Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:10 PM Mar 2013

Nones, Somes and the Combinativeness of American Religious Practices

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mccloud/nones-somes-and-the-combinativeness-of-american-religious-practices-_b_2784390.html

Sean McCloud
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Posted: 02/28/2013 5:31 pm

In January, NPR's Morning Edition resurrected the October 2012 Pew Poll suggesting that 19.6 percent of Americans had no religious affiliation, dubbed them "nones" and described this as a rising trend. The week-long radio series, titled "Losing Our Religion," started with discussion of the poll and then quickly veered into the classic Henry Luce journalism style of attempting to discuss social trends through select personal narratives. While I was struck with how the journalists tended to use the same default terms, such as "God" and "faith," as their interviewees, the aspects I found most interesting were the assumptions behind the concept of "nones" itself.

Simply put, Pew's and NPR's envisioning of "nones" constructs "religion" as something institutional. Conversely, one could offer an alternative reading suggesting that the vast majority of "nones" are really "somes" who hold to concepts such as a god, gods, supernatural powers and ghosts. A minority of those polled identified as atheists/non-theists/non-supernaturalists and, as Steven Ramey noted in a recent HuffPost Religion blog, about 55 percent of those put into the "nones" category even described themselves as either "religious" or "spiritual." Like so many other examples of social scientific studies -- and journalism -- the Pew and NPR discussions of "nones" and "religion" did more than described things, they constituted them.

This is not surprising. After all, devising categories and then analyzing them is part of what scholars and journalists do. But if we acknowledge that conceptions of "religion" are always constructs that focus on certain things to the exclusion of others, then it becomes apparent that focusing on religion solely as an ecclesiastical (i.e. "churchly&quot institution prevents us from recognizing that modern American religious practices could just as easily be described in other ways. For example, one could stick with polling data (and stick with defining religion narrowly as somehow involving "supernatural" powers, beings and things -- many definitions of religion are much broader than this) to argue that American religious practices are as present and vibrant as they have ever been (versus losing out to "nones&quot and are visibly "combinative."

"Combinative" sounds a bit jargony, but in using it I take a cue from the American religion scholar Catherine Albanese and am referring to how many Americans pick and mix ideas and practices from a variety of religious traditions, and then further combine these things with other cultural, folk and popular traditions concerning the supernatural. Such activity is a noticeable part of the findings revealed in contemporary polling from institutes such as Pew, Harris, Gallup and others. In other words, one could argue that "combiners" are more of a story than "nones." One December 2009 Pew Poll was titled "Many Americans Mix Multiple Faiths." While this poll, like the recent "nones" survey, was covered in national media as strikingly unique, its findings replicated previous studies that had been conducted as far back as the early 1980s. The Pew Center wrote that "many ... blend Christianity with eastern or New Age beliefs such as reincarnation, astrology, and the presence of spiritual energy in physical objects." A particularly interesting example of such combining is reincarnation. In the last decade, Harris Polls suggest that anywhere from 14-40 percent of different age cohorts and 20-27 percent of all Americans said they believed that when they died they would be born on earth again as a human being to live another life. Even the lowest number is a much higher percentage than the small number of Americans -- probably at most 1-3 percent -- who belong to religious traditions (such as many forms of Buddhism, Hinduism and Neopaganism) that have historically included reincarnation theologies. The same goes with ghosts. While 42-51 percent of Americans in these Harris Polls say that they think ghosts exist, very few religious institutions in the U.S. have any official creeds that acknowledge or permit such entities.

more at link
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nones, Somes and the Combinativeness of American Religious Practices (Original Post) cbayer Mar 2013 OP
And this is different from how it's always been...how? Moonwalk Mar 2013 #1
Lol, Professor Sean should have you in one of his classes to challenge him. cbayer Mar 2013 #2
Kinda like calling creationists "a bunch of dumbasses"? trotsky Mar 2013 #3

Moonwalk

(2,322 posts)
1. And this is different from how it's always been...how?
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:38 PM
Mar 2013
I'm sorry. I'm just amazed that any Professor of religious studies would point out that people make up their own "religion" with cherry-picking and combining--as if this is something new and unique. Sean can't be a very good professor of religious studies if this is the one time he's noticed this. Did he never get a course on the Renaissance, when astrologers did a brisk business and were consulted as much if not more than priests? Not to mention the fact that all those faithful Catholic held to non-biblical superstitions like believing in ghosts, unicorns and witches. Did Professor Sean there never learn of how Catholic Missionaries, converting pagans, almost always incorporated into the new Christianity something of that group's old pagan religion?--be it transforming an old goddess (Irish Brigid for example) into a saint, or turning a pagan holiday into a Christian holiday? Talk about combining!

And where was this professor when his teachers were giving lectures on that pesky Reformation and all the branches of Christianity that broke off from it?--All of them agreeing, disagreeing, re-interpreting, and yes, cherry-picking to support their various views of whether the blood/body of Christ was literal or not? Did he take any old testament classes to see how Christianity picked/choose its own way through the old testament (why else are Christians are supposed to keep to the 10 commandments--given by god to the Israelites only--yet they can eat pork when god says not to there in the same part of the bible as the 10 commandments?). Is Professor Sean really unaware that Christianity mixed/matched and formulated its religious out of the OT combined with Roman and Greek religious beliefs and traditions?

And then there's Judiasm which also copied and borrowed from Egyptian religions.

I mean, when haven't the religious done this? Even during those times when everyone was compelled to go to church and, presumably, believe what the church said? Even in those days the religious picked, choose, combined. And don't even get me started on non-Western religions. America is doing this? America is a piker at "combining" compared to India, Africa and China.

How did this professor get to be a professor? Talk about a "DUH!" observation.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
2. Lol, Professor Sean should have you in one of his classes to challenge him.
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:43 PM
Mar 2013

That would be most interesting.

IMO, he is making an argument against those that tend to want to broadly categorize religious people. While your points are excellent, there are still those that want to lump all religious people together in order to demonize or condemn them, so I don't have a problem with his reiterating what is very obvious to most people.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
3. Kinda like calling creationists "a bunch of dumbasses"?
Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:50 PM
Mar 2013

Yeah, that kind of broad categorization of religious people in order to demonize or condemn them does no good.

Wouldn't you agree?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Nones, Somes and the Comb...