At Religion Dispatches, Susan Henking writes about the benefits and drawbacks of interfaith organizations that address HIV/AIDS:
Progressive religion (whether Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or. . . ) can—and must—help in meeting the challenges of AIDS in the twenty first century both locally and globally, in New York City and elsewhere. The popularity of the notion of interfaith (what was once called ecumenical) organizations is a perhaps unsurprising response to what seems like endemic inter-religious violence; a defensive maneuver, in some ways. Indeed, the literature on both everyday and more elaborate interfaith linkages—from marriage and dating through theological and dogmatic formulations—abounds. Scholars from various areas (sociology, theology, religious studies, history), clergy from various traditions, and popular culture pundits of many sorts are offering their insights on how to live in a world of religious pluralism—and in an “interfaith” world.
[…]And yet, like Sam Harris, it is possible to worry that “progressive” religion and “progressive” interfaith efforts distract us from what might be seen as the overwhelming illogic of religion per se, whether progressive or not. And, there is the worry that interfaith organizations do not include the secular, the atheistic, the agnostic. Certainly interfaith organizations have worked for civil rights in America, toward peace in the Middle East, and in seeking justice and compassion for persons with HIV/AIDS, right? And moves like that of the United Church of Christ are better than their opposite—overt hostility toward persons with HIV/AIDS. But do they distract us from the illogic of religion? The hostility? The long-term negative consequences?
Read the full post here.