A Modernist approach to a Post-modern Context or How the West Was Subdued and Forced to Play Nicely

Note: the post is influenced by Mark S. Cladis’ article, “Painting Landscapes of Religion in America: Four Model of Religion in Democracy” in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 76, no.4, Dec 2008, 874-904.

Here is the scoop: Cladis is considering four different “models” to think of religion in public. They are –

1. Religion over the Public Landscape
- religion reigns supreme in ruling and controlling and influencing the public. Problem, whose religion and what of others?

2. Religion Banned from the Public Landscape
- Religion has no place in the public and thus cannot muddle things up. Problem, from where will we find the moral voice?

3. Public Landscape as Religious Space
- Religious language occurs in the pubic – a civic religion. Problem, what of the depth found in the traditions of particular religions?

4. Public Landscape as Varied Topography- The public is a place where multiple voices, including religious voices can be heard. Problem, hmmm……
-

Cladis favors the fourth model, claiming that religion should and could be treated as any other voice in civic discourse. He does recognize that religion carries its own nuances, but for the most part should not be treated as special. Religion, for Cladis, has a voice along with environmentalism, oil, special interests, etc. One of the things that I think Cladis is trying to do is to avoid a modernistic approach to religion in a postmodern context. The first three models have an almost myopic view of religion, and Cladis is trying to avoid such a view. His model allows a variety of religious traditions to have a voice along with other moral voices in society. Even claiming that morality, however that is understood, can be found in non-religious contexts is a post-modern view. One challenge concerns who is allowed to give voice to the other. In Cladis’ model, the government allows religion to have voice in the public sphere, or can silence that voice. This is not a free discourse but a controlled one. Someone decided who can and cannot speak – sounds kinda modern. Someone decides what is and what is not appropriate discourse – sounds kinda modern.

Another problem which is related to the first one comes from the perspective of the religious communities. Some faith traditions favor the first model and others the second (I don’t know of many of the top of my head that would favor the third). Some would prefer for religion to be the lingua franca of public discourse, if it is their religion. Some faith traditions have as an end the conversion of society to its proclivities. A civic discourse that only allows religious speech to a certain extent and on the same plane as other religions may very well be difficult and unnatural place to be for many faith traditions. Other (like the Amish) would not want a place at the table at all.

Stark and Finke have made the argument in a number of places that what makes religion unique in America is the free market capitalistic environment in which many movements may thrive or die. If it is a true free market than any of the models may emerge for better or worse depending on the “winner.” If it is a controlled free market, then the fourth model reigns supreme limiting the conversation all the way to the end of our nose. How post-modern do we want to be? How far do we want to go?