All that one has to do to find out the implicit views that Stephen Prothero holds towards religion is to look towards the title of his book, “God Is Not One.” Stephen Prothero believes that the eight major/rival religions of our world, are not the same and do not lead towards the same destination. This view of course opposes a view popular in religious studies academia that says all religions lead toward the relatively same port of call. While Prothero undoubtedly will recognize that some of the religions share certain similar qualities, he well never state that they are all the same. Prothero also has no issue labeling certain groups as not religious at all. When deciding whether or not a certain belief or group falls under the religion umbrella, Prothero uses a widely known tactic among religious scholars to decipher whether or not its religion. Religious scholars, specifically Stephen Prothero examine the four C’s of religion, and then look to see if the certain group/ideology under examination possesses all four C’s. The four C’s that scholars look for are Creed, Cultus, Code, and Community. Creed refers to a clear statement of what that group believes and values. Cultus refers to ritual activities that members follow and observe. This would include Passover for Jewish people or Easter for Christians. Code refers to standards for ethical conduct, and Community just refers to institutions where members may meet, such as a church. This is the basis for which Prothero judges belief systems as religions or not. Using this system dictates what he labels as religion and what he doesn’t. For example, it is because of the four C’s why he is apprehensive to call Confucianism and Atheism religions. I found this process necessary as comparing religions in a responsible manner is already very hard. Some people argue that it is impossible to responsibly compare religions.
This of course raises the question, is it possible to responsibly compare religions without making mass assumptions or perhaps religious essentialism? First we must define what religious essentialism is. Religious essentialism primarily says that all practitioners in a religious tradition share some essence, that such an essence determines their behavior, or that their beliefs are the essence that directly informs their behavior (Martin). So basically, what we believe directly affects what we do. That does not seem like such a radical view to me. In fact, according to most people, it isn’t a radical view at all. It is has become a “trend” you could say of religious scholars to shame those who might use or believe in religious essentialism. The fact of the matter is, religious essentialism has been and continues to be used in nearly all history texts. To me, discounting religious essentialism is almost a further stretch than believing in it. For example, when a child asks their teacher why the men who flew planes into the World Trade Center did what they did, we cannot simply discount that their beliefs had nothing to do with their actions. They did what they did because they believed what the Quran said on dying a martyr. As for whether or not Prothero uses essentialism in his writing, I believe that he tried to avoid all implicit bias and attempted to convey each religion as objectively as possible. Although I believe it is impossible to remove all bias from the reader and the writer, I though Prothero did a positive job in seeking to portray each religion as separate from their reputation that they are associated with.
Comparing religion is no easy task. I think that we need to be patient and show empathy towards those who are trying to best compare the major belief systems of our world in an un-biased and un-offensive manner. Without an objective standard for what is religious and what is not religious, it can become extremely difficult to compare contrast ideologies. This is why I like Prothero’s use of the Four C’s analysis system. Without it, his job would be even harder than it is now. I know that I will continue to use that method in my personal life when examining certain groups. All that we can do is try our best to remove the bias’s that we have already formed on certain religions and even though it is difficult, attempt to not be guilty of religions essentialism.
WORKS CITED
“Religious Essentialism.” Bulletin for the Study of Religion, 12 Nov. 2010, bulletin.equinoxpub.com/2010/11/religious-essentialism/.
