I wouldn’t be surprised if my school is the exception, but I go to private university that’s very proud of its diversity. Something like 50% of the enrolled students are African-American, 15% Hispanic, another 10% is Asian, and the rest are white. This break down is reflected in our classes as well, and I haven’t had any experience that would indicate that the minority students are doing poorly. In fact, quite the opposite.
I think is an importent point being made. There does seem to be a certain attitude that causes division in the more liberal circles. Those that don’t embrace some sort of faith tend to see those that do as less intelligent.{why else would they believe in an invisible man in the sky} I am a person of faith who also believes in science, logic, and reason. I do wonder what the phenomenon is that makes very intelligent people go completely blind on the area of their religous beliefs. This unspoken attitude of “those gullible faith people” tends to divide those who support activism for social justice.
You must understand that just because you believe you’re experiencing something does not imperically prove that such a thing exists. After all, there are people who will swear up-and-down that they can astrally project themselves, who can talk to ghosts, who can see auras, who channel spirits and predict the future.
If challenged, they would also say that those questioning them can’t relate-- that their skepticism blinds them to a valid experience. However, you must understand thata report of feeling something strongly will never be evidence to a person whose mind is of a scientific bent.
The “offense” which I spoke of is what some people feel when they are instantly judged by another. Can you not see how someone might see that sort of statement as being very imperious? (And exactly the kind of behavior you are condeming academics for displaying?) If I said I could tell immediately by looking at you if you were smart or not, how would you feel?
Don’t you see that in a way, you are being snobby about being religious? That you have something that others do not, which gives you a special ability to judge people at a glance-- something which makes you more acceptable to the community, or better able to relate, than others who do not have that “light in their eyes?”
I am not insecure in the least about people who attack academics. “Insecurity” would imply that I feel that the academic position is in some way weak or lacking in support. This is not the case.
I guess the difference in our opinions lies in the fact that I do not see anti-intellectualism as particularly subtle or nuanced. There may be myriad reasons for individuals to have that position, but they’re not subtle.
Actually, I am making no assumptions about you as a person. That sort of information is totally irrelevant to this argument. All I am doing is responding to your statements.
Why? Racists make broad, sweeping judgements about groups of people, amplifying examples of negative behaviors, and applying that judgement to all members of that group.
I see no difference between someone saying, “Academics are snobby towards minorities” and saying “Blacks are loud in movie theaters.” Both are sweeping judgements of a group based on the behavior of a selected few.
I do not follow your reasoning here.
What does that have to do with anything? Your education has no bearing on your opinions toward academia, which is what we are supposed to be discussing.
And I would respond that if people have a problem with a lack of spirituality in academia, that is their problem, and not that of the academics. Education should not include religion-- that is the place of community and church. Just because one becomes educated does not mean they must surrender their religious beliefs.
Academics should prioritize intellect. That is the purpose of education-- to sharpen, shape and train the mind. If people are hostille to this concept, it is regrettable, but academia should not change to try to make education more conformable to their belief systems.
The religious views of the activists should have no bearing on the work they are doing within a community. After all, they do not come in and order churches to be closed, or try to browbeat people into surrendering their faith. They are usually concerned with practicalities like helping people find jobs, building community facilities like parks and daycare or battered womens’ shelters-- not spiritual matters.
It vaguely sounds like the people in the community may have had a predjudice against the activists because they percieved them as not being religious. If this is the case, it’s a shame that their predjudices cut them off from what may have been a valuable resource.
I am not going to make you profess anything. Frankly, I do not care whether or not you love academia or hate it.
You have made some very broad statements. You ask for an academic debate, yet do not follow academic lines of reasoning, which do not allow for sweeping statements about groups without supporting data.
[QUOTE]
Yes Yes we understand. You are missing the point made in the OP. It’s not about proving anything. It’s about an observation and a discussion about whether or not you agree.
The judgement may or may not have been correct, but either way was not meant to be critical. It was merely an observation that in general people of a more academic and scientific mind don’t respond to the spiritual plea. Moreover, they tend to trivialize and condescend the judgement of those who place importence on their faith. You may not agree with the observation. Thats fine. Thats what the thread is about.It’s not about proof. It’s about whether you agree with the observatoin and why.
It is only human nature that those with similar beliefs would have more in common and might feel a certain kinship. The observation was not about spiriutal beliefs being superior. It is an observation that the line between faith and academics causes a division among those working for social justice. It is also a question about how that division can be overcome.
Sigh!! Once again. It is not anti-intellectualism. If the hispanic and black communities tend to be more faith based then is communication and cooperation with those less faith based more difficult. It’s not a condemnation. It’s a question.
No one is suggesting anything of the kind.
No one is suggesting anything of the kind.
Since conservatives have presented themselves as more down to earth and faith based {hogwash} how do liberals work together to show this image isn’t true.
Haveing a higher education doesn’t automatically make someone better equipped to deal with social issues. The point is to break down any communication barriers beween the intellectuals who desire social justice and those with less formal education.
Here I agree. communication and cooperation requires mutual respect for a persons right to choose to believe or not to believe. The goal is to work together on common goals while respecting that right.
Really?? Academic as an adjective can also mean theoretical or speculative which seems to what the OP is about. Does this condition exist? If so what can we do about it? I agree with the poster. There are barriers standing in the way of cooperation and communication. Those barriers are, at least in part, influenced by formal education and a recognition and and respect for faith. That recognition and respect does need to go both ways. Whether you have faith or choose not to. Whether you are formally educated or self educated, let’s break down any barriers and work together.
I think a bit of the problem may be if that no one appears to have read the thread that inspired this one. There was a elitist vibe going on there, that placed “academics” as the litmus for success and any other means for success were scorned. This is was wrapped around the issue of race.
What’s racist is not the acknowledgement that “minorities” can be just as successful as whites in higher education, but the notion of, if only “they” weren’t such a bunch of deliberate underachievers as GROUP they would be able to…ignoring the fact that college isn’t for everyone, and enrollment in college for minorities is rising, historical context and whether or not you’re talking about a sub-group or not.
Holding minorities or religious people to a higher level of supporting their “group” than you do the majority, IMO is intellectual discrimination…especially as the entire society seems to a have an ‘anti-Academic’ tint these days. Why point out only one or two groups when it’s national problem?
Fighting that battle isn’t made easier when people give the impression that they feel, "you would be really intelligent and successful, like US; if you just stopped believing in the invisible guy in the sky or valued the “learning” as much as WE do.
As always, YMMV…of course.
As far as I am concerned Intelligence and Faith are in no way at odds. In fact I tend to judge people who believe they are in conflict as both less intelligent and less faithful.
I see a trend where people define faith incorrectly. Faith doesn’t mean that you buy the party line dogma hook line and sinker. That has absolutely ZERO to do with faith. Faith is the belief that the truth will be revealed. It doesn’t mean you are not capable of skepticism or intelligent thought. I believe in God, and have a strong sense of spirituality, but my view of God has very little to do with a bearded man in the sky. I no longer use any pronouns to replace the word God. I don’t ever say, He, She, It. I use the word God, or God’s if I want to imply posession. I do not anthropomorphize God anymore than I have to. I don’t see reasonable internally consistent scientific theories as being in any way conflicting with my Faith in the divine. My argument would be that if Sentience exists at all, it is then an inherent property of God, as I would define God as the aggregate of all sentience.
The idea that Faith and Intelligence are in conflict in anyway is a fallacy. When I refer to Academics or Intellectuals, I am referring to a certain social grouping. Any definition with a body of study as a part of one’s identity is dogma. Yes, it is difficult to assess the beliefs of groups with any level of accuracy, and I am fine with people telling me they do not agree with my usage of the language or my assessment of a group. This does not mean that I am attacking a group though. I have no responsibility to resist Bush as Zoo would like me to. I think his view is just as dogmatic and anti-intellectual as he claims that Bush supporters are. NOT having these discussions is what is anti-intellectual.
This thread is about the effect Religion has upon Ethnic communities, and how communities where Religion is viewed negatively have trouble interfacing with such communities. I wanted to discuss a certain type of elitism that wants to save the “Poor Ethnic communities”, but cannot find a foothold in those communities because they immediately alienate them by dismissing religion as a valid part of life.
The idea that Science and Religion are in conflict is pure dogma, regardless of which side of the argument you are on. Much of our scientific knowledge comes from people who were working under the aegis of religion. The idea of secularism is a more modern idea, within the last couple hundred of years. Back at a certain point there wasn’t even necessarily the idea that religion and science were seperate, because in fact, they are not. The truth is the truth.
This thread has since been hijacked to be about academia, and I can take responsibility due to my lacking writing ability. It wasn’t intended to be about the nature of Academia as a whole.
So, one big misconception, is that I was trying to label academics as being racist. No, I wasn’t trying to say academics are racist. What I wanted to say, was that what we refer to as “racism” might have more to do with a dismissal of major parts of culture. In many communities Religious organizations are the biggest source of community that they have. It is just sheer stupidity in my opinion to deny that source of community, and try to circumvent it, and then believe you are doing that community any good, because what you are really doing is creating an artificial division that did not exist before. The person who comes into a situation like this is injecting their own bias into that community, and confusing the issue.
You can go to pretty much any religious organization and say “A+B=C” and they will propably agree with you. If you go there and say “A+B=C therefore god does not exist.” they will reject what you are trying to teach them, because from their experience, God most definitely exists. Then to deny their experience by telling them it must be untrue because they cannot prove it to you is only going to cause derision and confusion, because not only is it anti-religious, it is unscientific, because lack of proof does not mean that a theory is wrong, it merely means that it hasn’t been proven.
Erek
I have no interest in your acceptance or resistance of Bush; I do believe it is a good idea to resist evil ;).
I do believe there are many (not all) Bush supporters who like having a president who shoots first and asks questions later. If this is dogmatic or anti-intellectual of me so be it.
You seem to be taking the OP as a slam against intellectuals. It isn’t. Thats been said over and over. The question is why is that attitude from Rush and others had some success? Thats what this thread is about. IS there an element of truth in it and if so what do we do about it? I see that as pretty helpful in countering this dangerous trend. Perhaps the intellectual liberals and the faith based liberals need to examine the lines of communication and work together to be a more cohesive force to counter the crap this admin is dishing out.
You wouldn’t call Michael Newdow an activist? I sure would.
He’s not an activist for atheism, just for SOCAS. He’s also not an idiot like the religious nuts I mentioned.
Yeah, he’s a different kind of idiot, who thinks he’s going to win a case in the SCOTUS to take “under God” out of the pledge. 
Hey, I completely agree with his poisition, but all he does is add fuel to the fire for the folks who DO want to keep religion in government. There are so many more bigger fish to fry in the SOCAS issue than the ones he pushes.
I don’t know that he thought he was going to win it but he was right on the law, and his “activism,” such as it is, is confined to pressing his case through the legal system. He isn’t holding rallies or picketing anybody or holding any sort of public demonstrations so I don’t see how he can really be called an activist in the classic sense.
mswas: You express yourself better than a lot of college-educated people I know.
OK, let’s go back to the OP. Two points:
-
I strongly suspect that the problems you perceive have much more to do with the different languages that are spoken among the different factions of society than any religious barrier;
-
I also doubt your claim regarding seeing “spirituality” in the eyes of others, but suspect that that has more to do with language than belief.
Had I been present at your meeting, I’m fairly sure that I would have fallen into the group that you dismissed. Is that because I have no belief? No. It is because I have been in too many meetings and meals and activities with religious people and I know that a lot of people who give off good “spirituality” vibes are frauds and a lot of people who are deeply spiritual were simply raised to not wear that on their sleeve. I have also learned through long experience that an openng line about seeing true spirituality in another’s eyes (or any similar claims) is often going to be followed up by (or eventually lead to) a dismissal or condemnation of all those papists/Jews/ Muslims/Mormons/holy rollers/whoever that don’t seem to have the “right kind” of spirituality. So if you had broached that comment at a meeting at which I found myself, I would very carefully not participate until I was already quite sure that it was not going to lead to an unnecessary division within the group as the “wrong sort” of believers or unbelievers were made to feel unwelcome.
This is not to say that you are wrong that there is often a divide between the “academics” (for want of a better word) and the people they attempt to help. I just think you’ve siezed on an event that you may or may not have perceived correctly and extrapolated to a larger scenario that I do not believe exists.
Among similar situations that I have witnessed have been groups who were all of the same basic belief–and in which the “academics” were quite clearly as spiritually active as the others–and organizations in which belief was excluded because of interfaith conflicts. In each case, my perception has been that the gulf between the groups was due more to language and expression than an approach to belief.
This is not to say that different approaches to belief may not factor in to broken communication. It just means that staking out that difference in approach as “the cause” seems to be too broad a generalization.
Tom, I believe you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. What I was talking about, the light in the eyes thing, had nothing to do with trying to say one side was superior to another, and the people who agreed with me, were the ones who were acknowledging that they had a shared experience. You are judging an experience as negative, because some people have used it to maintain a level of bigotry. However, it’s like any other visceral attraction, and there is no need to justify it. For instance, I have had many experiences with women where there was an attraction that was sexual and the draw was from a much lower part of the body. That same draw has been used to persecute people who do not have it by saying they are unattractive. This is not true, it is just a matter of attraction. The light that I am talking about transcends a specific religion. I’ve gotten a reaction from people of all walks of life, many different faiths, children, adults of all ages, every social class etc… It has nothing to do with saying “MY religion” is superior. Hell, I don’t define what “MY religion” is, just so I can avoid all that nonsense. As I once told a friend of mine who told me he wasn’t going to worship my god, “You’d be pretty stupid if you worshipped MY god. He’s got my best interests in mind, not yours.” So I hate to see people’s experience diminished out of a fear of acknowledging it due to experience with religious bigotry. In the end you are just passing on that experience of bigotry that you have onto me.
From another point of view though I would say that you have hit the nail on the head. In my opinion you take a very intellectual route to your religion, and as such keep your eyes guarded out of fear of this sort of bigotry being perpetrated. However, it’s not bigotry. I am not talking about some magical ability that only God’s chosen people can achieve. It’s only a matter of those who want to express it to people, and who they choose to express it to.
I personally believe that every problem in the entire world stems from the war between the intellect and the emotion. We all have both sides within us, and that is the essence of conflict. Each side has it’s adherents, people that attach themselves more to one side or the other. Thesis, Anti-thesis, Synthesis
I’ll go deeper into the subject even though it is a hijack of the thread. Chakras are the different energy centers in the body, and are given a different aspect of conciousness. Different people have different strengths in their conciousness throughout their body from their head down to their toes. Chakras are assigned different colors, the root chakra being red, and connected to survival, instinct, and the concrete world is signified as connecting us to the Earth, thus the name “Root”. The Earth would be the darkness, where we cannot see, where the only sensations are ones of feeling. Then you go on up the chain, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. Violet is our crown chakra, it connects us to the pure white light, where all sensation is visual, this is our connection to intellect and the abstract.
Qabbalistically this same paradigm would be referring to the line between Kether(Crown) and Malkuth (Kingdom).
So “The Academics” I am referring to would be the ones who’s conciousness is stronger in their upper chakras, than in their lower ones. I generally hesitate to start referring to Chakras, because it’s not a common language for most people. It’s like referring to a human’s conciousness at the assembly code level, and can make it hard to discuss even with people who do have that common language. So Tom, from reading your posts, I would assume that the way you view spirituality is very upper chakra oriented. That does not make it superior or inferior to someone who’s main energy center is one of the lower ones.
One of the easiest ways to undercut oneself is to start measuring one’s spiritual development by the development of another, and I am not going to limit my experience out of someone else’s fear of being surpassed, or their fear of me thinking I have surpassed them. I am not discussing relative enlightenment, I am only discussing the differences in the way things are communicated amongst groups that are trying to interface with one another. I would agree with your assessment about language, and I would say that even though both sides are speaking English, the academic language is much different from the Southern Baptist religious language.
So when I talk about light in one’s eyes, I am only talking about people who have a common unitive experience, to what I have experienced. It unites me with that person, even if only on a small level. It does not mean in any way, that a person I have not experienced this with, is incapable of experiencing it with me, or does not experience it daily with another person, or even that someone who doesn’t choose to communicate that way, isn’t spiritual.
To the people that deny it asking me for “proof”, it just shows me that you really don’t get what I am talking about, because you are denying my experience, and essentially calling me a liar, because it’s a deep personal experience, one that I cannot just duplicate in a lab for you. However, I am confident that you have had some sort of experience of something like that where something passes between you and a person you are communicating with visually, that is analogous to what I am saying. Applying your fear of bigotry to what I said initially, gets in the way of communicating the idea in this medium.
Erek
Thanks, that’s comforting. ;j
I think part of the divide comes from the fact that academia tends to discuss issues in terms of science and logic. Religion tends not to hold up particularly well to that kind of scrutiny. And that’s just fine as long as you maintain a reasonable separation between the two. What is percieved as “snobbishness” comes when people want to bring academic legitimacy to religion, and are bitterly disappointed to find that under rigorous academic analysis, religion ultimately is revealed to be unprovable at best. Thus I lay the blame at the feet of people who cannot simply be content with their religion as subjective belief and seek to qualify it academically.
At the very basis, academia depends on logic and science. Religion is based on belief. Each is fine in its own rite, but any attempt to merge the two can only end in tears.
That doesn’t make any sense. Having different values is not racist; race isn’t even a factor in it. I’m not sure I agree that black Americans as a whole prefer sports to academics either.
Put me down as someone else who doesn’t understand what this is supposed to mean.
I think you may be speaking of what I have called “the unity experience.” Mine happened over twenty years ago. Those experiences do not distinguish between academicians and non-academicians. That is the essential nature of the experience itself: There is no otherness.
If you tell me otherwise, then I will know we are talking about different things.
Truly, I think that you are projecting feelings of superiority upon a group when these feelings aren’t there. At best, that would be a massive generalization.
The professors that I had in college largely stayed out of discussions of a religious nature. I did run into many of them in church after I had graduated and found a denomination that I was comfortable with.
When I became politically active, religion was not an issue. (This was in the Dark Ages.) When I taught in the inner city, I did have to struggle to see that my religious rights were not violated by more fundamentalist Christians. There was not interference other than that.
Can you give any specific examples of how academicians have demonstrated attitudes of superiority through word or deed within activist groups in regard to religion?
BTW, I commend you on your self-education. My greatest teacher was also a self-educated man.
Zoe: Yes, I was leaning away from terms like “Unity experience” but the words I would have chosen would have been “Unitive experience” so I think we are on the same track.
As for everyone else. I am trying to touch on something very abstract. So to think I am singling out any one “academic” is a misunderstanding. I am not strictly referring to elitism, though elitism certainly exacerbates what I am talking about. I am trying to shift away from the idea of “Racism”. What I was getting at is the idea that maybe what we call racism is more institutionalized these days, in the ways that institutions act upon their policies, or within the way that individuals within the institution express it’s culture.
So while Academia certainly has something to offer everyone, what is it about Academia do religious cultures find off-putting? So by association, what might ethnic communities that are highly religious find off-putting about American Secular Academia? We can very easily say that Academia is accepting of religion, and point to theology classes, and religious organizations, but there are even ways that an Academic religious class will seperate the discussion from individual experience, that a religiuos discussion will not. Oftentimes I find the problem for myself in this particular area is that I will have a very intense and personal experience only to have some bystander ask me “prove it”, if I discuss it in a public forum like this.
In my opinion, we have come to a certain point where we are basing our assumptions of what is real and what is true on the entrenched ideas that are based upon OTHER people’s experience. That is how dogma is created, and like it or not self-styled Academics/Intellectuals are as often as not just as dogmatic as fundamentalist christians, and will even sacrifice scientific rigor to hold to a belief system that they hold to be true. The problem then arises that they attach their own beliefs to their adherence to science, and defend attacks against themselves by saying it is attack against science, when it is not at all. Science by it’s very nature is unassailable, because in the end, if a theory is untrue, then it is unscientific. So any time someone defends Academia or Science, they are actually defending the dogma, and not the thing itself at all.
There has got to be some scientific fallacy with a pretty latin name for the fallacy that eliminates personal experience from being valid evidence. Unfortunately I do not know what that is. Most people’s knowledge is learned by rote, not everything we accept to be true has been tested by us when we repeat it. How many of you out there have tested everything you’ve read by Newton, Hawking, Einstein, Penrose, etc… before you’ve weighed into a discussion, repeated it, and even given it as a cite for evidence? How many of those statistics on economic analysis do you test before you post it as evidence? The fact is that we have to accept on faith, that the people we are quoting are possibly correct, because we aren’t going to go through the rigorous testing we assume they did prior to weighing into an internet discussion.
So what I am looking for is a self-examination of the system of bureaucracy that we have formed that might lead to what we call “racism”. I think the idea of racism is a term we have more or less transcended, and that it’s becoming less and less defined as we move along. Certainly when black people had to sit in the back of the bus or drink from a seperate water fountain, it was easy to define, but now that the problems are more hidden, and tend to follow class lines more than racial lines, how do we find it? What about the thought process of a kid from a suburb of Boston that gets into Harvard is different from the thought process of a kid from Harlem that ends up as a drug trafficker? Both paths take extraordinary levels of intelligence, attention to detail and good communications skills, so what seperates them?
What is it about Manhattan Liberal Academics that seperates them from a black neighborhood in Brooklyn even though they both traditionally vote Democrat?
Liberal urban elites like to see themselves as being smarter than their religious conservative counterparts in rural areas, but in my experience, I have found that to be incorrect. I am not saying that the religious conservatives are more intelligent either.
So if urban minorities are traditionally democratic as well, what seperates them from other “liberals”. I am suggesting that it might have to do with how each culture is influenced by religion. I think that secularism is a largely white academic creation and doesn’t hold much resonance for more religious cultures regardless of race. So in America I would say that the “secular” culture is actually a drastic minority that was able to benefit politically from a division of ethnic cultures based upon race. So as the racial divide diminishes, the party that is more friendly to the religious cultural core in this country, almost automatically takes hold of the political will of those cultures that are more aligned with them on a religious basis. That might be why we saw Hispanic communities voting republican more in this last election.
Demographically, to my inexpert eyes, it would seem like the Republican party is the party of Protestant America minus Black Protestants, and the Democratic party is the catchall party of everyone else with very little unity.
Erek