Monday, September 29, 2008

More on cultural misappropriation

Steve Caldwell at Liberal Faith Development has more specific examples of cultural misappropriation to discuss, in the form of video clips of "plastic shamans", Native American reactions, and some study questions. This is a major phenomenon; if you go to a national park such as Mesa Verde, you'll quickly find that every third visitor believes themselves to be the reincarnation of Crazy Horse.

Every religion has their version of a "plastic shaman" selling distorted versions of their heritage to the gullible; Judaism has them selling Kabbalah to Hollywood celebrities; Wicca has Silver Ravenwolf, et al; Asian religions have New Age practitioners making such a hash of them that they now rival cheap hotdogs for filler. The seekers who make these people rich are not the problem; they meant to be respectful of those traditions- why else would they pay so much to learn how to do it right? (Or so they thought when they laid out the cash) The problem isn't even the frauds selling made up spirituality- when a vacuum exists, there will always be schlock ready to fill it.

The problem is that vacuum. It has long been noted that there is a god-shaped hole in the human heart that must be filled with something. (Yes, I know that some of you atheists detest that quote, but even if it isn't true of you personally, it's demonstrably true of the vast majority of mankind) Most people have that hole satisfactorily filled before they're even aware of it by the mainstream culture. Even in nations not known to be particularly religious, it's virtually impossible to avoid primer level education in the "acceptable" religions.

But what if none of those float your boat? Your soul is S.O.L.; there is no generally available education in alternative or world religions, in church or in school. (Yes, there is U.U.R.E., but only for children- and UUs are statistically insignificant) Most of those religions, from Wicca to Native Americans to Taoists and more, do not proselytize; there's no Jack Chick handing out tracts for them. The seeker must truly seek- and what will they find first? The ones who do proselytize- the plastic shamans, the fluffy bunnies, the playgans, the one who buy their way to the top of Google lists. The ones who can afford to advertise because of how much they charge; the ones who alter the faith to make it sell better, the ones who, in the final analysis, all worship the same god: Mammon.

So what can we do about it? Actually do, I mean, as opposed to merely adding new language to our principles and Purposes that few UUs- and certainly no one else- will read and understand? I have recommended before that we, as a nation wide program, publicly offer adult R.E. courses. Recognized ministers from well known churches will be trusted over self-taught gurus; good information will drive out bad.

We are uniquely situated to do this. It cannot be done in the public schools; adding more religion there will result in millions of people throwing up their hands, spinning in circles, and going "Eek!" It cannot be done in most mainstream churches; they only recognize a single path to truth. If any church on Earth could feel bringing spirituality to seekers in need, people who are painfully vulnerable to those who would take advantage of them, a calling, it would be us.

We won't do it, of course- we must spend every spare penny on new fax machines for the Washington Advocacy Office. But I can dream.

8 comments:

Jaume de Marcos Andreu said...

A denominational program would not be adequate, because it would be naturally partial, in our case promoting "liberal religion" as the valid, appropriate and fair way of doing religious things. UUs, being liberal, are not immune to partiality. But your plan makes a lot of sense if it is carried out by educated and prepared people such as graduates in Religious Studies. The American Academy of Religion has a complete list.

Joel Monka said...

You make a good point. But someone has to host such a thing; it won't come together on its own.

Steve Caldwell said...

Joel,

The atheist philosophy professor Daniel Dennett has suggested that teaching the facts about world religions in all accredited public and private schools:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0upp0cGHo

Although he doesn't mention it here, he thinks this would reduce the more "toxic" aspects of religion in the world and knowing about other religions would be akin to a "public health" measure.

Some religious leaders have objected to Dennett's suggestion to teach "just the facts" of world religions in schools.

Joel Monka said...

I might well object to having atheists do the teaching, too. It is not possible for a human being to be truly objective about a belief system. (if it possible to be objective about anything outside the lab) I'm afraid that all too often, sneers would be in the voice if not in the text. I've had such treatment from some atheists in debate that Christians- people who believe I'm going to Hell- came to my defense.

A better model may be the military chaplain, who has his own beliefs, but will perform or even teach other faiths for soldiers of those traditions.

Steve Caldwell said...

Joel wrote:
-snip-
"I might well object to having atheists do the teaching, too."

Joel,

Gee -- it sounds like you would want to discriminate on the basis of religious belief without respect to teaching ability.


Joel wrote:
-snip-
"A better model may be the military chaplain, who has his own beliefs, but will perform or even teach other faiths for soldiers of those traditions."

So -- a humanist UU minister, ethical culture minister, or other humanist clergy serving in a chaplain role would be OK here?

If taught as a factual descriptive curriculum that describes the history, creeds, practices, etc of each religion, this could be taught by anybody of any religious persuasion.

By sticking to this curriculum suggestion of just the facts, there would be no "sneers" and no implication that any one faith (or no faith) is somehow superior to the alternatives.

An online example of this is the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance web site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

I'll politely point out that your generalization about atheists reflects an unfair generalization and a prejudice.

Joel Monka said...

Steve, I'm not generalizing about all atheists, but thinking specifically of the one you linked to. If the expressed purpose for teaching the course is not to help seekers find the path they were looking for, but rather to innoculate them against getting any religion at all, I would question his ability to fairly discuss those religions. I have known atheists who describe religion as a mental illness, and wouldn't have wanted them as an RE teacher.

Steve Caldwell said...

Joel wrote:
-snip-
"I'm not generalizing about all atheists, but thinking specifically of the one you linked to."

Joel,

I would say that Daniel Dennett is the "Wilford Brimley" of the modern-day collection of atheist writers.

Unlike Hitchens and Dawkins, he is much less strident and more like a grandfatherly figure.

Of course, my perception is based on reading two of his books and watching video clips online.

Then Joel wrote:
-snip-
"If the expressed purpose for teaching the course is not to help seekers find the path they were looking for, but rather to innoculate them against getting any religion at all, I would question his ability to fairly discuss those religions."

Dennett's suggestion that we learn the basic facts about all religions is motivated by a hope that there will be less religiously-motivated violence if we know something about people of other religions.

It's harder to stir up religiously-motivated hatred against another if you know that the attempted incitement to violence is based in untruths.

And that's why he suggests learning about all religions would have a "preventive" or "public health" aspect to it because it would prevent violence.

His suggestion seems very reasonable and something that many Unitarian Universalists would agree with.

Given the level of religiously-motivated violence in the world, his suggestion makes sense.

Steve Caldwell said...

FYI - Daniel Dennett's suggestion can be read online here:

Teach Our Children Well
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2007/03/teach_our_children_well.html

A UU connection with this is that Dennett teaches at a historically Universalist college (Tufts).