MLK Jr. on Religion
How the Definition of Religion Affects Our Perspective of the First Amendment
In the third chapter of The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. there is a passage which describes King’s perspective on religion. The passage is taken from a paper he submitted on March 28, 1951 as part of his bachelor’s in divinity at Crozer Theological Seminary, a few months before his graduation. The paper is titled, “A Conception and Impression of Religion Drawn From Dr. Edgar S. Brightman’s book A Philosophy of Religion.” King writes
It is religion that gives meaning to life. It is religion that gives meaning to the Universe. It is religion that is the greatest incentive for the good life. It is religion which gives us the assurance that all that is high noble and valuable will be conserved. Such fruits of religion I find to be its greatest virtues, and certainly they cannot be ignored by any sane man. I must now conclude that any atheistic view is both philosophically unsound and practically disadvantageous. How I long now for that religious experience which Dr. Brightman so cogently speaks of throughout his book. It seems to be an experience, the lack of which life becomes dull and meaningless. As I reflect on the matter, however, I do remember moments that I have been awe awakened; there have been times that I have been carried out of myself by something greater than myself and to that something I gave myself. Has this great something been God? Maybe after all I have been religious for a number of years, and am now only becoming aware of it.
What are some questions that we might ask about this passage?
What is King’s definition of religion?
In what ways does religion give meaning to life and to the universe?
In what ways does religion provide incentives or the greatest incentive for the good life?
How does religion provide assurance that the high noble and valuable will be conserved? Conserved in what way?
I’ll be taking on these questions in upcoming posts, but for now let’s try to be open to the idea that King might be correct.
In discussing this passage with one of my friends in California, he writes that everything depends on how you define “religion.” Religion, he says, “discourages questions and critical thinking.”
This unfortunately can be true—depending on our definition of religion.
How would Dr. King respond to this? One response—not his of course—is that science occasionally does the same. State-funded education occasionally does the same. Environmentalist and nationalist ideologies have done the same. Racial, gender and political ideologies have done the same. All kinds of people have done the same. Government funding of any religion, ideology or worldview has does the same.
Does this mean that religion is always dogmatic? No. Only if we define religion to be dogmatic.
My friend also writes that religion “divides people into various groups or tribes that don’t get along very well.” True again, but my response is the same. Science, public education, politics and other secular ideologies can do the same. This implies that our definition of religion is too narrow. It implies that dogma can penetrate all aspects of our learning and thinking.
Other problems with religion—also from my friend:
In many cases religion becomes a cult where the leader demands obedience from the members.
It also becomes a “world view” which may claim that God controls everything, and that nothing, whether good or evil, is not part of God’s plan, or that God from eternity past, decided in advance who will enter Heaven and who will be sent to Hell.
History has shown us that once a population adopts a certain theology, they can become very intolerant and cruel to followers of other theologies.
These are all accurate critiques of religion, but religion doesn’t have to be defined only or mostly by these downsides. What if we were to develop a definition of religion that was evenhanded, by including all the positives and negatives?
I believe that religion has value. In fact, religion is with us today because it gave those who practiced it an advantage—they survived. Let’s talk about religion in the positive as well as the negative. For this we need a clean slate and a new definition. Let’s get creative.
I believe that humans are by nature religious creatures. It is religion that sets us apart from other animals. Do any other animals practice anything remotely like religion?
I believe that our society is struggling with the meaning of religion. Many of us have consciously or unconsciously abandoned it. But if we are religious creatures, is it even possible to abandon religion? Is it possible to be “unreligious” if religion is our DNA?
I’m moving toward the belief that we should re-define religion to include all of our pedagogies; all of our ways of learning; all of our beliefs; all of our academic disciplines; all of our ideologies; all of our philosophies; all of our habits and skills; everything. And we should incorporate this definition into the First Amendment, in order to free ourselves from state-funded education which has become a breeding ground of new religions which are rotting our country from the inside.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this.
I don’t believe that we can leave the word “religion” defined as it currently is in the context of the First Amendment without destroying our country. We desperately need to broaden its definition to incorporate all of the ways in which we learn.
What are your thoughts on this?
Update: I suppose I should begin linking to my previous posts on this topic, as I now see it will probably become a series. Here are some closely related posts.
Religion, Education and Identity