Frequencies 91/100 – 100/100
Today marks the hundredth entry in Frequencies.
Read the rest of Frequencies 91/100 – 100/100.Kathryn Lofton is an assistant professor of American studies and religious studies at Yale University, a contributing editor at The Immanent Frame, and co-curator (with John Lardas Modern) of Frequencies. A specialist in nineteenth- and twentieth-century U.S. religions, she has written on the histories of evangelicalism, consumerism, African American religion, and the academic study of religion. Her first book, Oprah: The Gospel of an Icon, was published by the University of California Press in 2011. Her second book will address the relationship between sexual identity, religious practice, and the formations of fundamentalism in America. Read Kathryn Lofton's interview with Nathan Schneider.
Today marks the hundredth entry in Frequencies.
Read the rest of Frequencies 91/100 – 100/100.Posted in here & there | No Comments »
Scholars of religion (like, it seems, scholars of nearly everything animate and inanimate) have yet to decide if the world is full of repeated patterns awaiting discernment or replete with indiscriminate idiosyncrasy. Scholarship on this problem—the problem of comparison, of classification, of the role of the human sciences in their description—fills many an obscure treatise, treatises which rarely find their way to your local Barnes & Noble. And yet, there it is, and here it is, repeated in these posts about Courtney Bender’s new book, and repeated by her most incessantly idiosyncratic characters, her New Metaphysicals. Is the world as plural as every individual proposes (for themselves, to their observing scholar)? Or is the world as redundant as the survey answers format us to suggest? Which will it be: the sociology of well-considered wholes or the beloved humanity of our self-nominated smatterings?
Posted in The New Metaphysicals | No Comments »
If you want to be a New Atheist, first and foremost, you need to possess an unrelenting desire to help. The desire may seem at times cruel, but you have to start focusing on a higher good: the goal here is to get the cannibals to put down their wafer and wine glass. It’s not for your wellness, but for the good of mankind.
Posted in Rethinking secularism | Comments Off
First, you need a name. Not just any name. A weird name: a Biblical misspelling, maybe, or an invocation of some distant land. No matter what: the name needs an O. The O will come in handy when you need to summon a common sphere, encourage chanting, or design a gentle logo. Never deny the utility of its replication, never avoid its allusion, and never miss a moment for its branding. An O is a space anyone can fill with anything.
Read the rest of The Oprahfication of Obama.Posted in Religion & American politics | 1 Comment »
I had a college teacher certain he had found the solution to the problem of creationists, and, at the time, the disturbing news that the Kansas Board of Education would consider a change to their science education standards to incorporate creation-science. “I wrote a letter to the director of admissions,” he proudly told our small seminar, “and I said we should refuse all Kansas applicants.” The school at which this professor reigned was the sort of place whose decisions regarding admissions would make no small ripple, and we sniggered with the imperious pleasure of the privileged. “What an idea!” we hummed after class as we lurked in an archway, circled by our smoke, “Ban the idiots! That will surely show them.” The commentary surrounding Governor Sarah Palin’s creationism smacks of the same sort of pubescent snort. [...]
Read the rest of How now, creationist?.Posted in Religion & American politics | 2 Comments »
About | Contributors
| Follow Us: