Reflections on the Term

With our Intro to Religious Studies course nearly over, I would say that the most interesting and all-encompassing (meaning it is a characteristic of seemingly every religion) concept that we have talked about is the so-called "perception of convenience". This concept also relates to the idea that religion and culture are dynamic systems that form an inter-causal relationship; in other words, the two are continually influencing each other. I think that many people, including myself at one time, regard religions as universal and fixed institutions. Throughout the term, however, I think that I have learned how much religions change over time, and how they are originally created in order to provide a rationale for the universe, and as such are more or less simply a convenient way of viewing the world. We have seen this through the Psalms, which portray a sometimes violent world in which one can supplicate God for the destruction of one's enemies. Although this seems to us today a somewhat savage teaching, it was a necessary way of life for the Jews at a time when they were often subject to war. We also saw a convenient perception in the Bay Psalm Book translation of Psalm 2, giving a very old Psalm a modern, New World spin. And finally we saw this in the Kebra Negast, which gives a convenient but false legitimization for Christianity in Ethiopia.

This leads to the notion that religions and cultures are continually influencing one another. To me, this notion seemed somewhat contradictory to the concept of religion, which I viewed as claiming to be absolute, universal, divinely inspired, etc. But when these characteristics of religion are cast aside, the innumerable ways in which religion is shaped by and shapes culture become clear. For instance, the Rastafarian's beliefs were born out of the poverty and oppression that they faced from the Babylon culture, and yet now the Rastas are respected and have begun to influence Jamaican politics. This in turn affects how the Rastas view themselves, their desire for repatriation to Africa, and their place in Jamaica. In addition, we looked at Jane Addams and her work at Hull House, which was also a direct response to social conditions, in this case the extreme poverty faced by many (particularly immigrants) in urban Chicago. This may not have been a religion exactly, but Addams's efforts were certainly influenced by religious ideas, and she held her humanitarian ideals religiously. Her efforts have certainly made a large and lingering impact on social life at the very least in Chicago.

As our course is nearing its end, I feel that these characteristics are fundamentally linked to religion, and are perhaps the most profound additions to the way that I view religion.

The 19th Ward

According to the linked material, the streets surrounding Hull House are extremely densely populated with immigrants of various nationalities. Although these nationalities are relatively interspersed, probably having to resort to housing wherever it can be afforded, some have grouped into ghetto-like communities. This is particularly true of the Italian immigrants, who are particularly crouded into the northeast corner of map 1, and the Bohemian immigrants, who are clustered in the southern half of this section. Other than the Italian section, which has significantly lower wages, there seem to be no patterns to wage and nationality. Most of the nationalities seem to have their own trades and traditions that they bring from their homeland and try to implement in their new home, and they become separated from the other groups in this way. For instance, Greeks tend to have their own restaurants, grocery stores, and saloons; Jews often become brokers or contractors; Italian women often gather on the sidewalks on chairs and gossip (from "Chicago's Melting Pot - Neighborhoods Around Hull House). There are also many brothels, particularly in map 4, but these are mostly occupied by English speakers. People of a common nationality also often set up their own religious institutions based on the traditions of their homeland. Nationalities can be distinguished by all these characteristics. The public space is limited to streets and alleys, and though groups are interspersed throughout, there seems to be little social mingling. These streets and alleys, littered with trash (as seen in the linked photos) are the only areas for children to play.

Twenty Years at Hull House

In reading the text by Jane Addams, I find that there is indeed a religious content in the nature of the humanitarian work done by the volunteers at Hull House. In my opinion, the issue is not whether Addams was religiously motivated, because the social work seems to take the place of religion. For instance, although there is no deity or worship involved in the social work, the act of striving to help people, in itself gives the volunteers a sense of meaning and purpose such as a religion would provide. In a sense, it is a structure or framework in which they can make sense of the world, and provides an object - relieving the suffering of others - that, to them, is an end in itself. Whereas in religion, the object of life is often to prepare for the afterlife, which is the end for which a believer strives, in Jane Addams's humanitarian work, the work is the end: "for many people without church affiliations the vague humanitarianism the Settlement represented was the nearest approach they could find to an expression of their religious sentiments" (p.152). In this sense, it resembles a sort of secular religion (having no afterlife), in which the workers strive to make earth a more 'heavenly' place: "this dream that men shall cease to waste strength in competition and shall come to pool their powers of production is coming to pass all over the face of the earth" (p. 142). From reading Addams's own words, you get the sense that she holds the humanitarian ideals for which she strives, such as equality and democracy, on a higher, almost religious plane. In fact, she even once refers to Hull House as "a Cathedral of Humanity" (p. 149). It also seems to me that Addams strives to be as 'God-like' as possible, in that she strives to love all men equally and actively carry out that ethic: "the things that make men alike are finer and better than the things that keep them apart, and these basic likenesses, if they are properly accentuated, easily transcend the less essential differences of race, language, creed, and tradition" (p. 111-12). Ultimately, I think that the work done at the Hull House was religious in nature, not because it was done in the name of God, but because the ideals were held by the social workers as universal truths, in which they put their faith to make a better earth.

In class on Friday, we were discussing whether Rastafarianism could exist without the conditions of political oppression from which it was born. It seems to me to be a complicated question, but I feel that were the Rastas to escape oppression (which to some extent they have), their beliefs would have to evolve in order to address a new set of challenges and issues. Rastafarianism grew out of the specific conditions in Jamaica, and the environment that the Rastas viewed as Babylon. If the Rastas somehow achieved a successful repatriation movement, many of their beliefs would no longer apply to their new environment. Probably, the Rastas would find that Africa did not live up to the perfect ideal that it is in their minds. An example of this is the group of repatriated Rastas who have yet to even achieve citizenship in Ethiopia. In this sense, the Rastafarian movement would inevitably evolve to deal with their new circumstances and goals, and though it would still be the same movement with many of the same symbols and core beliefs intact, within a few generations it would probably be different in many ways, too.

In some respects, I think that the Rastas are faced with this question, of being forced to evolve because of a change in the environmental conditions, now in Jamaica. This is caused by the overall acceptance and commercial exploitation of the Rastafarian image and symbols. The result of this dilution of Rasta culture into the broader Jamaican and even international culture, is that Rastas are no longer looked upon as lazy, violent drug-peddlers, but as bearers of the counter-culture. As Edmonds points out in chapter 5 of his book, many Rasta symbols and ideas were used by politicians in the 1972 elections in Jamaica. However, it may be the case that these tactics were merely political ploys, more examples of 'polytricks'. Because of these changes to the general view of Rastas, the Babylonian system has seemingly accomodated the Rastas, however the overall conditions for the Rastas have changed little. In other words, Babylon has appeased the Rastas somewhat by changing the general cultural view of them, making them feel like valued members of the culture, but the essential goals of the Rastas, such as reducing poverty and achieving repatriation, have not been reached. Now, the Rastas are faced with the task of evolving their beliefs and methods within Jamaican culture to truly achieve their goals.

Boboshanti Documentary

There seemed to be many things that confirmed our image of Rastafarians in the video, and a few things that stood out as being different. One of the first things that I noticed was the language that the Rastafarians spoke. Rather than the Patois that we learned about, these people spoke relatively good English, seemingly without their additional verbal idiosyncracies. Many characteristics seemed familiar from our reading, though. The Rastafarian community was full of the traditional Rasta colors (red, green, and yellow), particularly in the colors of the houses and Rastas' dress. The Rasta spiritual leader also spoke about their required use of dreadlocks (a symbol we commonly associate with Rastas), but in addition he described how in the Boboshanti community the dreadlocks must be wrapped in a turban as a symbol of the ancient Ethiopian dress. In the beginning of the video, they spoke about the most dedicated spiritual leaders preparing to cross the Atlantic to go to Ethiopia, confirming their desire for repatriation that we read about. In fact, I believe that one Rasta mentioned that Bobo means 'African children'. The community also showed a devout biblicism. Many signs were shown in the village containing biblical passages or messages. The Boboshanti community is also unique in that they celebrate the sabbath. This community also attempts to live off the land, taking great care of their fields. In fact, many villages have no electricity or running water, so they must use the land to make up for these comforts. I also think I saw one brief clip of a Rasta smoking a Ganja joint. One last thing that I noticed as confirming out discussion in class was that the Boboshantis did not have traditional jobs, but instead had only little side jobs such as manufacturing brooms and selling them inside. This is characteristic of their negative view of Babylon, which they associate with the "system", so they attempt to refrain from participating in the "system" by making money by their own means.

Symbols in Religion

http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif

I think that this picture offers many good examples of symbols in religion. It is a photograph of a Buddhist Temple in Chinatown in New York City. Both the black robes worn by those in the foreground and the orange robes worn by the monks in the background are symbols of the Buddhist religion. This is true of many religions, in which a certain type of clothing represents one's faith to their particular religion. Other examples of this type of religious garb are the Fez that was once worn in the mediterranean region and the Hijab worn by Muslims. The Fez was directly connected to the religion of those who wore it in that it was a brimless hat that allowed the wearer to touch his forehead to the ground during prayer. The Hajib is also directly related to Islam in that it is required by the Quran.

Other symbols depicted here include the three statues located above the dais. The figure is shown in a cross-legged position that is commonly associated as the Buddhist meditative stance. This figure may also be a representation of the Buddha, which would add another layer of symbolic meaning to the statue.

The reddish pads before which the figures are kneeling may also be symbols associated with prayer or meditation. There are likely other symbols depicted in the photo, though they are hard to make out exactly, but probably include the smaller statues or ikons located on the dais and on the shelves on the left side of the photo. These objects likely have symbolic meaning within the Buddhist religion, probably representing various qualities, concepts, or figures from Buddhist history.

Free post - On Christian Teaching

In this post, I would like to examine what Saint Augustine describes as "necessary before all else" in order to understand the Scripture, fear of God (Book 2, 16). Augustine states that this fear will inspire us to reflect on our mortality and impending death. However, fear of God begins to sound like faith by force. It seems counter-productive for a beneficent God to find it necessary to frighten his followers into their faith. This fear seems to imply that God is capable of punishing the unfaithful, which in turn seems to lead to many having faith simply because they have been intimidated by the fear of a wrathful or punishing God. I think that a faith based on awe of God's goodness and justness rather than one based on fear of God's power would be much more effective because the esteemed quality would be a more positive one.

Another aspect of Augustine's views that I take issue with is his belief that an interpretation of Scripture is correct if it is in line with "the great majority of catholic churches" (Book 2, 24). I think that this way of thinking can lead to trouble because the churches' views are subject to change with time. I am not particularly knowledgeable about the views of particular churches, but as a very general example, it would seem that at times of Inquisition movements within the catholic church, the church's views on what constitutes heresy and how to treat heresiarchs could change. This could lead a reader of Scripture to interprate a passage based on the church's intolerant view of heresy, and lead them to favor persecution of people simply expressing their beliefs. This is just an example of what I feel to be the problem with judging an interpretation's correctness or truthfulness based on whether it corresponds to the views of the majority of churches.

On Christian Teaching, Book 2

In Book Two of On Christian Teaching, Saint Augustine talks about the benefits of having multiple translations of the Scripture: "Obscure passages are often clarified by the inspection of several manuscripts" (37). I think this method can also be used to interpret the Psalms, especially if we recall our discussions about both the Bay Book's and Robert Alter's translation of Psalm 2. There were many differences between the two translations, but using Augustine's method of comparing multiple translations to reduce the amount of error due to the translation, we were able to come to a closer understanding of what the authors probably originally intended. For instance, in the first line of Psalm 2, what Alter translated as "nations," the Bay Book translated as "heathens." A similar situation is described by Augustine regarding differing translations of the scriptures, and he describes it thus: "It is not clear which of these represents the truth unless the versions in the original language are consulted. Yet both convey something important to those who read intelligently" (Book 2, 39). In our situation, by consulting both texts, we came to the conclusion that "nations" is probably closer to the author's intended meaning, but the Bay Book's interpretation of "heathens" gave us an insight into the mindset of the translators and their aims. Augustine would likely prefer Alter's translation of the Psalms because they are a more literal and objective interpretation, and can therefore be used as a check on other translations which try to follow "the ideas rather than the words" (Book 2, 44).

The most striking thing that I have noticed about the psalms (and it appears most of my classmates have as well) is the amount of violence, or the desire for vengeance, that is present in many of the psalms. A noteable example is psalm 69, which calls for God "Pour out Your indignation on [my enemies], and let Your burning anger overtake them". This is a stark contrast to the Christian ideals, with which I am most familiar, and which preach forgiveness for even the wicked (although often in the psalms, the "wicked's" only explicit offense is simply a lack of belief in the Jewish God). While this vengeful attitude may have been common several hundred or thousand years ago, I feel it is rare, even among Jews, in the western world today. It seems to me that this may have to do with the liberalization and democratization of the western world over the past several centuries. I can say nothing for certain of the general attitude of Jews elsewhere because I have no real experience of it, however, it seems that it may yet be similar to the attitude described in the psalms particularly in the middle-east where some Isrealites and Muslim peoples often use violent means (suicide bombs, car bombs, etc.) to impose vengeance on their perceived enemies. In my personal opinion, this attitude is a significant cause of all the violence and hatred that is ravaging that part of the world. Many of the conflicts over which they are fighting are centuries old. Perhaps with a philosophy that emphasizes forgiveness and compassion, these nations would be able to peaceably resolve their differences.

It also seems odd to me that the antithesis of this vengeful philosophy, advocated by Jesus Christ and the Christian religion, would spring from this same Jewish God who is called to "let [his] burning anger overtake them". It just shows how much religions can change over time, adapting to different global or regional conditions and moods.

Psalm Ethics

While reading through the Psalms, I find a very general ethic. For instance, in many of the Psalms, the author writes that the righteous will earn God's favor and the wicked will be punished, but rarely is it stated what constitutes righteous or wicked behavior. Some examples of the specific ethics that are implied in the Psalms include:

- (Psalm 4) do not "love vain things and seek out lies... offer righteous sacrifices and trust in the LORD"
- (Psalm 5) "You destroy the pronouncers of lies, a man of blood and deceit the LORD loathes"
- (Psalm 7) "If a man repent not, He sharpens His sword"
- (Psalm 10) "In the wicked man's pride he pursues the poor... the wicked did vaunt in his very lust, grasping for gain--cursed, blasphemed the LORD"
- (Psalm 15) "LORD, who will sojourn in Your tent, who will dwell on Your holy mountain? He who walks blameless and does justice and speaks the truth in his heart. Who slanders not with his tongue nor does to his fellow man evil"

Clearly, even these examples are fairly vague and general. The ethic described mostly entails being faithful in God, being honest, do not deceive, repent one's sins, do not exploit, lust, be greedy, blaspheme, etc. This does seem like a liveable ethic, however I do see one glaring contradiction. Psalm 5 states that "a man of blood and deceit the LORD loathes." I take this to mean that violence is unjust and goes against God's ethic. However, in nearly every Psalm there is some imagery of the Lord destroying and killing the author's enemies for him. I think that a God who looks down upon violence and murder should not be praised for commiting the same acts. It also seems to me that the ethic described by the Psalms is very different from the ethic that I associate with Christianity. When I think of the Christian God, I think of a God who is forgiving, one who seeks the end of evil, but does not seek the death of people who sin, which seems to be implied in the Psalms. Of Christians, I think of people who wish for the salvation of others - even those who have sinned against them - not their deaths.

The Truth About Selflessness

This post is in response to Fanny's post about selfishness (http://bricenof.blogspot.com/2008/04/selfishness-its-pretty-great.html). I am not particularly religious. In fact, despite my desire to have faith in a higher power, my reason always wins out, leaving me with an absurdist worldview like the one prescribed by Albert Camus. Being solely concerned with how one ought to live in this life, then, my main interest in religion lies in its moral implications and teachings. I believe that Fanny provides' insufficient proof to her statement that an self-interested action is good for all humanity, and I politely disagree with her philosophy. When deciding how to act, she asks herself "Why should I care about other people?What have they done for me?" It seems to me that there is an obvious contradiction in this way of thinking. How can it be that one can view other people in a way that ignores their well-being, and yet this way of thinking "helps humanity"? If it is in my self-interest to lie/cheat/steal, this is fundamentally opposed to the well-being of others and hinders rather than helps humanity, or so it seems to me. If everyone took on the same philosophy as Fanny, and asked themselves "why should I care about other people," the general state of affairs would amount to social anarchy. If everyone were to employ an arrogant disposition, this would clearly create a flawed scenario; everyone would believe that they were more important than everyone else, which is irrational, and which would dramatically warp people's morals. When deciding how to act in a situation, I too ask myself several questions, such as "how will my actions affect others?" These 'others' are people who have as much right to a just treatment as myself, the type of treatment I certainly desire for myself. I certainly desire that nobody will lie to me, cheat me out of something that i have earned, or steal something that I own. Beyond that, I certainly desire that others will help me, for no benefit of their own, when I am in need of it. If these desires about the way other people treat me are certain, then it is equally certain that it is my duty to respond with a similar treatment of others. It may not be in my self-interest to act with others in mind (though I personally find there to be benefits of conscience and emotional state in such action), but it is in my self-interest for others to act in such a way. Therefore, it is my belief that it is in everyone's individual self-interest for everyone to act morally, justly, and sympathetically.

Bay Psalm II

There are many differences between the Bay Psalm Book's translation of Psalm 2 and Robert Alter's translation, which, while not changing the basic meaning of the psalm, lend themselves to a Christian interpretation that could help colonial settlers justify displacing the Native Americans. The changes may seem subtle to an unfamiliar reader, but would have been conspicuous to the colonists who read the psalm. In the very first line, what Alter translates as "nation", is translated as "heathen" in the Bay Book. Alter gives a more general and broad interpretation to the hebrew, while the ministers who did the Bay translation in 1640 gave it their subconsciously biased interpretation, allowing it to more narrowly describe, in their eyes, the Native Americans. Phrases like, "God spake... I will give the Heathen for thy lot: and of the earth thou shalt possess the utmost coasts abroad" and later, "crush [the Heathens] with iron rod," reaffirmed to the new American settlers that God supported colonization, that it was God's will. The Bay translators also give the meaning "kiss yee the Son," which is dramatically different from Alter's translation. The ministers who translated it gave it a Christian meaning by interpreting it as referring to Jesus Christ. While it is impossible for any translation to be entirely impartial, the Bay translation, when compared to Alter's more objective approach, shows its inclination quite clearly.

Animal representation in human societies

I think that the animal representations made by the Indian mounds created a way for the Native Americans to explain and understand the world. It is probably similar to the animal representations in the Lascaux Cave. In both, the societies that created them used particular animals as symbols that helped to simplify the universe and the way it worked. The Native Americans' cosmologies typically divided the world into higher or lower realms, and created the mounds as monuments to the animal spirits which represented each realm. This simplified framework of viewing the world allowed them to make sense of the world around them, a trait that seems common to humans. We essentially do the same thing today, using modern science and technology to try and ever more simplify and understand the universe; only, the Native American societies that created the mounds disappeared or abandoned the construction of the earthworks several hundred years before the development of the scientific method. For us today, continually uncovering the workings of the natural universe allows us to feel like we possess some control over our environment. This human desire for control is also evident among the Native Americans, who built the mounds to "symbolize and ritually maintain balance and harmony with the natural world" (Indian Mounds of Wisconsin, 113). Along with the particular animals, the Native Americans also used the sun, moon, and stars as symbols on things like pottery, but the mounds were often used as burial sites and as part of death rituals, and so it makes sense that they only depicted living forms. The society that created the cave paintings of Lascaux may have created the animal representations in similar ways and for similar reasons. Much like the Native Americans, they used particular animals, in this case horses and aurochs, to symbolize different parts of the world.

To me, it seems that this kind of animal representation is very different from our use of animals as mascots or symbols of sports teams. To the two past societies we have talked about, their representations contained their ideology about the world. Their representations were part of ceremonies or rituals in which they were attempting to worship or glorify the animal spirits that symbolized the higher or lower realms. Our sports teams, however, merely symbolize a group of athletes that play a game, which has nothing to do with how we understand or categorize the world. There is no metaphysical aspect to the way in which we "worship" a sports team.

Geertz's definition of religion

Clifford Geertz's definition of religion:
"A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

While I think Geertz's definition does an adequate job sharpening out a jagged form of what religion is in an objective viewpoint, I feel that Geertz's definition does not adequately describe why "men" have religion; to me, that is where its importance lies. But as we talked about in class, religion cannot be placed in a box with rough edges, but it is instead fluid, with obscure edges at times. It does not matter what religion is or what it looks like in objective terms, because those are all effects of the reasons why religion exists among men, and that is where the subtleties and intricacies of religion lie. I believe that what religion really is is the idea or feeling that takes place in man, for that is what exists first. The "system of symbols," the "powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods," and the "aura of factuality" are results of how man tries to implement and promote religion, not the actual religion itself. I believe that religion was created to satisfy the innate human desire for meaning and purpose in life. It's occurrence in man probably coincided with the origination of man's ability to conceptualize about human existence, and cause and effect. Once we were able to conceptualize the nature of cause and effect, we likely applied it to our own existence and, at the time, a omnipotent god was probably the simplest answer. It is also a comforting answer, in that it often addresses afterlife questions and introduces ideas such as fate or karma, salvation or damnation, in which we can to some degree influence our future or eternal fate.

One other thing that i think remains unclear in Geertz's definition is whether the creation of the "system of symbols" and the "conceptions of a general order of existence" are conscious and deliberate. Geertz, by stating that these conceptions are "clothed with an aura of factuality," almost implies that it is done so deliberately. I think this is important because if the desire for religion and religion itself were intuitively sensed by man rather than consciously reasoned, it would have more validity, since religion relies on faith and goes against reason. That is why I don't think religion can be rationally or pragmatically proved.