An Autotheoretical, Multidisciplinary, and Deeply Personal Exploration of the Insiders and Outsiders of Religion and the Role of Religion in Humanity
an outsider in church
I sit next to you in church. Your head looks up, eyes closed, hands upturned in front of you. Song pulsing through your body, radiating down through the earth, up to the heavens, and joining with the hearts of everyone else around you.
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God
Oh, it chases me down, fights ’til I’m found, leaves the ninety-nine
I couldn’t earn it, and I don’t deserve it, still, You give Yourself away
Oh, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God, yeah
Slouched in my chair, looking uneasy, I’m an observer. I know I’m not part of the group. An outsider. Everyone seems to know everyone else, understand the stories, and believe the same things. And I don’t. I feel the power being created through this group of people singing together. It’s hard to resist. From the outside, it often looks like all these people got swept up in a powerful river that I don’t know how to even wade in. I’m sure it looks different from the inside, but I don’t know if I want in.
I’m brought to this topic by a personal dilemma. My roots tie me to a past that can feel very opposed to religion. I have always felt a bit skeptical of the institution of religion, especially in the West, because I saw it as so prominently white, Christian, heteronormative, misogynistic, and patriarchal. Whether Christian religion or white androcentrism came first, I, Woman, know that I am excluded from the world in which they are the prominent narrative. Yet I have always found myself searching for meaning and some sort of universality of morals, love, identity, or tolerance. I’m jolted into this confusion by my current connection with you, a religious man, and the many difficult conversations we’ve had trying to reconcile our seemingly-opposing faiths and attitudes about religion.
Why are some people so fundamentally opposed to religion? What are the ways in which outsiders of religion misunderstand insiders? Who benefits from religion? Why do some people blame religion for so many of the world’s problems? Why does religion exist? What is the future of religion?
Addressing this dilemma proves challenging given my surroundings. Many of the communities in which this conversation arises fit a grossly liberal description that echo-chambers my existing bias against religion, and so I have little access to the other side of the argument. More than eight in ten people identify with a religious group. Yet there is an awkwardness surrounding the topic of religion in everyday and even academic conversation. In this exploration, I merge research with personal experience so my hope is that it will be exploratory and autotheoretical, rather than decisive and judgemental. Nevertheless, I walk straight into the crashing ocean waves repeating a mantra silently to myself: “bring it on, bring it on.”
the origins of religion
Cultural Evolutionary Theory speaks to our human need for culture, in addition to our genetic programming, in order to survive. Psychologist Azim Shariff looks at the origins of religion through this lense. For the vast history of our species, we lived in very small groups of 50-100 people. From a genetic standpoint, we’re only built to be able to cooperate with as many people as we can know well. In a tight-knit community, a certain comfort exists among people which serves as the fabric of their society and holds everyone together. Nobody can get away with anti-social behavior and life is good. So, according to this theory, as these human groups grew to the thousands, it was easier to free-ride on the group. These “outsiders” quickly break down the social fabric and social harmony becomes unsustainable.
Religion was one cultural innovation that allowed groups to thrive at this larger scale.
Large trade networks that have existed in North Africa where you have people who have no way that they can know each other. They’re from opposite ends of an entire continent. And yet simply because they have a common religion – in this case Islam – they can trust that the other person is going to be a reliable trading partner. And so just knowing that other people are God-fearing believers is sufficient to act as a cue of trust.
Most of us define religions as distinct from other social groups because of its relationship with the divine. Centering a concept of God is perhaps the single most important defining feature of a religion. Shariff explains that the most “successful” religions throughout history have tended to describe their gods as punitive, rather than loving. Fear of a punishing god that can send you to hell for all of eternity is a pretty good way to deter immoral behavior.
The notion that humans need an external force to deter us from immoral behavior disappoints my optimism, but the point stands that a certain amount of cooperation is vital to human survival and thriving, especially as populations grow, complexities amplify, and social structures become more fragile. All major religions arose at times when societies were struggling with the challenges of size, complexity, and scarcity. At the time, they were needed to solve problems related to trust and scarcity.
Religion, described in this way, is a critical aspect of human societal development. It is one of the many group identities that we use to define ourselves. Community is central to religion’s core. As is the distinction between insider and outsider. By definition, in this model, those who share your religion are insiders, those who do not are outsiders. Insiders are trustworthy, outsiders are not. Group membership is one of the most salient and socially relevant aspects of identity. It appeals to our fundamental need to belong and brings meaning to our lives, while also helping us to know who we are and who we are not. This explains to me how there are so many stories of religions being used to divide people.
Looking at religion through science is more friendly to my outsider perspective. Evolution strikes me as infinitely more spiritually profound than Genesis. But to put greater faith in science than in religious explanations would be antithetical. I’ve become hesitant to trust retroactive explanations. A lot of my beliefs about human nature arise out of evolutionary theory, but historical particularism, functionalism, and feminist theory have taught me better than to trust dominant narratives any more than others. Science is a great way of knowing. Yet science, in some ways, seems just as limited as the culture, individuals, and history it arises from. Who made the observations? Who asked the questions? Science and religion are just two of many ways of knowing. Science may stay humble in its search for truth, yet many of us interact with it as if it is a prophet of universal truth and certainty. Who died and made Science God? What makes it so different from religion?
In his book “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkings notes that the presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question. Jim Holt’s NY Times response has me thinking: But what possible evidence could verify or falsify the God hypothesis? He points out that the doctrine that we are presided over by a loving deity has become so rounded and elastic that no earthly evil or natural disaster, it seems, can come into collision with it. Nor is it obvious what sort of event might unsettle an atheist’s conviction to the contrary.
We’ve hit a stand still. Both science and religion are stubborn, flexible, and patient. Science may never be able to “prove” religion, and religion will likely withstand the interventions of science. Our world seems afraid of uncertainty. Yet we will likely never reach a high degree of collective certainty. What use does it do to choose which language to speak? Peter Mt. Shasta has an interesting take on patience and faith: Those with sufficient faith in Jesus can move the mountain from one place to another. Those with that much faith in Jesus know that the mountain is already where it is supposed to be.
problems with religion
Many people have problems with religion. Our social nature seems to create frustration when social groups don’t take the form we think they should. Especially in the liberal arts, we talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion. These are goals oriented against the existing social structures that draw lines and ladders because we don’t like the way the game is layed out. Insider-ification. The five major arguments outlined below seem to focus on the social aspects of religion.
- Religion has been used as a form of social control.
- Many religions are corrupt.
- Many religions prevent advancement of science and equality.
- People have been led to do terrible things in the name of religion.
- Religion has been a prominent source of conflict and strife all over the world.
The first two points speak to what I consider a kind of dehumanizing effect of religious subscription. In our discussions I find myself almost competing. I feel as though I am alone on my spiritual journey, inventing things as I go, while you who have gone to church your whole lives have a structure of meaning built for you. It feels easy. And from this side it can feel as though I’m up against a rhetoric that has had thousands of years of development and is based on a supernatural God I don’t believe in and you can’t show me. People use religion differently, but it’s hard to see that from the outside. When religiosity is corrupted for the sake of laziness or social control, it is problematic. One pastor, Jeff Mazzariello, speaks about how so many people go to church on Sunday and promptly return to work Monday morning having forgotten about it. That isn’t how it works, he says. Church isn’t weekly. It is hourly, secondly. Don’t show up in your Sunday best. Show up exhausted, lost, and in tears in front of God and He will guide you while the church holds you.
This seems to fit with Shariff’s research: as society’s cultural needs evolve, so do our Gods. As society builds more secular infrastructures that hold a level of social trust and harmony, it becomes less dependent on religion to hold it together, and our God evolves to fit a new need. It seems many have outgrown the need to dress their best in front of a God, who is now much more forgiving and unconditionally loving than he used to be. At least our understanding of Him is changing.
The point about dehumanization needs further explaining. Humans are unique in our deep drive to ask some of the most fundamental questions: “What is the meaning of existence?” and “How can I lead a meaningful life?” To explore these concepts and to undergo an existential journey is central to our humanity, so to “outsource” this pleasure to a religious institution feels to me on the outside to be a cop-out, or at least a leap of faith I am either too strong or not strong enough to make. But nothing is more boring than people telling other people how inauthentic they are, so I’ll leave this point on the back burner.
In further exploring the listed arguments against religion, I notice the rhetorical language that unites these arguments. I’ll emphasize the key points: people use religion. Social psychology is a powerful tool. The brain has a fairly flawless way of using whatever evidence we may throw against it to justify its existing structures. For example, one study showed how science isn’t what flips climate deniers, it’s the socially-acceptable evidence they need to further their pre-existing beliefs. Shariff’s work, in speaking of the cultural evolutionary theory of religion, was met not with appreciation among those who don’t see religion as scientific, but frustration that science might possibly provide rationale for something they hate so much. There seems to be a parallel between the way religion becomes an actor that people use to justify terrible things and which is then blamed for causing problems. We shouldn’t allow our emotions or psychological process to turn us against science and religion, which on their own, are not inherently destructive, but are both powerful in collaboration with the human brain.
slavery
A powerful example of some of the atrocities committed in the name of religion is our history of slavery. A common theme in the slave narratives I’ve read is that the most “religious” slaveholders were also the most brutal. Jacobs recalls that the master who did these things was highly educated, and styled a perfect gentleman. He also boasted the name and standing of a Christian, though Satan never had a truer follower. In Baldwin’s struggles with religion as well, we see a loss of faith in religion. Neither civilized reason nor Christian love would cause any of those people to treat you as they presumably wanted to be treated; only the fear of your power to retaliate would cause them to do that, or to seem to do it, which was (and is) good enough.
Baldwin continues his struggle to understand Christianity. I could not ask myself why human relief had to be achieved in a fashion at once so pagan and so desperate — in a fashion at once so unspeakably old and so unutterably new. And by the time I was able to ask myself this question, I was also able to see that the principles governing the rites and customs of the churches in which I grew up did not differ from the principles governing the rites and customs of other churches, white. The principles were Blindness, Loneliness, and Terror, the first principle necessarily and actively cultivated in order to deny the two others. I would love to believe that the principles were Faith, Hope, and Charity, but this is clearly not so for most Christians, or for what we call the Christian world. In these narratives, I’m reminded of the multiplicity of stories that exist around religion. Everyone has their own story to tell about it. Harriet Jacobs seems to retain belief and faith in God and the meaning that the Bible brings, even though she sees that the white slaveholders have no interest in these positive aspects of religion. James Baldwin, on the other hand, seems to see a corruption spanning the fabric of Christianity in his world. Is religion torn, or is it diseased?
Ole Satan’s church is here below;
Up to God’s free church I hope to go.
Cry Amen, cry Amen, cry Amen to God!
church and state
Our country tries to prevent religion from being used for political purposes of power by drawing a thick line between church and state. When religion is used for political purposes, it empties religion of its eternal meaning and becomes just one more cynical method of acquiring power… but often when people say “Don’t mix religion and politics,” they actually mean “Don’t bring your faith into the public square where I can see it.” In other words, hide your faith outside of your place of worship because we have a “separation of church and state.” Separation of church and state is too important a concept to be misused — especially not as a tool for silencing opposing views.
Let’s remember what the separation of church and state is really about: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The logic hidden in the rhetoric of separating church and state has tricked us into thinking that these two cannot overlap and to treat religion as a wholly separate facet of our identity, almost like an extracurricular that shouldn’t interfere with our studies because it is just a side dish, not the whole cuisine. Yet believing in the separation of church and state wipes our memory of the fact that religion is our cultural cuisine — its been called Stealth Protestantism — and that our state does regulate religious expression. The First Amendment prohibits church or state from exercising power over the other, but isn’t violated when they mix. Separation of church and state doesn’t shut down our debates over religion in the public square; it guarantees the freedom for us to respectfully have those debates. And of course they should mix. Religion is about identity, moral development, spiritual expression, and deep values. In attempting to treat it as a separate facet of a person that can be silenced rather than a fundamental part of their whole that ought to be expressed, we’ve cast religiosity away from public dialogue. And in many cases, at the expense of our ability to connect. Now we don’t seem to know how to talk about it.
the liberal arts
College is a place meant to guarantee the privilege of engaging with different worldviews and belief systems. We get to be full time learners and explorers and work almost exclusively on ourselves. Every day, I find myself reassessing my political and religious beliefs, being challenged to be more accepting of others, and searching for meaning.
The Liberal Arts are deeply rooted in religion. Most colleges were founded by Christian institutions. Christianity is concerned with improving the human person during his or her life on earth. Studying ethics, philosophy, history, and geometry, helps you to improve your moral well-being and, in the Christian tradition, grow closer to God.
Emily Esfahani Smith explains how colleges used to be about teaching kids literature and the humanities so as to help them to determine what the “Good Life” is and how to live meaningfully. But now schools are more focused on preparing students to specialize in a specific field that will land them a “successful” career, and, thanks to the “separation of church and state,” our schools are hesitant to deal with religious material because religious association prevents them from receiving federal support and can make parents angry. One public elementary school in Southern California was sued by some Christian parents for teaching yoga, which they saw as a Hindu “trojan horse.” If anything, this reaction is an example of how unwilling Americans are to explore and discuss religions other than their own. Yet, yoga in school and the parents’ perhaps misplaced but valid attempt to defend Christianity is an example of the kind of religious dialogue which is protected under the Constitution.
Regardless, students are not discussing or engaging with religion as much after entering college. One study looked at liberal arts students’ perspectives on religion. Before college, about 91% of the students indicated that they respect people who have religious perspectives different from their own and 85% admired people of other faiths and beliefs. Nearly half of students — 43 percent — said they had talked about religious or spiritual topics with their teachers before college, but that number dropped by 18 percentage points in their first year on campus; more than half of students said they felt pressured to change their worldview and 62 percent indicated they intentionally kept their viewpoints to themselves.
Many Liberal Arts campuses seem to have become unfriendly and hostile places for religion, as has much of the liberal community in the abstract. Alongside the movement away from organized religion, there seems to be a shift toward what religious outsiders call spiritually. “I’m more spiritual than religious” is a common phrase among my peers. One news article read:
Last month, almost 1,000 people streamed into a church in San Francisco for an unprecedented event billed as “Beyoncé Mass.” Most were people of color and members of the LGBTQ community. Many were secular. They used Queen Bey’s songs, which are replete with religious symbolism, as the basis for a communal celebration—one that had all the trappings of a religious service. That seemed completely fitting to some, including one reverend who said, “Beyoncé is a better theologian than many of the pastors and priests in our church today.”
The article also cited a study which found that Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception.
Emphasizing spirituality seems to serve as an attempt to focus more on individual journeys of growth and meaning rather than a prescription to an existing belief system. I resonate with that. Spirituality provides an opportunity for people to maintain what they like about Christianity or other religions without the bits they don’t like. Though those of us who follow this model can get easily caught in a “my struggle is more real than yours because you’re just following rules” competition which doesn’t really serve any meaningful purpose. At least I did.
In learning to love a deeply religious friend, I’m reminded of the limits of my outsider perspective. It is so easy to paint the issue with a ten-foot paintbrush, but this broad perspective doesn’t treat the issue in a wholesome way, it brushes over the human stories that matter most. One of my blind spots you remind me of is that you’re not living your life to please God, you’re inventing a god to be pleased with the life you’re living.
In his NY Times Opinion, Gerard Alexander expands on this point: liberals are trapped in a self-reinforcing cycle. When they use their positions in American culture to lecture, judge and disdain, they push more people into an opposing coalition that liberals are increasingly prone to think of as deplorable. That only validates their own worst prejudices about the other America, the religious America. It’s funny how frequently our misperceptions are simply reflections. Luckily, confronting insider and outsider group distinctiveness and bumping up against an “other” once in a while keeps our reality grounded in everyone else’s.
With the elimination of religion from the classroom, the liberal arts education is on the road towards collapse, because the purpose of the liberal arts is no longer necessary. Virtue is not taken seriously and moral improvement is non-existent, so of course there is no place for the liberal arts. Preserving the liberal arts will require a fundamental change in American society.
Historically, religions and spiritual systems laid out the answers to these questions. In most of these traditions, the meaning of life lies in God or some ultimate reality with which the seeker yearns to be united. Following a moral code and engaging in practices like meditation, fasting, and acts of charity help the seeker grow closer to god or to that reality, endowing day-to-day life with importance. Billions of people, of course, still derive meaning from religion. But in the developed world, religion no longer commands the authority it once did. Though most people in the United States continue to believe in God and many consider themselves spiritual, fewer people go to church, pray regularly, or have a religious affiliation, and the number of people who believe religion is an important component of their lives has declined. If religion was once the default path to meaning, today it is one path among many, a cultural transformation that has left many people adrift. For millions both with and without faith, the search for meaning here on earth has become incredibly urgent – yet ever more elusive.
Everywhere, I see people searching for purpose, searching for belonging, searching for meaning. College to many is about finding what we want to “do with our lives” or “find our purpose,” and “discovering who we are” and “where we belong.” Yet it seems as though people feel loneliness, loss, and a lack of meaning now more than ever before. Most students still have a strong yearning for meaning. But that search no longer drives their education. The Liberal Arts must refocus back to a culture in which we are driven first and foremost to answer these questions of meaning. Religion may no longer have a place in these institutions, but they still depend on the culture of meaning that is at the heart of religion.
the power of religion
This leads to another way of understanding religion is through meaning. In her book The Power of Meaning, Emily Esfahani Smith breaks meaning down into four pillars: Belonging, Purpose, Transcendence, and Storytelling. She says that every group that contains all these pillars has a Culture of Meaning. Religion hits all of these most strongly: 1) your belief in God, etc makes you a part of this community and those who don’t believe don’t belong/benefit; 2) you live for God, to spread his word, etc; 3) connection to a higher divine power; 4) Bible stories and church leaders interpreting current events as part of God’s plan, how did you find faith, etc. But, as she points out, so do hate groups, cults, and many positive non-religious groups. Cultures of Meaning are powerful things. Many of the reasons people support religion have to do with its relationship to meaning:
- Religion has motivated numerous selfless acts such as volunteering
- Religions are useful sources of spiritual and personal lessons
- Religion serves as a meeting ground for people to come together, network, and create long lasting networks
- Most of today’s cultures and remaining world heritage are due to religions
- Religion is good for the psycho-social wellness of its followers.
Our identities are predominantly made up of our social groups: where we are insiders, and where we are not. Religion is a powerful tool to be used for evil purposes because of how strongly we feel belonging within it. But besides all the batches of religion that have spoiled due to what we might call improper use, there are so many examples of the deep and transcendent beauty of religion. These stories just don’t get air time when the dominant authors prefer science and secular spirituality. Yes, many major global messes were related to, and perhaps caused by religiosity, and a lot of the beautiful stuff may seem smaller, but the simplicity of the stories I’ve heard about religion’s force for good are more compelling to me than the catastrophes.
rituals
The Azaan is the Islamic call to prayer. In Muslim countries, the Azaan calls people to prayer five times a day:
| Allahu akbar allahu akbar Allahu akbar allahu akbarAsh-hadu anla ilaha illah AllahAsh-hadu anla ilaha illah AllahAsh-hadu anna muhammadar-rasulullahAsh-hadu anna muhammadar-rasulullahHayya as-salahHayya as-salahHayya al-falahHayya al-falahAllahu akbar allahu akbarLa ilaha illa Allah | الله أكبر الله أكبرالله أكبر الله أكبرأشهد أنل إلها الله اللهأشهد أنل إلها الله اللهالرماد محمد رسول اللهالرماد محمد رسول اللههيا ، جيدهيا ، جيدهيا المزارعهيا المزارعالله أكبر الله أكبرلا اله الا الله | God is great God is greatGod is great God is greatI bear witness that God is GodI bear witness that God is GodAsh Mohammed the Messenger of AllahAsh Mohammed the Messenger of AllahCome on, goodCome on, goodCome on the farmerCome on the farmerGod is great God is greatNo God except Allah |
Eric Duhaime’s study found that more people donated to charity and helped one another when the Call to Prayer was audible than did when it was silent. Like a feather in flight, it just drifts on the air almost as if it is weightless in its beauty, part of the symphony of Islam itself.
Another religious ritual is the Catholic Church’s Compline, an evening prayer of song and chanting. At St. Mark’s, one of the few churches who still do this service, many of today’s congregants are anti-establishment. There were certainly Christians there, but many were agnostics and atheists, some of them overly hostile to organized religion. One person reflected: There’s something about the music that gets you in a holy space. It’s like taking a spiritual shower. It washes away a lot of your smaller concerns. Feeling the presence of a higher power makes you realize how superficial the little problems are.
Evolutionarily, psychological theory has talked about how rituals can be “costly signals,” which serve to build trust among followers, almost functioning as an insider hashtag. But rituals are more powerful than that. Anthropologist Dimitris Xygalatas studies the psychological effects of rituals: what you find is that when you have observers watching people undergoing these rituals, their actual heart beats synchronize with the people engaging in the rituals. And the more you have that synchronization, the more they feel like they’re part of a group. The rituals we have today exist because they have this powerful psychological influence that makes you feel like you are part of something. I feel this in gospel chants, African drumming, encores, and the sacred syllable Om.
The existence of ritual in religion seems to be one of the most important reasons that religions bring us meaning through belonging and transcendence. It creates a feeling of insiderness among believers, and many rituals allure and influence outsiders as well.
reflections
Another beautiful point in thinking about the gifts of religion is its establishing universal or at least partially universal moral norms. I think it is often unethical and inaccurate to speak in abstractions, but it is difficult to take a wide view without doing so and I’m much better at doing that than getting real with the nitty gritty. I found this summary someone compiled of the main teachings of major religions around the world:
Christianity: In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets (Jesus, Matthew 7:12)
Sikhism: I am a stranger to no one, and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all (Guru Granth Sahib, p. 1299)
Islam: Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself (The Prophet Muhammad, Hadith)
Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you (Mahabharata 5:1517)
Buddhism: Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful (Udana-Varga 5.18)
Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary (Hillel, Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
Jainism: One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated (Mahavira, Sutrakritanga)
Taoism: Treat your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss (T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien, 213-218)
Various Native: We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive
Secular Kindergarten: The Golden Rule — treat others the way you’d like to be treated
Many people who are skeptical of religion seem to be frustrated at its propensity to divide, so they instead look to some sort of universal “religion” that might replace it. Rumi is quoted as having said I belong to no religion. My religion is love. Every heart is my temple. This sentiment resonates strongly and is something I aspire to. I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together. Yet, in looking at how religious groups have evolved, I can’t help but wonder about what problems may arise with the erasure of religious difference. There are tens of thousands of religions on our planet today. Throughout history, as religions grew to carry too many followers, it seems that they have tended to split. Smaller groups within religions organically formed as natural human differences arose. Perhaps ingroup identity and trust has a carrying capacity. When the ingroup is too large and inclusive, it loses its meaning. The lines we draw seem then to be less problematic when they are fluid and when they do not take a hierarchical form. When insiders are seen as better than outsiders, outsiders lose. But when we start to consider insider/outsider boundaries as fluid and intersectional, we may find ourselves better able to live in accordance with that golden rule that reminds us of how to respectfully interact with others.
Like all poetical natures Christ loved ignorant people. He knew that in the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great idea. But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are made stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of which they even understand, a peculiarly modern type, summed up by Christ when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of knowledge, cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to use it, though it may be made to open the gate of God’s Kingdom.
That Jesus Christ is one who was so familiar with this human struggle with religion puts me in my place in this story. Religion is a topic so intimately tied with the human heart. So is science. So are we to one another. I pray in this piece that we all remember to feel it flowing with us. I hope to return with you to church, with all of you to church, wherever and whatever your church is. I want our hearts to sync up as we join in this centuries-long conversation. Looking back so many years to Christ, I see that we are all learning to deal more kindly with one another. And perhaps that we always will be. Love, which remains at the center of all of this exploration, seems to always find its way through in the end. Love is old, Love is new, Love is all, Love is you
acknowledgements
Thank you to my professor, Molly Robinson-Kelly, for her instruction, compassion, and for helping me work through my ideas and development as a writer; my friend Tyler for the interview that got this project started, peer review, and for challenging my assumptions and deepest beliefs; my friend Ivy Marple for moral support, writing fuel (chocolate), and peer review; author Maggie Nelson for inspiring the confident yet humble structure and writing voice that I aspire to in this piece (Autotheory); and my E&D classmates for being their human selves and sharing thoughts that helped me to better understand my beliefs and questions about these topics.
references
Alexander, Gerald. Opinion: Liberals, You’Re Not As Smart As You Think. Nytimes.com. NY Times, 2018. Web. 5 May 2019.
Asbury, Cory. Reckless Love. Bethel Music Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, 2018.
Baldwin, James. The Fire Next Time. Penguin Books, 2017.
Bauer-Wolf, Jeremy. Study Shows Drop-Off In New College Students’ Exposure To Other Religions. Inside Higher Ed. Inside Higher Ed, 2019. Web. 5 May 2019.
Tyler. Personal Interview. Mar. 30, 2018.
Community Discussion Members. “Has Religion Been A Good Thing For Humanity?. Kialo. Kialo, 2018. Web. 23 Apr. 2019.
“Golden Rule In Religions.” Science and Morality. N. p., 2015. Web. 6 May 2019. (Image)
The Global Religious Landscape. Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. PEW, 2012. Web. 4 May 2019.
Holt, Jim. A Passionate Atheist’s Case Against Religion. The NY Times. NY Times, 2006. Web. 7 May 2019.
ISI Archive. Without Religion, There Can Be No Liberal Arts – Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Think. Live Free. Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Think. Live Free. ISI, 2016. Web. 5 May 2019.
Jacobs, Harriet Ann. Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. Outlook Verlag, 2018.
Lankford, James and Russell Moore. The Real Meaning of the Separation of Church and State. TIME USA, Jan. 16, 2018.
Luther, Doctor Martin. Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences. Project Gutenberg, 2019. Web. 7 May 2019.
Mt. Shasta, Peter. Adventures of a Western Mystic: Apprentice to the Masters. BookBaby, 2012.
Nelson, Maggie. The Argonauts. Graywolf Press, 2016.
Odenbaugh, Jay. Philosophy and the Environment, Lecture Notes. 2019
Smith, Emily Esfahani. The Power of Meaning: Finding Fulfillment in a World Obsessed with Happiness. United States, Crown/Archetype, 2017.
“U.S. Constitution.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School, 2009. Web. 6 May 2019.
Vedantum, Shankar. Creating God. Hidden Brain. NPR, Jul. 16, 2018.
Wilde, Oscar. De Profundis. Heritage Illustrated Publishing, 2014. Kindle.