Jeffrey Feldman's Frameshop: Religion Is A Foreign Country

While most Americans have been enjoying the Summer -- trips to the beach, barbecues, fireworks -- a group called StoptheACLU.org has been whipping up hate against a Jewish family in Delaware.

StoptheACLU.org "exposed" a Jewish family as the first act of their new policy of publishing personal information on anyone working with the American Civil Liberties Union. In this case, the family’s offense was filing a lawsuit against the local School Board to protect their child from from the establishment of religion (e.g., Christianity) through required Christian school prayer. As a result, the family received threats at their home. Anti-Semitism? Rule by angry mob? Not so fast.

According to legal counsel for the School Board named in the suit, the real issue here is the Jewish family’s lack of 'tolerance' for the majority:

"Tolerance is a two-way street...The majority's views are entitled to tolerance."

(full story here )

This awful example of Americans who violate The Constitution -- and then intimidate and threaten anyone who speaks out -- is also a good example of how a political issue can be framed so that it appears to mean the opposite of what most Americans believe. Is religious 'tolerance' really about minorities respecting the entitlement of the Christian majority? Not according to most Americans. But when the local School Board in Delaware frames religioius 'tolerance' through the idea of a 'two-way street,' it seems to make sense.

How can we get off this 'two-way street' frame and onto a Progressive frame for religious tolerance? The answer can be found in a recent speech by Democratic Senator Barack Obama.

Two Frames For Religious Tolerance: "Two-Lane Street" vs. "Public Square"
The alternative to the "Two-Lane Street" frame promoted by the likes of StoptheACLU.org is the "Public Square" frame pushed by Barack Obama.

The "Two-Lane Street" Frame
The "Two-Lane Street" frame is based on the logic that all citizens are essentially just cars driving down the road. In this image, most of the cars are driving in one direction, while only a few are driving in the other direction. Now, in this frame we are presented with a broad logic for understanding what we mean by religious 'tolerance.' Since most "cars" (citizens) in America are driving in one direction (Christianity), then the bulk of the traffic (culture, society, laws) are headed in that direction, too. On the other side of the yellow line, there is far, far less traffic (religious minorities). But still, both sides avoid hurting each other by staying on their sides of the road. When both sides of traffic respect the yellow line, we have religious tolerance. It all seems logical.

In fact, what is really happening on that two-lane street is that the crowded side, tired of all the traffic, decides to just start driving on both sides of the street. When the slower side complains ("Hey! You're not respecting the rules of the road!"), the crowded side says, "You are welcome to drive on our side or you are welcome to not drive at all." The crowded side things it is a fair bargain because -- because they have more cars.

The "Public Square" Frame
Once the 'Two-Lane Street" frame is elaborated in full, most people can see that it is basically a justification for the road rage of the majority. "We do what we want because we are tired of putting up with you slow drivers!" And we can all relate to this road rage, because we have all had the urge -- at least once in our lives -- to just pull out to the empty side of the road when we hit a traffic jam.

The alternative frame presents a completely different logic for thinking about religious tolerance. Rather than starting with the idea of a 'road' going in two directions -- which masks the pernicious idea that there is Christianity one side and everything else on the other -- the "Public Square" Frame begins with the idea that there are many Churches, synagogues and mosques all around a single town square. We can act one way inside our various religious buildings, but once we walk out into the "Public Square," we are obligated to act in a more universal manner. A true Democracy has both of these elements functioning: the religious "buildings' where the people follow their own beliefs, and the "Public Square" where we "translate" those beliefs into a more universal way of thinking and acting.

To make it easier to see where Obama invokes the "Public Square" frame, I have underlined the key phrase "...leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." This is a great metaphor for the idea of religious tolerance which begins with the image of religious people -- people of 'faith' or 'believers' or however we want to describe them -- sitting in a private place of worship. At some point, they decide that they want to go "into the public square" to participate in Democracy in general (metaphorically speaking). Obama tells us, here, that many people believe (he calls them 'secularists') that for America to be a Democracy that is tolerant of all forms of expression, then those religious people will have to "leave their religion at the door," like a coat or a suitcase, before entering into society in general.

Not so, he argues. In fact, religious tolerance is not about leaving religion out of the public square, but about religious people "translating" their faith into "universal" ideas that everyone can understand. He continues:

This is a remarkable idea, if we listen to it carefully. We are still in the "Public Square" frame, but we are now taking up an entirely new idea. If religious people want to be understood by everyone once they enter the "Public Square," then the onus is on them to "translate" their ideas into ides "accessible" to everyone -- people of other religions and people who are not recognizably religious at all.

What a fascinating idea. Individual religious beliefs, according to Obama, are like foreign languages that we must translate into the common vernacular of Democracy if we want to be understood in the "Public Square."

Indeed, if anyone has every spent time in a religious building that is not their own tradition, it does feel much like traveling into a foreign country.

Religions As Foreign Countries
Every year, for example, I go to Christmas Mass with my wife's family despite the fact that I am Jewish. From the perspective, my travels each December to the country of "Catholicism" at Christmas is always a bit disorienting. And the same is true for my wife when, each year on Yom Kippur, she travels with me to the country of "Judaism." It is disorienting, that is, until we return back out to the "Public Square" and make the effort to help each other translate what we saw into the universal vernacular. And if we did not make this effort, one of us would either have to submit to the "foreign" language of the other -- effectively emigrating to a foreign land -- or we would eventually break down into communication or worse: war (divorce).

In the "Public Square" frame, religious tolerance is not a zero sum balance where the minority must bend to the will of the majority cars speeding quickly past. As Senator Obama puts it so well, religious tolerance is an act of stepping into the public square and actively translating one's religious morals, values and ideals into the universal language of American Democracy. That way, those individual morals can be shared by everyone.

The great power of the American system is that so many people, for over 230 years, have dedicated themselves to stepping into the "Public Square" and doing the hard work of translating their religious -- and non-religious -- values and morals into the common heritage of the Democratic system.

We do so not because we are forced to. But because we all share a common heritage -- religious and non-religious people alike -- out of which The Constitution was crafted.

Religious tolerance in America, in other words, is not passive. It is not based on the majority or the minority. It is not based on the powerful or the weak or the Christian or the Jew or the black or the white.

Religious tolerance in America is based on a common commitment to a core, universal principle: We are all foreigners in the public square. We must all do the work of translating our ideas.

Road Rage vs. Assimilation
The logic of the "Public Square" frame is not only that religion is a source of American Democratic ideals, but that the future health and success of American Democracy depends on the continued ability -- and willingness -- of people who are religious to step out of their houses of worship and do the work of translation.

In this frame, the great danger that we face as a nation is that people will grow tired of this work of translation and choose to either abandon religious ideals altogether or choose to impose the individual ideals of one religion by force.

In Seaford, Delware, a Jewish family is feeling the impact of one religion attempting to impose its individual ideals by force -- in this case, by the force of threat and intimidation.

The larger question of how we as Americans frame religions 'tolerance' is, perhaps, a side benefit to this disturbing turn of events in Delaware. While one small part of Christian America defines 'tolerance' as the minority bending to the 'road rage' (so to speak) of the majority, the vast majority of religious and non-religious people in America define religious tolerance as an active process of assimilation into a Democratic public square.

It may seem strange at first, but when it comes to framing religious tolerance, I will take the "public square" over a "two-way street" any day of the week -- and twice on Sunday.

Frameshop by Jeffrey Feldman

July 7, 2006	GET BUZZFLASH ALERTS	JEFFREY FELDMAN ARCHIVES
Religion Is A Foreign Country by Jeffrey Feldman While most Americans have been enjoying the Summer -- trips to the beach, barbecues, fireworks -- a group called StoptheACLU.org has been whipping up hate against a Jewish family in Delaware. StoptheACLU.org "exposed" a Jewish family as the first act of their new policy of publishing personal information on anyone working with the American Civil Liberties Union. In this case, the family’s offense was filing a lawsuit against the local School Board to protect their child from from the establishment of religion (e.g., Christianity) through required Christian school prayer. As a result, the family received threats at their home. Anti-Semitism? Rule by angry mob? Not so fast. According to legal counsel for the School Board named in the suit, the real issue here is the Jewish family’s lack of 'tolerance' for the majority: "Tolerance is a two-way street...The majority's views are entitled to tolerance." (full story here ) This awful example of Americans who violate The Constitution -- and then intimidate and threaten anyone who speaks out -- is also a good example of how a political issue can be framed so that it appears to mean the opposite of what most Americans believe. Is religious 'tolerance' really about minorities respecting the entitlement of the Christian majority? Not according to most Americans. But when the local School Board in Delaware frames religioius 'tolerance' through the idea of a 'two-way street,' it seems to make sense. How can we get off this 'two-way street' frame and onto a Progressive frame for religious tolerance? The answer can be found in a recent speech by Democratic Senator Barack Obama. Two Frames For Religious Tolerance: "Two-Lane Street" vs. "Public Square" The alternative to the "Two-Lane Street" frame promoted by the likes of StoptheACLU.org is the "Public Square" frame pushed by Barack Obama. The "Two-Lane Street" Frame The "Two-Lane Street" frame is based on the logic that all citizens are essentially just cars driving down the road. In this image, most of the cars are driving in one direction, while only a few are driving in the other direction. Now, in this frame we are presented with a broad logic for understanding what we mean by religious 'tolerance.' Since most "cars" (citizens) in America are driving in one direction (Christianity), then the bulk of the traffic (culture, society, laws) are headed in that direction, too. On the other side of the yellow line, there is far, far less traffic (religious minorities). But still, both sides avoid hurting each other by staying on their sides of the road. When both sides of traffic respect the yellow line, we have religious tolerance. It all seems logical. In fact, what is really happening on that two-lane street is that the crowded side, tired of all the traffic, decides to just start driving on both sides of the street. When the slower side complains ("Hey! You're not respecting the rules of the road!"), the crowded side says, "You are welcome to drive on our side or you are welcome to not drive at all." The crowded side things it is a fair bargain because -- because they have more cars. The "Public Square" Frame Once the 'Two-Lane Street" frame is elaborated in full, most people can see that it is basically a justification for the road rage of the majority. "We do what we want because we are tired of putting up with you slow drivers!" And we can all relate to this road rage, because we have all had the urge -- at least once in our lives -- to just pull out to the empty side of the road when we hit a traffic jam. The alternative frame presents a completely different logic for thinking about religious tolerance. Rather than starting with the idea of a 'road' going in two directions -- which masks the pernicious idea that there is Christianity one side and everything else on the other -- the "Public Square" Frame begins with the idea that there are many Churches, synagogues and mosques all around a single town square. We can act one way inside our various religious buildings, but once we walk out into the "Public Square," we are obligated to act in a more universal manner. A true Democracy has both of these elements functioning: the religious "buildings' where the people follow their own beliefs, and the "Public Square" where we "translate" those beliefs into a more universal way of thinking and acting. Consider this frame as it is presented by Barack Obama in his recent keynote address at the Call to Renewal "Building a Covenant for a New America" conference (Jun 28, 2006): what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. To make it easier to see where Obama invokes the "Public Square" frame, I have underlined the key phrase "...leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." This is a great metaphor for the idea of religious tolerance which begins with the image of religious people -- people of 'faith' or 'believers' or however we want to describe them -- sitting in a private place of worship. At some point, they decide that they want to go "into the public square" to participate in Democracy in general (metaphorically speaking). Obama tells us, here, that many people believe (he calls them 'secularists') that for America to be a Democracy that is tolerant of all forms of expression, then those religious people will have to "leave their religion at the door," like a coat or a suitcase, before entering into society in general. Not so, he argues. In fact, religious tolerance is not about leaving religion out of the public square, but about religious people "translating" their faith into "universal" ideas that everyone can understand. He continues: Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. This is a remarkable idea, if we listen to it carefully. We are still in the "Public Square" frame, but we are now taking up an entirely new idea. If religious people want to be understood by everyone once they enter the "Public Square," then the onus is on them to "translate" their ideas into ides "accessible" to everyone -- people of other religions and people who are not recognizably religious at all. What a fascinating idea. Individual religious beliefs, according to Obama, are like foreign languages that we must translate into the common vernacular of Democracy if we want to be understood in the "Public Square." Indeed, if anyone has every spent time in a religious building that is not their own tradition, it does feel much like traveling into a foreign country. Religions As Foreign Countries Every year, for example, I go to Christmas Mass with my wife's family despite the fact that I am Jewish. From the perspective, my travels each December to the country of "Catholicism" at Christmas is always a bit disorienting. And the same is true for my wife when, each year on Yom Kippur, she travels with me to the country of "Judaism." It is disorienting, that is, until we return back out to the "Public Square" and make the effort to help each other translate what we saw into the universal vernacular. And if we did not make this effort, one of us would either have to submit to the "foreign" language of the other -- effectively emigrating to a foreign land -- or we would eventually break down into communication or worse: war (divorce). In the "Public Square" frame, religious tolerance is not a zero sum balance where the minority must bend to the will of the majority cars speeding quickly past. As Senator Obama puts it so well, religious tolerance is an act of stepping into the public square and actively translating one's religious morals, values and ideals into the universal language of American Democracy. That way, those individual morals can be shared by everyone. The great power of the American system is that so many people, for over 230 years, have dedicated themselves to stepping into the "Public Square" and doing the hard work of translating their religious -- and non-religious -- values and morals into the common heritage of the Democratic system. We do so not because we are forced to. But because we all share a common heritage -- religious and non-religious people alike -- out of which The Constitution was crafted. Religious tolerance in America, in other words, is not passive. It is not based on the majority or the minority. It is not based on the powerful or the weak or the Christian or the Jew or the black or the white. Religious tolerance in America is based on a common commitment to a core, universal principle: We are all foreigners in the public square. We must all do the work of translating our ideas. Road Rage vs. Assimilation The logic of the "Public Square" frame is not only that religion is a source of American Democratic ideals, but that the future health and success of American Democracy depends on the continued ability -- and willingness -- of people who are religious to step out of their houses of worship and do the work of translation. In this frame, the great danger that we face as a nation is that people will grow tired of this work of translation and choose to either abandon religious ideals altogether or choose to impose the individual ideals of one religion by force. In Seaford, Delware, a Jewish family is feeling the impact of one religion attempting to impose its individual ideals by force -- in this case, by the force of threat and intimidation. The larger question of how we as Americans frame religions 'tolerance' is, perhaps, a side benefit to this disturbing turn of events in Delaware. While one small part of Christian America defines 'tolerance' as the minority bending to the 'road rage' (so to speak) of the majority, the vast majority of religious and non-religious people in America define religious tolerance as an active process of assimilation into a Democratic public square. It may seem strange at first, but when it comes to framing religious tolerance, I will take the "public square" over a "two-way street" any day of the week -- and twice on Sunday. © 2006 Jeffrey Feldman
BACK TO TOP Jeffrey Feldman is the Editor-in-Chief and Founder of Frameshop. First established in late 2004 on several large blogs and launched as an independent website Jan. 1, 2005. Dr. Feldman has a Ph.D. in Cultural Anthropology which he applies broadly to the analysis of politics and communication. He lives and teaches in New York City, conducts workshops on framing throughout the country, and is s a regular guest on the national syndicated radio show The Thom Hartmann Radio Program.