![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 27th, 2005 08:55 pmAn article appeared in the Times of London reporting on a study which concludes that the secular democracies of Europe are "better off" than the relatively religious United States. Reading the article raises more questions than it answers, and I think it calls for a response. I do not have access to the study itself, so I cannot probe its methodology, or even assume that the article accurately represents the study in any way. The Times of London is, after all, a Rupert Murdoch property like Fox News, the New York Post, and the Jerusalem Post, none of which I regard as reliable.
Now, to business.
The first question we need to ask ourselves about any study is "what is being measured?" The article at hand reports the following:
The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world."
This statement implies a question that does not measure mere belief in God. Rather, it discusses, very specifically an attitude of religious triumphalism. Belief in triumphalism and belief in God are two distinct and different variables. It is important to keep this in mind, and to keep in mind that such triumphalism tends to be a property of conservative Christian movements.
The article also quotes the studies author saying:
“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator."
This statement proposes a correlation between being "non-religious" and being "proevolution." This implies a corollary: that being "religious" means being "anti-evolution." This is easily disproven: Judaism, Catholicism, and liberal Christianity all quite easily accept evolution. The kind of young-earth creationism that tends to inform an "antievolution" stance is, again, a propert of conservative Christian movements. Belief in a "moral creator" and an "anti-evolution" stance do NOT walk hand in hand.
The article concludes with the study author's words "The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
Fair enough, although there are enough Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Britain and France, that we need not conclude that its citizenry is "Godless." Indeed the possibility that these people's religious convictions may inform much of the support social justice in government is hardly ruled out by anything we see of the study in this article. But even so, belief in God is not the only foundation possible for a moral system.
So, what we can conclude about the study, based on its representation in the article is that, regardless of what it thought it might be measuring (and we have little way of verifying that), what it appears to be measuring is specific tenets of conservative Christianity, namely triumphalism and opposition to the theory of evolution.
Lets remember that as we consider these words of the article's (as opposed to the study's) author:
Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.
Now THIS is really quite a nice piece of rhetorical sleight of hand! Observe what is happening here. Liberal believers of all faiths are being put forth as holding that "religious belief is socially beneficial," but a study measuring conservative Christian beliefs is held up as the proof. I believe that this is what is properly called "begging the question." It is, at the very least, a bait and switch that attempts to paint liberal religious belief and the conservative beliefs that the study labeled problematic with the same brush.
The fact is that when it comes to those elements of American culture that the study and article author both find so problematic, it is not the voice of liberal religion that drives them. It is not liberal religion that seeks to interfere with access to birth control so that rates of STD's and teen abortion are driven high. It is not liberal religion that preaches triumphalism and hatred of the Other that creates a setting ripe for violent crime. It is not liberal religion that is trying to oust Darwin from the classroom.
This reveals the article's bias to a certain degree - the paragraph in question, being written in the author's own voice, is the only place where liberal religion is mentioned, and I am left wondering why?
By and large, members of liberal faiths are those people in our religious communities pushing for a society that more closely resembles the democracies of Europe, on all fronts - support for gay marriage, for meaningful sex ed, for social welfare programs, for solid education, and even for separation of Church and State. And this, when all is said and done is why I have a problem with this article.
( Complete Article Text, in case the URL stops working )
Now, to business.
The first question we need to ask ourselves about any study is "what is being measured?" The article at hand reports the following:
The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world."
This statement implies a question that does not measure mere belief in God. Rather, it discusses, very specifically an attitude of religious triumphalism. Belief in triumphalism and belief in God are two distinct and different variables. It is important to keep this in mind, and to keep in mind that such triumphalism tends to be a property of conservative Christian movements.
The article also quotes the studies author saying:
“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator."
This statement proposes a correlation between being "non-religious" and being "proevolution." This implies a corollary: that being "religious" means being "anti-evolution." This is easily disproven: Judaism, Catholicism, and liberal Christianity all quite easily accept evolution. The kind of young-earth creationism that tends to inform an "antievolution" stance is, again, a propert of conservative Christian movements. Belief in a "moral creator" and an "anti-evolution" stance do NOT walk hand in hand.
The article concludes with the study author's words "The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
Fair enough, although there are enough Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Britain and France, that we need not conclude that its citizenry is "Godless." Indeed the possibility that these people's religious convictions may inform much of the support social justice in government is hardly ruled out by anything we see of the study in this article. But even so, belief in God is not the only foundation possible for a moral system.
So, what we can conclude about the study, based on its representation in the article is that, regardless of what it thought it might be measuring (and we have little way of verifying that), what it appears to be measuring is specific tenets of conservative Christianity, namely triumphalism and opposition to the theory of evolution.
Lets remember that as we consider these words of the article's (as opposed to the study's) author:
Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.
Now THIS is really quite a nice piece of rhetorical sleight of hand! Observe what is happening here. Liberal believers of all faiths are being put forth as holding that "religious belief is socially beneficial," but a study measuring conservative Christian beliefs is held up as the proof. I believe that this is what is properly called "begging the question." It is, at the very least, a bait and switch that attempts to paint liberal religious belief and the conservative beliefs that the study labeled problematic with the same brush.
The fact is that when it comes to those elements of American culture that the study and article author both find so problematic, it is not the voice of liberal religion that drives them. It is not liberal religion that seeks to interfere with access to birth control so that rates of STD's and teen abortion are driven high. It is not liberal religion that preaches triumphalism and hatred of the Other that creates a setting ripe for violent crime. It is not liberal religion that is trying to oust Darwin from the classroom.
This reveals the article's bias to a certain degree - the paragraph in question, being written in the author's own voice, is the only place where liberal religion is mentioned, and I am left wondering why?
By and large, members of liberal faiths are those people in our religious communities pushing for a society that more closely resembles the democracies of Europe, on all fronts - support for gay marriage, for meaningful sex ed, for social welfare programs, for solid education, and even for separation of Church and State. And this, when all is said and done is why I have a problem with this article.
( Complete Article Text, in case the URL stops working )
