Oliver Willis has a thoughtful post up on the subject of religion and the Presidential campaign. He notes the objection of some conservative bloggers to people asking Mitt Romney questions about whether he subscribes to specific elements of Mormon faith. Willis suggests that such questions are entirely appropriate, particularly where faith is listed as a central motivation for the candidates’ campaign. The true motivation, in the case of Romney, is to insulate him because many Americans will just find particular elements of Mormonism to be “weird.” But it’s only familiarity with more common religious beliefs that cause them to be regarded differently than those “weird” elements of Mormonism.
Look, religion is weird. It just is. Whether you believe in it or not, the very idea of invisible men and women, prophets, miracles, burning bushes, talking animals, etc. are just not things we encounter in daily life in the modern era (well, without the aid of drugs, that is). But a lot of people, the majority of people, have these beliefs. And if they are to be our leaders and have these beliefs inform their decision making processes, it is right to ask them about them to find out what they truly believe. Again, if a reporter asked Hillary Clinton, “Senator, do you believe that 2,000 years ago a man named Jesus walked on water?” that’s not out of bounds in the least. My guess is that she would say “Yes”, because it’s what she believes and that belief is part of her make up.
Without applying this comment specifically to Mormanism, I think it fair to ask whether elements of a faith alter a person’s conduct toward other members of a community and, if so, what the consequences of that conduct are. It doesn’t much matter to me if someone believes that Moses saw a bush burning (without being consumed) on a mountain. What someone eats is usually a matter of taste. But I shy away from “absolute relativism” (now that sounds oxymoronic). Few of us will tolerate a believer in human sacrifice who acts on those beliefs, especially if the victim doesn’t volunteer for the role.
On a practical, but more difficult level, living in a highly urbanized and “open” society increases the value in being able to “assess” and identify people quickly. A religion which demands “modest” dress which completely hides the body and face of the individual wearing the clothing is problematic, and a burden, for the rest of us.
Social norms, viewed rationally, may seem weird too, but they are not always pointless.
You remind me of a Christian retreat I went to a few years back. Unlike things organized by one church, this one had every denomination there.
One rule they had all weekend that was GREAT was that there were two questions off-limits: “What church do you go to?” and “What do you do for a living?”. You also could not offer the answers to those questions.
It was amazing having to actual talk to a man to learn about him, instead of making a snap decision based on “Here’s what I think about doctors, policemen, factory workers, lawyers, etc…” or “Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc…”
Jason-
However attractive such retreats may be I think you recognize that such a retreat has very little if anything to do with how we live day to day. Those who attended the retreat would seem to be a self selected group willing to take the time to “walk in someone else’s shoes” for a few days. But I would guess a lot of people like city life precisely because they can assume a new identity, or even have no identity, which allows them to explore aspects of life they would never dream of following in a community where they were well known. I question if just anyone will open up in the way you found so attractive.
In context my comment related directly to styles of clothing which some religions impose on adherents to the particular faith, particularly clothing which covers the face or which completely hides the person’s general shape. While it is possible to learn much about someone who is talking to you from under a sack, it is harder to do so. Eye contact and facial expressions carry a lot of information, and in some situations, such as police work, snap decisions may seem necessary and be a matter of life and death. And given that age catches up with us all I certainly hope our fears don’t lead us to actually living out Heinlein’s “Puppet Masters” for security reasons. But I can see that some limitations on what kinds of clothing are allowed in places of business, schools and government buildings are not unreasonable limitations on individuals’ rights to self expression.
I’ll grant that such retreats are useful in reminding us that, at some level, we frequently respond to situations and people with some degree of prejudice and error. But I do not think we can tolerate all forms of exceptional behavior, where justification is claimed on the basis of relitious teaching, if coupled with a demand to be “treated just like everybody else”.