A friend pointed me to a great article by Boston University prof Stephen Prothero on why religions are not all really the same when you get down to it. And why it’s dangerous to say otherwise.
I’ll leave to Prothero the argument as to why this soft sort of inclusivism—a “religions are really all the same” doctrine—is dangerous. I don’t know if it’s dangerous or not, but I do know that it’s rude.
Think about it. Who does UU inclusivism put in power? Why, UU inclusivists, of course! They’re the lucky religious liberals who are smart enough to figure out that all the world’s religions aren’t really about what they say they’re about—they’re about what smart lucky religious liberals are about: tolerance and abstract democratic ideals. Dumb religious particularists! If only they were smarter, they’d be UUs!
Not that religions don’t have stuff in common, as Prothero points out. Religion scholar Karen Armstrong—who Prothero skewers—does a great job pointing out the commonalities: a personal sense of connection to a greater transcendent reality and the need for practical acts of compassion. But folks, that’s pretty abstract stuff, and most religious people aren’t about abstraction. They’re about concrete rituals, beliefs, stories, and, yes, even hierarchical power structures that sometimes abuse people.
No, that’s not pretty, but we don’t get to pretend other people’s religions are what we wish they would be. And we don’t get to tell people of other religions that their religions aren’t really about what they think they’re about, but what we’re about instead. Go ahead, be inspired by this and that piece of this and that religion, but don’t consign the vast majority of real religious practices and beliefs—practices and beliefs which give people meaning, direction and purpose in life, even if they don’t work for you—to the dust bin of history just so you can have a warm liberal moment.
Because that’s what you’re doing when you say they’re all really UUs, if only they would wise up to the fact.
Put it this way: How do you feel when Christian inclusivists say that you’re really just an “anonymous Christian” who would be better off if you would only soften your heart and be humble and acknowledge all the myriad ways Jesus Christ is working in your life every day? If only you would be more Christian, you would be more Christian!
Or if you’re too liberal to be bothered by that, how would you feel about being thought an “anonymous Scientologist?”
I’m not quite sure how you view “a personal sense of connection to a greater transcendent reality and the need for practical acts of compassion” as being “pretty abstract stuff.”
Practical acts of compassion are abstract? Ditto a personal sense of connection? Rituals and statements of belief are one or two steps removed from direct experience and seem to me to be greater abstractions than simple acts of compassion and a personal experience of the transcendent.
The criticism about trivializing differences is certainly valid (and you’re right to call people out on it), but trivializing the commonalities seems equally flawed.
And who knows? Maybe someday I will discover that I really am an anonymous Scientologist.
Doing a mitzvah, paying a tithe, and giving a zakat, to cite just three examples, are not abstract, and all are framed specifically by practitioners’ religions. “Practical acts of compassion” is helpful in pointing out a commonality, but it papers over the specificity of what actual practitioners understand themselves to be doing.
And, actually, most religious people understand themselves to be experiencing that transcendence precisely because of specific rituals and techniques proscribed by their religions, many of which take years to master. Most religious people throughout history disagree with you.
Yes, I do recognize that many ritual observances connect people to each other and to the transcendent (another commonality among many religions!). But it seems to me that the specific examples that you cite serve to demonstrate the very commonalities that you seem eager to ignore or trivialize.
I have no desire to ignore, disprespect, misrepresent or trivialize anyone’s rituals. But I also recognize the importance of noticing commonalities.
I really do get your point about not glossing over differences. But do you not see any value whatsoever in thinking about important commonalities?
It’s not at all clear to me that “most religious people throughout history” disagree with me, but if they do, then that is yet another thing they have in common!
I think Karen Armstrong is right about what religions have in common. The problem comes when we reduce religions to what they have in common and say they’re only that. I’ve seen a lot of UUs do that over the years.
Thanks for clarifying. Except for a few memorable instances, I guess I just haven’t seen many UUs doing what you describe. If I saw it happenng a lot, I’d probably react as you do.
[...] liberals are about: tolerance and abstract democratic ideals. Dumb religious particularists! If only they were smarter, they’d be UUs! (“Making Chutney,” April [...]
I think Karen Armstrong is right about what religions have in common. The problem comes when we reduce religions to what they have in common and say they’re only that. I’ve seen a lot of UUs do that over the years.