Last week, Randy Cohen, “The Ethicist” at the New York Times, asked that very question:
Etiquette holds that religion, especially another person’s religion, should be treated with deference or, better still, silence by nonbelievers. Hence the familiar dinner-party injunction: don’t discuss religion or politics. Even at a table full of co-religionists, feelings can run high, and there is a reluctance to combine digestion with discord (particularly where knives are nearby). To the observant, a nonbeliever’s comments on church doctrine can feel less like a discussion of theology than a personal attack.
Yet despite the risk of provoking the ire of believers, we should discuss the actions of religious institutions as we would those of all others—courteously and vigorously. This is a mark of respect, an indication that we take such ideas seriously. To slip on the kid gloves is condescending, akin to the way you would treat children or the frail or cats.
If only Cohen would follow his own advice. Instead of discussing the actions of religious institutions “courteously and vigorously” and taking “such ideas seriously,” however, Cohen suggests something altogether discourteous and unserious: that the Vatican’s recent decision to grant Anglicans a personal ordinariate within the Catholic Church was tantamount to “bigotry.” Later, Cohen complains that more news sources did not “castigate the Vatican’s invitation to misogyny and homophobia.”
But does childishly and dismissively admonishing the Vatican for its supposed appeal to misogynic and homophobic Anglicans really amount to “talking about religion”? I can’t see how it does. I’m supportive of much of what Cohen has to say here. The media do shy away from stories on religion for fear of appearing ignorant. And our society would benefit from more vigorous and substantive discussion of the religious tenets and traditions on which this country was founded.
But it seems to me that instead of wanting to “talk about religion”—instead of investigating and writing about the historical and theological causes and implications of the latest religious headline—what Cohen really wants is the freedom to unfairly and reflexively beat religious institutions he doesn’t agree with or doesn’t understand with the stick closest at hand.
So, yes, let’s talk about religion. But let’s do it in a way that is reflective and thoughtful and doesn’t simply repeat hackneyed and unhelpful stereotypes.
November 6th, 2009 | 9:58 pm
Whenever I hear a priest or nun say that the Church “is not liberal or conservative,” the default position usually is, in fact, liberal. I don’t doubt that Mr. Patrico understands that the media finds belief in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ (just to choose one Christian doctrine at random) inpenetrable without the usual assumptions about power, money, and political ambition. No matter the power ethic even in the Church, the liberal journalist understands anything almost exclusively in terms of oneupmanship; power over the other (i.e. Andrew Sullivan). Anglicans, and former Anglicans such as myself, understand implicitly His Holiness’ sincerity and his appreciation of ours… So with Mr. Cohen and others, there can be no conversation without accomodating female ordination and throwing over the sacrament of marriage. My own cynicism in regard to the above appalls me.
November 7th, 2009 | 8:49 am
Only one Religion exists. The cults changes. And no cult can claim it s the best or unique, excluding the others. All cults are way that lead to God.
If God exists everything is His projection in the earth. It is unthinkable that only one or few religions or better cults have the privilege to reflect the true God. It cannot exist a different God for each religion. God does not change His face according to the religion.
What it matters is the honesty and sincerity in behaviours and deeds.
Those priests who recently have left their former Anglican cult have been honest men and they have followed the voice coming from their heart. Only honesty can lead us to God and the former Anglican priest followed the right way.
The book I have recently written may help in this direction and I want to draw it to your attention, as you may be interested in it. The title is “Travels of the Mind” and it is available at http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/TravelsOfTheMind.html
If you have any questions, I am most willing to offer my views on this topic
Ettore Grillo
November 7th, 2009 | 1:40 pm
Perhaps Cohen has a biannual quota on these topics?
Back in his June 17 column, he wrote to a Catholic seminarian for an all-male religious order (Jesuit?) wondering if his scholarship was discriminatory because women couldn’t have it.
Cohen said:
“What is at issue, as you suggest, is sex discrimination: your order’s refusal to admit women and, more significant, your aspiring to the priesthood, a leadership position in your church, one closed to women. Calling a practice “religious” does not exempt it from ethical scrutiny. You might regard yourself as preparing to be a beneficiary of entrenched workplace discrimination, an ethically troubling position.”
–
It’s easy to assemble from Cohen’s condemnations several “enlightened reasons” for why a traditional Catholic or an Orthodox Jew could never be hired to write the NY Times’ ethics column.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact