In contrast to Dobson, I'd like to bring up what I see as some positive news about people that consider themselves affiliated with a religion in America. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently released a comprehensive survey of the religious beliefs and practices (or non-beliefs and practices) of Americans and how that interacts with their social and political attitudes. The survey was extensive, based on interviews of 35,556 adults. As surveys go, that's huge!
If you are interested in the full report, you can find it HERE. The questions and tables feel like a treasure. Over 60 in-depth questions, many of which have sub questions. The answers are all broken down by specific faith or "unaffiliated" (guess that would be Ulysses Everett McGill). Skipping around the pages is like grabbing handfuls of gold coins and letting them pour out (tinkling) into a pile as I look into the minds of my neighbors.
There are so many angles to take from the survey and discussions that could be started. For example, 20% of Evangelicals and 14% of Mormons believe religion causes more problems in society than it solves, compared to 49% of those affiliated with the Jewish religion and 59% of those unaffiliated. But I can only highlight a few issues.
At a basic level, I find it interesting that 92% of all Americans believe in God (even 70% of the unaffiliated). However, only 60% of those that believe in God believe that God is a personal God while 25% believe he is an impersonal force.
Absolutely startling to me was that only 24% of religious people in America believe their religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life. 70% believe that many religions can lead to eternal life. In the specifics, a majority of every major religion except Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses believe many religions can lead to eternal life. Just as surprising, religious affiliated people seem to have a less dogmatic view of their own religion than I expected. 53% of Evangelicals and 60% of Muslims believe there is more than one way to interpret the teachings of their religion. Here is the breakdown of these 2 questions:
Some quick hits: 48% of the total believes evolution best explains the origin of human life (including the majority of many religions, though 54% of Evangelicals "completely disagree"). Religious people as a group are split almost evenly on the acceptability of homosexuality. The majority of every group believed the government should do more to help needy Americans, even if that meant going further into debt. The majority of every group believed environmental regulations are worth the cost. Even the issue of abortion is less polarized than you might suspect. Last one I'll mention, and this one also shocked me. A majority of every group but the Jehovah's Witnesses believe miracles still occur today as in ancient times. Even 55% of the unaffiliated agree with that.
So a few of my general observations are that maybe religious people are not as dogmatic as portrayed (and likely not as dogmatic as their leaders want them to be) but the Jehovah's Witnesses are a crazily dogmatic group. Can I win a prize for using the word dogmatic the most times in one blog? Evangelicals continue to be the most politically active and "conservative" of all the major groups. And most surprising, most everyone agrees that they and their religion do not have a monopoly on the truth.
Do you agree with what appears to be the result of this survey? Are spiritually minded people more open than usually portrayed? Have I just been unlucky in my contact with church people? Or are the percentages of rigid "truth hogs" still staggeringly high? If church-going people in America are not as narrow-minded as we thought, who benefits most from a stereotypical view of religion and religious people? Why are almost all "successful" religious leaders the zealots?
21 comments:
Very interesting numbers. I will have to say I have not looked in depth at this study, so my comments are somewhat elementary at this point.
However, it could be that the zealots lead because they are the ones passionate about that. Really if you look at almost every walk of life the "zealots" of that walk are the leaders.
Additionally, I think those individuals that are more inclinded to view their religion as the one and only are also the ones more likely to be in your face. Other people would be more accepting, less in your face, and more inclined to sit and have a decent discussion with you rather than preach at you.
Those are some initial thoughts. I may have more.
I have been thinking a lot about my response to this post. I find the results encouraging and hopeful. Hopeful that, as a society, the divides between us are not the chasms that we imagine. We are not so different, and we are all bound together by the questions and the uncertainty. I think that is why zealots are leaders. Plainly, people find comfort in someone else's confidence. We see by these results that most of us feel as though we're still less than confident in the supremacy of our position. When we see someone who is confident in his or her own truth, they are easy to follow. Here is someone who doesn't question things the way I do. I'll follow the confident leader.
As it relates to the survey, I have some questions about the first question. I DO believe that there is only one path to eternal life - through grace. I don't think my "religion" has the corner on grace, however. Still, I could easily answer that question differently than I feel about other religions. Does that make sense? I am trying to toe the line between the faith that I have the right answer, and being tolerant of others' choices to follow something else. Tolerance does not mean that I think they are equally right. That is the difference.
I hope my response makes sense. I am tolerant. I do not have the corner on truth. And the teachings of my religion can ABSOLUTELY be interpreted correctly in different ways. Thanks for this topic! I hope for more discussion.
Merriam-Webster defines "tolerate" this way:
tol·er·ate
Function: transitive verb
1: to endure or resist the action of (as a drug or food) without serious side effects or discomfort : exhibit physiological tolerance for
2 a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b: to put up with
I am glad to hear that you are willing to allow (not prohibit) other people from believing something different than you. This reminds me of times I have been involved with interracial dialogue in our community where minorities have felt hurt by the word "tolerate." People want to be accepted, not tolerated.
Even in saying you believe in "grace" it sounds like what you really mean is you believe in your interpretation of grace.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm picking; I just bristle at the word tolerate, unless we are talking about someone's over-use of perfume.
Why does the word tolerate have to have a negative vibe associated with it? Is it like discriminate? Making any choice is discrimination. People of the upper classes of times gone by were said to have discriminating tastes. I don't think that is a bad thing.
The issue is that the words have been associated with their negative views. In your very definition of tolerate it says "to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction" Merriam Webster's also defines "Accept" in the follwing way "to endure without protest or reaction" Sounds pretty similar to tolerate.
The issue is whether by tolerating/accepting someone's views, you necessarily have to believe that they are correct. Simplistically, if someone believes that the world is flat, I can tolerate/accept their view without believing they are correct. I don't have to shove my view that the earth is round down their throat and call them names (lost, seeker for instance) in order to tolerate their view. At the same time, I don't have to think they are right.
I think we should all strive to tolerate/accept/endure/suffer/withstand each other's views. I will do so while believing that I am right in my beliefs, but with the respect that you may not believe as I do. Maybe over time with a congenial discourse I will change my views or you will change yours. However, at the end of the day, someone is right and someone is wrong. The issue is how we treat each other before the end of the day.
That's what I call "spin" on the definition of "accept." Here is the full definition:
1 a: to receive willingly b: to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added)
2: to give admittance or approval to
3 a: to endure without protest or reaction b: to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable c: to recognize as true : believe
4 a: to make a favorable response to b: to agree to undertake (a responsibility)
5: to assume an obligation to pay; also : to take in payment 6: to receive (a legislative report) officially
So ONE of the definitions of "accept" means to endure without protest. But I feel certain that when a minority race asks to be accepted this is not what they mean.
I believe the same should be applied to spiritual views. It's not about whether one of us is right. In fact, even though we believe different things, we can BOTH be right (or both be wrong).
I say "grace" and I look at Islam and I think "they believe something different." Until I talked to a Muslim and I realized he put way too many burdens on himself (my opinion) but grace is also at the root of his faith.
My point was not necessarily pro or con on your views, but rather on the getting caught up in the usage of "tolerate". I have a problem a lot of times reading "self-help" books because I get caught up in the language used, thinking that it could have been said more clearly or accurately. However, if I would allow myself not to get distracted, I would realize that the words they use are proper, just not the words I would have used.
My point being, I'm not for sure tolerate and accept are that different in actual meaning. The issue is that over times the words have been used in different ways: we tolerate nuisances and accept differences. In actuality though we could tolerate differences and accept nuisances and it means the same thing.
If you think the words are interchangeable, then try this experiment: walk up to someone and say "I tolerate you" then walk up to someone and say "I accept you." I would be interested in both how you feel and how they respond.
Words matter, and we choose together what they mean. But we're off topic to a large degree.
Let's drop those words altogether for now and get back to the questions. Only 24% of religious people in America believe their religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life. Who benefits from pushing the idea that this is not true?
Wow. Interesting reaction to the word tolerate. I also bristle at the thought of "tolerating" persons of any other race, but that is not what we are talking about. Interesting how quickly I became tolerant of race and not religion. I see that "tolerate" touches a vein, but I will use it anyway.
In your original post, we weren't even talking about personhood. We were talking about religion itself. Do you not believe it is possible to accept a person without accepting their beliefs as true? That is a problem. I don't know anyone who believes exactly as I do, yet I accept them as they are while tolerating their beliefs. Complicated, yes. It is the human experience.
Like you, I think words are important. Given the definitions of both tolerate and accept, I still find myself feeling more tolerant of many other religions than I am accepting of them. It seems that to accept, I would also need to believe or at least be willing to believe, which I'm not.
I suppose I would be interested in what you believe to be my interpretation of grace as you seem to question its legitimacy. Since Merriam-Webster has been ruling the discussion, we should have one more.
grace
Function:noun
1 a: unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b: a virtue coming from God c: a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace
2 a: approval, favor
b:archaic : mercy, pardon c: a special favor : privilege
d: disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy, or clemency e: a temporary exemption : reprieve
3 a: a charming or attractive trait or characteristic b: a pleasing appearance or effect : charm c: ease and suppleness of movement or bearing
4—used as a title of address or reference for a duke, a duchess, or an archbishop
5: a short prayer at a meal asking a blessing or giving thanks
6plural capitalized : three sister goddesses in Greek mythology who are the givers of charm and beauty
7: a musical trill, turn, or appoggiatura
8 a: sense of propriety or right b: the quality or state of being considerate or thoughtful
In trying to describe how my interpretation fits in with that, I would simply say that we HAVE to depend on God for our salvation. Straightforward. We are good because we are loved, not the reverse. There are other religions with this as their foundations and others without. I will tolerate the religion that does not depend on grace, while accepting the person who believes it. Fortunately for me and all of mankind, our salvation does not depend on my grace, as I am simply human. God's will suffice.
I am in agreement with you that words are not interchangeable in the every day use of them. Obviously, there is vast difference in telling someone you tolerate them vs. accept them. My point though is that the words themeselves (by definition) mean the same thing and a lot of times we get caught up in the words and not in the underlying beliefs/views/intentions of the speaker. Of course, the speaker should take every precaution to ensure that their message is understood as they intend. The use of the words is what has changed. If we could go back in time, we very well could have "tolerate" be the better feeling word and "accept" be the negative feeling word.
I'm confused by your question. Are you asking who benefits from saying that there is only "one correct view of religion" or are you asking who benefits from saying there are multiple correct views of religion.
The answer in either event is complex. At first blush it would appear that the proponent of the one right view would benefit. "Follow this path to eternal life and no other path" Oh by the way, in order to teach this view we need your money and time so please give of both. However, if only 24% of the people believe that there is only one way, the number of people that will adhear to this message is small and will not benefit the promotor on the scale desired.
However, those that proclaim that there are multiple paths face the inherent risk that people will forum shop their beleifs. Once something comes up that they disagree with, they will simply move on. So believing multiple views are correct opens you up to competition.
In the end, the continuation of the belief that there is only one correct path benefits solely those that believe in that one path. It provides comfort, confidence, guidance, and purpose.
If multiple paths get you there, how do you do any of them well? Jack of all trades, master of none.
Okay. About the original question. I simply don't understand. I guess what I was trying to say, and did it poorly, is that I am one of the 24% who believes that I am right. Am I inherently wrong simply because I'm in the vast minority? I hope not. I can still believe that the teachings of my "religion" can be correctly interpreted in different ways, although they must all lead to the same basis of grace as the path to eternal life.
As to benefits, I am simply unclear on your meaning. It seems as though you have an answer that you'd like to share. Please do.
What the hell?! No one said you were "tolerant" of race, LJ. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I'm sure you have better things to do than pore over my blog.
Are the 24% who believe their religion is the one true way to eternal life wrong? I sure hope so.
I read too much into the comparison. Glad to hear I was wrong. About that, anyway...
From a gut level response, I agree. I hope there are multiple ways because I believe one thing, but boy would that suck if I was wrong. Additionally, it seems unfair to "punish" those individuals who have not had the opportunity to hear what I believe, and seems uncaring to "punish" those who have heard it and believe something else. But, for me, if it doesn't matter what I believe, why go through the brain damage of thinking about this if the end result is all the same? If it doesn't matter what I believe, why waste the time to believe and think about anything? After all not believing in something is believing in nothing. Thus, for me, believing that my belief is the one and only way is a necessity for me to believe anything.
Having established that I believe my belief is the one and only, now raises the question of what do I do with that belief. I do what I can (and usually fail) to represent my beliefs to those around me by being a person of integrity, honesty, friendliness, and caring. When situations are presented to discuss my views with them, not in a condemning or patronizing manner, but in a real conversation, person to person. The result being civil conversation between two humans on a deeper intellectual, spiritual, and emotional level, resulting in true human connection and relationship that may result in a changed belief (mine or theirs).
I have been so busy w/ work and the farm lately that I have let at least one softball go by. But there is no way this one is going by.
That was quite an animated discussion. To begin, I am one of those that do not accept the existence of god. One of the biggest reasons that I have come to this conclusion is based on what I was taught as a child. I remember on multiple occasions hearing to some effect, “even a poor child in Africa, if they looked to the heavens and ask for god as their savior could then go to heaven.” At the time, I thought, “How magnanimous of god.”
Now, I think this is insane. You believe what you believe because that is what you were told. You may have some wiggle room on some specific stuff, but generally people don’t stray very far from the tree. It is unlikely that a 25 yr old Iraqi, raised to be devout Muslim, is going to look at the internet and decide that what you believe is the one true way to heaven. Just as it is unlikely that you are going to surf the web, see something and decide that all that you have been taught since birth is wrong. Not just wrong, but wrong enough for you to spend eternity in a lake of fire. That Iraqi thinks you are going to, and you think he is going to. It has more to do w/ where you were born than what version of the same story you believe.
“And now abideth these 3 things: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love.” Your bible tells you that love is more important than faith. Doesn’t that mean that is more important to be compassionate to those around you, than to tolerate them?
Hey, glad you're still reading, sorry you had to watch a softball go by.
I wish these comments threaded so we could see who The Booted One is addressing. I, for one, do not think a devout Muslim is going to hell. But even more importantly the assumption that the Muslim thinks I am going to hell is also wrong - and the very point of my blog. If the numbers are to be believed, the presumption is that the Muslim does NOT think that (56% of American Muslims believe that many religions can lead to eternal life).
As for the apple falling far from the tree, sounds like you rolled. I've rolled. But despite this anecdotal evidence, I suspect you are right. Let's suggest that to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life as a topic for study.
I think you make a very good point in the very last paragraph that love/compassion is what is important. I find it interesting that it sounds as if you do not think you can tolerate/accept someone and love them at the same time. If that is a mischaracterization of what you wrote, then sorry. I believe that you can love someone and think they are wrong; love someone and discipline them; love someone and be disappointed in them; love someone and not stop the consequences of their decisions from happening to them. In essence love them and accept them. In fact, on the latter, I would argue in some situations stepping in is not loving them. This probably gets beyond the scope of DVD's blog though, and may be one those conversations better left to in person than in writing.
As for the use of "tolerate" and the discussion around that word versus "accept", I think the point I was trying to make was lost (and, to be honest, probably not very well articulated to begin with) and thus I will concede the issue, if for nothing else to continue the lively discussion on the topic of this blog.
Back to the point of the blog, it is an interesting topic and one with which I have difficulty. If my view is the only right one, shouldn't I try to change everyone's view? Why do stereotypical Christian evangelists give me the heebie geebies then? and on and on. It is a struggle for me, because as mentioned going the other way, creates the necessary (for me) question of why bother with anything if anything goes.
One last question for thought/discussion: If it is improbable for someone to change their beliefs from what they were taught/raised as you state, how do you explain you, DVD, and myself? Out of my small circle of friends, that's a large percentage of people changing their views from what they were taught.
It is important to remember that hyperbole is still a literary tool. The whole point of my poorly written essay was this: it is ridiculous to assume that the society of my birth is the harbinger of my afterlife.
Now, to Erick’s compassion statement. Is allowing Jacob to eat a lemon so he will learn they are sour the same as allowing billions and billions of people to suffer unspeakable eternity after they die? I certainly don’t think so. “It’s for there own good” just doesn’t cut it in real life (or for the afterlife).
I found the survey itself interesting. I felt that it needed more statistical analysis to find out what, if any, actual differences there are within all of those groups (religious, educational, economic).
For my parting shot – I don’t think you have to look far from your gtalk list to see that old habits die hard.
First time poster, long time reader. Yes, I am shocked at the numbers, especially that a majority of evangelicals believe that there are multiple paths to eternal life. It makes you wonder if you most evengelicals are actually more open minded (noticed I refrained from using the "t" word) when they are away from the church setting?
Concerning James Dobson, he is just an outright dogmatic zealot, to use DVD's terms. Honestly, if Dante were around today, Dobson should be in the center of hell.
I read a quote once to the effect that good people will generally acted well, bad people will generally act badly, but it takes religion to indcue good people to generally act badly. Maybe I am a bit jaded, but organized religion almost always puts its organizational survival above its stated overarching purposes.
"organized religion almost always puts its organizational survival above its stated overarching purposes"
As any business would. Perhaps it is my cynical nature, but organized religion is a big business trying to survive in a time when their key demographic is turning away. Every now and then a local worship group (church, etc.) gets it right and does things for the right reasons. But generally speaking the large denominations and organized religions are a corporation, just like Wal-mart or GE.
I find BCB's comment thought provoking. Why are the people around me the one's in the minority? It seems that the majority (not all) of people around me are those who will willingly tell you that they are the only ones going to heaven.
In the business world, I am still glad to see companies making a positive change even if it is for the wrong reason. Why does the "right reason" matter so much? I am glad to see some of the changes that wal-mart is making in some of it's stores. Be assured it is for financial reasons not because they suddenly feel warm and fuzzy. Are those changes less "good"?
This entire discussion has caused me to look at what I believe. As I said before, at a gut level, I want (even hope) that there is more than one way to heaven. However, I have not been able to completely turn come to that point that I can say that is my belief (at least not yet). Maybe some day I will become resolute in my belief on this point (one way or the other). So perhaps you are not so in the minority as it would seem.
Secondly, my reference to big business was simply meant to respond to BCB that organized religion cares only about preservation because they are a business.
Obviously right results can happen with wrong reasons in the business world. At the end of the day in the business world, only the end result matters (barring illegalities and the like). The big difference however between business and religion is that the church is dealing with people on a level that business is not (spiritual). The church should be showing love and respect to people, businesses don't have to do that. At the end, business can get it right for the wrong reasons. However, a church can't because it will be ultimately be viewed as disingenuous or fake, and will cause more harm than good.
Post a Comment