Being Religious vs. Being Spiritual: Is There A Significant Difference?

Spirituality has really come into the scene in contemporary terms for the "Western World". In the western world, there has become a broader view of spirituality. Religious individuals feel that spirituality is a part of their religious practice although spirituality has become more and more detached from religious practices and become more secular in nature. What is meant by spiritual secularism is a spiritual outlook that is more personalized, less structured, and more open to new influences.

Religious Fundamentalists feels as if there is a huge misunderstanding with what "being religious" really mean. These fundamentalists reflect on the meaning of religion/religious in scriptures which is a positive state of mind that results in genuine devotion to God. Therefore, acts of mercy, love, and holiness, are religious. This is not far removed from the term spiritual, which refers to those acts from the spirit, instead of the flesh. They also feel that if you are spiritual, then, naturally, you would be religious. According to Robert Johnson of the Gospel Gazette, whether in worship or service, religion and spiritual are complimentary terms, as we are "living sacrifices" (religious) who are not conformed to the world but transformed by the will of God (spiritual - Romans 12:1-2).

On the other hand, those with the trendy phrase, "I'm spiritual but not religious" feel that they don't need an organized religion to live a life of faith. The solely spiritual beings feel that religion practices a faith of the past instead of focusing on the present. They feel to attain liberation we need to live in the present. It is not the past or the future that gives us liberation. We achieve peace of mind only when we concentrate on doing the right thing here and now. The spiritual beings also feel that religion practices a faith of fear in that you do the right thing in fear of suffering in the future instead of approaching God in the path of love, that is doing the right thing because you love God.

From my research and conversations with individuals who consider themselves both religious fundamentalists and those who feel that they are not religious but simply spiritual, these are the contrasting opinions of the two groups. With this, I feel that people's religious practices is sacred and based on their relationship with God. I believe that everyone must have their own relationship with God and that you cannot be saved by your mother's, father's, or even your pastor's faith. Therefore, you must know what God means to you as an individual. Religion is what we practice and spirituality is what we believe.

We practice our faith based on what we believe, so is there a significant difference?

How Far Should Universities Go To Rewrite Their History In The Spirit of Inclusivity?

“Diversity” has been a buzzword for today’s higher education system. Most colleges & universities like to boast on the diversity of their student body. Also, with this comes lots of education and initiatives to create inclusive environments and reduce marginalization of any particular culture. These intiatives have included changes to songs, mascots, and have gone as far as changing names of buildings who are named after salient members of the schools’ history due to affiliations of that member. Recent examples include North Dakota State Fight Sioux mascot change and the University of Mississippi Rebels mascot change. Most recently, there has been discussion about changing the name of a residence hall at the University of Texas, Austin.

The University of North Dakota debated whether the mascot, Fighting Sioux, was racially insensitive to Native Americans in our country. Some believe that this mascot insinuates a sense of disrespect to the Native American culture. On the other hand, some believe that they are taking inclusivity too far because there is no controversy over mascots such as the Fighting Irish, Vikings, etc.

A similar controversy occurred in the South with the mascot, Colonel Reb, at the University of Mississippi who simulates a plantation owner/confederate soldier. Colonel Reb was forced into retirement in 2003, students were no longer allowed to chant the phrase “the South will rise again” after the school song. The crowd favorite, Dixie, was prohibited from play by the band.

In recent news, the University of Texas at Austin is dealing with a controversy over the name of a residence hall on campus. One of their residence halls is currently named after William Stewart Simkins, who taught at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law from 1899 until his death in 1929 but, who also was known for his ties to the Klu Klux Klan after the Civil War. This part of Simkins’ history was recently published in an article in Social Science Research Network by former UT Austin faculty member, Thomas Russell. In this article, Thomas Russell suggests that in 1954, the Faculty Council and the Board of Regents of Texas decided to name the residence hall after Simkins to snub Brown vs. Board of Education, thereby intimidating Blacks from attending and residing on campus. Since this publication, and to the credit of UT Austin, the university has been deliberant in making attempts to ensure inclusivity on campus.

Nevertheless, this country has to deal with the harsh sin of slavery. However, in the spirit of “inclusivity”, lots of debate is taking place around changes in our history, naming of buildings, mascots, and other things. One has to be able to realize how far colleges, universities, and scholars should go to right wrongs of this country’s history.

So, with that being said, “How Far Should Universities Go To Rewrite History In An Effort Of Being Inclusive?