Diana Eck illustrated in “A New Religious America,” our need to expand our perspective of religion and religious life in the attempt to create a more inclusive society. Specifically, in chapter six Eck states that we need to move beyond first impressions and sight when she explains that “visible difference is the issue” (297). The first thing we seem to notice is sight and through sight difference and strangeness becomes readily apparent. It seems that our prejudgments come out when we see someone that looks different from the norm and that is always problematic.
Eck continues the chapter by illustrating how laws have been passed in the attempt to squash these prejudgments and discriminations that ensues from visible and religious difference. For instance, Eck notes that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination. However, the vague definition and the loose interpretation of the law causes hiccups in the process to gain religious equality. Eck indicates that “but just what constitutes ‘reasonable accommodations’ and ‘undue hardship’ is the thorny issue as each [court] case comes forward” (317). I feel that there is a need to have consistent and cohesive decisions when the language is extremely vague and requires constant interpretation. For instance, Eck explains how the courts rejected the claim that a Native American’s daughter obtain an alternative to the traditional social security number because it was felt that “to assign a number to his daughter would ‘rob her of her spirit.’” While that is very refreshing to hear and realistically few people are overjoyed to be assigned a number in place of their individuality, pragmatically it would be impractical for the government to allow this to take place. It seems like a sticky situation because both arguments are persuasive which makes it is hard to interpret and determine what is just and what is religious discrimination.
However, there were some cases that Eck portrayed that both shocked and appalled me as it essentially revealed the extreme ignorance of some people. This is especially evident when Eck repeats the dialogue of a worker at a domino’s pizza restaurant who states, “‘unless you take that stupid thing [head scarf] off you have to leave” (317). This illustrates that there is sometimes a lack of understanding of another religion and religious practice, especially in the workplace. Although there is individual responsibility of understating and education regarding religion, I think that it also has to be the responsibility of the employer to instill some kind of religious appreciation. Both employees and employers need to be held accountable. Ultimately, this example shows how there is a dire need for education on religion.
Throughout chapter six, Eck convincingly painted many pictures and incidents that reaffirmed our need for understanding regarding other religions. However, I disagreed with Eck’s comparison between religious discrimination and racial discrimination. Eck stated that “looking different comes with a price, as America’s Amish and Hutterites can testify and as people of racial minorities in the U.S. have experienced” (299). Although I definitely agree that religious discrimination is unjust and unnecessary, the choice to wear a headscarf (as was Eck’s example of religious discrimination) can be removed and therefore, it is to some small degree, a choice. Whereas race and skin color is not a choice because it cannot be changed or taken off to alleviate prejudice or discrimination. Therefore, while I see Eck’s point that religious discrimination is prevalent and harmful in society I disagreed with her analogy to race. I also found myself asking more question and wanting more explanation during this chapter. For instance, Eck states that “local media responded supportively with outrage, but the tragedy was ignored by state and national media” (312). I wanted to know why religious persecution or discrimination does not receive national media attention?
Overall, I found Eck’s writing to be extremely informative and I agreed with her solution that we need to stop being strangers and begin to see each other as neighbors and friends. This means taking the time to learn and understand religious differences instead of just pegging them as abnormal or strange. Eck concludes by stating that “time and again, stories that begin with incidents of hatred and conflict evolve in time into stories of new neighbors who have, in the course of their conflict, learned much more about one another. Distant images have become people with faces, voices and problems...and neighbors, even those who differ from us, become allies in creating our common society” (332). It seems that once we get to know and understand a person on an individual level, the lack of understanding and prejudicial ignorance flakes off. It made me understand why Eck notes that “the most religiously motivated hate crimes are directed at property rather than people” (301). It shows that individuals resist what they do not understand and what they think religion symbolizes. Instead of putting a face to Islam or Buddhism or Christianity they pull from the abstract and create misinformation that makes “other religions” seem dangerous and unwanted.
Karen Armstrong also reiterated the need for appreciation and reeducation of religion in her speech regarding the Charter for Compassion. What I found most intriguing and enlightening was the fact that Armstrong vehemently pushed the need to display compassion. She noted the benefits of having compassion is that “we dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and we put another person there.” I felt that this quote was important because it is such a simple ideal yet it seems the hardest to achieve. Instead of compassion some interpret the holy texts so that they are only applicable to them and only benefit them. Some people mold and form religion so it fits in their world and meshes with their beliefs. All texts and laws can be to a certain extent twisted and interpreted in order to benefit someone or something. I believed she referred to this as “religious illiteracy.” Ultimately, Armstrong advocated a reclamation of religion as a tool for compassion and empathy and I thought she illustrated a refreshing illustration of the potential of religion
2 comments:
Greetings to you Stacy;
This semester seems to have gotten away from us and we never get to spend the time together that I’d like to. It as if we’ve flirted around the outskirts of each other’s lives for a couple years now. It is odd how that happens, yet profoundly enough I’ve learned a tremendous amount from your over this time frame as your writing is so eloquent and something that I strive to achieve.
In response to your last post I’d like to reflect back for a moment. You write about how Eck states that we need to move beyond our visible differences. As AMCS students we know that this is an ideal but that it will probably never happen in our lifetime. We’ve also discussed that unless you acknowledge someone’s differences you can’t move past them and grow together. So it is quite a conundrum that we find ourselves in.
You discuss how there are some laws in place such as Title VII and the Civil Rights Acts and that you feel that there is room for improvement in these as the language is very vague. I’m in agreement with you and Eck when vague language is in place there should somehow be a standard set. However, if that were the case the Bill of Rights and the loosely woven language that it contains would be a disaster. This was done on purpose and with intent. It is a smart man/woman who can leave room within the law in order to see the bigger picture. Indeed it is a slippery slope.
I found it quite thought-provoking that you voiced you opinion about individuals having a personal responsibility regarding the awareness of another’s personal belief practices. I found the next comment about having employers being responsible for religious appreciation of their employees quite startling. How would that impact our businesses? Possibly that could be a part of diversity training in large corporations but how would that look like for the smaller businesses? What would the cost/benefit be to those in the work force? I tend to disagree with this statement. At some point there needs to be some personal accountability. While it is important for us to watch out for our neighbors, I believe this is just going too far. What or when would the coddling of others ever stop?
In your next paragraph the discussion revolves around religious affiliations vs. race/ethnicity and the discriminations that have transpired regarding both are not necessarily analogous. Here again I understand that one can take off a head scarf whereas they cannot change the color of their skin, but I find that this is another slippery slope. My religious affiliation is just as much a part of me as is the color of my skin, my size etc. I would equate this to my disabilities as well, they are silent disabilities, but nonetheless they too are a part of me and I cannot leave them behind. It is tricky business trying to navigate through this life of ours.
I very much agree with Eck and you that we need to treat each others as neighbors and get past the visible differences. When I meet someone new, that is exactly what I try to do because I ask them a barrage of questions until I can find a way to connect. I think that this is a great gift that I have and I’m very thankful for it. I hope that others can emulate the example that I enact.
Hello Stacy, I seem to be drawn to your blog for responding. Class was weird today, so small. Anyways, I think it is very cool you went to the Sonoma Zen Retreat place, it’s something I have always wanted to try out.
I also agree with you that people need to move beyond visible impressions and move towards a more accepting world. I think we get so comfortable in our ruts and routines that we get startled when we encounter something that is different or foreign to us. The big question is how to reprogram ourselves to avoid making prejudgments, the type that cause so many problems within the world.
It is interesting, how you respond to the issue of the Native American father suing for his daughter to NOT have a Social Security Number. (It’s funny, in contrast, my niece was born at home and a few things have led up to her finally getting a birth certificate, she’s five now, and the government is giving her parents such a hard time as they apply for a SSN.)I, too, felt this was impractical, yet had issues with the religious freedom aspect. I would like every person to be “reasonably accommodated” and allowed to practice spirituality the way they choose (as long as they are not infringing on others), yet sometimes requests are unreasonable. I highly suspect the spirit of his child will be able to flourish once assigned a Social Security Number. It’s not like they tatoo them on our wrists like in Nazi Germany, and in the future her spirit may benefit from retirement funds now that she is required to possess one.
I also found myself shocked at some of the hatred flowing around in Eck’s examples. I can truly say I have never worker somewhere where the environment is so hateful. I experienced a little ethnocentrism towards Mexican-Americans in a previous job, but never like the outright, blatant cases Eck complied in Chapter Six. The yoga exaple really got to me. Have you ever witnessed any amount of racial hatred, or personally experienced it? Once a black woman coworker yelled at me at work on a horrible night something about “you people.” I thought she meant me and the other coworkers, but after relaying the story, most people seemed to think she meant “you white people.” Naively, I just forgot we were “so different” that she might have meant me as a white person, not a coworker.
It was not until I read your blog that I thought about the national media ignoring many of the cases Eck included. In light of todays discussion, maybe the “fear factor” plays a part. Maybe the media is trying to downplay the terror in our backyards, trying to manipulate the concpet that our country is tolerant of one another’s religious freedoms. I don’t know, why they igbore such important stories. I believe the best way to put a stop to this cyclical problem would be to call attention to them. If CNN, or Fox, or whoever did a story bringing to light the hateful, neighborly activities, maybe people around our country would become more vocal and proactive in denouncing them, and domino effect might occur. In the past, media coverage often garners an increase in attention to whatever they focus on. In this case, I think it would be in favor for those who are being discriminated against.
I always enjoy your posts, have a great week, see you next Tuesday.
Post a Comment