At the Scoop, guest blogger (and Immanent Frame contributor) Courtney Bender discusses the New York Times‘ perennial waffling about religion, and appeals not only for more probing questions about the place of religion in contemporary public life, but for greater reflexivity in answering them, as well:
Stepping into the fray in an online column titled “Can we talk about religion?” the Times’ “ethicist” Randy Cohen took a stand, urging secularists and non-believers to participate in public talk about religion. “Despite the risk of provoking the ire of believers, we should discuss the actions of religious institutions as we would those of all others—courteously and vigorously” he opines. And religious persons, he said, should not be affronted when secularists have something to say about religion. (He adds that “we” should know something about religion—“we” should not be “doofuses.”)
[…]The simple answer to Cohen’s question, “Can we talk about religion?” is: of course we can. We live in worlds saturated with public religious talk. If the dust-up around the Vatican’s announcement is any indication, such talk is vigorous, contentious and takes place in multiple public settings and with multiple ends. Its ultimate goals surely lie beyond polite dinner conversation, which points toward the pithiest questions for reporters and for the rest of us who are interested in religion and public life: What are the goals of religious talk these days? What intentions underlie “agnostic moralizing” in the Times, and how do those intentions reflect or inform how reporters cover religion?
Read more at the Scoop.