Language and religion

Recently I became very interested in language and how we use it to categorize and interpret our experiences. I am not a linguist, but I am a sociologist of religion, and so I'm interested in the relationship between language and socialization, and how these relate to religious beliefs.

I see language as a set of shared tools. Tools that we share with others that help us communicate, reflect, categorize, label, and interpret. It's obvious that language allows us to communicate, but perhaps not as obvious for the other functions I attribute to language here. That's what I want to discuss.

Language is certainly a shared set of tools, but not all the tools are shared with everyone. What I mean is that while the vast majority of Americans, for example, learn English, the kind of English you learn, the vocabulary that you use (your own unique set of tools), largely depend on what region of the country you live in, how well-educated your parents are, what kind of schools you go to, and so forth. I would argue that religion is another important determinant of what linguistic tools you inherit to help you communicate and make sense of the world.

Religion provides meaning. It provides a framework with which one can explain, categorize, and interpret events and experiences. A huge way in which it accomplishes this is through language. Religion provides the language, and the language in turn serves to support and uphold that religion as it finds expression and legitimation through everyday experience. In order for it to happen effectively, however, there needs to be sufficient social support or confirmation. In general, what I'm getting at is how religious socialization works, and I'm arguing that language is a huge part of it.

Let me provide an example. In the Mormon tradition (or perhaps evangelical, too), the language of the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit, shapes how someone would interpret and categorize an experience. According to this logic, positive feelings one experiences while in a worship service, while praying, while doing a good deed, etc. are interpreted as the influence of the Holy Ghost, testifying of the truth or validity of the act or idea in question, and confirming the reality of God and his presence in the lives of his followers. Thus, language provides the tools that one might use to interpret or categorize that experience.

But what about someone with a different set of linguistic tools? What about someone from a completely different religion? What about someone raised in a home with no religion at all? Likely, the interpretation of similar experiences would be drastically different. One with no religion at all might simply say that "It feels good to do good things," or "It feels good to be with like-minded people working together and being together" and so on. Or someone from a different religion may have another completely different explanation.

The same goes for a variety of other supposedly religious phenomena. What if you lack language to describe or explain God, as well as the social support and/or confirmation of that language? How do you interpret experiences then? Presumably, not by attributing them to God.

Language thus contributes to a religious plausibility structure, to borrow a term from Peter Berger. It shapes how one interprets and categorizes experience, and when others use similar language and interpret experiences in the same way, there is a tendency for the plausibility of certain beliefs to be upheld.

A believer might at this point respond by arguing that just because someone doesn't have the language to acknowledge the influence of the Holy Ghost, or God, doesn't mean that that's not what they're feeling. Absolutely true. But, to insist on that seems to me to take a self-centered and narrow view of human experience and the range of possibilities. It is to assume that one's own beliefs are absolutely true and thus must be true for everyone else. It is a level of certainty, of presumption, that I feel no human can or ought to take. It is to forget that one's own religious beliefs are partly a product of one's own time and place (or a particular time and place in history) and that they happen to be dressed in the language that that person happens to speak.

I'm not saying that our experiences and our interpretation of them are completely limited by and restricted to our set of linguistic tools, our language. Obviously, we experience things that words cannot describe or adequately express or categorize. Language fails us then. But we are social creatures, and one of the prices we pay to be in society is to adopt a language. That language then shapes, constrains, and limits how we experience reality and explain things that happen to us. And religion also provides powerful linguistic tools that serve the same purpose.

Unitarian Universalism and religious syncretism

Unitarian Universalism is a great example of a modern syncretic religion. While acknowledging its Christian roots in Unitarianism and Universalism, it now draws upon many religions and religious perspectives (including humanism and atheism). I believe that what drives this syncretism or religious mixing is the belief that there is more than right way to get "there" and that religions represent a particularly culture or people's attempt at reaching for the divine. Unitarian Universalism is unique in that it unabashedly and consciously draws upon multiple religions and religious perspectives.

It seems to me that Unitarian Universalism sort of straddles the line between religion and irreligion, belief and unbelief. It doesn't take religion too seriously. That's obvious in its openness to finding truth and inspiration in a variety of religions and perspectives, including historically non-religious ones like humanism. Yet, it takes religion seriously enough to do just that - to consciously draw on multiple religious traditions and even call itself a religion.

I think that Unitarian Universalism takes some hits for its unique perspective and its unique goals. Religious syncretism is often seen as a sort of insincere, shallow, picking-and-choosing of religious ideas and beliefs. In a recent book I read about interfaith organizations and interfaith marriages, interviewees were often quick to point out that they strive to maintain a strong religious identity and that interfaith efforts don't mean syncretism or mixing. Many of them actually said that they don't want to become something like Unitarian Universalist for precisely that reason.

Then, there's all the jokes about Unitarian Universalists and their supposed lack of beliefs and their religious shallowness. Some of them are quite funny, yet they bug me a little because they carry the assumption that religion has to be strict, exclusive, and narrow. Unitarian Universalism is none of those.

Certainly, it's no accident that perhaps most UUs don't believe in a very personal God that is intimately involved with human affairs. Many don't even believe in God at all. I think that belief in a personal, involved God would certainly be difficult to reconcile with Unitarian Universalism's brand of religious syncretism. Generally, the more personal, the more strict, the more old-guy-with-a-white-beard a view of God is, the less compatible it will be with a syncretic approach to religion that asserts that there is truth in all paths, and that it is our responsibility (or our opportunity) to pick out the good and the true from each of them. A syncretic approach to religion seems to suggest that none of the paths are absolutely correct, and that there is a great degree of uncertainty in human attempts at religion.

I am Unitarian Universalist because I have a deep respect and appreciation for religion, but find it extremely unlikely that any one religious tradition has everything (including absolute truth). I am a religious humanist (or perhaps a humanistic religious naturalist after reading Reason and Reverence). I find religion and spirituality valuable for their ability to inspire, comfort, unite, and motivate. Yet I find it troublesome when it ignores reason, when it discriminates, when it teaches to hate, or when it leads people to hold absolutist or exclusive beliefs.

Bill O'Reilly: the "nausea factor"

I happened across the Fox News website tonight while looking up information about John Popper, the lead singer of Blues Traveler and a harmonica virtuoso. I don't watch a lot of news TV or political talk show stuff. I get my news from internet sources, and read the New York Times occasionally (though, I did subscribe to The Nation this week). From the little I'd personally seen of Fox News and from what I'd heard about it, it tends to have a conservative bent. I'd seen Bill O'Reilly a bit, but hadn't really paid much attention to him.

Anyway, on the side of the page with the article about John Popper, I noticed a little video of O'Reilly talking about "America Bashing." Curious, I clicked on it and watched the 5 or so minute long video. It was of O'Reilly talking with a woman, presumably some Fox News media or entertainment specialist or reporter or something. O'Reilly began absolutely railing on a couple mainstream American movies that he thought were "anti-American propaganda." I don't remember the names of the films. Apparently one was about a TRUE STORY of American soldiers raping an Iraqi woman. I don't remember the other. Anyway, while grudgingly acknowledging the accuracy of the films, he severely questioned the need to show such "America bashing" while we are "at war." He said it lowers morale and fuels anti-Americanism around the world. He also pointed out that Roosevelt routinely censored films during the war to make sure they were pro-American (is that true?). He then asked the woman what she thought of the films, and when she cautiously and politely insisted that they are not "anti-American propaganda" and that freedom of speech and dissent are important to democracy, he actually got pretty upset and defensive and kind of attacked her a bit. It was really disturbing to watch.

A bit later I found another short video of his show the "O-Reilly Factor" or whatever it's called. He was talking about a recent article in the New York Times written by a "radical left" journalist. The article was critical of the war and critical of a general's reports of how things are going on the ground. O'Reilly got pretty worked up about it. Over the next few minutes, he must have said the words "secular-progressive," "radical liberal," radical left," "progressive agenda," and other loaded terms like ten times each. On the side of the screen, there was this running summary of what he was saying. It was written at like an 8th-grade level, just in case you couldn't understand what he was saying, I guess, and to really drive his point home. In the end, he concluded that liberals don't care about our country, just about using the war to further their agenda. Dissent is dangerous because it fuels anti-American sentiment around the world, and actually puts our troops at risk. It was both amusing and disturbing to watch.

So, I guess this was my first exposure to the "nausea factor," which I think I'll call his show from now on. How popular is this guy? Wow. I was actually left really concerned after watching his show. Do people buy all this stuff? How many people does he influence?

I'm concerned because he works on fear. He creates enemies in his viewers minds. He vilifies anyone and anything that he doesn't agree with. He sees dissent and criticism as undermining stability and security. He paints a picture of this dangerous, "secular-progressive," radical wing of the political sphere that would open up the border to anyone, establish a huge "government machine," give out free handouts, and undermine traditional morals and values. He is painting them as the big, bad guys to be afraid of, as well as anyone that's not American. It's kind of scary, actually.

A bit later I found an article about a scholarly paper examining the content of O'Reilly's show and testing his claim of a "no-spin zone." The results? Not so good for Bill. The study found that O'Reilly routinely paints an oversimplified view of a battle of good versus evil and uses very little evidence to back up his claims. He frequently portrays specific groups as victims or enemies (you can probably guess who). The study actually sounds really interesting and revealing and I think I'll try to track down the real thing.

To be honest, I think I'd be equally concerned with a liberal TV personality that painted an equally oversimplified and ridiculous view of reality (though, I'd probably enjoy it a little bit).

Fundamentalist: the other f-word

I have a concern. Yes, it's about the f-word. No, not that f-word - the other one. Fundamentalist. It's a word that is so loaded with meaning, so loaded with spite, with disdain, that it's kind of taken on a life of it's own. It gets tossed around more than it ought to. I hear liberals use it, and, yes, Unitarian Universalists, quite freely and generously. Yet, I sense that it sort of has been turned into an f-word. I'm also concerned that people that use it often don't really even know what it means. It often gets used to refer to anyone that's even remotely conservative and Christian. It represents some vague, undefined group of close-minded, conservative, intolerant Christians that hope to force their values and beliefs on the rest of the general population and break down the separation between church and state. They are a symbolic enemy of liberals, and particularly the liberal religious.

But this concerns me. It shows a real lack of understanding of what Protestant fundamentalism actually is, how many there really are, and what they believe and hope to accomplish. It is often uttered with great disdain. It is indeed intolerant to talk about this vague, undefined group of religious enemies.

Don't get me wrong. Yes, I'm pretty liberal. Yes, I'm agnostic. Yes, I'm concerned about the so-called Religious Right. But I like to know who I'm talking about. I like to be fair and accurate.

A fairly recent article in a major sociological journal said the following about fundamentalist Protestants:

Currently, “fundamentalism” properly refers to a small subset of conservative Protestants (although it is often misused to refer to all conservative Protestants). Fundamentalists emphasize a strict literal interpretation of the Bible, dispensational theology, premillennial eschatology, and institutional separation from “apostasy” (i.e., liberal Protestants and Catholics) Although fundamentalists have some loose national associations, such as Jerry Falwell’'s Baptist Bible Fellowship, power remains predominantly with individual pastors.

My understanding is also that fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. have historically been somewhat apolitical. They've tended to favor separation from society in general. When people think of politically active conservative Protestants, they're most likely thinking about evangelical Protestants. And as the above quote indicates, fundamentalists tend to not be centrally organized or have a national or political presence.

Here's what I'm asking for. That people not use this f-word so flippantly, so disdainfully. Be sure about who you're talking about and why. Don't use this term to just refer to anybody who happens to be religious and conservative and with whom you disagree.