in a global polity.
One significant point in Lechner’s article is it acknowledges the important role religion plays in the lives of individual’s and the wider society. It views religion’s role within a global polity as possibly a positive thing. It puts forth a vital role that religion could play as a global institution supporting a world polity.
The one issue I want to analyse in Lechner's article is the contradiction between Lechner's views on definitions and pluralism and the requirements that religion will be required to adhere to if it seeks a future as a global institution support by a global polity.
Lechner's article does well as an advocate of pluralism and as an article that tries to place religion in an increasing globalised world.
There are two main issues examined in Howell’s article. The first is the growing trend to draw a distinction between being ‘spiritual’ and being ‘religious’ in the Western Europe, North America and Australasia. The second is the emergence of the term ‘spirituality’ to designate a new religious arena called ‘depth spirituality’ in the East.
Howell first explains the growing trend amongst people in western Europe, North America and Australasia who do not want to be identified as ‘religious’, but as being ‘spiritual’. Howell breaks down the distinction between religion and spirituality in two different ways. Howell states that an individual who identifies themselves as being ‘spiritual’ places emphasis on ‘subjective-life forms of sacred’ as opposed to ‘life-as forms of sacred’ identified with being ‘religious’. ‘Subjective-life forms of sacred’ means that the individual places great weight on inner sources of significance and authority. ‘Life-as forms of the sacred’ means that what is considered sacred and to be attained is a life that fits in with the ‘prescriptions’ set by the religious authorities.
The second main issue in Howell’s article is the rise in usage of the term ‘spirituality’ in the east, drawing mainly on examples from Indonesia. The use of the term ‘spirituality’ in the East is linked with the idea of ‘inwardness’. Its emphasis is upon personal experience with the ‘Divine’. The emergence of this new ‘depth spirituality’ is tied to the increased interaction with Western spirituality literature, education, satellite TV., growing work in trans-national companies, etc and their new western values of critical thinking and personal development with the desire to be a ‘better Muslim’. It is also emerging from anti-colonialism. The hope is to reassert their Muslim faith in internationally creditable terms which are transferable in the western, i.e. ‘spirituality’.
The significance of the article is the acknowledged commonality between individuals in the East and the West who are seeking a new 'spirituality'.
Lechner Article
Lechner’s article is concerned with religion in the global age, its identity and its role within globalisation.
Lechner’s first point is that definitions are useless and unhealthy in defining the identity of religion in a singular universal sense. This is because there is no unified universal religious view or one singular religious phenomenon that encapsulates a singular universal concept of religion. The result of any definition is restrictive and one that distorts the many different concepts of religion to produce a single definition. Lechner does admit, however, the important role that definitions do play in creating theories of religion and providing a platform from which important enquiry and research can be conducted into issues and agendas surrounding religion.
Lechner then advocates the idea that the only hope to bringing the identity of religion under a single banner is pluralism. The reason for this is that it maybe the only label that can incorporate the many differing complexities of the various different religious phenomena under one universal umbrella.
His last major point concerns the role religion has played as a source, component and interpreter or affecter of globalisation and how it fits into the various frameworks surrounding different understandings of globalization. Lechner then goes on to describe how he believes religion will have to change to fit into what demands globalism will place on religions that desire to be recognized as institutions in a global polity.
One significant point in Lechner’s article is it acknowledges the important role religion plays in the lives of individual’s and the wider society. It views religion’s role within a global polity as possibly a positive thing. It puts forth a vital role that religion could play as a global institution supporting a world polity.
The one issue I want to analyse in Lechner's article is the contradiction between Lechner's views on definitions and pluralism and the requirements that religion will be required to adhere to if it seeks a future as a global institution support by a global polity.
Lechner's article does well as an advocate of pluralism and as an article that tries to place religion in an increasing globalised world.
References:
Gross RM, Religious Diversity: Some Implications For Monotheism, Cross Currents, Via BB Week 2. Article first appeared in Wisconsin Dialogue: A Faculty Journal for the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire 11, 1991, 35-48.
Howell J. 2006. The New Spiritualities East and West: Colonial Legacies and Changing Patterns of Globalisation, Australian Religion Studies Review, 19, 1. Via BB Week 3 (or LC)
Lechner F, 2003, Defining religion: a pluralistic approach for the global age. In Greil, AL. & Bromley, DR. (Eds.), Defining religion: investigating the boundaries between the sacred and secular, Amsterdam, JAI. 67-84. Via RL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)