How we use language in discussing and writing about religion and faith. Ways in which language can illuminate and obscure and how to cut through verbal camouflage, avoid straw arguments, and actually communicate.

1. Terms of Faith:
Discoursing on Religion

2. “Effective social action serves to enrich participation in the discourses of
society, just as the insights gained from engaging in certain discourses can help
to clarify the concepts that shape social action. …[I]nvolvement in public discourse
can range from an act as simple as introducing Bahá’í ideas into everyday
conversation to more formal activities such as the preparation of articles and
attendance at gatherings dedicated to themes of social concern…” — Universal
House of Justice, Ridvan 2010

3. “Diversity of languages has been a fruitful cause of
discord. The function of language is to convey the thought
and purpose of one to another.” — Abdu’l-Bahá, 14 July
1912, at All Souls Unitarian Church, New York

4. Why do some people avoid
religious study or discourse?
They find the subject confusing.
They fear causing offense or
getting involved in an argument
because of their own strong
religious beliefs.
They feel they lack the knowledge
to discuss the subject.
They find the terminology alien.
They're afraid it will undermine their
own beliefs.

5. Religious terminology—what does it mean?
Religion
Spirituality
Rapture
Salvation
Nirvana
Karma
Bhodisattva
Jihad

6. Point-of-View: How do we SEE religion?
This ability to see the same spiritual
item in two such completely different
ways lies at the bottom of much written
about religion and religious history.
Christian historian: Religion is…
False teaching.
A test for the true believers.
Atheist historian: Religion is...
Peripheral at best.
The root of all evil.
Bahá'í historian: Religion is...
• Central to history.
The cause of the progress of
society.

7. Point-of-View
Being aware of a writer's or speaker's point-of-view will help
you analyze their ideas.

8. Point of View
Listening to a speaker’s or writer’s
choice of words.
Being careful of your own word
choices.
Seeing through the words to the
concepts within them.
“Deconstruct,” simplify and clarify
concepts for clear communication.

9. “...when a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading to the
knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart
… from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the
embodiments of satanic fancy. ...He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either
love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that
hate repel him away from the truth.” — Bahá’u’lláh, Kitab-i-Iqan, vs. 213

10. Because it's easier to knock over a straw man than a
real one.
Many writers of religious polemics fail to do this.
WHY?

11. A House of Straw
What is a Straw Man argument?

12. A Straw Man…
An imaginary person or construct that
embodies everything the writer doesn't like
about something, someone, or some group.
Requires gross a generalization that
attaches the particular to a whole.
Uses a character or group of characters to
represent a larger concept the writer objects
to.
i.e. “The Catholic Church has shed blood
to promote Christianity, therefore
Christianity as a faith is violent and
bloodthirsty.”
or “There have been Muslim terrorists,
therefore Islam promotes terrorism.”

13. Example: The “Every
Catholic”
Set-up: A fictional philosophical battle
between theist and atheist viewpoints
to prove the atheist viewpoint to be
rational and superior to the theist
viewpoint.
Scenario: A set of specific Roman
Catholic dogmas was presented as
representative of beliefs about God.
The atheist protagonist asked the
Straw (“backslid”) Catholic hard, but
valid questions, BUT she was unable to
answer them intelligently. Can you
guess why?

14. Example: The “Every
Catholic”
Result: The Straw Catholic
resorted to shrill, dogmatic, and
emotional rhetoric.
The reader was asked to accept
that "Religion” had lost the battle
with "Reason," when nothing like
a real dialogue between the two
had actually taken place.

15. Opposing Points of View
To be true to Bahá’u’lláh’s ideal of the
“true seeker,” when you consider
opposing points of view in a religious or
philosophical setting...
Try to think honestly about each point of
view.
Imagine what a person who holds this
viewpoint would say or do in response to
your words. If you can't imagine what a
person with that mindset might advance
as an argument, how can you frame a
response to it?
If you don’t know or understand the
arguments for that point of view, research
it.

16. Opposing Points of View
To be true to Bahá’u’lláh’s ideal of the “true
seeker,” when you consider opposing points
of view in a religious or philosophical setting...
Be as well-informed as possible about
divergent viewpoints.
Try to think honestly about each point of
view.
Try to represent them fairly.
Glean information from sources friendly to
the “other” point of view. i.e. If you’re have a
dialog about the Mormon faith, draw on
Mormon sources for your understanding of
what this particular sect of Christians believe.

17. When a writer has an agenda…
...a particular belief system to
promote, an axe to grind, or a
point to make...
They may resort to satire and
mockery.
This can result in
unsupported, dogmatic
statements.
The analysis becomes a
sermon.

18. Screaming from the pulpit & preaching
to the choir...
Sermons sound good to the choir, but
lay readers may put the book down
once they realize they're being
preached at.
Why is this a problem?
The point of language is to
communicate.
Alienating people is not the best way
of doing this.
If you scream your message, the
listener will cover her ears.

19. How Words Shape the Dialogue

20. Because of our religious culture, thoughtful Bahá'ís tend to use language to build bridges.
Beware: The goal of many apologists is to use it to create division.
Fundamentalist Christian apologists wish to distinguish their form of Christianity from other
faiths. New Atheists want to portray all religion as irrational. Language becomes a tool of
division rather than communication.
Language becomes a tool of division rather than communication.
Language becomes a tool of division rather than communication.
Language becomes a tool of division rather than communication.
Language becomes a tool of division rather than communication.

21. Language as a tool of division…
TAKE-BACK: The writer or speaker
makes a statement, then takes it
back by saying he has no evidence
for it or is just hypothesizing.
Example, JK van Baalen in his 1938
book "Chaos of the Cults" states that
a Bahá'í who leaves the faith "has
good reason to hide as far as
possible out of reach from the
leaders of this loving cult. The last
statement can, in the nature of the
case, not be backed up by
references; but the author vouches
for its truth." (CoC, p. 89)

22. Language as a tool of division…
MISDIRECTION: The writer or speaker uses
unattractive, negative or odd descriptions to
distract the reader from the substance of the
account. This creates a particular aura around
the subject (threatening, comical, etc) and is
usually accomplished with carefully chosen
adjectives. Examples:
JK van Baalen makes reference to the "frightfully
outlandish names in use among Bahá'ís..."
and refers to the Faith as a “ladies’ cult.”
William Petersen ("Those Curious Cults of the
80's") refers to a Bahá'í as a “Pretty horse-faced
young thing” with "red patches on her
knees". He refers to The Hidden Words as
“the sleep-inducing writings of Bahá'u'lláh.”

23. Language as a tool of division…
Guilt by Association: The writer or speaker uses
loaded terminology to create a false link
between the subject and some negative or
threatening idea or entity.
Of the Bahá'í temple in Wilmette, JK van Baalen
says: “And with this temple they conjure.”
From an op-ed piece: "…history demonstrates that
Islamic terrorists can change. The Bahá'í faith is
a good example." It tells how the Báb'is carried
the Báb's message "through armed conflict,
beheadings, and murder until they were brutally
suppressed by the Persian government." But
Bahá'u'lláh "quickly began modernizing the
various cells." The letter concludes: "If the world
responds to al-Qaida with condemnation and
military force, perhaps they too will adopt a
quietist expression of their religion, as the
Baha'is have."

24. Language as a tool of division…
SLEIGHT OF TONGUE (Hypothetically
real): The writer posits a hypothetical
situation of what “might have happened,”
then subtly changes the language from the
conditional or theoretical to the positive until
he is speaking of the hypothetical incident or
situation as if it had actually happened.
This is the "as we have seen" or "as I have
shown" argument.
The writer promotes the idea, assumes the
reader has accepted it, then proceeds as if
the point has been proven rather than
merely raised.
Cloning: The writer adduces motives to the
subject that one would have to BE the
subject to know.

25. Language as a tool of division…
Mistakes Were Made: This method is
often used in politics. It disguises the
committers of an act by putting the act
in passive voice.
From an anti-cult website: "An attempt
was made on the life of the Shah."
This doesn't ascribe the attempt to
"the Báb'is" (The illusive “They”), but
by placing this sentence in the midst
of a paragraph on the Bahá'í Faith, it
draws a connection between the two.
The reader remembers only that she
read about an assassination attempt
in connection with Bahá'ís and Báb'is.

26. Language as a tool of division…
The Straw Man: The writer
singles out a faction whose
beliefs he considers extreme or
absurd and implies all religious
people hold this belief.
Eg., the Catholic belief that Christ's
physical body is literally present
in the Eucharist
(transubstantiation) is used to
argue that ALL religious people
indulge in magical thinking and
therefore ALL religion opposes
science and reason.

27. Language as a tool of division…
The Illusive "They": Ideas, beliefs
and actions of individuals are
attributed to a loosely defined
"They."
Max Dimont in Jews, God, and
History posits there is a distinct
group of "people who invented
anti-Semitism".
Pat Robertson announced on the
“700 Club” that the Haitian people
entered into a deal with the devil
to get rid of the French.

28. Language as a tool of division…
Buzz Words: The writer uses words that
have specialized meaning to his
audience, but may not mean the same
thing (or anything) to the subject group.
JK van Baalen states: "There is no
salvation for apostate Bahá'ís according
to the system."
The Christian reader (van Baalen's target
audience) will interpret "salvation" and
"apostate" according to a sectarian
Christian understanding and leap to the
conclusion that Bahá'í's believe people
who leave the faith are damned.

29. The Benefits of Being Fuzzy

30. I shall call them “DEATH
PANELS.”
Speaking or writing with an agenda
benefits from vagueness and “evidence”
that cannot be proved or disproved.
Ascribing feelings, beliefs, thoughts, and
actions that can't be proved or
disproved to individuals or groups that
don’t really exist is a common way of
engaging the reader or listener on an
emotional level.
Manipulative imprecision can have far-reaching
and dire results.

31. Vermin
Cockroaches
Jews
Plague
Infestation
Undocumented
immigrants
Illegal Aliens
We use words to dehumanize people with whom we do not
wish to empathize.

32. How can you avoid manipulation?
Deconstruct and analyze what
you’re reading/hearing.
“Muslims want to impose
Shariah law on us.”
“Haitians made a deal with
the devil.”
"Oklahomans blew up the
Murrow Building."
Distinguish between individual
beliefs and actions, and
institutional ones and insist that
others do too.

33. How can you avoid manipulation?
Don’t let the manipulator define the
terminology without your input.
“Faith is belief without evidence.”
Don’t get caught up in answering
irrelevant questions or defending
manmade dogma.
“Why do you Bahá’ís spend so much
money on those temples?”
“How can you love a God who
commits genocide?”
“You believe we evolved from
monkeys?”

34. Neutrality, Humor, and
Affection
Can you discourse about religion "safely?" That is, without
offending?

35. Let’s face it…
Complete inoffensiveness is not
possible.
Bahá’u’lláh and Abdu’l-Bahá
offended people merely by
proclaiming the Faith, and we are
to “refute what is vain and false”,
BUT...
We must NEVER intentionally
give offense.

36. The standard
“A kindly tongue is the lodestone
of the hearts of men. It is the
bread of the spirit, it clotheth the
words with meaning, it is the
fountain of the light of wisdom
and understanding.” —
Bahá’u’lláh

37. Neutrality, Humor, and Affection
Neutrality: Give facts, not
opinions as much as
possible. An opinion with out
facts is like a curtains without
a window to put them on.
Humor and affection: There’s
a difference between humor
and mockery. Mockery is a
bad tool for communicating
facts. It’s very good fueling
prejudice.

38. Remember that the goal of discourse is to get at the truth—to acquire knowledge.
Use clear language and neutral terminology.
Be willing to compromise on terminology. Remember: the point of language is
COMMUNICATION.
Avoid jargon (i.e. Bahá’í or other “buzz words”)
Define terms that are unfamiliar to your audience or understood differently.
Instead of making statements, pose questions: “What makes you say that?”

39. THANK YOU!