In this episode, Richard Newton interviews Emily Clark from Gonzaga University and Brad Stoddard from McDaniel College about their new documentary reader Race and New Religious Movements in the USA. Not only do they discuss the reader and the documents they included, they also talk about the process of collaborating together on the project.
You’ve heard them all before. “Religions are Belief Systems.” “Religion is a Private Matter.” “I’m spiritual but not religious.” Our culture is full of popular stereotypes about religion, both positive and negative. Many people uncritically assume that religion is intrinsically violent, or that religion makes people moral, or that it is simply “bullshit.” In Stereotyping Religion: Critiquing Clichés (Bloomsbury, 2017), edited by Brad Stoddard, Assistant Professor at McDaniel College, and Craig Martin, Associate Professor at St. Thomas Aquinas College, several clichés are understood within a social and historical context, which enables us to see how they are produced and what makes them effective. In our conversation we explore several of these stereotypes, what makes them possible and desirable for communities that reproduce and curate them, secularization theory, the role of atheism, liberal political discourse about religion, critical thinking, and how “Stereotyping Religion” works in the classroom.
“Religions are belief systems”, “Religions are intrinsically violent”, “Religion is Bullshit”… these are just some of the pervasive cliches that we might hear from time to time in the English-speaking world about our central topic of discussion on the RSP, ‘religion’. In this podcast, Chris is joined by Brad Stoddard and Craig Martin, the editors of the recently published Stereotyping Religion: Critiquing Cliches (Bloomsbury, 2017) to discuss these cliches, the ideological work that they do, how scholars could and should approach them, the construction of the book, and more.
In a pilot project announced this summer, the Department of Education will partner with dozens of colleges to provide higher education to prisoners who can't afford to pay; eligible inmates will be able to apply for federal grants under the experimental trial. Hari Sreenivasan explores what both advocates and critics are saying.