Title: Religious Encounters: Text, Travel, and Tradition
As Michael Pasquier rightly suggests, the concept of 'religion' is relatively modern, emerging predominantly through political and scientific innovations. However, this does not imply that notions of the 'sacred' or 'spiritual' were absent in earlier times. From the dawn of human existence, individuals have sought to create meaning around themselves and their place in the world. This quest to explain the origin of life and the universe has led to the creation of sacred histories, narratives, oral mythological traditions, texts, symbols, and sites.
Travel—whether physical, astral, or spiritual—has often been a central theme in human religious and spiritual encounters. Astral and spiritual travel have found expression in various forms and genres of literature. Meanwhile, physical journeys undertaken by significant figures, such as the Exodus in Judaism, the Hijra in Islam, the Udasian journeys in Sikhism, and the travels of Buddha, have established sacred and religious sites. The journeys to these sites have given rise to a vast literature of pilgrimage. While pilgrimage has been extensively analysed as travel writing, the value of interactions and intersections that occur due to the other forms of travel, such as sightseeing, cultural tourism, secular pilgrimage and grey tourism, to religious sites remains understudied.
This edited volume, titled "Religious Encounters: Text, Travel, and Tradition," seeks to provide a comprehensive and multidisciplinary examination of how religious encounters shape, and are shaped by, textual narratives, travel experiences, and traditions. It focuses on the dynamic interaction between sacred texts, transformative travel experiences, and the preservation of cultural traditions. The volume aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships that unfold in the realm of religious diversity. It intends to explore religious journeys as sites of encounters where identities are constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed. The objective is to examine not only pilgrimages but also various other settings where religious interactions occur, such as places of worship, community gatherings, personal reflections, and ethnographic studies.
Call for Papers: We invite scholars to contribute to this volume, which will be proposed to Bloomsbury Publishing, by submitting papers that explore the following themes:
If you are interested in contributing, please submit an abstract of 300 words and a 200-word biographical note addressed to Kiranpreet Kaur Baath ( [email protected] ).
Call for abstracts (deadline): 31 July 2024
Notification of acceptance : 30 August 2024
The final submission will be in the form of a chapter of 6,000 to 8,000 words, including references.
View the contact page for more contact and location information
PhD in the Ethics of Palliative Care: This PhD project is focused on ethical dimensions of shared decision-making for patients with advanced illness, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals in palliative care. The study will compare the patient, family caregiver, and healthcare professional perspective and decipher how their perspectives impact on how they approach decision-making about treatment and care. This PhD study aligns best with applicants from one or more of the following backgrounds: medical ethics; ethics; social sciences; health research; or cognate fields. This PhD will involve primarily qualitative methods.
For direct inquiries about the specifics of this study, please contact Professor Linda Hogan, email: [email protected] and Dr Geraldine Foley, email: [email protected]. Further details can be found here .
Associate Professor of Economics, School of Public Policy and Urban Studies Program, Simon Fraser University
Mohsen Javdani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Simon Fraser University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA.
Simon Fraser University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.
View all partners
Canada stands at a crossroads as its 157th birthday approaches. It’s navigating shifting immigration attitudes amid global and domestic challenges.
The ongoing politicization and polarization around immigration in Canada underscores a critical juncture for a country celebrated for its diversity . As Canadians grapple with economic insecurity, housing crises, health-care shortages and social tensions, the immigration debate tests the nation’s values and future direction.
Recent research I conducted with two colleagues , drawing from more than three decades of data, sheds light on evolving Canadian attitudes toward immigration. Between 1988 and 2008, there was a notable 41 per cent decline in Canadians who favoured reducing immigration numbers. Yet, post-2008, this trend shifted, with Canadians who wanted reduced immigration levels rising to 40 per cent by 2019.
This development signals more than just changing preferences; there are deeper socio-psychological and political dynamics shaping views on immigration.
But let’s simplify that socio-psychological jargon. Imagine society as a bustling potluck gathering. You arrive with your dish — packed with your beliefs, values and biases. Looking around, you’re judging everyone’s contributions and figuring out where you fit in.
Social identity theory suggests it’s natural to categorize ourselves into “us” versus “them” using familiar facets of our identity, such as religion and ethnicity. Driven by our need for a positive self-image and convinced that what we have to offer is the best, we sometimes snub outsiders.
This dynamic suggests the immigration debate delves into deeper territories of social identity. It’s about who we believe merits inclusion in our society, not just as an economic question.
Our findings suggest that economic concerns often cited in the immigration debate are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface, Canadians’ opinions on immigration are deeply influenced by aspects like religion, ethnicity, personal and familial immigration history and political leanings.
Our research finds, for example, that Christians show the least support for immigration. In contrast, Muslims — the second-largest religious group in Canada after Christians — are the most supportive of immigration. Jewish Canadians, atheists and agnostics also show strong support.
Ethnicity and immigration history also play pivotal roles in shaping our social identity. Our research indicates white people born in Canada exhibit a significantly stronger preference towards decreased immigration compared to white immigrants and ethnic minorities.
In terms of geography, it found that Nova Scotians have the most favourable sentiments about immigration, whereas Alberta and Ontario exhibit the most negative sentiments in Canada.
This suggests a varying landscape of belonging and acceptance. Immigrants and ethnic minorities show greater openness to new immigration, likely mirroring their journeys of settling and integrating into Canadian society.
One of our most striking findings is the increasing political polarization over immigration. Our research has found that since 2006, political party identification has emerged as the foremost factor in explaining Canadians’ differing views on immigration.
This polarization highlights that immigration is not just a social issue, but also a political tool. It is often framed and politicized seemingly to galvanize party bases rather than address the complexities of immigration and integration.
Political parties link immigration to pressures on public finances or housing shortages during difficult periods. This amplifies anti-immigration sentiments, even if there’s no direct causation. This tactic also elevates immigration as a focal issue, intertwining it with prevailing concerns and magnifying its perceived negative impact on society.
Read more: International students are not to blame for Canada's housing crisis
Our study underscores the complexity of the debate. It’s not just about numbers or economics, but about deeper socio-psychological currents and political strategies.
So, what’s the takeaway for Canada? Firstly, our findings are a wakeup call for political leaders, policymakers and the wider community. The rise in negative sentiments about immigration, especially amid challenging conditions, could have far-reaching consequences for Canada’s social harmony and economic prosperity.
Addressing anti-immigration sentiments requires engaging deeply with the socio-psychological factors that mounting evidence suggests are critical. Education is key, as studies consistently show.
Our vision of education, however, extends beyond traditional classrooms and involves the gradual development of an appreciation for diverse perspectives, openness and tolerance for change and diversity.
The significance of media and political parties in shaping public opinions cannot be overlooked. The way immigration is politicized through narratives of national security, economic risks and cultural identity influences both policy decisions and the public’s understanding of these policies. That means this conversation is as much a political issue as a policy challenge.
An effective response requires a holistic strategy that integrates policy initiatives with efforts to shift political and societal narratives toward more inclusive and accurate representations of immigration and its myriad contributions to society.
Our reaction to immigration should elevate above the narrow, self-serving question of “what’s in it for us?” This perspective narrowly views immigrants as mere economic assets, neglecting their wide-ranging contributions to society.
This viewpoint becomes particularly problematic when acknowledging that the lands currently known as Canada were first inhabited by Indigenous Peoples. As non-Indigenous people living in Canada, we all share the status of settlers, inheriting a responsibility from our colonial past. This history obliges us to extend a welcome embodying generosity and respect while looking toward our collective future.
Brendon O’Connor
One of the greatest threats to the health of liberal democracies at present is the rampant spread of lies and disinformation by powerful and influential people and organisations. We live in a world where lies about global warming, election results, refugees, vaccines, and many other issues of public importance circulate with alarming ease. As a result, the most urgent challenges we face are not being seriously addressed, and vital public institutions — like our electoral systems — are being undermined.
Conversations in which accurate information is discussed and debated are the lifeblood of healthy democracies, whereas the dominance of disinformation is a sign of a slide into authoritarianism — perhaps even fascism.
Donald Trump is among the worst offenders in the war on truth. Much of what the former president says is either false or altogether fanciful. The lies he tells are often so blatant that it hardly takes a great thinker or skilful debater to expose them. But exposed they must be, not blithely accepted as the price of doing democratic business with a character like Trump. Unless self-serving propaganda and claims of “alternative facts” are confronted with vigilance and seriousness, democracy’s very future is imperilled.
The inability of President Joe Biden to call out and confront Trump’s lies during last week’s presidential debate was perhaps the most egregious aspect of what was already an historically bad performance. This failure was unforgivable in the context of an election that Biden himself has billed as likely to determine the future of democracy in the United States. As he put it in a speech to mark the third anniversary of the attack on the Capitol : “as we begin this election year, we must be clear: Democracy is on the ballot.”
But rather than calling out Trump’s brazen falsehoods, Biden struggled to complete his own thoughts and fashion them into something that resembled a coherent sentence. He seemed to possess neither the confidence nor the mental agility to rebut Trump and mount a persuasive alternative.
There are two moments during the debate that stood out. The first came when Biden tried to answer to a question on how he would address national deficit:
We’d be able to right — wipe out his debt. We’d be able to help make sure that — all those things we need to do, childcare, elder care, making sure that we continue to strengthen our healthcare system, making sure that we’re able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the COVID – excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with — uh — look — if — we finally beat Medicare.
Then, when Trump claimed that Democrats support taking “the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth”, Biden could only manage this garbled response:
Look, there’s so many young women who have been — including a young woman who just was murdered and he went to the funeral. The idea that she was murdered by — by — by an immigrant coming in and [inaudible] talk about that. But here’s the deal, there’s a lot of young women who are being raped by their — by their in-laws, by their — by their spouses, brothers and sisters, by — just — it’s just — it’s just ridiculous. And they can do nothing about it.
Given both the gravity of the situation involving women’s reproductive rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade , and Trump’s campaign speeches promising there will be mass deportations of illegal immigrants and the establishment of detention camps , Biden needed to do a lot better.
At another of the debate’s low points — one which has not received anywhere near enough attention in the media coverage — Trump asserted that Biden should let the Israeli government go and “finish the job” in Gaza. How can this be construed other than as a brazen endorsement of even greater destruction and loss of civilian life? But again, Biden could give no credible account of himself, his policy, or the United States’ position on the future of the conflict. What was left to linger in the air was Trump’s bellicose disregard for the lives of Palestinians.
There were, to be sure, failings that cannot be blamed on Biden: the lack of fact checking by the host station CNN during the debate, for example, and the total absence of questions from the moderators directed at Trump about his claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. These point to tendency not to hold Trump accountable for his actions or lies. The next day, CNN reported that Trump made 30 false claims in the debate .
The inability to hold Trump to account has emboldened the already shameless showman to further defy democratic procedures and the rule of law. The recent decision of the Supreme Court and the heretofore successful strategy on the part of Trump’s legal teams to “delay, delay, delay” the remaining three cases brought against him, almost guarantee that Trump will not be prosecuted for his role in attempting to interfere with the results of the last presidential election and disrupt the transfer of power on 6 January 2021. This would be a travesty of might over right, and would signal to the world that the US justice system is subject to the authoritarian dictates of a would-be despot.
America is on the precipice of becoming a post-democracy, if not pariah state among the international community. The stakes of the 2024 presidential election could hardly be higher. The outcome of this election is more important than the reputation or legacy of any one person. The reputation of the United States as a functioning liberal democracy hangs in the balance.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter.
Elected Democrats, party leaders, and major Democratic donors are currently putting significant pressure on Biden to step down . The pronouncements from the White House and Biden’s closest allies that the current president is not going to announce his retirement are signs of desperation rather than strength. In modern American politics, there has been no situation like this; Reagan’s poor first debate performance was positively cogent compared to Biden’s, and there were not editorials from major newspapers saying Reagan would lose the election for his party unless he stepped aside. The New York Times editorial board rightly called for Biden to leave the race after the debate.
The most recent New York Times /Siena College poll showing Trump six percentage points ahead among likely voters and nine points ahead among registered voters nationwide should be the final confirmation that Biden is not the right candidate to prevent the worrying prospect of a second Trump presidency. President Biden needs to do the right thing for his country, and the world, and step aside to allow the process formally to begin of deciding which Democrat will face Trump this November.
Brendon O'Connor is Professor of US Politics and US Foreign Relations, and is jointly appointed between the United States Studies Centre and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney. His most recent book is Anti-Americanism and American Exceptionalism Prejudice and Pride about the USA .
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The relationship between religion and ethics is about the relationship between revelation and reason. Religion is based in some measure on the idea that God (or some deity) reveals insights about life and its true meaning. These insights are collected in texts (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) and presented as "revelation.". Ethics ...
June O'Connor's essay, "On Doing Religious Ethics," expands the metadisciplinary frame of reference by raising questions about "the task of religious ethics as a whole," which she tackles by describing the nature of the ethical task and then identifying what characteristics render that task a form of religious ethics (1979, 81-82 ...
The relationship between religion and ethics has been a topic of profound philosophical, theological, and societal interest for centuries. Throughout human history, various religions have played a significant role in shaping moral values, guiding ethical conduct, and influencing the moral decision-making of individuals and communities.
Religion and Morality. First published Wed Sep 27, 2006; substantive revision Thu Aug 8, 2019. From the beginning of the Abrahamic faiths and of Greek philosophy, religion and morality have been closely intertwined. This is true whether we go back within Greek philosophy or within Christianity and Judaism and Islam.
As religion can not be merged in ethics, so ethics must not be lost in religion. As an historical fact they have sometimes existed independently of each other, and do so still, though their normal and legitimate relation to one another is that of interaction. Religion may be non-ethical and ethics non-relig- ious.
Practically all thinkers answer yes to this. Our issue, rather, is whether morality makes sense without God. Religious philosophers tend, roughly, to be of two camps. Some see ethics as God's commands (Part I, Chapters 2 and 3), while others see ethics as natural laws that have some independence from God's will (Part II, Chapters 4-6).
Contents Preface page vii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Philosophy 1 1.2 Ethics 2 1.3 Religion 3 part i: ethics as god's commands 2 Divine Command Theory 9 2.1 C. S. Lewis 9 2.2 DCT 14 2.3 Euthyphro and Evil Actions 14 2.4 Sovereignty and the Bible 17 2.5 Meaning of "Good" 18 2.6 Knowing God's Will 21 2.7 Further DCT Issues 24 3 Modified DCT 29
Ethics involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than traditional moral conduct.. Most religions have an ethical component, often derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance.
Abstract This essay surveys the relations between ethics and religion in a variety of comparative contexts. It suggests replacing the older paradigms of moral theory, for example, deontology/teleol...
The Journal of Religious Ethics (JRE) was established at a particular moment in the United States in the early 1970s. This article investigates how that moment—in the institutional milieu of academic theology and religious studies in which the (JRE) emerged—influenced its founding. ... That lesson will have shaped the framing of this essay ...
The book also discusses ethics and atheism: how atheists object on ethical grounds to belief in God and how they view ethics. The book defends belief in God from criticisms and analyzes related concepts, such as practical reason, the golden rule, ethics and evolution, the problem of evil, and the fine-tuning argument.
Introductory Summary. Ethics and religion are two inseparable aspects of humanity that play a vital role in determining the credibility of people's actions ("Ethics for a Whole World," 2010). In essence, for a religion to become credible, it must be founded on the basis of strong ethical frameworks that uphold human dignity and self respect.
A longstanding debate has been whether ethics plays a role in religion. Most religions have an ethical component. Ethics, which is a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. Ethics deals with ideas such as Right, Good and Duty and ...
The term ethics may refer to the philosophical study of the concepts of moral right and wrong and moral good and bad, to any philosophical theory of what is morally right and wrong or morally good and bad, and to any system or code of moral rules, principles, or values. The last may be associated with particular religions, cultures, professions, or virtually any other group that is at least ...
Faith and Ethics Role in Religion Essay. Faith and ethics as they are portrayed in the life of Jesus Christ are important to a person wishing to behave in a moral fashion and have deep respect for people. Faith and ethical characteristics of Jesus Christ are worthy to be emulated in our ethical decision making.
Religion forms a moral foundation for billions of people throughout the world. In a 2019 survey, 44% of Americans - along with 45% of people across 34 nations - said that belief in God is ...
The record is mixed, but potential remains to harness religious ethics for social good. The Debate Surrounding the Role of Religion in Society ... The Relation of Ethics to Religion Essay. In the 21st-century ethics as far as religious doctrines are concerned has taken a modernity turn. In the classical period religion was solely relied on to ...
This shows that the relationship between ethics and religion varies within a society. While a believer will pose that the two function as a couple, a non-believer, on the other hand, will hold that moral behavior is independent of faith. It is, therefore, deducible that what is morally right is not necessarily God's command.
The Relation of Ethics to Religion. In the 21st-century ethics as far as religious doctrines are concerned has taken a modernity turn. In the classical period religion was solely relied on to dictate morality but due to contemporariness catalyzed by education beliefs can no longer prescribe social principles. Issues are assessed and determined ...
Introduction. Situation ethics was created by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s. It is a product of its time, and deliberately so. The 60s were defined by radical social movements aimed at overthrowing traditional ways of life which were seen as oppressive. Religion faces a dilemma in the face of such modernising forces; whether to adapt and reform ...
Anceschi, et., (2011) point out the moral and ethical impact of religious discourses. As the religious domain remains to be multi-dimensional, encompassing attitudes, beliefs, emotions, experiences, rituals, the ties that bind the community of believers, and a deep sense of belonging, it is by no means that the power of religion can be deprecated.
Religion and Ethics Lane Carpenter. Chamberlain University College of Nursing. ETHC445N- Professor Page May 16th, 2021. Religion and Ethics Combining ethics and religion can be both challenging and interesting. According to Hayden Ramsey, he says that we all must have some sort of common ground and principle for moral judgement (2011).
Religion and Ethics. Ethics studies human behavior and ideal ways of being. As a philosophical discipline, it is a systematic approach to understanding, analyzing, and distinguishing matters of right and wrong, good and bad, and admirable and deplorable as they relate to the well-being of and the relationships among human beings. ...
In a suit challenging the Louisiana law, Americans United for Separation of Church and State noted that among the state's approximately 680,000 students, many do not practice any religion at all ...
This paper discusses two ongoing project involving autonomous systems, using choreographic methods to explore ethical assumptions embedded in industrial robots and then reimagining such ethics using research through design, and develops felt ethics. Ethical sensibilities are constantly enacted in design practice. As we move towards pluralistic ways of designing, different ethical sensibilities ...
The ABC's Religion and Ethics portal is home to religious reporting & analysis, ethical discussion & philosophical discovery, and inspiring stories of faith and belief. More from ABC.
Religious journalism and its impact on public perception of religious sites. Verification of cultural beliefs and identities through travel. If you are interested in contributing, please submit an abstract of 300 words and a 200-word biographical note addressed to Kiranpreet Kaur Baath ( [email protected] ).
Professor Linda Hogan is recruiting a fully-funded PhD student to work in the area of the ethics of palliative care. This PhD is one of four funded by an interdisciplinary Trinity Research Doctorate Group-based Award. The four successful applicants will be recruited on four distinct projects within a programme focused on Decision-Making for People with Advanced Illness in Palliative Care.
In contrast, Muslims — the second-largest religious group in Canada after Christians — are the most supportive of immigration. Jewish Canadians, atheists and agnostics also show strong support.
The ABC's Religion and Ethics portal is home to religious reporting & analysis, ethical discussion & philosophical discovery, and inspiring stories of faith and belief. More from ABC.