E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiHe strongly opposes Hollinger’s “cognitive plausibility” idea, arguing that people and their deep moral values do not always fit into this framework. Rather, he believes people should respect others’ religious identities just as they respect other characteristics such as race, gender, and ethnicity.
“Does that mean that I want my religious understanding to be translated directly into policies,” Patel asked. “No, I’m not suggesting that at all. But I am saying that the public square is much broader than policies. And part of what the public square is about is the things with meaning. And part of what meaning is about is respect for people’s identity.”
The popular religious commentator also said it is for the “national good” that people of different religious communities have positive relations.
“When I’m asked the question, ‘You have to tell me how your religious commitments fit into a framework of cognitive plausibility,’ I feel pinned against the wall,” the interfaith leader said.
“America is built on people like Langston Hughes, citing his heritage from the Nile and the Mississippi … it is built on people articulating their particular narratives in a way that not only contribute to the common good but sometimes build a higher one,” Patel concluded.
Third panelist Melissa Rogers, founder of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity School, offered her opinion, saying that religious leaders who endorse political candidates should be analyzed. Religious leaders should be treated like secular leaders and have their views inspected, Rogers contended.
The opinions of Hollinger, Patel, Rogers, and others are expanded in essays compiled in the book Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy, which was released Tuesday. The book is published by the Center for American Progress, which hosted the panel discussion.
rolln4him »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
