Brian Jones

A Study of Appropriate Religious Discussion

When discussing religion, many approaches can be taken. One may discuss his

own experiences inside a religion, simply report facts, or try to persuade others to a

particular opinion. The question is, is one method more appropriate than another? It is the

goal of this paper to determine a possible answer. Within this paper, I will analyze various

religious studies read in the class: Sonsyrea Tate’s Little X; three ethnographic articles

about Rastafarianism, Hinduism, and Haitian Vodou; and Bill McKibben’s article about

evangelical Christianity. I will compare and contrast the different approaches, note each

method’s advantages and disadvantages, and discuss a few things that were learned from

each text. In the end, it may become clear that the most appropriate way to discuss

religion is to be honest.

Little X is presented as a memoir. As such, the narrative is looked at from a

retrospective view, looking as someone who quit the Nation of Islam. However, the story

is written with an honest opinion of the religion; admitting both the positives, such as the

tight-knit sense of community; and the negatives, such as the attitude towards outsiders.

It seems as though Sonsyrea Tate, the author, may be writing about her past with a slight

sense of guilt or remorse; perhaps even wishing things had happened differently,

especially when she realized her disagreements with the religion. The reason she wrote

the book, as shown in the introduction, was that she “hoped that by writing it all down,

spelling it all out, it would begin to make sense” (5). Presumably by the fact that she

published the book, one would think that she also wanted to educate outsiders on what it

was actually like to be a part of the Nation of Islam. She presents her experiences through
the eyes she had as a child, and not so much as she has now. In doing so, she tries to

create as vivid an experience as possible. However, this does not real much more than

what she knew at the time. It does, on the other hand, make for a good story.

In contrast to the memoir, the studies on Rastafarianism, Hinduism, and Haitian

Vodou, are ethnographies. They view the religions from a third-person perspective. Going

along with this distance from the subject, the ethnographies have a neutral tone towards

the subject. They also tend to be very detailed, bringing in historical facts and statistics.

The Rastafarian article, for instance, contains this descriptive piece of information:

At the Nyabinghi-and EWF-sponsored Second Annual Rastafari

Meritorious Awards Banquet, held on November 12, 1995, at the Caribe Club in

New York City, the Haile Selassie I Meritorious Award was bestowed upon

Asento Foxe for “leadership in establishing the first recognized Rastafari church

in the country.” (Hepner, 304)

Hepner’s article also quotes, in dialogue form, a recitation of Rastafarian anaphora.

Ethnographies often explain things with different stories, such as the Haitian Vodou

article’s narrative of ten-year-old Marie-Carmel’s experience at Mass. All three articles

explain various terminology used in the religions. The articles are clear-cut and definite,

and tend to report information, rather than make suggestions or state opinions.

Bill McKibben’s article has a much different approach than the other two styles of

study. His work is a personal essay, which brings his own personal experiences into the

picture. It explains who he is, which is important to understand, because the article makes

his opinions about evangelical Christianity very clear. The essay uses casual, informal

language. In the essay, McKibben tries to disprove the beliefs of American Evangelical
Christians. To do so, he brings in many statistics which, at least to a degree, relate to his

points.

One of the advantages of Tate’s memoir is that it is fairly interesting to read,

because it is a story. It is also good because it is open about both the good and bad things

in the Nation of Islam. The reader gains quite a bit of insight because the narrative comes

from a first-person perspective, and not some third-party analyst. Because it is viewed

from the inside, the book teaches some interesting facts that might not otherwise be

known, such as the fact that the Nation named everyone “X.” Tate actually points out

some good things about the Nation of Islam, which is not done very often. Furthermore,

she connects and contrasts it to Orthodox Islam, which also does not seem to be discussed

very often. The story brings the characters to life, which reminds the reader that it is

talking about real people, and simply a vague religion. It also shows how these real

people, like Tate’s family, obey or disobey the standards of their faith.

Possibly the best feature of the ethnographies is that they introduce a great deal of

data and statistics. They also carry a harmless tone in their approach to the subjects. This

provides a way to understand the people mentioned in the narratives, without growing so

close as to bring in unnecessary details. All three articles provide at least somewhat of a

timeline of events in each religion’s history. If any argument exists in the articles, it is a

discussion of what is – as opposed to what should be. The use of many religious and

foreign terms in the article displays a tone of knowledge and understanding of the subject

at hand, which is always reassuring in an academic investigation. These particular

ethnographies show a connection between the past and present, such as discussing the

CHSI’s history and what it is currently doing. They also do a very good job of explaining
the connection between the American version of each religion, and how it relates to its

home country.

The personal essay provides a recommendation of how to apply the information

therein. It also uses multiple references to the Bible, such as comparing Leviticus 24 to

the New Testament, as relevant ways to help make his points. McKibben also quotes

members of the evangelical churches, including a particular pastor who apparently told

his congregation, “The war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse”

(33). He is sure to use multiple examples for all of his points. In terms of relevancy,

McKibben draws a very strong comparison between religion and politics quite a few

times. The article is a very interesting read, mostly because it is easy to read. One of the

reasons that it is easy to read is that McKibben connects his points and makes his

message very clear, so the reader is not required to create a judgment of the subject.

The memoir, despite being honest – or perhaps because of it – also has Tate’s bias.

This applies to both the good and bad sides of the subject. Through her childlike

perspective, some things are viewed in a tainted light, such as the stern attitude of the

schoolteachers. Even though Tate is able to relate how she feels in retrospect, the reader

is unable to see how the other characters now feel about the past. The book is not based

as much in facts and historical details as much as her experiences – which, it should be

noted, are not necessarily the same as others of the same background. She may not have

had a clear point to make as she wrote the book, so her style of describing things may

have subtly changed through the chapters; in the end, the reader may leave with a slightly

confused opinion.
 Because they are so detailed and informative, the ethnographies are quite long and

can be mentally taxing upon the reader. Also, with the emotionless nature of the articles

comes the fact that the reader does not know what the writer is thinking. If there is a bias,

therefore, it is too subtle to be noticed; the reader may agree with it without even

realizing it. Too much information, as well, can cause an overload, and even less

information than usual may end up being stored. For instance, the article about Haitian

Vodou mentions so many different saints and other names; the reader may easily confuse

them with each other. Seemingly unnecessary details, like the scents of ceremonial herbs,

make the reading less concise. If an article is read through in one sitting, the reader may

have forgotten the beginning by the time the end is reached. The neutral stance of the

article unfortunately does not discuss any seemingly negative characteristics – which may

make the article seem to have an unofficial bias of some sort.

A highly proclaimed bias, on the other hand, is seen in McKibben’s work. He is

presumptuous about what conclusions one would make, given the proper information –

which, of course, is contained within his article. This leaves little room for the reader to

make his own decision about the topic. McKibben carries a condescending tone towards

those he criticizes, and he even somewhat mocks them without actually doing so: “This is

the contemporary version of Archbishop Ussher’s seventeenth century calculation that the

world had been created on October 23, 4004 B.C. . . .” (33). He expects the reader to

mock these kinds of quotes upon reading them. Furthermore, he creates an unnecessarily

long list of things that are wrong with the megachurches. It is one thing to give a few

examples to prove a point, but he lists almost ten different items. In reference to himself,

however, he attempts to appear very friendly by listing his own good deeds, such as
working at a soup kitchen; this is done, of course, to bring the reader more towards his

perspective. The worst part of this article, though, is the fact that he does not give his

opponents a good chance to defend themselves.

Little X teaches many interesting things about the Black Muslim community. The

Nation of Islam believed the white man had tricked the black people into slavery. They

were waiting for a time, which was coming soon, for the black man to destroy the “white

devil.” However, the Nation of Islam was not nearly as bad as it seemed. For instance, a

strong sense of community was felt in the Nation’s congregation. Many of the children

would go to temple every day. Granted, they did believe in standing up for oneself and

one’s kin with violence, as seen when Tate’s older brother was forced by his uncles to

fight his best friend. The Nation, in general, was quite strict and conservative.

The ethnographies inform the reader of the customs and traditions of their

respective religions. They also discuss how the different religions established their

transnational identities, and also their typical worship services. The current state of affairs

is also described, as well as compared to its history. For example, Hinduism in America is

currently very organized. Hindu denominations can find peace with each other through

sharing similar beliefs, and ignoring their differences. Rastafarianism is described as

extending between America, Jamaica, and its home in Ethiopia. Rastafarians, though

wanting to bring power to the black people, try to do so through peaceful methods. In

contrast to Rastafarianism, Haitian Vodou has created its own identity for itself, separate

from the stereotypical African-American. They have mixed Haitian Vodou, Catholicism,

and Cajun culture into one unique religion.

 McKibben’s article, unfortunately, does not teach as much as it tries to preach. It

mostly teaches basic bible knowledge or statistics, like how most Americans claim to be

Christian; most of these Christians agree that “God helps those who help themselves”

(31). America is ranked second to last in government foreign aid (32). Megachurches are

popular because they help members, but they do not stress enough the idea of helping

others. They also appeal to people through non-church-related things, such as Xboxes and

Krispy Kremes. Tom Delay believes that the war he has encouraged will bring the

apocalypse, and Jesus overruled the teaching of “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” (36).

As one may see, it is difficult to determine what, if anything, McKibben teaches the

reader.

Which of these various methods, then, is the best way to discuss religion? It

seems as though it depends on what the goal of the discussion is, and whether it is seen

through the perspective of the writer or the reader. As a reader, it is best to be treated with

honesty and without any sort of manipulation. In this case, the ethnography or the

memoir would be a better study to choose. However, as a writer, McKibben is quite good

at bringing an unsuspecting reader over to his side. This paper was written through the

perspective of the reader, and so many of McKibben’s “negatives” could be seen as quite

positive in a different light. When looked at by a reader, though, his essay is no more than

a persuasive one; it is not very informative. This leaves the ethnography and the memoir

as possible choices. Neither one seems to have very many negatives. The ethnography is

filled with more information, and the memoir creates a feeling of what the religion is like.

The choice, then, all depends on what the reader prefers. Because both attempt to be open
and honest about the subject, then that is what matters. They are both legitimate styles of

discussion.