So I just finished watching the first forty minutes of a 2010 debate between former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and renowned writer and journalist Christopher Hitchens. I have been giving in to persuasion recently that I really don't know enough about various atheist positions to really understand their viewpoints very well. It's a heated issue, but the highly viewed debate (it's more than two hours long and still has almost 250,000 views) was very well organized. The topic, "Is religion a force for good in the world?", is the central question that many individuals argue very passionately about. I say individuals because it is probably true that most people don't go around thinking about the question all day. Nevertheless, in the United Kingdom especially, the debate about religion among thinking people is especially strong. It was interesting to notice the makeup of the crowd in the audience. The debate was held in Toronto, Canada, and 57% of audience members actually disagreed with the premise of the debate. That's interesting given only about seventeen percent of Canadians consider themselves of no religion, according to the 2001 census. That the crowd generally agreed with Christopher Hitchens arguments was abundantly clear in the amount of cheering and applause that he received. Listening to Christopher Hitchens speak, I got the feeling that many who agree with or sympathize with atheist or agnostic positions are pragmatists. They don't fancy themselves people who oppose being good or promoting effective change in society. It seemed, however, that Hitchens was convinced of the role that government has in intervening in society in positive ways. In contrast, Tony Blair praised the work of many thousands of religious based organizations for their charitable work and involvement in countries around the world. Blair made the point that many who are religious are extremely motivated by their faith to give, and that that motivation stemming from their religious beliefs is crucial evidence that religion is a positive force in the world. At the same time, Hitchens makes the point that some of the most violent (if not the most violent) regions of the world are continually in conflict because of conflicts based on religious grounds. He points especially to the conflict in Palestine and the Middle East to support this statement.
In all, I would estimate that most people agree that religious teachings motivate many people to do good things. I would also suppose that a majority or at least a plurality of organizations that exist in the world whose sole purpose is to promote the welfare of other people have some sort of religious foundation. I would love to see the actual statistic for that actually. On the other hand, as Hitchens said, I would say that almost everyone would agree with the statement that people know what is right and wrong without religion having to tell them. I would really like know how publicized statements critical of religion are in the United Kingdom. If statements critical of religion and religious belief are common in the public conversations in the United Kingdom, could it be that the entire nation has shifted away from religious affiliation as a result? In Britain, as perhaps in any country, the tradition has always been to follow the lead of the elite. Are they but following the elite opinion away from religion today?
Showing posts with label Pro Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pro Religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Journal Entry #21 - 2/29/12
There are a few points I want to make today about my biases that, looking back, I should have made a long time ago. It's something I want to address today primarily because I think I need to be reminded of it. To be sure, I've never been very good at hiding how I feel, and this blog is as opinionated, perhaps, as a blog could be. That being said, I can remember various moments in the last year, let alone during my life, when my opinions have been utterly shut down by someone who knows a lot more about what I'm talking about than I do. Expressing what I feel recklessly often results in putting my foot in my mouth over and over again. As a general rule, one should be careful about expressing strong opinions about things you know little about. You can speak with greater authority about things you understand well, but even then one must be careful to be evenhanded and acknowledge other opinions. On a side note, I have to say that I'm pretty jelly-legged when it comes to people proving me wrong, and am usually very willing to change my opinion when I consider opposing arguments. I care more about defending what is actually true than sticking with my original thought. However, that willingness to adapt to opposing evidence is no excuse for sloppy thinking. It should be expected that you consider both sides of an issue before you open your big mouth.
So, for what really might be the first time, I would like to take a moment to argue the side of those who feel negatively about religion. Now, I tend to be pretty bold about what I write down here in my journal entries. But I've been pretty open about saying it how it is from the point of view of a defender of religion and christianity, so I hope my comments from the other side of the debate can be understood in that rather honest light.
I remember when I was taking AP US Government and Politics my Junior year of high school. I took the class from what you could call a rather biased teacher - a political and religious skeptic that clearly positioned left of center. Although he was clearly opinionated, he was always open and respectful of other opinions. Okay, he was generally open and respectful of other opinions. He showed us a documentary in class called "Jesus Camp" about evangelical Christians in America. The documentary was clearly biased against evangelicals, but the footage was taken from actual religious meetings and activities with youth who participated in a week-long camp run by their church. There was some memorable footage of people speaking in tongues during meetings, declaring the absolute perfection of the Bible, and one scene where individuals prayed for George W. Bush in front of a cardboard cutout of the then-current president. Our teacher talked about how the evangelicals were radical, and how many individuals in the country felt very negatively about them. Well, for me, I could understand how many people could see that footage and feel very negatively about all religious groups. Nevertheless, it was clear that the events recorded on the documentary were fringe groups - not exactly the mainstream. Likewise, a lot of the sources that I've been finding expressing atheist viewpoints can be considered fringe groups. While these groups may have a considerable following, they still represent the views of a minority in the country. Not all atheists are offended when they see a religious symbol, and not all evangelical christians would look favorably on praying in front of a cardboard cutout of President Bush. I expect that almost all atheists and almost all evangelicals are normal, decent, non radical people.
Moreover, great enthusiasm for religion that turns to bigotry is harmful to society. While I was in Brasil, one of the fellow companionships in our house was teaching a sixteen year old who had just gotten baptized in the LDS church. He had never really participated in religion before, but the week after he entered the LDS church, he was asked to accompany his younger sister to a youth retreat sponsored by a local christian church over the weekend. According to what the other missionaries told me, while this he was there, he was shocked to be given a form asking him to check in what church he had been baptized previously. Those who had been baptized in other churches were asked later to stand up and publicly denounce the validity of their previous baptisms or religious affiliations and declare that the church sponsoring the event was the only true church. He refused, and received considerable criticism for it. The other missionaries told us that he was very emotionally traumatized by the event. Again, this church was not exactly the mainstream, but it still boasted considerable popularity in the area. Actions like these by churches, whether they are christian or not, are extremely offensive to many people, and I would imagine that most people would agree that having no religion would be better than being a member of a religion that promotes unity through peer pressure or teaches faith by excluding others.
Lastly, religious scandals in the last few decades of church leaders involving sexual abuse and financial mismanagement have not helped the image of religious institutions. In the New Testament, Jesus openly condemned the Pharisees in Jerusalem, the most openly religious individuals in Jewish society at the time. Those who were non religious and considered sinners, such as the publicans and harlots, were declared to more easily enter the kingdom of heaven than the hypocritical Pharisees, who taught one thing and did another (Matthew 21)
Clearly, there is no such thing as drawing a line between religious people and bad people. However, if it is reasonable to conclude that being religious generally infers commitment to moral values, and moral values correlate with better outcomes for society, religiosity in a society can be very good. But maybe some still disagree. Maybe people in the United Kingdom would say the opposite. Maybe the case made by atheists is justified. And even if it's not completely justified, it is a rational argument that should be addressed fairly. Otherwise my research won't be worth anything. You can't measure probability using a two-headed quarter. Or, should I say fifty pence crown?
So, for what really might be the first time, I would like to take a moment to argue the side of those who feel negatively about religion. Now, I tend to be pretty bold about what I write down here in my journal entries. But I've been pretty open about saying it how it is from the point of view of a defender of religion and christianity, so I hope my comments from the other side of the debate can be understood in that rather honest light.
I remember when I was taking AP US Government and Politics my Junior year of high school. I took the class from what you could call a rather biased teacher - a political and religious skeptic that clearly positioned left of center. Although he was clearly opinionated, he was always open and respectful of other opinions. Okay, he was generally open and respectful of other opinions. He showed us a documentary in class called "Jesus Camp" about evangelical Christians in America. The documentary was clearly biased against evangelicals, but the footage was taken from actual religious meetings and activities with youth who participated in a week-long camp run by their church. There was some memorable footage of people speaking in tongues during meetings, declaring the absolute perfection of the Bible, and one scene where individuals prayed for George W. Bush in front of a cardboard cutout of the then-current president. Our teacher talked about how the evangelicals were radical, and how many individuals in the country felt very negatively about them. Well, for me, I could understand how many people could see that footage and feel very negatively about all religious groups. Nevertheless, it was clear that the events recorded on the documentary were fringe groups - not exactly the mainstream. Likewise, a lot of the sources that I've been finding expressing atheist viewpoints can be considered fringe groups. While these groups may have a considerable following, they still represent the views of a minority in the country. Not all atheists are offended when they see a religious symbol, and not all evangelical christians would look favorably on praying in front of a cardboard cutout of President Bush. I expect that almost all atheists and almost all evangelicals are normal, decent, non radical people.
Moreover, great enthusiasm for religion that turns to bigotry is harmful to society. While I was in Brasil, one of the fellow companionships in our house was teaching a sixteen year old who had just gotten baptized in the LDS church. He had never really participated in religion before, but the week after he entered the LDS church, he was asked to accompany his younger sister to a youth retreat sponsored by a local christian church over the weekend. According to what the other missionaries told me, while this he was there, he was shocked to be given a form asking him to check in what church he had been baptized previously. Those who had been baptized in other churches were asked later to stand up and publicly denounce the validity of their previous baptisms or religious affiliations and declare that the church sponsoring the event was the only true church. He refused, and received considerable criticism for it. The other missionaries told us that he was very emotionally traumatized by the event. Again, this church was not exactly the mainstream, but it still boasted considerable popularity in the area. Actions like these by churches, whether they are christian or not, are extremely offensive to many people, and I would imagine that most people would agree that having no religion would be better than being a member of a religion that promotes unity through peer pressure or teaches faith by excluding others.
Lastly, religious scandals in the last few decades of church leaders involving sexual abuse and financial mismanagement have not helped the image of religious institutions. In the New Testament, Jesus openly condemned the Pharisees in Jerusalem, the most openly religious individuals in Jewish society at the time. Those who were non religious and considered sinners, such as the publicans and harlots, were declared to more easily enter the kingdom of heaven than the hypocritical Pharisees, who taught one thing and did another (Matthew 21)
Clearly, there is no such thing as drawing a line between religious people and bad people. However, if it is reasonable to conclude that being religious generally infers commitment to moral values, and moral values correlate with better outcomes for society, religiosity in a society can be very good. But maybe some still disagree. Maybe people in the United Kingdom would say the opposite. Maybe the case made by atheists is justified. And even if it's not completely justified, it is a rational argument that should be addressed fairly. Otherwise my research won't be worth anything. You can't measure probability using a two-headed quarter. Or, should I say fifty pence crown?
Monday, February 27, 2012
Journal Entry #20 - 2/27/12
So I took the Myers Briggs test today. You know? It was really fun to take. But I don't think it really taught me anything. Mostly because the answers to the questions depend far to much on the specific situations that they apply to. I found myself split right down the middle several times. Take a look at my results:
Your Type is
ENFJ -- Extraverted Intuitive Feeling Judging
You are:
moderately expressed extravert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed feeling personality
moderately expressed judging personality
Wow. So I am really moderate, hehe :) To be honest though, I think the test is better at measuring those who are at the extremes. However, would I be wrong to say that many people take each situation in turn and measure their reactions according to what they believe would be most effective? Being extraverted has it's benefits, as does being thoughtful and alone. Being the center of attention or working with a large group of people can be just as important as taking a side-line role or working in a small group. To me, they're just apples and oranges. Some days I like apples better than oranges. Sometimes I like bananas better than either (because they're easier to eat :). Some situations call for a hammer while others call for tweezers. As a result, it's hard to generalize how I react to each situation because the reality is I react in the way that I believe is most likely to bring about the desired result, just like a mechanic uses the tools he believes will help him fix the car.
And speaking of using the correct tools, I'm back to thinking about my research project again. There are a lot of nuances of religion in the United Kingdom that could be studied. Today I found a fascinating article on the differences in attitudes toward suicide between students in religious education and students in secular education in Turkey. As it turns out, religious students are less likely to commit suicide, but they are also more accepting of individuals who do commit suicide. That seems almost backward, but nevertheless demonstrates that those in secular education are more likely to think negatively about the decision of other people to commit suicide than their religious counterparts. It is interesting to me how some secular groups advocate the need for equality between those who express secular views and those who express religious views in a way that could be interpreted as a lack of tolerance for religion. Could the group that seems to be constantly calling for tolerance actually be more intolerant?
For example, this is is from the website of the National Secular Society (in Britain):
Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.
These groups don't just want atheism to be accepted, they want to remove religion and religious symbols completely from the public sphere. While those with secular views are not condemned for advocating "freedom from religion", how quickly would they condemn organizations seeking "freedom from atheism"? And why is it that while research concludes again and again that religiosity is correlated with positive social indicators (including tolerance toward those who make choices completely against the values of the religion, as in the case of the religious students in Turkey toward close friends who commit suicide), speaking openly in support of religion in the public sphere receives so much criticism?
Interesting. But, moving on to the different tools I could use while I'm doing research in London, while I was talking to Dr. Christensen on Friday, I became rather convinced that a comparison study of elite attitudes about religion to the attitudes of the masses would make a very interesting addition to the debate going on the in country between those supporting the role of religion (David Cameron and Sayeeda Warsi in particular) and those who oppose it. If the opinions expressed by elites are indeed more secular than those of the general public, such would provide considerable justification for the policies of the current British government. On the other hand, if the general public agrees with elites, more secular policies are bound to gain support in the country.
This is a topic that is narrow, relevant, and possible to answer while I'm in London. It's an analytical question too, and I think that's best. It'll be tough work to come up with a good research design to test it, but I think it will work. My only worry is that, unlike the mechanic, this tool may not actually fix anything.
(error note: I said on an earlier post that Sayeeda Warsi was the first Muslim elected to Parliament. That's wrong on two counts. First of all, she was not elected because she is a peeress in the House of Lords. Second, she is the third Muslim elected to Parliament and the first female Muslim in Parliament. Sorry about the error there.)
Your Type is
ENFJ -- Extraverted Intuitive Feeling Judging
You are:
moderately expressed extravert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed feeling personality
moderately expressed judging personality
Wow. So I am really moderate, hehe :) To be honest though, I think the test is better at measuring those who are at the extremes. However, would I be wrong to say that many people take each situation in turn and measure their reactions according to what they believe would be most effective? Being extraverted has it's benefits, as does being thoughtful and alone. Being the center of attention or working with a large group of people can be just as important as taking a side-line role or working in a small group. To me, they're just apples and oranges. Some days I like apples better than oranges. Sometimes I like bananas better than either (because they're easier to eat :). Some situations call for a hammer while others call for tweezers. As a result, it's hard to generalize how I react to each situation because the reality is I react in the way that I believe is most likely to bring about the desired result, just like a mechanic uses the tools he believes will help him fix the car.
And speaking of using the correct tools, I'm back to thinking about my research project again. There are a lot of nuances of religion in the United Kingdom that could be studied. Today I found a fascinating article on the differences in attitudes toward suicide between students in religious education and students in secular education in Turkey. As it turns out, religious students are less likely to commit suicide, but they are also more accepting of individuals who do commit suicide. That seems almost backward, but nevertheless demonstrates that those in secular education are more likely to think negatively about the decision of other people to commit suicide than their religious counterparts. It is interesting to me how some secular groups advocate the need for equality between those who express secular views and those who express religious views in a way that could be interpreted as a lack of tolerance for religion. Could the group that seems to be constantly calling for tolerance actually be more intolerant?
For example, this is is from the website of the National Secular Society (in Britain):
Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.
These groups don't just want atheism to be accepted, they want to remove religion and religious symbols completely from the public sphere. While those with secular views are not condemned for advocating "freedom from religion", how quickly would they condemn organizations seeking "freedom from atheism"? And why is it that while research concludes again and again that religiosity is correlated with positive social indicators (including tolerance toward those who make choices completely against the values of the religion, as in the case of the religious students in Turkey toward close friends who commit suicide), speaking openly in support of religion in the public sphere receives so much criticism?
Interesting. But, moving on to the different tools I could use while I'm doing research in London, while I was talking to Dr. Christensen on Friday, I became rather convinced that a comparison study of elite attitudes about religion to the attitudes of the masses would make a very interesting addition to the debate going on the in country between those supporting the role of religion (David Cameron and Sayeeda Warsi in particular) and those who oppose it. If the opinions expressed by elites are indeed more secular than those of the general public, such would provide considerable justification for the policies of the current British government. On the other hand, if the general public agrees with elites, more secular policies are bound to gain support in the country.
This is a topic that is narrow, relevant, and possible to answer while I'm in London. It's an analytical question too, and I think that's best. It'll be tough work to come up with a good research design to test it, but I think it will work. My only worry is that, unlike the mechanic, this tool may not actually fix anything.
(error note: I said on an earlier post that Sayeeda Warsi was the first Muslim elected to Parliament. That's wrong on two counts. First of all, she was not elected because she is a peeress in the House of Lords. Second, she is the third Muslim elected to Parliament and the first female Muslim in Parliament. Sorry about the error there.)
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Journal Entry #17 - 2/21/12
Working on Section B of my research proposal has caused me to think hard about my project this coming summer. It is one thing just to go to class, to participate, to do some minimal research and writing on a regular basis, and then to actually submit a finalized introduction to and justification for my research in London this summer. Drafting a careful, rational argument for the research I will do pushes me into a corner a little bit and forces me to come up with more valid arguments for my research than ever before. "It means gathering yourself together into a single point rather than letting yourself be dispersed everywhere into a cloud of electronic and social input," as William Deresiewicz said in a lecture given at West Point in October, 2009 (see the full speech here). However, preparing for the proposal draft has been very helpful, and I have had a lot of thoughts (mostly scattered, as usual) that I want to keep track of because they will be useful later, so I'll put a few down here:
First of all, I don't have a faculty mentor yet. However, I think I'm going to talk to my PL SC 200 teacher Ray Christensen and see if he could be mine. Dr. Christensen is so passionate and fascinated by social science research, and I think he will really be able to help me create the kind of really effective research design that will make this summer's project incredible. For instance, last week we talked about whether our "x's" in our research could be manipulated or not (i.e. randomized). I think that mine could. Because I have a hypothesis. I believe that although citizens in the United Kingdom have shown themselves to be decreasingly religious and increasingly liberal in their attitudes toward things such as the role of religion in forming public policy (74% agree or tend to a agree that religion shouldn't affect public policy according to a Ipsos MORI survey that was released last week) or whether it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion in the legal time limit (only 20% agree that it is wrong), I think that most British citizens generally feel that the decreasing religiosity of their country is hurting their country and their society. I read about a clever study that was done in the United States that sought to discover how supportive Americans really are of a Mormon President. They placed several unrelated characteristics in a list and asked the survey takers to give the number of negative characteristics on the list (without saying which ones they thought were positive). A control group was given the list without "is a mormon" or something to that effect, on the list, and the results were compared to those who were given a list that had "is a mormon" among the other characteristics. The results showed that there were significant concerns felt by many American about having a Mormon president, because the mean number of negative characteristics on the list increased when "is a Mormon" was added to the list. So, going back to my project, I think I might be able to use the same model to find out how Englanders feel about the decreasing religiosity in their country, and I could do it one of two ways. First, I could create a list of current trends or events occurring in the UK (like devolution, keeping the British pound, involvement in Syria, etc) and ask people to list the number of positive movements in the country from the list. I would have a control group that would take the survey without "decreasing religiosity" on the list, and another group with "decreasing religiosity" included. Then I would compare the results afterward. To do it the other way around, I could ask them to list the number of negative movements or events occurring in the country and perform the same experiment, with a control group and a normal group taking the survey. I think the latter would be more convincing, since if the reported number of negative movements in the country increased among those who had "decreasing religiosity" on the list, the change could be directly attributed to the negative feelings that Britons have toward the decreasing religiosity in the country. I theorize that most British citizens are aware of the positive effects that religious beliefs have in peoples lives, and although they are increasingly irreligious, most do not view the change in a positive light. Through interviews and surveys and talking to people, I hope to evaluate the various attitudes that people have toward the trend of decreasing religiosity in the country. The results of the study could either validate or vilify the actions of government in the United Kingdom in defense of religious liberties and Christian values.
First of all, I don't have a faculty mentor yet. However, I think I'm going to talk to my PL SC 200 teacher Ray Christensen and see if he could be mine. Dr. Christensen is so passionate and fascinated by social science research, and I think he will really be able to help me create the kind of really effective research design that will make this summer's project incredible. For instance, last week we talked about whether our "x's" in our research could be manipulated or not (i.e. randomized). I think that mine could. Because I have a hypothesis. I believe that although citizens in the United Kingdom have shown themselves to be decreasingly religious and increasingly liberal in their attitudes toward things such as the role of religion in forming public policy (74% agree or tend to a agree that religion shouldn't affect public policy according to a Ipsos MORI survey that was released last week) or whether it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion in the legal time limit (only 20% agree that it is wrong), I think that most British citizens generally feel that the decreasing religiosity of their country is hurting their country and their society. I read about a clever study that was done in the United States that sought to discover how supportive Americans really are of a Mormon President. They placed several unrelated characteristics in a list and asked the survey takers to give the number of negative characteristics on the list (without saying which ones they thought were positive). A control group was given the list without "is a mormon" or something to that effect, on the list, and the results were compared to those who were given a list that had "is a mormon" among the other characteristics. The results showed that there were significant concerns felt by many American about having a Mormon president, because the mean number of negative characteristics on the list increased when "is a Mormon" was added to the list. So, going back to my project, I think I might be able to use the same model to find out how Englanders feel about the decreasing religiosity in their country, and I could do it one of two ways. First, I could create a list of current trends or events occurring in the UK (like devolution, keeping the British pound, involvement in Syria, etc) and ask people to list the number of positive movements in the country from the list. I would have a control group that would take the survey without "decreasing religiosity" on the list, and another group with "decreasing religiosity" included. Then I would compare the results afterward. To do it the other way around, I could ask them to list the number of negative movements or events occurring in the country and perform the same experiment, with a control group and a normal group taking the survey. I think the latter would be more convincing, since if the reported number of negative movements in the country increased among those who had "decreasing religiosity" on the list, the change could be directly attributed to the negative feelings that Britons have toward the decreasing religiosity in the country. I theorize that most British citizens are aware of the positive effects that religious beliefs have in peoples lives, and although they are increasingly irreligious, most do not view the change in a positive light. Through interviews and surveys and talking to people, I hope to evaluate the various attitudes that people have toward the trend of decreasing religiosity in the country. The results of the study could either validate or vilify the actions of government in the United Kingdom in defense of religious liberties and Christian values.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Journal Entry #16 - 2/17/12
So it's been fun doing more research about Christianity in the United Kingdom today. Yesterday I found a wonderfully thorough study about Christian Attitudes in the UK that appears to be at least as good as the British Social Attitudes Survey. I haven't had time to go through the entire thing yet, but what I have found is extremely interesting, and shows the same patterns of support for Christian values and beliefs that the Social Attitudes Survey found. However, this second study goes into more detail in survey questions about what Britons actually believe in terms of support for gay marriage, whether they have read the Bible or not, how often they pray, etc. It's a great resource.
At the same time I've done some more research to find what influential people or institutions in the UK say about religion. I found great website called The Way, which is a completely nondenominational website that brings common Christian beliefs under a common heading. It even has a search engine for you to find any Christian church within the United Kingdom, the address, phone number, etc (except I noticed the LDS church was not listed). I watched half of one of the videos posted there outlining basic Christian doctrine and the importance of following Christ, keeping the commandments, and how to be forgiven. It was an extremely well made video and was simple and informative without being condemning. However, when I checked Youtube, the video had only about 2500 views. That seems pretty low for such a high quality video. In any case, it was very informative and I believe representative of the kind of approach Christian churches are taking in the UK. In contrast to Christian churches in Brazil, many of which are extremely enthusiastic and involve lots of loud music, loud singing and violent loyalties between the different denominations, the British model is much more laid back. However, in terms of teaching traditional values, the website was actually quite clear about what was right and wrong, although I could tell that they were careful in their choice of language to invite people instead of condemn them. This page was particularly interesting. Overall, it will be interesting to talk to leaders and members in these different churches and hear how their views about social issues and the role of religion contrasts with the opinions that these recent surveys have demonstrated are held by the majority of the population in the UK.
At the same time I've done some more research to find what influential people or institutions in the UK say about religion. I found great website called The Way, which is a completely nondenominational website that brings common Christian beliefs under a common heading. It even has a search engine for you to find any Christian church within the United Kingdom, the address, phone number, etc (except I noticed the LDS church was not listed). I watched half of one of the videos posted there outlining basic Christian doctrine and the importance of following Christ, keeping the commandments, and how to be forgiven. It was an extremely well made video and was simple and informative without being condemning. However, when I checked Youtube, the video had only about 2500 views. That seems pretty low for such a high quality video. In any case, it was very informative and I believe representative of the kind of approach Christian churches are taking in the UK. In contrast to Christian churches in Brazil, many of which are extremely enthusiastic and involve lots of loud music, loud singing and violent loyalties between the different denominations, the British model is much more laid back. However, in terms of teaching traditional values, the website was actually quite clear about what was right and wrong, although I could tell that they were careful in their choice of language to invite people instead of condemn them. This page was particularly interesting. Overall, it will be interesting to talk to leaders and members in these different churches and hear how their views about social issues and the role of religion contrasts with the opinions that these recent surveys have demonstrated are held by the majority of the population in the UK.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Journal Entry #14
In our last class period, we analyzed our projects and our project research and identified areas where we could do more research to strengthen our understanding of our topics. I noticed that one area where my research was weak was in current opinion leaders in the United Kingdom. My only cited source taken from a current well-known leader in the UK was PM David Cameron. Last week, however, I did cite an article that reported on the plan of one well-known atheist to build a "temple to atheism", but other than Cameron's words I have not researched the views of any specific individuals whose opinions might resonate with people in the UK.
For today, I cited a speech given by Sayeeda Warsi that was given on January 20, 2011. To me, it was a remarkable speech to be given by a member of Parliament and of the current government about religion, and was cited by the 28th British Social Attitudes Survey that was published at the end of 2011. Her comments, coming from the first Muslim member of Parliament, were very bold in their condemnation of religious bigotry in the nation and the persistence of attitudes such as Islamaphobia and other stereotyping of religious groups or minorities. It's interesting to note her boldness with that of David Cameron's, for it shows how willing the current Conservative government is to express opinions about religion very openly. In the British Social Attitudes Survey made this last year, the author Lucy Lee commented that with the decreasing influence of religion in the lives of Britons, the opinions expressed by current government leaders is likely to resonate less and less with average citizens than before. I suppose it may never have been studied to what degree the opinions expressed by government leaders has an effect on the opinions of the populace. I, however, do believe that the influence of well known people in society have a significant influence on the normal members of society because they shape the debate of the country. It could be that Britons simply have thought much about their religious attitudes very much. Debating it openly may bring about a more assertive response from the populace about where their values really lie - whether they are for or against religion. It will interesting to use these comments as I ask questions to individuals while in London to discover how they feel about them.
For today, I cited a speech given by Sayeeda Warsi that was given on January 20, 2011. To me, it was a remarkable speech to be given by a member of Parliament and of the current government about religion, and was cited by the 28th British Social Attitudes Survey that was published at the end of 2011. Her comments, coming from the first Muslim member of Parliament, were very bold in their condemnation of religious bigotry in the nation and the persistence of attitudes such as Islamaphobia and other stereotyping of religious groups or minorities. It's interesting to note her boldness with that of David Cameron's, for it shows how willing the current Conservative government is to express opinions about religion very openly. In the British Social Attitudes Survey made this last year, the author Lucy Lee commented that with the decreasing influence of religion in the lives of Britons, the opinions expressed by current government leaders is likely to resonate less and less with average citizens than before. I suppose it may never have been studied to what degree the opinions expressed by government leaders has an effect on the opinions of the populace. I, however, do believe that the influence of well known people in society have a significant influence on the normal members of society because they shape the debate of the country. It could be that Britons simply have thought much about their religious attitudes very much. Debating it openly may bring about a more assertive response from the populace about where their values really lie - whether they are for or against religion. It will interesting to use these comments as I ask questions to individuals while in London to discover how they feel about them.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Journal Entry #13
As it happens, thirteen is my favorite number, and this is my thirteenth learning journal post. Bangarang.
As I've been doing research these last few days, I've been trying to look at the work I've done and the direction I'm going with this project in a more global way. My work so far has been somewhat arbitrary, as I've searched for articles and studies online, and essentially read the first ones that have come up. However, religion is something that has been heavily researched for more than fifty years, and entire journals are dedicated to the study of different aspects of religion. In order to focus my work while I'm in London, my research beforehand has to be more focused.
So I started collecting references to other papers using the research articles I have already read. A lot of the referenced articles are rather straightforward, using statistical tests and surveys to prove correlations between religiosity and attitudes about premarital sex, drug use, criminality, marriage and marital longevity, family unity, work ethic, academic performance, and physical health. Then, I created another sections for studies that have analyzed the academic strength of religious schools. The study that I cited for last class had a different unit of analysis: it analyzed academic performance and religiosity comparing the connection between individual academic performance and individual religiosity instead of the religiosity of the school and the academic performance of that entire school, which many previous studies had done. Lastly, I am creating a list of cited studies that concern religion and religious beliefs in a more general way, including how to measure religiosity.
This is all well and good, and should be very helpful in the future as I'm deciding on what research papers to study for my project. I want to have a pretty thorough understanding of what has been researched and understood by social scientists about religion and religious behavior in various contexts of life. While I'm in London, I will probably decide on a couple of aspects of religiosity to focus on in the surveys I'll be giving and the interviews I'll be conducting, but it will be very good to have an over-arching understanding of how religiosity has been shown to be a contributing factor to certain behaviors, attitudes, and social factors. It will be very interesting to see how individuals in London believe religion makes a difference in their lives and how past research has provided evidence supporting or disproving these assumptions. Since my research question focuses mainly on what Londoners believe are the positive and negative effects of decreasing religiosity, my topic allows for changes in public policy that might better inform the public about how religiosity affects individuals and society. Then again, if what they all think matches up perfectly with what has been proven to happen, that would be pretty remarkable all by itself.
As I've been doing research these last few days, I've been trying to look at the work I've done and the direction I'm going with this project in a more global way. My work so far has been somewhat arbitrary, as I've searched for articles and studies online, and essentially read the first ones that have come up. However, religion is something that has been heavily researched for more than fifty years, and entire journals are dedicated to the study of different aspects of religion. In order to focus my work while I'm in London, my research beforehand has to be more focused.
So I started collecting references to other papers using the research articles I have already read. A lot of the referenced articles are rather straightforward, using statistical tests and surveys to prove correlations between religiosity and attitudes about premarital sex, drug use, criminality, marriage and marital longevity, family unity, work ethic, academic performance, and physical health. Then, I created another sections for studies that have analyzed the academic strength of religious schools. The study that I cited for last class had a different unit of analysis: it analyzed academic performance and religiosity comparing the connection between individual academic performance and individual religiosity instead of the religiosity of the school and the academic performance of that entire school, which many previous studies had done. Lastly, I am creating a list of cited studies that concern religion and religious beliefs in a more general way, including how to measure religiosity.
This is all well and good, and should be very helpful in the future as I'm deciding on what research papers to study for my project. I want to have a pretty thorough understanding of what has been researched and understood by social scientists about religion and religious behavior in various contexts of life. While I'm in London, I will probably decide on a couple of aspects of religiosity to focus on in the surveys I'll be giving and the interviews I'll be conducting, but it will be very good to have an over-arching understanding of how religiosity has been shown to be a contributing factor to certain behaviors, attitudes, and social factors. It will be very interesting to see how individuals in London believe religion makes a difference in their lives and how past research has provided evidence supporting or disproving these assumptions. Since my research question focuses mainly on what Londoners believe are the positive and negative effects of decreasing religiosity, my topic allows for changes in public policy that might better inform the public about how religiosity affects individuals and society. Then again, if what they all think matches up perfectly with what has been proven to happen, that would be pretty remarkable all by itself.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Journal Entry #5
So I've been reading this article written by Patrick Fagan in 1996 about the positive impacts of religion on society. Something that stood out to me among the various findings and recommendations given by the author was one directed at concerning religious, or religiously affiliated schools: "Congress should: . . . Fund federal experiments with school choice that include religiously affiliated schools".
It is striking how much this recommendation contrasts this statement made in the "Campaigns" page of humanism.com:
The main page of humanism.com also has a banner with this image:
****
So there's a big discrepancy in opinion here. On one side of it is Patrick Fagan, who defends the role of religion in society with specific, thorough evidence. He doesn't just show how religion helps people be happier; he goes down almost every indicator of a good life and shows how religious belief and participation is correlated with them, from strong marriages, fewer divorces, less suicide and drug abuse, better mental health, better physical health, and quicker recovery from alcoholism. On the other side of the argument, we have organizations led by intellectuals and individuals who truly believe that society is better without any religious influence at all. Can it be proven that students at religious schools enjoy the same social and personal improvements as those that were stated above by Fagan?
This strays from the topic I have chosen a tiny bit, but I'm interested in what the people who go to these religious schools have to say about this. I think I'll look up some religious schools in London and visit them while I'm there. It would be interesting to ask the teachers, students, and parents-of-students who attend there what they think about these institutions, and also to see if these positive social indicators are correlated with religious schools.
It is striking how much this recommendation contrasts this statement made in the "Campaigns" page of humanism.com:
"We can produce the arguments against 'faith' and sectarian schools and in favour of inclusive schools where children from families of all religions and none are educated together and learn about each other’s beliefs, but Local Authorities only consult and listen to the views of local people when making decisions about a new school in their area. So if you share our views, we hope you will get involved – our success depends on you!"
The main page of humanism.com also has a banner with this image:
****
So there's a big discrepancy in opinion here. On one side of it is Patrick Fagan, who defends the role of religion in society with specific, thorough evidence. He doesn't just show how religion helps people be happier; he goes down almost every indicator of a good life and shows how religious belief and participation is correlated with them, from strong marriages, fewer divorces, less suicide and drug abuse, better mental health, better physical health, and quicker recovery from alcoholism. On the other side of the argument, we have organizations led by intellectuals and individuals who truly believe that society is better without any religious influence at all. Can it be proven that students at religious schools enjoy the same social and personal improvements as those that were stated above by Fagan?
This strays from the topic I have chosen a tiny bit, but I'm interested in what the people who go to these religious schools have to say about this. I think I'll look up some religious schools in London and visit them while I'm there. It would be interesting to ask the teachers, students, and parents-of-students who attend there what they think about these institutions, and also to see if these positive social indicators are correlated with religious schools.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Journal Entry #4
When I took AP Comparative Politics my Junior year of high school, Tony Blair was Prime Minister in the United Kingdom. It was 2007, and as we watched "Prime Minister's Questions" each week, I was extremely impressed by the clear and nimble way that Mr. Blair defended his positions and those of his party. He is a charismatic man, and I liked him because he was quick on his feet, and his reasoning was, well, reasonable. I remember wishing that we had "The President's Questions" in the United States, where Presidents would have to defend their policies in front of the onslaught of members of Congress. (However, Bush was president at the time, and that, of course, would not have gone over well)
Moving back to the study of England that year, I remember watching the "Shadow Government" led by David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, argue with the policies of Tony Blair's government. Biased by my liking of Tony Blair, I didn't like Cameron. He may have been more to the political right than Blair's government, but somehow he came off as a sort of intellectual brat, with quipped words and angry, calculated arguments that made him seem like the angry mother hummingbird that used to live in my backyard, furiously driving away any bluejay or robin that came to rest anywhere on the tree where the hummingbird lived. Cameron had no right to be so critical of a government that was obviously doing such a good job running the country, I thought to myself.
Well, four years pass, and I discover that Blair's successor Brown had been quite the failure, and David Cameron was now in charge of a Conservative coalition in Parliament. I wasn't impressed. When I heard of a wiretapping scandal, and then rumors that people higher in government knew about it, I blamed it all on PM Cameron. I imagined that if he wasn't bad enough as an irritating shadow prime minister, it's only right that he would be corrupt too. Oh, if only they would call another election so Labour could win back it's majority, everything would be so much better!
Well...that was a long story that should have been shorter, but to sum up, I seriously misjudged David Cameron. Recently I've had the opportunity to get to know his positions better, and I've been very pleasantly surprised by a couple of the speeches I've read by him lately. I like British politics because it's so different from American politics. It's more hats off, hands on, versatile, and smaller scale. They're ruling an island closer to California in population (a bit more actually) with actually a lot less land and even more diversity. With the way Parliament is run, and especially with "Question Time" every week, it feels government leaders are more directly responsible to the people. Washington, D.C. is a long ways away when you live in Utah. But in England your PM just lives over in London, and every week he has to stand up and defend his positions to the people. That's a cool way to run the country.
Anyway, so Mr. Cameron gave a speech about the King James' Bible, and I thought it was brilliant. Actually, I accidentally read a speech of his about families thinking, at first, that it was his Christian values speech. It was equally brilliant and very pragmatic. Both articles made me very interested in the man, so I read more than half of the wikipedia page on him. He seems to me to be a solid individual - young (the youngest PM since the Earl of Liverpool, 200 years ago), and very passionate. But he's also a man of decent character. I may be wrong about that when some scandal happens, but the fact is that his speeches are very convincing of this fact, and his words calling for a "responsibility revolution" in England are very stirring to me. In his speech on the King James Bible, he states multiple times that the UK is a nation formed on Christian values, and that there should be no shame in making that clear. His reasoning for the great value of religious principles to the country, including charity, kindness, respect, and virtue, are convincing, and it seems he really did his homework, even quoting his favorite passages of the Bible. His arguments are completely contrary to what the men over at www.thehumanist.org are doing, a site that I found to be very falsely professional. They're anti-religion so they might as well just come out and say it. They want God and all mention of HIm out of their lives and out of the country.
My project in England is going to be more to inform than to evaluate. But I am exercising my reflexivity by noting that I have a very big point of view about religion. I wish the UK was more religious because I believe the people would be happier if they were. I believe religious beliefs inform moral decisions and support the structure of strong families. I see increasing secularism in the country as a negative change, although I don't believe everyone who is involved in it is an evil person. On the contrary, I believe England is made up of mostly very decent people, and that is why losing religion is so harmful. Even very decent people are highly influenced by their circumstances, and the world today teaches little more than immorality and self service, two principles which only serve to break down society further.
So that's my bias, and I thought I would get it out there. Still, after reading David Cameron's comments on the matter, it's nice to know there are influential leaders in the country that don't feel much differently about religiosity than I do.
Moving back to the study of England that year, I remember watching the "Shadow Government" led by David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, argue with the policies of Tony Blair's government. Biased by my liking of Tony Blair, I didn't like Cameron. He may have been more to the political right than Blair's government, but somehow he came off as a sort of intellectual brat, with quipped words and angry, calculated arguments that made him seem like the angry mother hummingbird that used to live in my backyard, furiously driving away any bluejay or robin that came to rest anywhere on the tree where the hummingbird lived. Cameron had no right to be so critical of a government that was obviously doing such a good job running the country, I thought to myself.
Well, four years pass, and I discover that Blair's successor Brown had been quite the failure, and David Cameron was now in charge of a Conservative coalition in Parliament. I wasn't impressed. When I heard of a wiretapping scandal, and then rumors that people higher in government knew about it, I blamed it all on PM Cameron. I imagined that if he wasn't bad enough as an irritating shadow prime minister, it's only right that he would be corrupt too. Oh, if only they would call another election so Labour could win back it's majority, everything would be so much better!
Well...that was a long story that should have been shorter, but to sum up, I seriously misjudged David Cameron. Recently I've had the opportunity to get to know his positions better, and I've been very pleasantly surprised by a couple of the speeches I've read by him lately. I like British politics because it's so different from American politics. It's more hats off, hands on, versatile, and smaller scale. They're ruling an island closer to California in population (a bit more actually) with actually a lot less land and even more diversity. With the way Parliament is run, and especially with "Question Time" every week, it feels government leaders are more directly responsible to the people. Washington, D.C. is a long ways away when you live in Utah. But in England your PM just lives over in London, and every week he has to stand up and defend his positions to the people. That's a cool way to run the country.
Anyway, so Mr. Cameron gave a speech about the King James' Bible, and I thought it was brilliant. Actually, I accidentally read a speech of his about families thinking, at first, that it was his Christian values speech. It was equally brilliant and very pragmatic. Both articles made me very interested in the man, so I read more than half of the wikipedia page on him. He seems to me to be a solid individual - young (the youngest PM since the Earl of Liverpool, 200 years ago), and very passionate. But he's also a man of decent character. I may be wrong about that when some scandal happens, but the fact is that his speeches are very convincing of this fact, and his words calling for a "responsibility revolution" in England are very stirring to me. In his speech on the King James Bible, he states multiple times that the UK is a nation formed on Christian values, and that there should be no shame in making that clear. His reasoning for the great value of religious principles to the country, including charity, kindness, respect, and virtue, are convincing, and it seems he really did his homework, even quoting his favorite passages of the Bible. His arguments are completely contrary to what the men over at www.thehumanist.org are doing, a site that I found to be very falsely professional. They're anti-religion so they might as well just come out and say it. They want God and all mention of HIm out of their lives and out of the country.
My project in England is going to be more to inform than to evaluate. But I am exercising my reflexivity by noting that I have a very big point of view about religion. I wish the UK was more religious because I believe the people would be happier if they were. I believe religious beliefs inform moral decisions and support the structure of strong families. I see increasing secularism in the country as a negative change, although I don't believe everyone who is involved in it is an evil person. On the contrary, I believe England is made up of mostly very decent people, and that is why losing religion is so harmful. Even very decent people are highly influenced by their circumstances, and the world today teaches little more than immorality and self service, two principles which only serve to break down society further.
So that's my bias, and I thought I would get it out there. Still, after reading David Cameron's comments on the matter, it's nice to know there are influential leaders in the country that don't feel much differently about religiosity than I do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)