What We Talk About When We Talk About Religion

Those of you who flipped through The Sun’s opinion section last week may be under the impression that Cornell suffers from a widespread case of prejudice. Last Tuesday, columnist Andrew Daines ’10 argued that a persistent anti-religious bias permeates our ivory tower. “Faith,” he wrote, “[and] specifically the faith of others, seems to be a source of mistrust on campus.” He continues, “It is an unfortunate and very real feature of our campus life that faith-based political beliefs are often rejected out of hand.”

Daines insists that faith has become the proverbial scarlet letter at Cornell — an ignominious badge to be worn defiantly in the face of an oppressive secular doctrine. And, well, he’s not entirely wrong. He is correct in pointing out the vocal minority here, just as in the world at large, which will dismiss a particular religion without due thought or consideration. And certainly, there are those who will register nothing less than disgust at the whole idea of organized religion altogether. Close-minded as it may seem, there will always be people — on both sides of a religious divide — who are more comfortable with clinging to ideological absolutes than with meeting halfway for a civilized, frank discussion of differences.

But to suggest such attitudes represent the status quo is ridiculous. According to a study done by the Pew Research Center in 2007, 83.9 percent of Americans consider themselves affiliated with some religious denomination. While the number of Americans who consider themselves atheists or agnostics is on the rise, the demographic is still very much in the minority. What exactly is Daines so annoyed about?

Specifically, he levies complaints against what he perceives to be a growing political consensus amongst secular-types: “The faith of others is used to wholly discredit them based on their conclusions.” He facetiously knocks critics of Sarah Palin, suggesting that a large number of them were swayed against the former Alaskan governor by her religiosity — in particular her advocacy of teaching creationism.

First off, let’s clear up one thing: Religion did not lose Sarah Palin the election. Sarah Palin did.

But what if it had? Is it a measure of religious intolerance to dismiss Palin for her support of creationism? This question actually gets to the heart of Daines’ critique. He obviously believes that the woman was unfairly demonized because of her faith. If creationism had been a deciding factor, would it have been unfair?

I say no.

Far more eloquent writers than myself have argued against teaching creationism in the classroom, but I’ll do my best. For one, there’s the whole issue of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause — and the mounting avalanche of judicial precedent dictating that creationism and intelligent design cannot be taught in public schools.

Even beyond that, however, Palin’s attitude towards teaching creationism should have boded ill for other reasons as well, specifically because it indicated her willingness to ignore centuries of scientific principle for the sake of a political agenda. Simply put: religion, focused as it is on the supernatural, falls entirely outside the purview of science, which measures natural phenomena. Apples and oranges.

Attempts to push creationism back in the classroom — under the guise of intelligent design — are part of a long neoconservative tradition of forcing religion into incompatible systems like science, government and the interpretation of law. Daines almost seems to allude to this political philosophy himself, suggesting “faith’s logical importance in our discourse.”

But religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality. Though Daines correctly points out the pivotal role religion played in historic struggles like the civil rights movement, he seems to make an odd insinuation. If you connect the dots of his argument, you could infer that secular-minded individuals today would scoff at those who opposed segregation on religious grounds during the Movement. It’s a pretty bleak picture to paint, and one I’m not willing to accept.

People are capable of understanding right and wrong, even across a religious divide. The issue some had with Sarah Palin’s view on creationism wasn’t a knee jerk reaction to religion; rather, people responded negatively because such a perspective flew not only in the face of reason, but also of legal precedent, suggesting a view of government as malleable to personal whim.

And as for the suggestion that Cornell is antagonistic to religion? Through three-plus years in Ithaca, I’m hard-pressed to think of more than a handful of isolated instances when I’ve witnessed straight-up intolerance towards an individual’s or group’s religious beliefs. Likewise, I’ve yet to see a professor act dismissive or disparaging toward a student based on religion. Maybe I’ve just been lucky. Maybe I’m naïve. But frankly, I doubt it. I think we’re better than that. I have that faith.

Peter Finocchiaro, a senior in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, is a former Arts and Entertainment Editor of The Sun. He may be reached at pfinocchiaro@cornellsun.com [7]. Everyone Choose Sides appears alternate Tuesdays this semester.