The following is a diary not "about religion" but about how to talk about religion successfully online, in print and in person for political success. Recent hyper-reported blogging incidents are only a specific case of a general lack of dexterity with discussions of religion among some - NOT all - of us liberals. Not being dextrous with religion is no shame, but damaging a progressive political effort due to lack of dexterity is a crime. I will focus on the Roman Catholic Church a little more than other religious communities in my examples, due to my greater knowledge depth only and NOT as disrespect to any other religious or non/anti-religious viewpoint. Thus, the following modest efforts, to which corrections, criticism and comments are very much welcome.
NOTE: Cross-posted now at Street Prophets
Please note that nothing in this essay is intended to promote any religion over any other, any set or class of religious traditions (Christian, Western, Eastern, whatever) over any other or religion as a category over non-religion as a category. The sole purpose of the following is greater rhetorical effectiveness by liberals when dealing with religious people, places and things.
The Experience It is tempting for highly educated, left-brained people who are on religiously involved to consider religion from the standpoint of doctrines accepted or rejected, e.g.,"The Lutherans adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation," etc. DailyKos regulars are both better educated and less religious than the U.S. public at large according to Kos' polling, so it would not surprise me if Jane or Jack Q. Kossack were to view religious communities that way. Christian churches, in particular, make that viewpoint easy to adopt due to Christian history of doctrinal battles resulting in creeds and catechisms (authoritative Q&A format guide to doctrine.) Those documents are important, indeed worth reading as part of getting to know a religious community, but they are not central to religious community or identity.
For most Catholics, for example, the catechism is a tool, not a core element of Catholic identity. Its contents, while authoritative, are not central to Catholic life. What things are central? The communal experiences from communal rites, the metaphors, the images (with which Catholicism is famously replete). Attending Mass, receiving communion, the life cycle events of baptism and confirmation, the educational experience of Catholic schools (even for those who did not themselves attend), confession and, for many, ethnic identity with one's family, neighborhood or homeland. These, not a book, are the experiences that weld Catholic identity together and keep even atheist Catholics in the parishes. (Yes, the phrase "atheist Catholic" is not the oxymoron you might think it is.)
Another example is the personal experience of liberation and redemption from suffering or from personal moral failure that many Christian evangelicals report as part of their religious experience. Psychologist acquaintances of mine with practices in largely evangelical communities have commented many times on how much and intensely many of their evangelical Christian clients have suffered and how their religious awakening or "re-birth" was central to their eventual greater happiness overcoming such suffering. This is not to engage in or encourage a reductionist view of evangelical Christian faith, but to stress that the human experience is paramount, even in a community that focuses very heavily on doctrinal pronouncements and strict Biblical adherence.
The general point is that the experience comes first. Accordingly, when you insult someone's religion, you are not insulting a dry book, but their central life experiences of community, identity, personal redemption. People whose life experiences get insulted will stop listening to the insulter.
In the case of the recent kerfuffle regarding the Edwards bloggers, had the blogger simply said in her prior writings that the Catholic position on Plan B contraception was complete bullshit, most Catholics would not have been offended. Why? Plan B and contraception are not core issues to Catholic identity. Many loyal Catholics dissent on this issue both in theory and in practice, and a non-Catholic blogger rejecting Catholic teachings on birth control would not grossly shock and offend even an extremely conservative Catholic. Even an extremely aggressive disagreement with the Church on abortion would not have brought out right-wing hack and Jew-basher William Donohue with guns ablazing; the selection of a feminist pro-choice blogger for a pro-choice candidate would never have caught his eye. But active reverence of the Blessed Virgin is part of the Catholic (and Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholic) experience and community identity. So talking about white sticky material in her, er, anatomy hits home - to the Catholic experience. Other Christians were offended as well, but the veneration (hyperdulia) of Mary is not a part of Protestant or even most Anglican religious experience.
This boils down to Religion Rule 1: Never make a listener or reader suffer a deprecation or derogation of his or her own personal religious experience unless your specific goal is to alienate that listener. Observance of Rule 1 gives room for even a bitter critique of Church policy on birth control, abortion, patriarchy, economics, etc., with minimal or no practical backwash from the likes of Donohue. The discussion goes from "you talked about the Virgin Mary's cooter, Madam" to "does everyone have to be exactly your kind of Catholic, Mr. Donohue???"
Language and Structure Every religious community has a specific structure and specific terms of art, sacred words words describing sacred things, describe sacred things or describe meaningful experiences or community life. Familiarity with these words and structures allows greater rhetorical strength.
I am an attorney by trade. To me, the verb "to witness" is transitive; one witnesses a crime, a signature, an act. One does not stand and "witness" without "witnessing something." I am not an evangelical Christian. My wife is, however, and when she came home talking about "witnessing" one day I falsely assumed she was simply speaking poorly. But "witnessing" to evangelical Christians means to narrate or give one's personal "testimony" i.e. personal Christian religious experience of great meaning. (Again, "testimony" for this secular lawyer means what you give in court sometimes years after witnessing the subject matter of the testimony.)
A common misunderstanding is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which holds that Mary herself was immaculately conceived without the taint of original sin. This doctrine is confused with the Incarnation of Jesus or of the Virgin Birth all the time by non-Catholics. Getting this one right gets you modest immediate credibility with Catholics of every political bent.
The use of religious terms as curse words is not really part of his discussion, but I note for humor's sake that in Quebec, the use of names of Catholic liturgical equipment as obscenities is extremely common, so much so that the Archdiocese of Montreal once took out billboard advertisements with dictionary definitions of the items in French (the equivalents of chalice, tabernacle, host, etc.) to discourage the obscene use and encourage the reverential (or at least technical) use of those commonplace curses. Back to the topic.
Among Christian churches, the main governance "polities" are episcopal (one or more overseers governing a territory, which may be named "diocese", "archdiocese", "eparchy", "district", etc), presbyterian (self-perpetuating board of elders governing a congregation) and congregational (the members of the congregation govern or directly elect a board or president). There are many, many other structures and variations, depending on the community. Getting the names of leaders, offices and positions correct is a great way to show respect. A comprehensive list of such structures or leadership titles is beyond the scope of this sort of diary, but not screwing this up is extremely important - particularly with the more hierarchical religious communities. QED Rule 2: Religious communities have organizational structures and lexicons, the ignorance of which will damage you and the knowledge of which will aid you greatly in advocacy work.
Moral and Policy Questions Most religious people will respect you if you tell them flatly and respectfully that you disagree with a moral position taken by their community or moral teaching. They may not like you, they may oppose your efforts aggressively, but they will not disrespect you as a general rule. There are a number of ways to say this, if you must say it:
"Sister Marie, I understand that the Catholic teaching on abortion is extremely important to Catholics. It would be dishonest of me to pretend I oppose abortion, but I in fact support its legality and outright advocate it in some cases."
"Pastor Schultz, I oppose the death penalty even though your church teaches that the death penalty is mandatory for murderers and morally justified. While I take you and your church seriously on this point, we simply find ourselves in direct disagreement, as happens often with people who care about public issues."
"Rabbi Stein, you have stated your denomination's views on euthanasia in a clear and concise manner, as well as your personal agreement with those views. I appreciate that clarity, but it does lead me to note with regret the substantial distance between us on this important matter."
"Jane, thanks for commenting here at IndictDickCheneyNOW.com. Your strong religious convictions are clear regarding same-sex marriage, and I can tell you are sincere in your opposition. You are aware that I am an atheist. I can respect your sincerity and seriousness while I work hard in the effort to legalize same-sex marriage here in Maryland, so that the best man from my wedding eight years ago, my cousin and my gay and lesbian professional colleagues can get the equitable legal treatment that they need for their personal and practical welfare and that of their families."
All of these statements have two things in common: the religious listener never got mocked, and the speaker did not surrender or pander, did not give an inch, not a fraction of a millimeter.
How to Bone Up on Religious Community Issues There are two resources that I can recommend. One is free (to you); the other is fairly cheap.
The free resource is Street Prophets, which engages a variety of religious (and non-religious) people and traditions from a liberal/progressive general point of view. In my view, every Kossack who cares about winning should read Street Prophets weekly, arguably daily. A lot of smart, passionate people there who take their religion seriously without taking themselves too seriously.
The inexpensive resource (free probably in your public library) is How to Be a Perfect Stranger, a broad-based guide to the religious beliefs, practices and histories of a great variety of religious traditions. (If you do buy it online, please buy it through the site of a Kossack, e.g. BooMan's link to Powell's, etc.) The religious people who seem strange will seem less so after a read of that book - still different, just less strange.
If you think I have missed important points, please add them below, or better yet write a deeper, smarter diary on this topic or related topics. Please educate me; I need to get smarter on these issues. Thanks in advance for continuing what I hope will be an ongoing discussion.