Ross Douthat: "Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-19/ross-douthat-bad-religion-how-we-became-nation-heretics
In the years following World War II, traditional religious institutions flourished: more than half of all Americans attended weekly church services, and 70 percent were formally affiliated. Religion dominated public discourse and helped propel the civil rights movement. But the culture wars of the 1960s triggered a downward spiral for mainstream Christianity that has continued to the present day. In a new book, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat argues that this loss of a traditional, Christian center is at the heart of America’s current crisis. He says we’ve become a nation of heretics and explains what that means for our future.
Guests
Ross Douthat
Op-Ed columnist, The New York Times.
Related Items
Program Highlights
Polls consistently show that large majorities of Americans classify themselves as religious, but the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990. In a new book, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat argues this rejection of traditional religion in favor of so-called pray and grow rich churches and spiritual journey-seeking has dire consequences for American society. Douthat's new book is titled "Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics."
More Americans Don't Identify With A Specific Religion
Douthat said that the social scientist Robert Putnam has called this phenomenon of Americans not identifying with a specific religion "the rise of the nones." Some people see this as a real sign of secularization. "This is a sign that more and more people are just post-religious," Douthat said.
Is Politicization Of Religion A Reason For Alienation?
There's a perception now that "...to be a Christian is to be a Republican, right. Or that to be involved in the Episcopal Church means having endless fights over homosexuality and property disputes and so on," Douthat said. The real challenge for religious people is that it's not enough to say, "Let's get religion out of politics," he said. There has always been and always has to be room in American life for healthy expressions of religion and politics "that challenges making sure that religion influences partisanship rather than partisanship influencing religion," Douthat said, which he believes is a "tricky thing to pull off."
A Failure Of Institutional Religion
Institutional churches must "get their houses in order," Douthat said. That being said, it's too simplistic to point the finger at corrupt clergymen, the corrupt hierarch, and so on, he said. Diane pointed out that going to church won't solve the economic and social problems the U.S. is having right now. Douthat countered that going to church "can provide a useful corrective to the idea that the best way to live out your spiritual life is to sort of match your spirituality to your own impulses," he said.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
So basically Mr. Douthat is telling me to trust the Pope in Rome over my own soul. Do I have this program pretty well summed up?
Moving on . . .
I have read every comment up to the time of this post. Hey, I am not alone! I was raised Orthodox, am loosely one now (basically C&E) and do believe there is something out there greater than we. But what that is I do not know. I do know that many others (online here at least) know as I do that the answer is not hypocritical structures of authority. Mine (Orthodox) has an immense spirituality. If you come to one of our funerals, you know someone is dead. But, as with any organization, there are many other problems. Suggesting that we just go because we should doesn't work in a country where individualism is the basis of its founding. The author may do better to move to a place with a state religion.
Thank you very much, but I'll take contemplation in my backyard anyday over his ideas. I'd rather respect our secular law than the religious tableau each brand of Christianity issues. At least (most of) the laws help us to live together. The church(es) do quite a bit to divide and conquer.
The author has done a lot today to make me think. I'll be a heretic (by his judgement, by the way) anyday - seems a lot of us have listened to the same program and agree, so again, I'm not alone.
Thanks for the program, and thanks to all the posters who are civil and polite. Nothing is better than a disagreement with etiquette and class. If I am going you know where, I guess we'll have a lot to talk about together...
Ms Bowman is simply mistaken. Her blame lays in the wrong place. I invoke the grand musings of Mark Noll of Notre Dame--whom Douthat obliquely referenced this morning--and Pulitzer's Marilynne Robinson. In particular I challenge Ms. Bowman and folks who think like her to read Ms. Robinson's Absence of Mind and her latest When I was a Child I Read.
Douthat was more than worth my listen this morning. I do think however, DRShow would be well served with a followup with Marilynne Robinson to respond to Douthat's rabbit trails, and Stephens and Giberson of the Recent The Anointed.
That would be a swell panel indeed; maybe rounded off with Barnard College's Randall Balmer.
Douthat is partly to blame for coming to his insight too late. If for example he had been awakened by a strong look at what fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention did and how they gave comfort to the worst legacies of the Bush 43 administration; a large portion of his concerns woulda been deflated; and considerably at that
Hi Diane,
In you discussion with Ross Douthat this morning, I was very interested in his comments on the roles of subjective spiritual experience and institutional orthodoxy in religious experience. We put a very large focus on this specific issue in the Religious Society of Friends, a.k.a. the Quakers. In fact, I will assert that we recognized, defined and solved the problems he described over 300 years ago.
The Society of Friends rests on three pillars: Direct personal revelation, validation (or otherwise) of revealed Truth through a community process, and continuity through a well developed body of theology and tradition in the custody of enduring corporate institutions.
The integrity of our institutions is protected from the worst ravages of internal politics by our policy of not maintaining professional Clergy - abuse of authority is difficult in an environment where there are no authority figures. Our scant handful of professional administrators are restricted to implementation of policy directives developed in an egalitarian, consensus based process of self governance.
For more information see quaker.org - and, if you would like to see us in action, the location and schedule of Friends Meetings in your area are just a web search away. You may find it a surprisingly pleasant experience.
Best regards,
Steve Kinney
Clerk of Outreach
Tampa Monthly Meeting, RSOF
PART ONE
Teece Bowman on April 18, 2012 @ 11:33 am wrote: “Archaeology, physics, and molecular biology have shown religious myths to be false and man-made.”
So speaks the “Pope” of Fundamentalist Atheism: Christopher Hitchens.
With all due respect, while it is possible to raise doubt about religious belief, that is all (in most cases) one can do. And doubt is a healthy corrective against both dogma and tyranny. But the “New Atheism” is a form of dogma all its own.
The things Hitchens cites have shown no such thing. Are there inconsistencies in religious texts? Yes. There are also inconsistencies in most witnesses’ statements. Does this “show” that all trials, verdicts, and judgments are false? Of course not. It simply demonstrates the gap between what may actually be true, and what we can merely prove to be true. Religion falls within that gap as well, that’s why it is a matter of faith.
Which is not to say all religious claims are of equal weight. Some of them can be neither proven nor disproven, and therefore remain firmly in the field of faith. (We really can’t know what happened at the Red Sea, or whether a certain tomb turned up empty, and did so because of a miracle or more mundane actions.) But, other religious claims don’t fall into that gap. They can be not merely disputed, but actually refuted, often by the very text being invoked, as well as by the things Hitchens cites.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
The real problem isn’t religion per se but fundamentalist versions of it. (I use the small “f” because there are fundamentalist forms of many faiths, and therefore we must distinguish “Fundamentalism”, which is usually associated just with Christianity.) In particular, the doctrine of Biblical Literalism.
Not only does that doctrine conflict with Science, but it is untenable even on its own terms. The Bible is clearly inconsistent in many places, and there are statements in it that are flat-out wrong. But just as we’ve found much of what Homer wrote is based on fact, there is also support for much (not all) of what is in the Bible. Biblical Literalism cannot accept this fact - another reason that doctrine is wrong. But there is more to religion than that.
Terry Wayne Sch... on April 19, 2012 @ 12:50 am wrote: “We are a secular nation by the authority of the constitution.”
That statement summarizes perfectly your ignorance of both history and the Constitution. Nowhere does it require America be “a secular nation”. It does require separation of church and state, but that’s not the same thing. The whole point was to leave religious belief to the “private sector”, not eliminate it. The Constitution does not require separation of religion and society.
Your claim that religion was “forced onto most Americans” simply isn’t true. In fact, “most Americans” probably approved of the things the government was doing. (That doesn’t make it right, or constitutional, of course.)
You are entitled to your belief, and disbelief, about religion. But kindly grant the same right to everyone else: Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, and people of any other faith - not just those of no faith.
wwlaager on April 19, 2012 @ 9:55 am wrote: “The dissenters and outcasts from Europe who built these colonies 100 years before our founding had strong ideas about religious dissent. The Founders who added religious tests seem unprincipled by comparison.”
First, many of the colonies were founded by people who, while “dissenters”, were quite willing to impose their particular form of religion on others. Exhibit A: the Pilgrims of Plymouth - who imposed their Puritan faith on everyone in the colony, banned Jesuits, hanged Quakers, and forbid the celebration of Christmas (fining people for merely saying “Merry Christmas”).
Sorry, but the idea that everyone came here seeking religious freedom (as we understand it today) is just a comfortable myth. Many of the colonies, later States, had established churches, and discriminated against other denominations. It was largely because of the example of the Federal Constitution, and the work of the people who created and supported it, that these churches were disestablished.
Second, which Founders are you talking about? The people who drafted and ratified the Constitution expressly included a provision banning religious tests. Article 6, Paragraph 3.
I’m sorry, but America’s history, particularly her legal history, is more complex than most people realize.
Brian Sumner on April 19, 2012 @ 11:33 am wrote: “Christianity is on the decline due to the demonstrable absurdity of many Christian doctrines. It is a paternalistic, mysoginistic, homophobic, belief system which cannot square its central mythologies with true scientific discoveries, such as evolution, cosmology, anthropology, etc.”
Wow! Anymore sweeping generalizations you care to “enlighten” us with?
Perhaps how all Jews are greedy and rich, all Irish are drunkards, all Italians members of the Mafia, all Blacks are lazy, all Germans are fascists, all Frenchmen are seducers and great lovers . . . . .
Oh, and how do you reconcile that rant with a few facts like these:
The United Church of Christ is a staunch supporter of gay marriage and gay rights.
At the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of “Intelligent Design”, one of the most eloquent and effective witnesses against it (and advocate for Evolution) was Kenneth R. Miller: Biology professor at Brown University, and practicing Catholic.
Someone’s prejudice is showing.
smsassin on April 19, 2012 @ 11:37 am wrote: “The issue with organized religion is that their goal is to make one feel guilty for being a human being.”
Really? Which “organized religion” would that be?
For example: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, the liberal forms of Christianity (there are some you know)?
Religion is far more than Fundamentalist, conservative, Christianity.
Someone else’s prejudice is showing.
RobertLongView on April 19, 2012 @ 12:05 pm wrote: “What would Jesus do? Founding Father Jefferson -- did not care.”
That’s not quite accurate. Jefferson thought highly of Jesus’ moral precepts (as Jefferson understood them), and considered them superior to all others. However, he did not accept the theology that grew up around Jesus, and thought the supernatural elements were pagan corruptions of Jesus’ teachings. He specifically rejected the belief that Jesus was a god, or ever claimed to be one.
See, Letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush (4/21/1803) - The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Random House 1972) page 567.
However, he most definitely felt these were matters the government should stay out of!
incredulous on April 19, 2012 @ 12:47 pm wrote: “And in the new Testament (which perfects the Old): . . . .”
That, sir, is a matter of Christian opinion, which we Jews respectfully disagree with.
Isn’t it great we live in a country where we can disagree about such things and fear no reprisals!
Ajoyfilledlife on April 19, 2012 @ 2:26 pm wrote: “Religion has done so much harm to us as humans . . . .”
Yeah, it produced great charities like the Red Cross, great works of art like the Gothic Cathedrals, the Sistine Chapel, and the Mozart Requiem. It has inspired acts of incredible self-lessness and sacrifice.
How awful!
Of course, it has also produced the opposite. Small wonder, religions are run by human beings, and we are adept at screwing things up.
The only cure I know of is a virtue much praised, but seldom practiced: Humility. No wars were ever started, no persecutions ever launched, by people who seriously considered the possibility they might be wrong.
PART ONE
TFB550 on April 19, 2012 @ 3:21 pm wrote: “Not to mention that Douthat seems to be forgetting that the Old Testament is the fundamental foundation of his beliefs, and we can go on and on about the kind of morality that it represents. God kills almost every living thing on the planet because he's not happy with the way people are acting? Some great moral teachings there...”
The problem is not with either book, but with people’s use of them. If you regard the Holy Scriptures as a precise source of moral instruction, a literally true and inerrant document to be followed mechanically, then your criticism is just.
But if you regard it for what it truly is, a cultural product created over centuries, then there are moral lessons to be learned.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
In the Eurythro Socrates asks what I consider to be the fundamental moral question: Is the good only good because the gods love it, or do they love the good because it is good? The point is that good and evil are not merely the subjective expression of divine pleasure, but can have an objective reality in themselves.
Well, Jewish scripture deals with the same question, and reaches a similar conclusion. When Sodom and Gomorrah are about to be destroyed, Abraham asks: “Shall not the judge of all the world do justly.” (Complaining about the idea of destroying the innocent along with the guilty.) The answer he receives (the cities will be spared if only ten good people can be found there) indicates the answer is the same as Socrates’. Yes, the judge of all the world must do justly, because justice has an independent existence.
Of course, then along comes the Book of Job and points out that the world doesn’t necessarily work that way, and the innocent sometimes suffer unjustly.
The point? You can’t evaluate this question without considering both stories. Neither can you evaluate the Bible without considering its different parts as part of a centuries long debate about all this.
(Which is another reason Biblical Literalism is wrong.)
Let me add that while I found Mr. Douthat's views interesting, and I'm going to read his book, I don't agree with everything he said. Indeed, I think much of it was way off the mark.
For example, you really can't compare Martin Luther King's use of religion in politics with that of the Falwell's, Robertson's, or Dobson's. King invoked general principles of morality and religion (even while quoting Biblical texts). Views that can be found in many faiths, and in secular writings too. The others invoke a narrow, highly sectarian, point of view.
It's one thing to say, as Lincoln did, that we should follow "the angels of our better nature", it's something else to say we must believe in the right faith - or else!
Teece Bowman on April 18, 2012 @ 11:33 am wrote: “Archaeology, physics, and molecular biology have shown religious myths to be false and man-made.”Teece--is that your quote? If so, it is obvious that you (or whoever said it) have not studied the Bible or else you would see there is indeed internal consistency and that the Bible has far more external evidence to validate it's content historically than the evolution of man from ape. In fact, the precepts in the Bible have stood true over the span of time, whereas science has not. Remember when bleeding sick people was a good idea? Not that science is invalid and unimportant but there is nothing in science that proves there is no God. In fact, it is really just the opposite, I believe Albert Einstein said that very fact that our universe follows laws supports evidence of a divine creator. He was a smart dude, yes?
libertarians r us wrote:
Heretic
A person believing in or practicing religious heresy. A person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.
Who cares, generally speaking if you find yourself in a like minded herd on any topic your probably on the wrong path.
Do you believe the sky is blue? Do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent? Would you say that violence is generally a bad thing? Do you believe in right and wrong? I'm guessing most people are generally of one mind when it comes to answering those questions. Plus, guessing by your user name, you are in a herd yourself. It just happens to be one you agree with.
Um, RBShea, did you listen to the interview? Maybe you should go onto amazon and read the intro to his book because that is exactly what he writing against.
Mike Sergeant- Bravo!!!
ppaulito wrote:
The argument was made that a structure must be utilized against which to weigh thoughts of meditation to insure that thoughts are "spiritual" or "appropriate" and not just the ego. How do you insure that that structure being used as the ruler or canon is not steeped in ego itself. How do you insure that the your interpretation of the structure or established religion/belief system is not steeped in ego. The whole point of meditation is to go past ego anyways is it not. To me the original point is ostensibly a mask for a new type of fundamentalism.
Because PPaulito-- A religion where Christ, Son of God, dies for the sins of mankind hardly speaks to ego. Dying on a cross really isn't something one does for ego. The bible, a book in which many of the writers are portrayed negatively, does not promote ego. Do people misuse the word of God to promote their own ego? Yes, and I believe that is what the Douthat is getting at. That is why bad religion is so costly, people cannot understand the difference between what someone like Joel Olsteen preaches and what the bible actually says. That is why there is a need for bible churches that strive to create a learning environment that does not water down God's word is so vitally important.
Sharah- I used to think exactly like you. And even though I am now a believer, I am still driven nuts by people who call themselves Christian but, for example, don't seem to think there is anything wrong with having sex outside of marriage. Not all Christians are like what you described, we are all far from perfect but it explicitly says in Romans that those of use who have accepted Christ and are now forgiven of sins are by no means to use that as an excuse to go on sinning: Romans 6 1-3So what do we do? Keep on sinning so God can keep on forgiving? I should hope not! If we've left the country where sin is sovereign, how can we still live in our old house there? Or didn't you realize we packed up and left there for good? That is what happened in baptism. When we went under the water, we left the old country of sin behind; when we came up out of the water, we entered into the new country of grace—a new life in a new land!
That is why there is a need for strong churches that preach the word of God accurately, and delve into hard to answer questions. I would recommend downloading Scottsdale Bible's podcasts on itunes.
Religion is nothing but politics with deities, priests, clerics and etc. whose jobs are to control the people. SOULS are We with human physical bodies and spiritual bodies. Soul is sent down to earthly bodies to learn much like a child is sent to school to learn. Soul reincarnates until it meets the Mahanta on the physical or spiritual plane and starts it path back to GOD. This is what Jesus experienced the last time he was on the earth plane over 2k years ago. This is the purpose of the physical world and the lower spiritual planes. Life is a SOUL's Experience.
To know the real truth of SOUL's purpose google ECKANKAR.
"Because PPaulito-- A religion where Christ, Son of God, dies for the sins of mankind hardly speaks to ego. Dying on a cross really isn't something one does for ego. "
The mystical definition of ego is not being selfish, although that is a characteristic of ego. Rather, ego is the continual process of defining yourself objectively. That is precisely why the idea of a measuring stick religion (i.e., dogma) in order to limit exposure to self-delusion and egotism is precisely backward, because in fact using a measuring stick IS the very thing that creates ego. But organized religion has a long history of saying one thing in order to, in effect, implement its opposite.
The original sin was not selfishness, the original sin was the knowledge of good and evil.
I am always amazed that in discussion of Christianity in America, the Eastern Orthodox Christians are never mentioned - like they don't exist. I belong to a Russian Orthodox Church and our congregation has tripled in size in the last five years. In the last ten years we have had several thousand converts. Many of these converts are Americans, not Russians, by the way! From my research, many other Eastern Orthodox churches - Greek, Ethiopian, Armenian, Ukrainian etc. report an increase in members and converts. I think the reason for this is that the Eastern Orthodox rite church stays out of politics, has no scandals and most of all, has not changed in over 1500 years ! Many converts have told me that this last fact - that there have been no substantive changes in theology or in the service - impressed them the most which is why they believe that this version of ancient Christianity is the most authentic.
Ross, your next book should be comparing the blossoming in the Eastern Orthodox churches to the decline of the Catholic and Episcopalian churches in America. The Catholic and Epsicopalian theologies are the closest to the Orthodox church, by the way.
I would like to see Diane have Robin Meyers on the show as an antidote for this one. He is the author of Why the Christian Right is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto for Taking Back Your Faith, Your Flag, Your Future.
I very much like Steve Kinney's comments about Quakers having, down through the centuries, addressed Douthat's problem with an unusual degree of success. I believe that Douthat's use of the word, "heresy," with its hideous baggage of torture and burnings, really does express intolerance, despite his insistence to the contrary. I am wondering how he seems to have missed the obvious reality that the very secular western European nations have, by and large, a far more caring conception of the role of government
than we have. With our insistence on religious "abstinence only" approach to sex education, we produce far higher rates of teen pregnancy and abortion than our western European friends. How has our society, with its Christian heritage, become the most incarcerated nation on earth? How is it that we continue to be the only industrialized democracy that deliberately kills its own citizens, following badly flawed judicial proceeding, without deterring murder among us?. How did we become the society that acts as though we owned the oil in everybody else's soil, and that we should spill oceans of blood to maintain our claim? "By their fruits ye shall know them," Jesus proclaimed. He did not say "By their orthodoxy or institutional membership."
Etaoin Shrdlu:
1) I haven't checked, but I'll grant your assertion that the United Church of Christ supports gay marriage and gay rights. That is a poor counterbalance to the thousands of other Christian churches who are staunchly and overwhelmingly homophobic.
2) Dr. Miller should be applauded for speaking the truth at that trial, but the trial would not have been even held had it not been for the efforts of other, far more numerous, religious practitioners to get their pseudoscience introduced into the school curriculum in the first place.
You state that my 'prejudice is showing'. Wrong. I am not pre-judging. I am judging. Religious believers frequently oppose science and support culture wars regarding gay rights & reproductive health. The two weak examples you offer in no way support your argument to the contrary. For your argument to be convincing, the overwhelming majority of churches would have to change their core doctrines and admit that they were wrong before. That's not going to happen in our lifetime.
If I wasn't driving when listening I would have loved to bring up Joseph Campbell and his work to see what Mr. Douthat made of it. I love Joseph Campbell's description of confusing the metaphor for historical fact--virgen birth, death and resurrection. He says many get focused "on the light bulb and not the Light". It's the Light Ross--not the bulb!
I found this authors opinion stifling. Go back to the origins of western religion and follow it up to this present date, not just from the 1940s. It has always been redefining itself as the individuals of a society grow and change collectively through time, so does the vision of the spiritual self change. I do not think the author understands that knowledge flows back and forth from individuals to institutions over time. The Christianity we have in 2012 is not the Christianity of 412. It has taken sincere and questioning individuals with great faith to penetrate the ramparts of accepted church doctrine and dogma and to bring new and life giving interpretations to the christian belief needed for each time in history. The story of Jesus himself, questioning the authorities of his time is an example. He certainly was considered a heretic of his time by the "authorities". And thank goodness this is happening has we have seen what the authority of the Catholic church has hidden and condoned with the abuse of children.
Perhaps this author ought to take a course in comparative religions to understand that there are universal principles shared in common with the major religions. This world seems to exist by the approbation of a creative power. Who are we to say there is only one path to the top of the mountain? The strong judgement of so many he has expressed is disconcerting. We are fortunate that we may question and grow.