Ijrs vol 3 no 3, 2015 by FSSH Scholarly Journals

IJRS

Volume 03, Number 3, 2015

Volume 02, Number 3, 2015 Editorial Board Adam P. Howard City University of New York/Hostos Community College, United States Jeremy J. Edward East Stroudsburg University, United States Jamil M. Sharif Emirates College for Advanced Education, United Arab Emirates Dennis R. Edgar Centre for Education and Research, University of Northampton, United Kingdom Editor in Chief Adam P. Howard City University of New York/Hostos Community College, United States Editors Alfredo U. Santos Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Education and Development -ULHT, Lisbon, Portugal Jung-Hyun Kok Utah Valley University, United States Muhammad Ataf United Arab Emirates University, United Arab Emirates A Huang Min Central China Normal University, China Patrick O. John University of Nottingham, United Kingdom Suraphong Soepwongli The Political Science Association of Kasetsart University, Thailand Head Office City University of New York, Eugenio MarĂa de Hostos Community College 500 Grand Concourse | Bronx | New York | 10451 | 718-518-4444 Branch Offices Warwickshire (England) : 6 Leather Street, Long Itchington | Southam, Warwickshire | CV47 9RD Cairo (Egypt): Khalifa El-Maamon st, Abbasiya sq. | Cairo | Post Code 11566 | 202-26831490 Bandung (Indonesia): Jl. Raya Bandung Sumedang Km. 21 | Jatinangor | West Java | Indonesia | Post Code 45363 | 022-84288828 Canberra (Australia): The Australian National University | Canberra ACT 0200 ACT 0200 | Australia | +61 2 6125 5111 All manuscripts must be submitted electronically through the e-mail to the editor at: editor@fssh-journal.org or fssh.editor@gmail.com

TABLE OF CONTENS Religious Orientation Types in Iranian Muslims: Differences in Alexithymia, Emotional Intelligence, Self-Consciousness, and Psychological Adjustment Nima Ghorbani and P. J. Watson ...............................................................................1 - 8 Religious Elements in the Italian Language: A Sociolinguistic Reflection Isabella Quatera .........................................................................................................9 - 18 Do the Organizational Structures of Religious Places of Worship Reflect Their Statements of Faith? An Exploratory Study Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht ..................19 - 37 Religious Doubt and Psychological Well-Being: A Longitudinal Investigation Neal Krause ..............................................................................................................39 - 54 Finding Faith, Losing Faith: The Prevalence and Context of Religious Transformations during Adolescence Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker..............................................................55 - 75 Science, Religion, and Ethics Joe Hester..................................................................................................................77 - 87 Islam and Rationality: A Study of Contemporary Muslim Voices in the Islamic Science Debate Husni .......................................................................................................................89 - 100

International Journal of Religious Studies Vol. 3, No. 3, June â&#x20AC;&#x201C; August 2015. Nima Ghorbani and P. J. Watson

ISSN 1352-4624 http://fssh-journal.org

Nima Ghorbani and P. J. Watson

International Journal of Religious Studies

Nima Ghorbani and P. J. Watson

International Journal of Religious Studies

Nima Ghorbani and P. J. Watson

International Journal of Religious Studies

Nima Ghorbani and P. J. Watson

International Journal of Religious Studies Vol. 3, No. 3, June – August 2015. Isabella Quatera

RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS IN THE ITALIAN LANGUAGE: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC REFLECTION ISABELLA QUATERA quatera.isabella@gmail.com Each language directly affects its speakers both on an individual and community level. Within the Italian language and its learning process, there are many variables to be taken into consideration. The linguistic repertoire of Italian speakers has always been and still is in constant evolution, expanding and acquiring new nuances. Within a rather short period, linguistic borders in Italy have intertwined and created stable geo-linguistic interconnections. By recalling the history of the Italian language through the religious presence on the territory, it is possible to notice a constant integration between secular and spiritual factors, and a tight bond between written and spoken language.

eligion, and more specifically the Catholic Church, has always contributed to intertwine the religious matters with the linguistic history of Italy, so much that it deeply influenced and left important traces both on the construction of lexicon, on the evolution of the language itself, and on a great extent of extra linguistic features of the speakers. This work aims to stress the fact that the Italian language is the result of Catholic culture and influence, with all its linguistic prohibitions, defined by religious, moral, social and thus cultural attitudes of the Italian speaking community. Moreover, the Catholic Church and religion have established as an extraordinary means of promotion of the Italian language abroad and of its teaching as a second language. Furthermore, linguistic custom modalities and choices represent a remarkable potential of preservation and promotion of the Italian language that has only recently been examined in depth by the scholars. The Catholic Church has had both a preeminent and vehicle role in the spreading of a national language and in the contact with cultures, traditions and customs of many “elsewhere”, often acting with an invasive attitude. Nevertheless, the Holy See has always given an important contribution to the spreading of the Italian language all over the world through its priesthood, missionaries and official Pontiff Speeches, but also by universalizing Dante’s language by means of media and social networks. The keywords used in Pontiff Speeches talking to great masses of people are extremely common terms, pronounced in a lively language and pervaded with a deeply religious and symbolic meaning, able to trespass territorial imageries and boundaries.

DISCOVERING THE ITALIAN LANGUAGE: A LINGUISTIC, HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS ANALYSIS Word is the most evolved form of communication among individuals, and individual freedom was born from the need to express thought through speech. ISSN 1352-4624 http://fssh-journal.org

Isabella Quatera

Word and language start their shared history when they become one with written signs. Generally, each action materialises through the production and transmission of speech; the same way humans find their position within the world and history by means of language. Since language is a unifying element for a community, vehicle of a culture, voice of a tradition, it is considered fundamental for the identity of its speakers. In Italy, across the centuries, the discussion on language and the research of a grammatical norm originated historical, political and cultural debates (Pocetti; Poli; Santini 1999: 10-13). In particular, lexicon represents the texture of any linguistic system. From an historical evolution point of view, it can be considered as a common heritage for all the speakers of a language, a heritage that prospers and becomes stratified in time, rooted in specific cultural matrixes. A historical reflection on the Italian territory will confirm that it has always been crossroads and land of reception par excellence in the Mediterranean Basin for a multitude of peoples that gave a relevant contribution to the Italian culture itself, leaving their trace in our country and in our language. Numerous lexical elements coming from outside the Italian territory, token of the contacts between the Romans and the Mediterranean peoples and later on with medieval vernacular, have influenced our language. The Mediterranean, as a specific place, evokes a constant intertwining of different roots and routes (Chambers 2004: 13). Historically, these processes have always been connected with traveling, migration and movements of goods and people. Moreover, the spread of our language is linked and perceived, especially abroad, as the language of fashion, food, design, music and melodrama. However, Italian is also the language of monasteries, of cathedrals, of the huge Catholic tradition: the language of the Church. Ecclesiastics would use Latin for liturgy, spreading it among the religious people and thus mixing it with Greek influences, with the consequence of expanding Christianity itself. But what is the Latin Italian originated from? The first assumption was that Romance languages, including Italian vernaculars and in particular the Florence one, which was the very base for literary Italian, directly developed from Latin through a complex process that took place across an uninterrupted chain of speakers. The liturgical language of the first Christian community in the West exerted a great influence on Latin, as pointed out by the French Linguist Ferdinand Brunot who, with the expression “fortitude of Latin” aimed to stress that Latin is the direct result of a historical heritage that culminated in the Council of Trent. Latin was a distinctive trait of the Catholic Church for both its devotees and its detractors. Also he underlines how, across the centuries, every attempt of opening to national languages was not just crushed, but it even offered the opportunity to create a range of argumentations supporting the apologetic of Latin, regarded as a sacred language. Echoing Cicero’s Epistolary, where the author asserts to write in sermo cotidianus, it is important to remind how the distinction between written and spoken language has to be interpreted more as a diastratic variation –that is to say due to the belonging to a certain social class– than as proof of two different linguistic codes. Nevertheless, since the beginning, the literary language was clearly separated from the actually spoken one. And the difference became more and more evident: it became a language of culture, assuming a hint of archaism that ended up taking it away from common intelligibility. During this evolution, in which the differentiation between

International Journal of Religious Studies

liturgical and everyday life languages went together with a strong tendency of the former to be fixed and resist to evolution, Latin became prerogative of a clerical elite. The instauration of a clerical hierarchy in the Church determined, as a consequence, a different kind of relationship with the people and the distinction between clergy and devotees grew in time, together with a radical divergence between erudite and popular culture. Such divergence was made evident in the opposition between an intellectual minority that knew Latin and had access to a formal education and the mass of illiterate or idiotae that did not know Latin and were only proficient in vernacular – with its oral tradition (Harris and Carocci 2000: 27). A substantial innovation took place with the so-called vernacular Latin “Vulgärlatein” (Hugo Schuchardt,1866- 68), that is to say the Latin spoken by the lower classes during the late Empire era, the “language of use”: it was once again strongly influenced by local spoken varieties. The geo-linguistic variable was then at stake and, with time, it naturally determined substantial differences in pronunciation and related linguistic aspects in the various speaking communities. The well known quote from Saint Augustine in the Expositions on the Psalms 138,20:“Melius est reprehendant nos gramatici quam non intelligat populus”, in which he defends the mass linguistic expressions against the intellectual ones, more adequate but way harder to understand for common people, is the tangible testimony of the wide spreading of spoken Latin in the late antiquity. Practical needs led to choose Latin as the common language for the Empire. Moreover, it was necessary to fix in a stable and secured form the religious discourse, as it was linguistically convenient for both its contents and uses (Coletti 25). Numerous terms were introduced by the new born Christian religion, while the words of Greek influence are token of the lively exchange between West and East, also as a consequence of the Christian belief spreading. For example, the use of definite articles in Italian starts with the translation of Gospels from Greek into Latin. Among the most significant terms coming from religion, it is worth to mention that the classic verbum, typical of educated speakers, is replaced with parabola = parola (= parable; word); thus parabulare = parlare (= to narrate parables; to speak) supplants the irksome and irregular verb loqui. The Italian adjective cattivo (= evil) derives from captivum (= devil), a contemptible creature belonging to hell. The verb tradere (= to hand down, to surrender) acquired the meaning of “betraying” with reference to the crucial episode of the Gospel when Judas tradidit (= handed down) Jesus (Ramat 1997: 14; Calboli 1994: 19). Such semantic transformation convey the extent to which Christianity influenced social life, morals and even anthropology in our country. Moreover, from the Middle Ages onwards, the Catholic Church would present itself as the only compact and united entity in a fragmented Europe, thus acquiring a pivotal importance from both a cultural and institutional point of view. The transmission of culture, as well as the transcription of manuscripts, is almost exclusively due to the schools built within cathedrals or episcopal seats. During this period, countless bestiaries, herbariums, lapidaries were written mixing scientific knowledge with symbolic and moral meanings of animals, plants and stones, with the primary purpose of understanding the Scriptures and to praise the Creator by praising His Creation. Thus, the language of the Church becomes official and universal. The new spoken language is the result of the evolution of a formerly Roman society; of the rifts and the mingling of different peoples; of the relations between rulers and ruled; of schisms and heresies (Petrucci 1994: 5-73).

Isabella Quatera

Differently to Islam, whose reference language is Arabic, the Catholic religion does not have an official language and all the languages have the same value, with the exception of Italian. Saint Peter established in Rome, where the Roman Curia as well as prestigious pontifical universities are settled. The whole world links the Catholic Church and its history and institutions to Italy and in particular to Rome, where global events take place in a setting of monumental architecture pervaded of a strong spiritual and symbolic value. The ecumenical function of Rome clearly emerged in recent times, when three non-Italian popes were elected: Pope John Paul II, not by chance honoured by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the award of «ambassador of the Italian language in the world»; Pope Francis has also displayed remarkable Italian language communicative skills since the very beginning of his pontificate. On the night of his election, he greeted the devotees using only Dante’s language from Saint Peter’s loggia. In such a decisive moment, Pope Francis renounced to multilingualism in favour of Italian, choice that he reiterated in all the main public occasions; as a consequence of this relevant number of elements it can be inferred that Italian has had a role of ‘lingua franca’, although unofficially.

LITURGY AND LINGUISTIC EVANGELISM Religion, and here specifically the Catholic religion, has always influenced not only the lexicon, but also the speakers’ extra linguistic and expressive features. It is common convention to pose the origin of modern history of linguistics in 1916 with the “structural revolution” started by Ferdinand de Saussure with his “Course in General Linguistics”, according to whom geographical difference, as well as space, is the first observation in linguistic difference. De Saussure revolution consists in the idea that language, as an essential function of the social system, is a phenomenon in transformation produced by its common use by the speakers through history. He speaks of geographical linguistics by formally acquiring maps of words provided by linguistic atlases, and he also uses the term “linguistic colonisation” intended as the penetration and interpenetration of linguistic behaviours, uses and customs between rulers and ruled. It seems to be the case of the linguistic and extra linguistic “colonisation” enacted by the Catholic Church across the centuries. The geo-linguistic representation renders an immediate perception of the power relationships that structure the history of cultures, where the preponderant and most influential element in the case of the Church was “prestige” and the capacity of expansion of a certain institution or people instead of another. Language has been a great communicative and symbolic resort for the Church, as can be inferred by looking at the events in Latin America. Here, during the XVI century La Malinche –also known as Malinalli, Malintzin– daughter of an Aztec dignitary who, after the death of her father, was sold to Hernán Cortéz by Tabasco Indios; after converting to Christianity, her name was changed into Marina. Slave, paramour and official interpreter for Cortéz, she had a crucial role for the Spanish conquer of the Aztec Empire in Central America: thanks to her knowledge of Maya and Nahuatl languages, she was the ideal guide for the Spanish conqueror, and contributed crucially to the success of his actions. Native sources define La Malinche as a “superlative grade divinity”. The extraordinary gift of speech she is endowed with, her ability to translate and to communicate with the Spanish poses her on a higher level. In a world where women

International Journal of Religious Studies

had no voice, relegated as they were to the roles or mothers or slaves, she has extraordinary powers deriving from language. Despite being responsible of betraying her own kind, she is not judged negatively by her own culture, which instead depicts her as an extraordinary figure as, according to a cyclic vision of history, she is considered as a vehicle between the Aztecs and the Spanish-God. The mentioned episode is just an example of how, since that moment, the strongly spiritual Catholic evangelism contributes to the expansion of the new language (Grassi 2001: 207-235). The work of conquistadores, often pervaded with a perception of cultural superiority, proposes an assimilation to the western cultural model that implies the total deletion of native linguistic and social structures. Religious liturgy becomes a ground of synthesis between evangelic message and typically Christian communicative strategies. The evangelism often represents the natives as Cain’s cursed progeny. However, between the late XVI and the early XVIII century, the Society of Jesus missionaries, during their efforts to convert the natives, modified not only the indigenous languages and customs, but also their own. Such a behaviour is indeed innovative in the western panorama, as stated by Professor Diego Poli from University of Macerata during the International Congress of Italian Society of Linguistics that took place in Milan in 2005. The reasons might be the acquisition of information so far unknown to the West and the creation by the missionary of a movement of alterity interpretation, with all the consequences of the phenomenon. For Jesuits the religious cosmos was a vast system of beliefs, which meant that every religious belief was linked by analogy with other religions, social praxes and precise policies. Their practice of evangelism and presentation of Catholic liturgy to the natives managed to create contacts between apparently antipodal beliefs, as in the case of Christianity and Chinese Civil religion (Annali: 1989-1990). If alterity was viewed as a danger and had to be subjected or even suppressed – as unfortunately also happened – Jesuit missionaries contributed to a different message, according to which alterity has to be understood in its specificity and it is possible to communicate with it. Thus, identifying such a way of thinking, especially in a European context of imperialist expansion, colonialism and enslaving of local populations, is a starting point for a broader reflection from an intercultural perspective. The liturgical practice was also a native form of resistance to the “soul colonisation”. The “civilising” strategies aimed to implement a pragmatic and communicative indoctrination through the construction of new textual modalities and communicative genres. In particular, music and dances became a critical part of the “mise-en-scene” of the Christian message and of the sociopolitical reorganisation of time and space in the societies to evangelize. For example in South America, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth century, music and images were widely used. In fact, the emerging complex neo-Christian sociocultural identities of the Amerindian villages found their public representation in chorographical musical events. The dualism that is typical of the relation between form and content, allowed an incomplete deletion of pre-Christian symbols, rituals and contexts, in fact in some sporadic cases it favoured the preservation of native symbolic forms and representations; which happened in southern Mexico, by Oaxaca, for what concerns the liturgical aspect of the Corpus Christi and the worship of Saints – a synthesis of the coexistence between evangelised and evangeliser (Banfi and Iannàccaro 2006: 253- 279). Through the history of the mission the problems of religion and belief in modern Europe are put into question, and especially the religion of common people and their relation with the elites and with language.

Isabella Quatera

At this point, it is fundamental to analyse some lexemes that are symbolic in the colonisation and evangelism process. For example, the lexeme tabu (= taboo, without tonic accents), a Polynesian word that means “sacred, forbidden” (often erroneously pronounced tabù in Italian) and was originally referred to a ritual prohibition regarding objects or people to which sacredness was attributed. The term acquired, also in the common use, a broader meaning referred to the diverse parts of the human experience that have an aura of both usage and linguistic interdiction. In particular, a linguistic taboo consists in the prohibition of pronouncing words related with referents shrouded in taboo (that is to say tabooed). It has often happened throughout history that people, animals, plants, objects, behaviours, actions and even ideas are charged with such cultural connotations that they start conveying a sense of sacredness, dangerousness and unpleasantness to the terms that define them. It is possible to observe this phenomenon in all societies, which display it in remarkably different ways; moreover, it varies in each society in time and with the transformations of moral, cultural and social norms. The semantic areas that are most commonly involved in linguistic interdiction are the magic and religious ones and those regarding disease and death (Zelenin 19881989: 187-316; 123-180; 183- 276). To overcome interdiction, a speaker can omit the name of the interdict object, possibly alluding to it with a pause or a gesture, or can resort to many lexical strategies that work either on the signifier or on the signified (Cardona 1976: 148), replacing the term directly referring to the tabooed concept with other expressions that make an indirect reference to it. The most widely resorted lexical strategy consists in using words or periphrases with a positive or neutral connotation, with the purpose of attenuate the negative expressive strength of the interdict term, perceived as offensive, obscene, brutal and unpleasant. Thus, the speaker resorts to euphemisms (from the ancient Greek verb ευφηµί, “to pronounce words of good omen”) obtained, for example, with the use of rhetorical strategies such as metaphors (e.g. “the last journey” to say “death”) or periphrases (e.g. “incurable disease”, “special friendship”). However, not all the solutions are euphemistic. Many religions forbid to say the name of God aloud, for example the Catholic commandment clearly states: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”. Therefore, in Italy it is often substituted with numerous names that also vary according to regional and dialectal traditions: “padreterno” (=eternal father), “altissimo” (=most high), signore (=lord), “quello là che sta nei cieli” (= that one who lives in the skies) and so on (Beccaria 2001). It is evident that interdiction is a phenomenon triggered by religious, moral, psychological and social reasons with remarkable effects on languages, and that both its manifestations and the multiple strategies used to elude it are a powerful agent of linguistic reshaping. What a speaker can or cannot say according to the norms of their community is something defined by religious, moral, social and thus cultural attitude of a community of speakers (Cannobbio 2009). Consequently, the strategies enacted to avoid using interdict words cause a linguistic transformation, as well as a method of reality concealment that can be associated with what was described by Luca Serianni as “common sense of linguistic decency”.

CASE STUDY: THE ITALIAN LANGUAGE Each language expresses the culture that produces it, and its knowledge and wide spreading represent, according to a pluralist logic, an enrichment factor for everyone.

International Journal of Religious Studies

What can be done to preserve this pluralism within the cultural sphere? It is necessary to pursue policies of language spreading. In fact, a language is not just a phonetic and grammatical system: it is the culture of the peoples expressing themselves through it. The language represents its culture the way it is perceived by both its native and nonnative speakers. The present research proposes an interdisciplinary approach, inspired by AngloSaxon Cultural Studies (Blount 1974). It draws upon the contributions of Social Sciences, and especially sociology, anthropology and semiology. Historical disciplines were also fundamental to understand the considered phenomena, since the concept of linguistic and cultural identity – central in this approach – required both a synchronic and diachronic analysis. An important part of the research consisted in a thorough reflection on the opinion that foreigners have about Italian and the ways in which it influences the attitude of people towards the language itself. The opinion includes a functional consideration on its usefulness, an apparently aesthetic one on its “beauty” and a global one on the culture it is embedded in. When asking a foreigner their opinion about Italian, their first answer is that it is a “musical and harmonious” language, since it is associated with the tradition of bel canto (= melodic singing), going from the Renaissance melodrama to the Festival di Sanremo; a tradition pervading opera and Neapolitan musical tradition, its most universal form of expression. At the same time, it is necessary to take into consideration the civilisation that is expressed by Italian. It provided an outstanding contribution to the formation of western culture with literature, music, figurative arts, all fields in which Italy has been an important reference for the other countries. More recently, the “made in Italy” has obtained great international success in various sectors, and has become a lifestyle model. Thanks to the Italian prestige in these spheres, many Italian words have become part of international lexicon. With the Italian migration, groups of Italian speakers are spread across the world and in areas where Italian represents a sort of “lingua franca” among workers from different ethnic groups. In the last century, Italian was regarded as both a language of refined culture and a language of migrants with rather obsolete values and social organisations. It is in fact easy to bump into the stereotype of the moustache-and-pasta Italian with an exaggerate gesture. The situation has suddenly changed in the 1970s thanks to designers and fashion designers who redefined the status of Italians in the popular imagery. Nowadays Italian is identified abroad with a country of fine taste producing and exporting the most admired lifestyle, creative and innovating in all sectors. Our cultural institutions abroad perceived and supported this tendency and used it to promote successfully other aspects of our civilisation, not as well known by the foreign public. Even more meaningful is the fact that, since the last century, which is to day since when Italy has become a country of immigration rather than emigration, Italian has become L2 for numerous foreign workers from disparate countries, for both short and long-term settlement. The present research specifically aims to stress how Italian and its learning needs considering many variables, which may depend on multiple external factors or from individual characteristics of the learning subject.

Isabella Quatera

European culture was left an indelible mark by biblical tradition; in fact, literature, arts, philosophy, law and values tend to re-elaborate concepts, values and anthropological models coming from the biblical heritage. Clearly, the biblical dimension also influenced common and spoken language. Italian speakers make continuous references to the Bible in expressions such as “la pazienza di Giobbe” (=Job’s patience) or “volgi l’altra guancia” (=turn the other cheek). They are often residuals of the received catechesis. An analysis of the most common words in the Italian language reveals close relations among food, cuisine and religion. The research attempted to seek for traces of the “divine” and sacred aspects of gastronomy. Food turns out to be nourishment for body and soul, a vital medium to communicate with sacredness. Since antiquity, men made food offerings to the Gods, and this use still tends to survive in different modalities, for example in the food rituality linked to the Christian Saints. Furthermore, the representation of saints is a fundamental part of the Italian popular culture: it is the representation of a timeless religiousness in our country. Italian tradition has always evoked and relied on symbolic superior powers, to forestall plagues and ask for protection. It is the case of festivities linked to celestial star cycle or to meteorological phenomena, with their specific rituals. Devotional manifestation belong to the same concept, and especially the ones regarding food: from foods and menus dedicated to respective Saints, calendar of interdicted foods, rules of eating and fasting; prayers, proverbs, and songs still popular today; a mix of elements that are essential sources for our collective cultural and linguistic memory.

CONCLUSIONS “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. (John 1, 1-18 Prologue)

Saint John opens his Gospel with these words and clearly shows how logos is identified with God, who creates and gives life to everything: the poietic power of the logos is the very foundation of the understanding of the universe. The present research started from a historical and evolutional analysis of Italian lexemes and words to deepen the research on Italian language and culture in a sociolinguistic perspective, with the final aim to understand how and to what extent religion influences languages and extra linguistic features of the speakers. Latin was fundamental a fundamental metalanguage for the western culture to understand itself. If we think about Latin as an etymology – that is to say as a recognition of truth that can only be understood through language (Pocetti, Poli, Santini 1999) – it is clear that etymology works like a probe to analyse ourselves and our culture of origin. The role of the Church and of the liturgy in Latin was crucial on the one hand from a historic and social point of view to create and establish a new Res publica sub Deo, and on the other hand from a linguistic point of view. In fact, Christianity added numerous neologisms in the spoken language, but it also posed itself as a religion ‘for everybody’, choosing the “sermo humilis” as ne new means of transmission of Catholic tradition. Consequently, language, intended as an organic entirety and as a linguistic situation (de Saussurre), in its relation with religion, fulfils the necessity to explain the origin of the relation between humankind and universe. Religion the designated guarantor of social order and cohesion, with an actual and powerful influence on people.

International Journal of Religious Studies

Such a conception of religion is inspired by Mead (1836-1931), social psychologist from the United States and theoriser of interactionism who, in his work “Mind, Self and Society” states that human beings need to elaborate a set of symbolic representations of social reality and that religion is indeed one of them, since it offers the individuals a possible foundation for their identity, for their Self. Moreover, Parsons (1902-1968), most influential theoriser of functionalism, sees religion as a code able to regulate the events and avoid conflicts. It is a powerful element of standardisation and legitimisation of actions. Thus, religion, by the means of words, has the task to provide humanity with answers for their problems and necessities: it is the communicative medium par excellence. A final reflection can be sparked by the words that Eduardo Galeano (1940-2015), Uruguayan journalist and writer, one of the most important figures of Latin American literature, dedicated to history: “La historia es un profeta con la mirada vuelta hacia atras. Por lo que fue, y contra lo que fue, anuncia lo que serà – History is a prophet whose eyes look behind. For what has been, it announces what is going will be” (Galeano 1971). According to Galeano, memory is the opposite of past because it announces and narrates the future. Memory is deeply bound to language and is passed on with language to the new generations. It is essential to look at the word as an essential element of language and culture. The dialogue among generation is crucial to preserve the “memory of the words”. Starting from the past to understand the future. The Italian language is a perfect example: it represents memory and future at the same time, in an everyday more multilingual and multicultural perspective.

REFERENCES Ali (2008) = Atlante linguistico italiano, diretto da M.G. Bartoli et al., Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1995-, vol. 7º (La famiglia e le età dell’uomo. Carte 615-724). Annali- ex Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia- Università degli studi di Macerata- XXII-XXIII (1989- 1990) “Politica linguistica e strategie della comunicazione gesuitiche in Matteo Ricci”. Atti del XXXIX Congresso internazionale di studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana (SLI), Milano 2224 settembre 2005, a cura di E. Banfi e G. Iannàccaro, Roma 2006, pp. 253-279: “La percezione dell’”altro” nella cultura linguistica dei Gesuiti, in Lo spazio linguistico italiano e le ‘lingue esotiche’, Balboni P. 2002. Le sfide di Babele. Insegnare le lingue nelle società complesse, Torino, Utet, 2002 Balboni P., Torresan P., L’italiano di Dio, Guerra Edizioni, 2003 Berruto G. 1987 Sociolinguistica dell’italiano contemporaneo, Carrocci Blount, B. G. (a cura di). 1974. Language, Culture and Society, Cambridge, MA., Winthrop. Buket. 1996. La creazione del sacro, Mialano Adelphi Edizioni. Canobbio S. 2007. Confini invisibili: l’interdizione linguistica nell’Italia contemporanea, in La lingua come cultura, a cura di G. Iannàccaro & V. Matera, Torino, 2009 Chambers I., Le molti voci del Mediterraneo, Raffaello Cortina Ed., 2007 Diadori P., in Insegnare L2 a religiosi cattolici, l’italiano lingua veicolare nella chiesa e la formazione linguistica del clero, Le Monnier 2015 Devoto, G., Il linguaggio d’Italia. Storia e strutture linguistiche italiane dalla preistoria ai nostri giorni, Milano, Rizzoli, 1940 Fano G., in Saggio sulle origini del linguaggi, parte II, Piccola Biblioteca Einuadi 1974 Galeano E., Las venas abiertas de America Latina, La Habana, Casa de las Américas, 1971. Galli de’ Paratesi N., Le brutte parole. Semantica dell’eufemismo, Mondadori, Milano 1969 Grassi C., Die Sprachgeographie/La geografia linguistica, in Lexicon der Romanistichen Linguistik, a cura di G. Holtus, M. Metzeltin e C. Shmitt, t. I/1, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 2001 Heath, J. G., "Language Contact and Language Change", Annual Review of Anthropology, Palo Alto, CA., 1984

Isabella Quatera

Petrucci L., Il problema delle Origini e i più antichi testi italiani, in Storia della lingua italiana, t. III. Le altre lingue, a cura di L. Serianni e P. Trifone, Torino, Einaudi 1994 Pocetti P.; Poli D.; Santini C., Una storia della lingua latina. Formazione, usi, comunicazione, Carocci, 1999 Ramat P., Le lingue indoeuropee, Bologna, Il Mulino 1997. Santipolo M., Dalla sociolinguistica alla glottodidattica, UTET, 2006 Zelenin, Dimitri K., Tabù linguistici nelle popolazioni dell’Europa orientale e dell’Asia settentrionale, “Quaderni di semantica 9” (1988-1989).

International Journal of Religious Studies Vol. 3, No. 3, June â&#x20AC;&#x201C; August 2015. Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

ISSN 1352-4624 http://fssh-journal.org

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

Bruno Dyck, Frederick A. Starke, Helmut Harder and Tracy Hecht

International Journal of Religious Studies

International Journal of Religious Studies Vol. 3, No. 3, June â&#x20AC;&#x201C; August 2015. Neal Krause

ISSN 1352-4624 http://fssh-journal.org

Neal Krause

International Journal of Religious Studies

Neal Krause

International Journal of Religious Studies

Neal Krause

International Journal of Religious Studies

Neal Krause

International Journal of Religious Studies

Neal Krause

International Journal of Religious Studies

Neal Krause

International Journal of Religious Studies

Neal Krause

International Journal of Religious Studies

Neal Krause

International Journal of Religious Studies Vol. 3, No. 3, June â&#x20AC;&#x201C; August 2015. Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker

ISSN 1352-4624 http://fssh-journal.org

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 56

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 58

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 60

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 62

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 64

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 66

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 68

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 70

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 72

International Journal of Religious Studies

Mark D. Regnerus and Jeremy E. Uecker 74

International Journal of Religious Studies

International Journal of Religious Studies Vol. 3, No. 3, June – August 2015. Joe Hester

SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND ETHICS JOE HESTER* In our time ethics has been subjected to scientific analysis, a religious call to arms, and political maneuvering all of which have caused a blurring of the edges of right and wrong. This confusion has also made ethics dominantly pragmatic (practical) and issue-oriented as we emotionally respond to concerns such as abortion, gun control, and same-sex marriage, etc. Responding to issues is one thing; understanding the values involved is another. If ethics and morals seem complex and convoluted concepts, it’s because our values overlap and continue to rub against each other in uneasy affiliations. The struggle to understand these shifting moral currents poses a difficulty that is sometimes unrecognized. Dialogue is imperative for understanding and moral clarity. To accomplish this task we must place personal values in a larger context of morality and everyday ethics with the goal of developing more civil families, institutions, and communities. Understanding and respect will provide a foundation for moral reasoning that encourages discussion and dialogue about what we deem important in our lives, nation, and world.

ince 1900, the success of science has morphed into a technology that has heavily influenced the development of a major industrial, medical, technical, and social revolution. With this success, moral authority, without our noticing it, has been given over to science. Although the influence of the church in Western Civilization continues to erode, we should be forewarned and listen to the advice of Bruce Thornton1 who says, “…our culturally induced deference to scientific authority and its armor of quantification, jargon, and formulae convinces us that dubious opinions or interpretations are facts to which we must respond or suffer the dire consequences.” Like Thomas Kuhn,2 Thornton mentions that science and the scientific method change and that these changes mark the history of science as much as changing beliefs mark the history of religion.

Dr. Joseph P. Hester earned the Bachelor of Arts Degree in the Social Sciences and History from Lenoir-Rhyne University in 1961. He is a 1964 and 1967 graduate of Southeastern Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC where he earned both the Bachelor of Divinity and Master of Theology degrees. He earned the Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Georgia in 1973 completing his dissertation in analytical ethics. His 15 volume series, Philosophy for Young Thinkers, has remained in print for over 30 years. Hester is the author of many professional articles and books in philosophy, religion, and education. He is on the editorial board of the Journal of Values-Based Leadership and is the recipient of the prestigious E. Paul Torrance Award given by the Torrance Center for Creative Thinking and Gifted Education at the University of Georgia. He is now preparing a book on ethics aimed at high school students and entitled, Blurred Edges: Seeking Moral Insight in a World of Values Diversity—A Primer for Ethical Understanding. 1

Thornton, B., Plagues of the mind (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 1999). Kuhn, Thomas, Structure of scientific revolutions (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press; Fourth Edition, April 30, 2012). 2

ISSN 1352-4624 http://fssh-journal.org

Joe Hester 78 Generally, among moral theorists, science shattered the religious foundation of morals. In the aftermath of this “broken image,”1 it has been left to everyday people, religious and nonreligious, to seek their own moral foundations. Today, foundationalism is caught in the sway of postmodernism which is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. The idea that there is no foundation for ethics and that morals are personal, cultural, and therefore relative speaks to the impermanency of the moral point of view. Among other things, this points to the fact that we live in a fragmented moral world, which is also found among the religious—between those who adhere to ancient scriptures interpreting them literally and those who offer contemporary explanations and applications of their faith. We often squirm at the conclusions of postmodern fragmentationism, but its tentacles reach back to the beginnings of the European Enlightenment. In the 17th century, Descartes’ idea that an intrinsic “mind” inhabits our physical bodies dominated discussions about humans and their place in the world, but the connection between the two (mind/body) has yet to be resolved.2 Is the mind a thing that thinks as Descartes surmised, disconnected from the physical body, or is the mind nothing more and nothing less than evolved brains causally and evolutionarily constrained? Science and religion have been locked in these debates for over three centuries. Issues such as artificial insemination and cloning have magnified these discussions. Our American founders were not exempt from these faith-science debates interpreting “reason” as a part of natural evolution3 and calling the source of reason and morality “Nature’s God.” Nature’s God, akin to Aristotle’s Prime Mover, is far removed from earthly affairs and thus reason (contain in “mind”) became the modus operandi of morals and human rights. But in the minds of many, the mind-body duality continues and remains an unresolved mystery. Even some of the early scientific thinkers held on to the idea that “reason” had a universal character, perhaps coming from God. Some followed the ideas of Plato thinking of reason “as the candle of the Lord,”4 which is universal and self-evident— that is, we cannot doubt the outcomes of reason; they have a built-in certainty about them. About this some historians have said that science was born with one foot in heaven and the other in verified truth. Shaking loose from this duality has proven difficult. In their minds, their assumptions about reason made their pronouncements about the universe and humanity universal or complete and absolute. Today we understand that the methods of reason and science have changed, making truth somewhat less absolute than some think. Based on the methods used by scientists, “truth” shows an evolving history. On the other hand, for many ethics and morals continue to be firmly embedded in religious belief. 5 In America, religion, in all its diversity, is still a force in moral thinking. This controversy is evident in the news and many editorials and letters to editors in newspapers throughout our nation. 1

Matson, Floyd, The Broken Image (New York: Doubleday, 2000). Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981). 3 Stewart, Matthew, Nature's God: The heretical origins of the American republic (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, July 1, 2014). 4 Culverwel, Nathanael, An elegant and learned discourse of the light of nature, (London: T.R. and E.M. for John Rothwell, 1652). 5 Taylor, Charles, The ethics of authenticity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991). 2

International Journal of Religious Studies

In saying this, it’s important to keep an open as well as a critical mind to the origins of morals and their importance for culture building. Logically speaking, we understand that explanation and validation (proof or justification) are different; that is, the origin of morals and justifying their application in contemporary life are categorically different. Thus, despite what we believe, our moral ideas and behaviors bear the weight of explanation and validation. Reason, as a part of our cognitive capacity, cannot be ignored. An open mind and thinking widely1 about our moral beliefs are important. Charles Selfe 2 has observed that closed-minded thinking—either closed to the conclusions of science or of religion—will not resolve our ethical dilemmas.

THINKING WIDELY ABOUT MORALITY The application of morals – ethics – requires prudence and the consideration of many points of view, some perhaps contrary to personal own common sense. Conceivably, foundationalism locks us too tightly to a singular view and thereby becomes a moral cul de sac that needs to be set aside or at least re-evaluated. Reconsidering one’s personal views is essential for keeping an open mind and becoming rational in one’s moral deliberations. Depending on what beliefs support it, foundationalism often leaves many views out of the moral equation. Knowledge, especially understanding the views of others, is important to a commitment to being rational and objective and is necessary for maintaining an unbiased moral vision. The shared connections between different ethical views will help the enlargement of a more inclusive ethical view of humanity. It is indeed interesting that John Locke, an Enlightenment thinker, challenged the views of Descartes and Newton—the idea that connected mind, reason, and unquestionable truth. John Locke,3 who was raised as a Puritan (an Anglican), was also seeking a foundation for morals, as were many of his contemporaries, and believed that there must be a starting point for ethical belief. He concluded that it was to be found in Divine Revelation. Locke was not as disconnected from his science-oriented contemporaries as many have assumed. He was definitely influenced by Newton’s first law of motion—that everything that moves must be moved by something that is unmovable (e.g., Aristotle’s Prime Mover and our founders’ “Nature’s God”). For Locke, the starting point of the universe and all that’s in it must be an “unmoved mover” or “God.” This ancient idea heavily influenced America’s founders as Jefferson posited “Nature’s God” as the foundation of liberty, freedom, and equality. If all is “nature,” was this the natural progression of human evolution, of human survival, of espousing the evolutionary principles of Darwin that were yet to come? America’s founding fathers said that Nature’s God is the foundation of morality and democracy, thus, that natural reason must be utilized to explain morality and political theory as well as scientific accomplishments. Motivating Locke’s foundationalism was his belief that Christianity is more than an intellectual system of beliefs and moral rules; it is also a source of human hope and renewal.4 Studying American history, one can see how Christians latched on to “Nature’s God” and re-tooled the idea for their purposes, but to say that “Nature’s God” is a Christian idea and that America’s founders were Christians flies in the face of their Enlightenment orientation. 1

Bloom, Alan, “Justice: John Rawls Vs. The tradition of political philosophy,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 648–662, June, 1975. 2 Selfe, Charles, Alpha & omega (New York: Viking, 2003). 3 Lolordo, Antonia, 2010, “Person, Substance, Mode and ‘the moral Man’ in Locke's Philosophy.” In Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 40 (4); 643–668. 4 Rorty, R., Op. Cit.

Joe Hester 80

CHRISTIAN VERSUS SECULAR ETHICS For many years Christian ideas have dominated ethics in Western societies, but it still remains problematic to define what falls under the rubric of a “Christian ethic.” Christians often differ in their beliefs and many pull their ethics from Jewish sources (the Old Testament) as well as from the New Testament and other Christian writers. Like secular ethicists, their moral views are more often than not filtered through their beliefs. Because Christianity has governed much of ethics in Western nations, regardless of the outputs and accomplishments of science, for better or worse, ethics and morals continue to be interpreted in terms of sin and salvation – foundational Christian assumptions. Thus, for Christians, it is God’s love and grace that are thought of as fundamental and foundational. Indeed, in the minds of many, Nature’s God, the “God” of America’s founders, has evolved into a “God of grace.” This is a case of belief overcoming history. An alternate secular vision is provided by science and technology and another by moral philosophers who consider ethics a product of human reason. It is not surprising that in the 19th century, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, human progress was incorporated into both secular and Christian views. In America, industrial progress became a salvational credo and was retooled into a salvation of prosperity, a promise of God to the American people. Since that time, America has thought of itself as “a city set on a hill” to be emulated by others. Tinged with the secularism of human progress, American “exceptionalism” is touted by both Christian and non-Christian Americans. Much of American history has been written to shore up the idea that progress and civilization in dominant Western (Christian) countries, especially America, is a fulfillment of God’s divine plan. America is not the only nation in which shores up its moral principles with religious belief. Islamic cultures also suffer from cultural ethnocentrism (the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture) making it difficult for Americans to understand them and them, us. When religious foundationalism takes over a country’s moral philosophy, the said country often becomes defensive in posture, always willing to cast out those who are culturally and religiously different, and perhaps, as Wesley Clark recently wrote, always waiting for another war.1

DEFINING THE VISION In the 20th century, World War I and the Great Depression spoiled much of “a city set on a hill” vision.2 American exceptionalism was questioned and still is. After World War II, church attendance began to fall and keeps falling, although the number of people who claim to be Christian or believe in God remains steady. A recent Pew Forum Landscape Survey3 found that only 78% of Americans are Christian and among these only 51% are Protestant Christians. Further the survey …confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%. Moreover, the Protestant population is characterized by significant internal diversity and fragmentation, encompassing hundreds of different denominations loosely grouped around three fairly distinct religious traditions –

Clark, Wesley, Don't wait for the next war: A strategy for American growth and global leadership (New York: PublicAffairs, October 7, 2014). 2 Handlin, Oscar, Liberty and equality-1990-1999 (New York: HarperCollins, 1994). 3 Pew Forum Landscape Survey: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports.

International Journal of Religious Studies evangelical Protestant churches (26.3% of the overall adult population), mainline Protestant churches (18.1%) and historically black Protestant churches (6.9%).

But religion in the United States remains a moving target as the Pew Survey points out that …constant movement characterizes the American religious marketplace, as every major religious group is simultaneously gaining and losing adherents. Those that are growing as a result of religious change are simply gaining new members at a faster rate than they are losing members. Conversely, those that are declining in number because of religious change simply are not attracting enough new members to offset the number of adherents who are leaving those particular faiths.

Not surprisingly, the events leading to church decline in America were discussed 83 years ago by Walter Lippmann in his Preface to Morals. 1 Lippmann gave special attention to an ongoing tension – the tension between faith and reason and between salvation and morality. In his chapter on “The Dissolution of the American Order” he concentrated on the theme of “the moralist in an unbelieving world.” By “moralist” Lippmann meant “religious moralist.” Lippmann assumed a connection between religion and morality and he was mostly correct in this observation. This point was made again by Henry Steele Commager in The American Mind.2 In 1950 Commager called attention to the reality that it was religious institutions that held individuals accountable for their behavior. He found a quasi-moral stability in religious foundationalism. He also pointed out that due to World War II, morals in America had undergone a significant change due in part to contact with world cultures. Perhaps this was an over-estimation, as well as Lippmann’s assumption that religion holds us morally accountable. Blame was paramount, but Commager offered no solution to this problem. Lippmann did offer a solution, but his answer was muddled in an ill-defined psychologism and spiritualism in which in claimed that “emptiness” is a consequence of ignoring the religion of our fathers. One can assume he meant the Judeo-Christian point of view. Lippmann, understanding the historical importance of the church, said that the problem of emptiness is a consequence of one being irreligious. Further, he said this leads to a loss of purpose and certainty in a one’s life. He identified the problem of emptiness as one in which a person feels that their lives are insignificant and no matter how they live, it doesn’t matter. But is this a problem of religion only? In addition, Lippmann acknowledged that many young people say there are no compelling reasons which certify their moral codes and therefore their morality has no sure foundation. Their response to religion has been, “whatever,” and reflects a moral relativism, perhaps an indifference that young people feel about the church and its values. Having little faith in religious institutions, Lippmann called for a religion of the spirit. He pointed out that the church and its religious symbols don’t provide clear channels for religious experience and commented, “They are choked with the debris of dead notions in which men are unable to believe and unwilling to disbelieve.” A decade later Commager understood that the values and moral standards of the 19th century had persisted well into the twentieth. He pointed out that the moral practices of individuals had changed sharply as well as the institutions that enforced them so that by mid-century few people would admit any connection between religion, church, and morals. Although Lippmann had said we can’t let the old symbols of faith 1 2

Lippmann, Walter, A preface to morals (New York: Macmillan, 1931). Commager, H.S., The American mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950).

Joe Hester 82 and the old formulations of right and wrong prejudice moral insight, his statement that ignoring one’s religious foundations results in a kind of moral emptiness and loss of meaning may have been more observational than prescriptive. The answer he recommends lies in casting a wide net, in listening to a multitude of great teachers of wisdom for patterns of successful conduct. Foundationalism seems to have been lost in the fog of America’s participation in two world wars and then in Korea. The Civil Rights Movement, the prolonged war in Vietnam, and the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. continued to erode the idea of America as a Christian nation and of American exceptionalism. Commager asked “How can American pragmatism and idealism be extended into the moral sphere?” He offered no answers and Lippmann failed to develop his philosophy of the spirit separate from traditional religious belief and practices. The same difficulty persists today. Immanuel Kant was probably right when he said, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”1

AN UNEASY COALITION Indeed, religious belief and material success were and are conflicting forces in American life. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower had “One Nation Under God” included in the Pledge of Allegiance signifying God’s blessings on the American quest for material success. Eisenhower’s foundationalism is apparent as he had one foot in the values of the 19th century and the other in the 20th century. Yet, Eisenhower was on point by warning Americans of the rising power of the military industrial complex and its influence on determining America’s national and moral character. He was also being pressured by conservatives in his party who reacted negatively to the so-called “socialism” of the FDR administration and had recruited ministers throughout America to support their cause.2 This was the time when Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, a Christian minister, published America’s first great success book, The Power of Positive Thinking,3 a book whose message is found among many success-oriented ministers in the 21st Century. His message was simple: follow the teachings of the Bible and you will have financial success. Americans believed this as their moral sentiments were more and more filtered through their capitalistic impulse. It seems that what Americans only believed in 1900 they now knew was true: among their doubts and questions, many held to the belief that Western Man represented the crown of God’s creation. Rising from the harsh realities of the Industrial Revolution, capitalism was and is America’s most fundamental value, blessed by God and articulated in the “success-assalvation” scenario, supplanting liberty, equality, happiness, or at least translated as such. One can ask if this is an attitude/belief lurking behind White America’s distain for immigrants, especially people of color and the moral and economic myths we hear from ministers and politicians. An uneasy moral coalition has existed in America for many decades as the poor and the jobless have consistently been thought of as morally inferior and unwilling to work for the American dream. In the 1960s the belief that some Americans are morally inferior was applied to people of color and today is extended to those coming from America’s southern borders. This is a view that will not 1

Kant, Immanuel, Idea of a universal history with a cosmopolitan purpose (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2 edition, January 25, 1991). 2 Kruse, Kevin M. One nation under God (New York: Basic Books, 2015). 3 Peale, Norman Vincent, The Power of positive thinking (New York: Touchstone; Reprint edition, March 12, 2003).

International Journal of Religious Studies

go away. In 2015, with America’s wealthiest 2% amassing or controlling 90% of American assets, the American dream and Christian ethics seem to stand worlds apart. Has capitalism won the day? Capitalism, Christianity, and secular views of morality coexist, but this is an uneasy co-existence. Some of this was possibly due to a counter movement that began in the 1960s, as the tragic view of human life (sin/salvation scenario) was thought of as too bleak and too defeatist. The civil rights and feminist movements showed positive signs of changing the tragic view, but the war in Vietnam kept nagging at the entrails of a more positive ethic, dragging us down and pushing us back. Beginning in the 1970s, the proliferation of self-help books, magazines, and the media in general seldom discussed material and economic progress in terms of a religious orientation. This was the time in which the baby boomers were reaching adulthood and the entertainment media was becoming a 24/7 phenomenon. The results on moral thinking were definitional and reactionary as capitalistic and educational success now demanded measurement as the national theme became “reaching the top.” Statistics became a tool of measurement and, in our public schools, a common motif was “what get’s tested gets taught.” The bottom line in schools as in business was now a projected imaginary statistical goal, but what was to become of nurture, care, creativity, character, and complex understanding as educational goals. These were generally ignored because they can’t be contained in a statistical model; they can’t be adequately measured. But the genuinely religious would not go quietly into the night. By the 1990s the religious right had become restless. Many found support in President George W. Bush, a former WWII pilot and head of the CIA, and an emerging religio-political movement. But this was perhaps more of a looking back than a looking forward. For many, religion had lost its hold on morality. Still, there were those who clung to this thinking, searching for ideas and beliefs to give them support and meaning. But little has happened to reinforce the vision of a Christian society among the young, upward mobile. The therapeutic philosophy inherited from Christianity and modernized by the media is seldom mentioned any longer; accept in Dr. Phil’s secularized, pragmatic, version. But in 2014 there are signs of its return as the poor and middle classes have been suffering economically. Bruce Thornton says, “Our therapeutic vision tells us all is possible. We can live without risk, without loss, without suffering. Every desire can be gratified, every pain can be alleviated, every limit can be transcended, and every goal is achievable.” In the 21st century, as the therapeutic vision has begun to wane, the self-help ethic that took its place in the 1980s and 1990s shows signs of diminishing as well. Even the testing culture of the past thirty years in the public schools—which has demonstrated diminishing returns—has come under attack. And although therapeutic and selfimprovement ethics garnish scientific rationality with the promise of heaven on earth, nothing has emerged to replace them. Even the health insurance program signed into law by President Obama (Obamacare) appears to be a renewal of the therapeutic vision seeping up from America’s Christian traditions. Unknowingly, this could be why the wealthy and the upward mobile find it so distasteful. It remains that the intrinsic, the moral, spiritual and humane are values promoted but to which little attention is given in our self-gratification culture. Churches have become amassed with nonreligious activities, disguised as religious. These activities often fall under the rubric of “missions,” a word so broadly interpreted that it has lost its meaning. Today, Christian ethics has become issue-oriented, confrontational, and

Joe Hester 84 condemning – perhaps defensive – reflecting past beliefs more than present realities. Many Christians feel their religious freedoms have been violated as today there seems to be more and more of a separation of Christian ethics from civil and secular ethics (the ethics of the market place and of government). For reasons such as these values-based leadership theorists continue to write about “values complexity.” 1 Politicians, businessmen, and ministers are more apt to be pragmatic promoters of their organizations than ones who adhere to moral leadership principles. Our moral frame of reference remains convoluted and is more often than not thought of as a “personal ethic” rather than institutional, social, or something we share in common with our friends and neighbors. Morality in the pew, as attested by what is heard from the pulpit and in church parking lots, has become emotional and accusatory.2 Perhaps we have become rational egoists turning more to self needs and interests, neglecting the needs of others, our communities, and nations, that is, unless we can find in them some benefit for ourselves. This theory says that promoting our own greatest good is always in accordance with reason and morality. In 1776 Adam Smith3 had his own version of this: by promoting our own good unimpeded by legal or self-imposed moral constraints to protect the welfare of others, would be the most efficient means of advancing the good of all persons—the common good. In a similar fashion, Bishop Butler, a well-known religious philosopher of the eighteenth century, commented, “When we sit down in a cool hour, we can neither justify to ourselves this or any other pursuit til we are convinced that it will be for happiness [good].”4 Professor Kurt Baier5 suggests that being moral requires us to be impartial and that ethical principle should be for all people equally. For example, he says that if killing my grandfather to gain my inheritance is in my own best interest, then the rational egoist would approve. But this is not in my grandfather’s best interest and it’s illegal. Thus, I have a moral dilemma that rational ethical egoism cannot resolve. Baier ask, “…should we accept ethical egoism and so reject ethical conflict regulation, or should we reject [rational] ethical egoism?” Moral theories continue to be debated and reveal a moral conundrum that can’t easily be ignored, blurring of the edges of right and wrong. It’s along the blurred edges of these values where ethical meaning is discovered, debated, and articulated.

OUR MORAL FOOTPRINT Saying all of this, it should be mentioned that there is a flow of moral currents in our society, but these currents often defy rational clarification and definition. Most remain bound to the moral footprint that stamped their behavior early in life—common minds adhering to common values unable to inhale the richness and variety of the human ferment; perhaps unwilling or ill-prepared to plumb the depths of our beliefs, 1

Hester, Joseph P., “Value Shifts: Redefining ‘leadership’ a narrative,” Journal of Values-Based Leadership: Volume 5, Issue 2, Summer/Fall 2012. See also: “Building from within: Designing a valuesbased cultural template,” with Young, H. Darrell, Journal of Values-Based Leadership: Volume 6, Iss.2 Summer/Fall 2013. 2 Berlin, Isaiah, The crooked timber of humanity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013). 3 Smith, Adam, An inquiry into the nature of causes of the wealth of nations (1776); 6th edition (London: Methuen, 1950). 4 Butler, Bishop, Fifteen Sermons preached in the Rolls Chapel (1776); edited by J.H. Bernard (London: SPCK, 1970). 5 Baier, Kurt, “Egoism,” in A Companion to ethics, edited by Peter Singer (Cambridge: Blackwell Reference, 1993).

International Journal of Religious Studies

values, and purposes. As George Packer1 reminds us, “Alone on a landscape without solid structures, Americans have to improvise their own destinies, plot their own stories of success and salvation.” In telling the story of Dean Price, who was reared on a North Carolina tobacco farm and Price’s widening view of others and the world, Packer says, “The people that built the roads followed the animals’ paths. And once that path is set, it takes a tremendous amount of effort and energy to take another path. Because you get in that set pattern of thinking, and it’s passed down generation to generation to generation.” Value complexity seems to mark the 21st century with a negative tone and a moral defeatism. The violence we see from terrorists who kill out of ideological conviction to local policemen who seem to be out of control, common moral sentiments appear lost in the quagmire of value confusion. As far back as 1992, General Schwarzkopf joked about the bombing of Iraq and the killing of innocent citizens pointing to an unaware bicyclist who narrowly avoided being killed by a smart-bomb on a solitary desert bridge. What has happened to our moral sentiments in a world of violence and unrelenting material progress? Has it all come down to “an eye for an eye,” to the old maxim “It’s nothing personal, just business”? Perhaps egoism is more than theory. Is it a fact we can’t ignore? Can we change this? Hopefully, but of course, we don’t always pick and choose the moral principles that impact our lives. Rather, these various moralities are often imposed on us by birth, religion, and/or other cultural/economic circumstances, and by events like 9/11, about which we were morally unprepared. The flow of these unchosen moral currents affects us all. Self- and moral-evaluation are difficult, even for the intellectually astute, the charismatic minister, law enforcement officers, or the politicians who make our laws. Perspective is needed from the moral philosopher, preacher in the church, the scientific community, and from business leaders. What differences exist between the self-confident religious moralist and those espousing a “me-first” ethical egoism? Ethical egoism and religious foundationalism lie at the “extreme” edges of morality but impact our lives nonetheless as they are apt to receive more attention from the media. And they both have difficulty peering beyond their own needs and personal beliefs, or reconsidering their views taking in the wealth of human diversity and moral potentiality. If we look closely we will learn that they both have something significant to say about ethics and it is this ethical kernel we are trying to discover. But reality demands that we even look beyond the horizons of these theories and into the jagged commons of real life people. Caught in the middle of all these hankerings are those whose lives have been dehumanized and reduced by abject economic circumstances to a passive acceptance of whatever values have been handed to them. They live in a constant survival mode, eking out a living however, wherever, and whenever possible. Survival is a daily reality in their lives. Bundled in this middle are many of the upward mobile whose basic value is “to get to the top as quickly and by any means possible.” They too are survivalists but the welfare of others is the least of their concern. Many of them are unserious churchgoers straddling the moral fence and making sure that they are in agreement with those with whom they identify and live to emulate. This makes values-based or ethical leadership difficult to infuse into a business, political, or church community.

Packer, George, The unwinding, An inner history of the new America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013).

Joe Hester 86 The struggle to understand these shifting moral currents poses a difficulty that is sometimes unrecognized. We study science but don’t evaluate its impact on our beliefs. We acknowledge our beliefs but fail to evaluate them from either a scientific or historical point of view. Of this we are all guilty. John Rawls1 expresses hope for an overlapping consensus of all major political and religious ideologies for a reasonable moral pluralism supported by public reason. Rawls defines “reason” as that which people with different ideas and beliefs could agree upon and that we would be able to endorse by asking whether this (whatever action is being debated) is something that we can live with given the difficulties of judgment, past pluralities of society, and its resulting political culture. The fact of pluralism gives rise to overlapping and inconsistent values that often cause conflict; thus, we re-emphasize that an open society necessitates sharing and assessing the moral standards by which we live. It is important that this sharing and assessing begins in our schools asking our students to contribute their ideas freely and without undue criticism. Recently, in the Institute for Global Ethics Newsletter, John Ragozzine2 wrote, “As our nation emerges from several decades of determinedly values-neutral education; efforts to weave ethics and integrity into the fabric of education still meet skepticism. The arguments against it are as varied as they are trite. Aren’t we already doing this? Isn’t all ethics relative anyway? Are you saying my child is unethical? Are you trying to impose your values on my family? Whose values are you trying to teach, anyway?” Ragozzine concludes, “Ours is an age of inordinate moral confusion. Every day’s headlines report big-picture dilemmas with no clear solution: international terrorism, regional warfare, global warming, energy shortages, corporate scandals, nuclear proliferation, and endemic corruption. At a more granular level, this bewilderment appears in a litany of national and local ethical lapses, where values are subverted, integrity is abandoned, and moral courage is given short shrift.” He then observes, “…little wonder, then, that parents are searching for schools where character matters, where values are in focus, and where moral reasoning and ethical behavior are central to the educational culture. Parents often find those qualities in the nation’s private schools, so many of which are deliberately trying to achieve a culture of responsibility, respect, honesty, fairness. A central aspect of the appeal of private education—a key reason that parents willingly pay for an alternative to what, in North America, is available free in every community—lies in the commitment of private education to developing students of character.” Charles Derber3 is also aware of this dilemma and reminds us that the wilding epidemic points to “the need for all of us to become practitioners of the art of social healing.” Dialogue is imperative for understanding and moral clarity. To accomplish this task we must place personal values in a larger context of morality and everyday ethics with the goal of developing more civil families, institutions, and communities. Understanding and respect will provide a foundation for moral reasoning that encourages discussion and dialogue about what we deem important in our lives, nation, and world. As Fritjof Capra4 has reminded us, “The material world is a network of relationships; a web of relations between various parts of a unified whole. … Life is

Rawls, John, Justice as fairness: A restatement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001). Ragozzine, John, “Making ethics ‘doable’.” Institute for Global Ethics Newsletter, 2008. http://www. globalethics.org/search/search.htm?q=John %20 Ragozzine&s= 10&e=20&user_e=10. 3 Derber, Charles, The wilding of America (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007). 4 Capra, Fritjof, The hidden connections; Integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability (New York, NY: Random House, 2002). 2

International Journal of Religious Studies

understood and exists through mutually consistent relationships; the consistency of this interrelatedness determines the structure of the entire web.â&#x20AC;?

CONCLUSIONS Seeking a foundation for morals is discovered in the debates between religious ethicists and those who are more secular and have turned to law or even science for ethical insight. Many stress our human commonality, but ethics also recognizes human diversity and individual/cultural differences. It is along this blurred line â&#x20AC;&#x201C;individuality versus commonalityâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; that many of our ethical debates are framed especially in terms of rights, duties, and justice which are often embedded in constitutions and litigation. Due to our cultural and national differences, unraveling the history of ethics remains a difficult and demanding task. Moral ideas spread slowly and remain deeply immersed in traditional beliefs and practices. Formalizing these beliefs into practical ethical ideas and rules for living has proven complex as human diversity re-mains a prevailing and sometimes disruptive influence in all areas of contemporary life. Thus, dialogue is imperative for understanding and moral clarity. To accomplish this task we must place personal values in a larger context of morality and everyday ethics with the goal of developing more civil families, institutions, and communities. Understanding and respect will provide a foundation for moral reasoning that encourages discussion and dialogue about what we deem important in our lives, nation, and world.