A little background: According to a recent Pew survey, more than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion. 84% of Americans claim a religious affiliation, Christians topping the list and representing 78% of the religious pie, with Protestants gobbling up 51 % of that slice, trailed by Evangelical churches at 26%. The remainder of the slices and slivers are divided up as follows: Other religions 5%, with “Jewish religion” leading the way at 1.7%. Notables in category are Buddhism at 0.7%, and “New-age” at 0.4%. At the bottom of the ledger, the “unaffiliated are tallied, with the “Nothing in particulars” leading the way at 12%, followed by agnostics at 2.4%. Limping home last are the atheists, subsisting on a meager 1.6% slice of their slice of nothing. Pluralism and religion is messy business.
Eboo Patel, in the introduction to his book, Acts of Faith, writes: “Change happens internally before it takes place in the world.” Later in chapter one, Patel quotes James Baldwin: “One can only face in others what one can face in oneself. On this confrontation depends the measure of our wisdom and compassion.” I agree on both counts, if what is meant is that change occurs first within individuals. I am troubled though by a process, or sequence of processes that would allow for this change within. Can this change occur in the person alone, or does it occur, as Mr. Patel believes, in the act of pluralizing religion? Could it, on the other hand, be possible that this change is predicated on a larger complex of interactions, involving personal, behavioral, cultural and social systems (Wilber)?
With change first occurring internally and I so assume within the individual and religion being such a huge part of the American landscape, what role does religion play in affecting this change? Can religion alone, even when grouped and pluralized, put into motion a chain of events who’s outcome is this internal change, or does religion by its nature truncate the type of self-knowledge needed to manifest this change? Sri Aurobindo thinks that, “For the religious devotee it is a grave mistake to try to remake others instead of remaking himself,” and according to social scientist V.M. Rozin, Aurobindo also “has a low opinion of social movements, regarding them as subconscious and obscure” (Rozin, 2008). Where does this leave us?
Mr. Patel thinks that individual change can occur in the incubator of religious pluralism and with that hope in mind he runs an interfaith program, the goal being to get young participants to face, understand and know themselves, so that they can face, understand and know each other. Will this process lead to tolerance and acceptance all they way around? I hope so. While I’m hoping, I hope that this program also results in a tolerance and acceptance that transcends religion, allowing for kind acceptance in the greater world.
References
Patel, E. (2007) Acts of Faith. Beacon Press, Boston, Mass.
Rozin, V.M. (2008) Esoteric Ideas on the Transformation of Man and Society in
Comparison with Utopian and Social Projects.
Statistics on Religion in America Report: Pew Forum on Religion and Public life.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Wilber, K (2007) Integral Spirituality. Integral Books. Boston & London.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tolerance is something that society should strive for. I think the University is one of the best incubators for change regarding our acceptance of the religious views of others. Unfortunately, we cannot change all minds; there will always be ignorance in society. Ignorance can be combated, but not done away with.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article, and I agree tolerance should be something we strive for. We will never get the world to agree, but tolerance could be understood and accepted by many. If change first occurs in oneself, then we do need to teach the abiity to be tolerant to individuals.
ReplyDelete