Thanks to Jackie Scully for her contribution to this discussion.
While I agree (of course) that secular and religious roles and even norm overlap and, in most cases are congruent with each other, that is not now nor has it ever been what I have been trying to say. Where we agree or where we see things more or less the same way is not the issue or the problem. What is the problem (in my view) is the privileging of one (e.g., post-modern secular) way of thinking and judging what is right and wrong over that of another, mostly (nowadays in the West at least) minority, explicitly religious ritual, belief or activity that conflicts with the privileged secular "law."
There has been a common phrase in some postmodern thinking: "Subvert the dominant paradigm." This means what I think was meant in the 1960s when the chant was: "Question authority." Speaking as an academic (and a US one at that), it seems to me that those who loudest questioned authority in the 1960s, and their students, are the ones also loudly shouting down those who now don't agree with the way they see the world. They have BECOME the "dominant paradigm" in some quarters and don't feel at all comfortable with being questioned in their authority.
One example of how (I think) this operates is the (generally, but not always) non-religious person who castigates a political figure for not behaving in terms of his or her religion the way the critic thinks the political figure ought to behave. In short, the post that started this which (in essence) asked how Bush and Blair could call themselves Christian but go to war anyhow. In my view, simply asking this question in this way sends the message that the questioner has already made up his or her mind; there is no expectation of getting a response that outlines (say) the Christian doctrine of a just war, or the Muslim notion of jihad, as commonly understood, for example. The intent is to ridicule, dehumanize and in general sweep away as justifiable, those beliefs that one thinks are ridiculous, and so on.
I don't let anyone (including myself) off the hook: many of us behave this way for a variety of reasons. However, if we really, really, truly believe in the value of "diversity," how can we continue to behave this way?
Tim L.
Timothy Lillie, PhD
Dept. of Curricular & Instructional Studies
The University of Akron
Akron OH 44325-4205
330-972-6746 (Voice)
330-972-5209 (Fax)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jackie.scully [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 6:53 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DISABILITY-RESEARCH Digest - 12 Dec 2002 to 13 Dec 2002
> (#2002-175)
>
>
> Madeleine wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I know the discussion has moved on and this thread has gone
> way off beam...
> > but I've been thinking about the last comments made by Timothy
> > (see below) and I'm having real trouble holding my nose.
> >
> > I understand what is being suggested about secular norms
> and religious
> > contexts, but still remain unsure it is so clear cut. In
> the example
> > below there appears no room within faith communities for
> theological argument
> > about how religious doctrines are interpreted by people and
> > used to inform practice.
> >
> > The issue of power and who has access to contribute to any
> such theological
> > arguments aside, I would suggest that often discriminatory
> > practice (about roles of women, disabled people etc.,) that
> are woven into
> > religious practice have in fact been influenced by secular norms
> > in the first place and then reinforced by tradition.
> >
>
>
> This raises the question of what religions are there *for*
> (and i'm a very
> practising member of one faith community, so I'm not posing
> this question
> flippantly). If we believe they are to express the spiritual
> awareness of a
> community, then I don't see how secular norms and religious
> norms can be
> separated. They involve the same (or overlapping) groups of
> people, who
> carry their implicit understandings about norms, nature,
> ideals etc as they
> move around from supposedly secular to supposedly religious contexts.
>
> In my interfaith work I notice that the most tense divide is
> not between
> christians, moslems, jews etc, but between those who allow
> that culture
> determined what went into the original sacred writings (and
> therefore that
> the faith community is actually keeping to tradition if it
> struggles to
> interpret the faith for the present day).....and those who
> don't. It raises
> a lot of issues about power, especially how a liberal agenda
> can deliver the
> same weight of authority as a fundamentalist one (the
> statement "Well, it's
> complicated" never has quite the same force as "Because the
> Bible says so".)
>
> Just a couple of thoughts.
>
>
> --
> Dr Jackie Leach Scully
> Arbeitsstelle für Ethik in den Biowissenschaften
> Institut für Geschichte und Epistemologie der Medizin
> Universität Basel
> Schönbeinstrasse 20
> 4056 Basel, Switzerland
> www.unibas.ch/ifgem
>
> Tel/Fax: +41 61 332 15 19
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|