RELIGIOUS BURIALS

Jewish Traditions


When a member of the Jewish faith dies, the family arranges a burial (after meeting with the rabbi) within 24 hours. In life, Jews do not have the threat of heaven or hell; their actions immediately have consequences in the eyes of God. As a result, after-life is a matter of interpretation for Jews, even though the traditional belief is that Jews go to sheol (not hell or heaven, but waiting ground). Some believe that the dead go to heaven, some believe that they are reincarnated, and others believe that death is a place to wait (sheol) to be resurrected by Christ's next coming. Cremation has always been discouraged because the Jewish believe that the body is the "temple of the soul," a sacred thing. Cremation today is especially discouraged because of its connection to the Holocaust. The deceased is dressed in plain white robes (to symbolize equality (see right)), put into a plain wooden coffin, and guarded (by a family member) until the burial (out of respect). Family members tear their clothing or wear black ribbons in honor of the deceased. Ritual includes the traditional funeral and burial. Left: Jewish grave with menorah markings.





Traditional Roman Catholic Traditions

The reward for good behavior in life is a place in heaven. Catholic funerals are meant for the deceased and the living, because they are a source of closure and comfort. Catholic burials are preceded by a vigil (prayer service) the night before. The next requirement, the mass, consists of more prayers for the deceased along with the Eucharist. The Eucharist is very important because it is believed to be the source from which life flows and returns; therefore, it is very important for it to be performed for the deceased and the mourners. After the mass, the attendees proceed to the burial. In honor of the deceased, visitors are encouraged to wear black. Similar to the Jewish tradition, cremation is discouraged. Catholics believe that the body is a temple that will be resurrected by God. Catholics strongly believe in an after-life; they hold the belief that their deeds in life will affect whether they land in heaven or hell. The required rites performed at the funeral ensure the deceased's voyage into heaven. Top and bottom-left: typical graveyards of the United States. Bottom right: the body during a Catholic mass.


Sikh Traditions

The Sikh view of death, in contrast to Christianity and Judaism, is largely focused on the earth. The Sikhs believe that it is a natural process in which the body is reincarnated (life and death are closely related), but they also believe that the soul returns to God; because of this, hope should be the overwhelming feeling, not grief. Cremation is the preferred method of disposal of the body, because to them, the body is only a shell, not an expression of the actual soul. Crying and expressions of grief are discouraged at the viewing because death is a natural process that everyone experiences; it is something that shouldn't cause fear. Sikhs read prayers at the viewing to console themselves, which is followed by the washing of the dead, a procession to the cremation ground, and then the actual cremation (where more prayers are offered). The ashes are thrown into the nearest river (see picture), which is concluded with more prayers.




Islamic Traditions

Islamic funerals are similar to Sikh funerals because the expression of grief is prohibited. Muslims accept death as a return to Allah; if they are good servants of God in life, they will spend eternity in Heaven. Cremation is discouraged; it is an Islamic practice to be respectful of a person in life and in death. The grave of the deceased points towards Mecca, the center of the Islamic world. The body should be wrapped in plain cloth to ensure privacy. It is interesting to note in the bottom picture that the clothing is completely opposite of the Catholic tradition; the body is wearing black, and the mourners are wearing white. The rituals of an Islamic funeral included prayer from the Q'uran, the burial, and a period of 3-day morning for relatives and loved ones. If the relative mourner is a widow of the deceased, then she is required to mourn for 4 months and 10 days. During the mourning period, the relative or friend must be especially devoted to prayer, receive condolences, and avoid distracting jewelry and clothing because they take away from the solemnity of the occasion (black not required). Above-left: friends and family pat down the grave for closure. Top right: funeral procession on its way to the burial.


Late Woodland Tribe (Effigy Mound Builders) Traditions

In Native American culture, death signifies a return to the earth, a continuation of the cycle of life. It is therefore very appropriate that members of the tribe were buried in effigy mounds-shapes that represent animals from the spirit world. In each animal, the heart of the mind is where the burial is located. The deceased is buried as a bundle of cleaned and bound bones. Often times, there are symbolic sacrifices along with the burial, including pipes, charcoal, and other stones. The people were not buried immediately after death; in fact, there appeared to be ceremonial times during the year when the deceased were returned to the earth. It is possible that the animal which the person is buried in represents the kinship of the deceased. Picture: bear effigy at Effigy Mounds National Monument.




Hmong Traditions

Hmong deaths are not just a time for grieving, but a time for family reunion. Hmong rituals for the deceased last up to a week long, full of feasts, rituals, and prayers. The Hmong people believe that, after death, they go on a journey to rejoin their ancestors. Because of this, most of the rituals prepare the body for the voyage, with material objects and prayer asking for their safety. The body is dressed in special ceremonial robes (see left) and given paper money, food (ex. above chicken), and a walking stick, among other necessities. Throughout the week, the people who prepare the deceased wear red ribbons to prevent their own souls from joining the deceased in its journey. After the body is sufficiently prepared, it is buried. Family members throw dirt on the coffin for closure. Above right: a chicken about to be sacrificed for the deceased's journey to the ancestors.


Contemporary American

Today, many American people choose to not follow traditional rites as strictly. Unlike the aforementioned traditions, today's funerals concentrate less on community aspect of the ceremony, and more on the sending of the body into the earth. Many people choose cremation as an alternative, partly for its convenience but also for its capability of individuality. The family can throw the deceased's ashes in a place that was particularly special to them. People find other ways of distinguishing their loved ones in death with special gravestone inscriptions. If you're a sports fan, you can have your favorite team mascot on your grave. Another recent trend in burial is "green" burial, in which the deceased is put into a biodegradable casket with biodegradable cloth. No embalming fluid is used in the body. People can also choose to be buried in a non-denominational way at funerals by withholding any mention of God from the service. Today, there is no definitive way to let go of one's deceased; people actively individualize death. Above: green burial.

Chicago Baha'i Temple

I just looked through the Baha'i center website in Chicago. I was very surprised, actually. I've lived in the Midwest for most of my life and knew nothing about it. I really liked how the components of Baha'i faith were incorporated into every aspect of design. There are 9 sides to the temple; nine is the highest single digit number, and represents completeness/fulfillment in the Baha'i faith. Like old Christian churches, the temple is intentionally built to be very tall so it will be closer to God. In the auditorium of the temple, the famous Baha'i inscription reads (in Arabic): "O Glory of all Glory's." There are however, other religious symbols incorporated into the architecture: the cross, the star of David, the crescent moon, and the wheel. This is to represent unity, but the fact that the Baha'i inscription is the largest and most noticeable, there is still the implication that Baha'i faith has the truth/prophet. In the video, however, the narrator side-stepped this issue, saying that all prophets are from God but that Baha'ullah is the most recent and closer to truth.

When I first saw the gardens, I assumed that they were modeled after the Garden of Ridvan. However, when talking about the garden, the narrator only said that the garden was supposed to represent unity. Apparently, Baha'ullah likened people to flowers; there could be unity when they were together. I also learned that there is no priesthood or clergy in the faith. Services are short and consist of prayer, music, and readings of great world religion texts.

I found all of this fascinating. However, what I'm really wondering about is how the Baha'i faith spread from the Middle East. It astonishes me that, since it is an off-shoot of Islam (a religion that is greatly stereotyped by Westerners), it spread so quickly to new places. Did the Baha'i faith send out missionaries? How did that happen? Baha'i faith is the second most widespread faith, and I'm sure there is a reason that could explain it.

Spiritual Healing and Medicine

Today in class, we briefly discussed the medicinal practices of a certain sect of religion (maybe Christian science). The story that someone brought up was about a couple that did not supply medical care to their sixteen-year-old because of religious beliefs. They believed that the child could be cured if their faith was strong enough. Obviously, they were wrong. It's a shame that the child died, when a very simple cure was readily available. However, in a way, it makes sense when you look at other cultures. In my ethnicity class, we've been talking about Shamanism with Hmong Americans. The spiritual leader, the shaman, has a set of rituals that he practices on the inflicted to make them well again. Often times, the shaman has cured problems that even medicine could not seem to cure. We read a story about a woman who doctors thought would die. In an act of desperation the family requested a shaman to help. It took the shaman 8 hours to heal the woman, but it worked. I think that traditional medicine is a wonderful and powerful thing, but I think that a lot of it could be psychological. There have been many studies that prove the effectiveness of positive thinking and religion. However, there are also cases that traditional medicine can't help. Sometimes it's necessary to go to a medical doctor. In the ethnicity class reading, there was a story about a Hmong doctor who occasionally treated Hmong patients. The people he saw had had problems that they had neglected, problems that had steadily grown more serious over the years. The shaman could not heal everything. In reaction to both of these viewpoints, I would say that there needs to be a balance between the two; medicinal and religious healing.

I think that the couple whose child died were not completely in the wrong. I can understand their viewpoint; they truly believed that their faith could save their child. I think that positive/religious thinking can do wonders, but there is a point when hard medicine is required. Convincing people with traditional medicinal background, however, is a whole different story.

Picture:
Shaman venturing into the spirit world to regain the soul of the diseased person.


Link: explains shamanism and its importance in Hmong culture.
http://www.pbs.org/splithorn/shamanism.html

Baha'i Faith Requirements

Baha'ullah made me stop and think about how a religion is founded. It almost seems like the Baha'i faith had it easier than the older religions (Islam, Judaism). Basically, Baha'i is an offshoot of Islam. I haven't read a lot about the Baha'i faith, but it seems as though it might be ready-equipped with certain traditions and practices, yes? There was some variation with the basic tradition; for example, a woman took off her veil during a meeting and revolutionized ideas about women. So there are changes to the religion, but some traditions are still kept. In any case, I'm not sure how Judaism began; there must have been some kind of founder, someone similar to Baha'ullah.

So that's the first necessity: a founder. A leader is necessary for a religion to begin; people need to be united by (and believe in) a charismatic person. Baba was the founder of the previous religion out of which Baha'i morphed, but after Baba was imprisoned and later executed, Baha ended up with a pretty huge leadership rule. He initially taught the scriptures and writings of Baba, but, after he was exiled to the Ottoman Empire, began writing and teaching his own words. His first followers were first followers of Baba who went to Baha for the teachings of Baba, but many were so devoted to Baha that they became a part of Baha'i. However, this didn't happen overnight. It was a long process; Baha's ideas began as a child, and he didn't even begin teaching his own work until at least his 40s or 50s (from what I gathered from the book). His ideas developed. It seems that it takes a long time for ideas to meld into a faith base, and for people to become deeply devoted. In addition to that, I think that time and experience can meld a religion; it is probably true that the devotees of Baha'i faith became even stronger believers after their persecution throughout their time in Iraq and the Ottoman Empire. Sometimes persecution can form an even stronger identity.
Baha'i faith is no different from other religions in that it requires a set of tools to be strong; a founder, traditions, and time to grow.

Official Baha'i website.
http://www.bahai.org/

Baha'i Faith Requirements

Baha'ullah made me stop and think about how a religion is founded. It almost seems like the Baha'i faith had it easier than the older religions (Islam, Judaism). Basically, Baha'i is an offshoot of Islam. I haven't read a lot about the Baha'i faith, but it seems as though it might be ready-equipped with certain traditions and practices, yes? There was some variation with the basic tradition; for example, women are not required to wear veils. So there are changes to the religion, but some traditions are still upheld. In any case, I'm not sure how Judaism began; there must have been some kind of founder, someone similar to Baha'ullah.

So that's the first necessity; a founder. A leader is necessary for a religion to begin; people need to be united by (and believe in) a charismatic person. Baba was the founder of the previous religion out of w hich Baha'i morphed, but after Baba was imprisoned and later executed, Baha ended up with a pretty huge leadership role. He initially taught the writings of Baba but, after he was exiled to the Ottoman Empire, began writing and teaching his own words. His first followers were previously followers of Baba who went to Baha for Bab's teachings, but many became so devoted to Baha that they followed his faith. However, this did not happen overnight. It was a long process; Baha's ideas began as a child, and he didn't even begin teaching his own work until at least his 40s or 50s (from what I gathered in the book). His ideas developed. It seems that it takes a long time for ideas to meld into a faith base. I don't think that it takes such a long time to create a base of followers, the fact that it only took 20 or 30 years for people to become devoted shows how easily religion can influence people when it has something attractive to say. In addition this, I think that time and experience affect religious ideas; it is probably true that the devotees of Baha'i faith became even stronger believers after their persecution in Iraq and the Ottoman Empire. Sometimes persecution can form an even strong feeling of identity. Baha'i is no different from other religions in that it requires a set of tools to be strong; a founder, traditions, and time to grow.

Pop-Culture vs. Religion

In class on Wednesday, we talked about whether it's a good or bad thing to relate religion to pop-culture. An example of the merge is the church behind the city center, an IMAX theatre converted into "The Core." Apparently, there is still stadium seating and even a pop-corn stand. I'm a little skeptical about this conversion; after all, religion is not supposed to be about being entertained. I don't think that religion should fall prey to the instant gratification mindset. Americans have access to so many resources; if a person wants something, they'll get it pretty quickly. So, my concern is that this will apply to religion. First of all, being a part of religion is not supposed to be easy. Finding your personal spirituality is not easy. I'm not saying that this is true, but perhaps the individualization of religion is a form of laziness? Maybe that's why people don't go to church anymore; it takes too much work, and there's not a lot of instant satisfaction out of it. Maybe it's easier to tell yourself that you are religious, but in your OWN way. This is just an observation.

In any case, I think that the relation of religion to pop-culture is necessary. As Augustine said, religion must evolve with the time period. If religions don't evolve to meet the needs of people, they will quickly fade out. So, the modernization (for lack of a better word) of church may be necessary but contradictory to the rules or beliefs of the church.

Really interesting article about clothing and religious statement.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7368

A picture of an Evangelist church with stadium seating.

Rastafarianism-Boboshanti vs. Mainstream

The way of living as portrayed by the Boboshanti Rastafari was completely different than my impression of general Rastafari. I think that a lot of people get a certain impression of Rastafarianism because of Jamaican's tourist promotion and Bob Marley's music (more generally, reggae). The people in the video were very devout, practicing a seemingly more strict doctrine. They rise at 3 in the morning to pray, and later pray at 9 am and 3 pm. They wear their dreadlocks in turbans. They live in the mountains-completely isolated from society-in often primitive conditions. Another thing that differentiates them from mainstream Rastafarians is that they practice resting on Sabbath. So that's the basic idea of these people.

It was such a contrast to what I had imagined about Rastafarians; I had the impression of informal gatherings, relaxed rules and community, and yes, smoking ganja. I had imagined the Rastafarians to basically be intermingled in mainstream society, living among others but practicing their own religion, but these people were isolated. There was also no mention of ganja smoking among these mountainous people, although it might have been omitted because of the producers. The people did wear red turbans, which I assume is related to one of the Ethiopian colors. These people were also very strongly committed to Ethiopia and the crown. I wasn't sure whether the RX symbol was also used in mainstream Rastafarian tradition; it symbolized righteousness (R)over evil (X). Another thing that took me by surprise was the music. Because of Bob Marley and his influence, I had assumed that reggae was a form of music that all Rastafarians relate to because of its concentration of equality and hardship. However, the Boboshanti seemed intent on chanting, not reggae. Overall, I had imagined all Rastafarian people to be more modern. The Boboshanti seemed almost tribal; I never would have guessed that there were Rastafarians like this, because it always seemed that Rastafarians were concerned with current and (particularly) urban issues, like equality. However, I can understand why some Rastis would live in the mountains, as they refuse to be involved politically. It never occurred to me that there would be offshoots of a main religion, even though it happens in other religions all the time.

Link: a journalist explores a Boboshanti community.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lifestyle/html/20040531T010000-0500_60580_OBS_LIFE_IN_THE_BOBOSHANTI_CAMP.asp

Jesus Camp

I just watched the movie "Jesus Camp," and decided that it was too interesting not to talk about in my blog. It was one of the scariest movies that I've ever seen. It basically follows several kids and an evangelist pastor at a summer camp. The summer camp is designed to train young children to fight for the evangelist cause. The pastor speaks about the training in an almost militaristic way, calling them "God's army." The children are trained to fight against abortion and other "problems" in America. The trainers tell the children that they need to "take back America." They talk about the training of violent child soldiers in the name of Islam almost admiringly. To be blunt, the leaders are brainwashing children; everyone knows (and the pastor states) that children are the best to train because of their malleability and the fact that they don't have many formed judgments about the world. It is easy to manipulate them, and the leaders know very well that this is what they are doing. The children are told that that evolution is incorrect, that science doesn't prove anything about the world. What boggled me was when one of the parents told her child that global warming isn't happening, that there is absolutely no proof of it. Children are also told that Harry Potter books are evil-one parent said: "If Harry Potter were real, he would immediately be put to death." The terrible part is that the children believe their parents; they are wiling to please them and eagerly join up. According to the documentary, 43% of evangelists are "born-again" before they are 13 years old; this shows how deeply the faith is ingrained in the children by parents and elders. As for the pastor, she often uses the scare tactic for kids, which is also very effective. If I were a child, and if someone told me that I was going to Hell because of my bad thoughts, I would be terrified. I just can't understand how someone could have this type of mindset; these people are so unbending in their faith that their is one word, one truth.

I did, however, find out a lot of interesting information about evangelism. Growing up in the north exposed me to lots of Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians, but no Baptists or Evangelists. There are 80 million Evangelists in the United States. The evangelists in the video were very generous with praise about President Bush; according to them, he is almost like an anointed saint. Bush was appointed to be president to make peace and "take back America" for the evangelists. One man said that Bush gave credibility to Christianity (hmmm). America is, according to them, "God's chosen nation." Evangelists become saved by being "born-again-" which basically involves the convert accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. Unfortunately, the film didn't supply much information about the religion's history, although I suppose it largely about children and religion.

I really liked this movie. It was incredibly striking to see how the children absorbed what they were taught and how they spewed it out. One of the boys actually gave a sermon to his peers-he talked about faith. The camera recorded the writing of his sermon. While he's writing, the boy says that "I'm not really writing. God tells me what to put down. And when I'm speaking, it's not really me, it's God." I am curious about this actual experience. I don't believe that the boy is lying, but I would like to know how this happens. In another scene, the children were encouraged to speak in tongues. This was disturbing to me because the pastor basically told them to praise God and speak in tongue. I was always under the impression that speaking in tongue was a spontaneous occurrence. It made me wonder how genuine the children were being. Some of the children seemed deeply engulfed in the process, but others could have been doing it to please the pastor, or their parents. I believe that the children absorbed information, but not that they all had the ability to speak in tongue or "be one with God." Perhaps children are the force that keep religion alive. In the movie, all the children were told that they are the "key generation" to keeping the faith alive, and to making Jesus Christ come back. It seems incredibly unfair for children to be without choices. They are expected to ingest all of this information that they're given. How can a child fight back?

This is a clip from the film. The pastor (Becky) talks about children and religion.



Blog criticizing Jesus Camp.

http://tatumweb.com/blog/2006/09/21/jesus-camp-brainwashed/

Kebra Negast

The introduction to Ethiopia on Monday and Kebra Negast made me look at Ethiopia in a completely different way. First of all, I didn't know that Ethiopia was Catholic. I had (foolishly) assumed that it was a collective of different religions, tribal and mainstream. Then, I had no idea that Ethiopia was so important in Catholicism. The story that we read shines a completely new light, because it discusses the positive relations between Israel and Ethiopia. The original relationship was between the Queen of Ethiopia and Solomon. She came to Israel to seek his wisdom, and he taught her for 6 months. The night before she left, they had sex, and she had his son. When the son grew up, he desired to find his father, so the Queen sent him to Israel. Of course, this is an account that make have creative fabrications, but there must be some real connection to accurate history. It does make sense, however, because Ethiopia and Israel are so geographically close. I suppose that the countries still have positive relations today, as we saw the video of the massive air lift of Ethiopian Jews to Israel. The Israelites seemed very earnest in their aiding the Ethiopian Jews.

Kebra Negast shows how Ethiopia affected biblical history. Without the Queen coming to Solomon, there would be no son of Solomon. If Ethiopia was not present, the Art of the Covenant would be elsewhere.
Kebra Negast also gives a historical account of how Ethiopia was converted to Christianity. According to the account, before the Queen of Ethiopia contacted Solomon, Ethiopia was a sun-worshiping nation. They worshiped the sun for its warmth, its ability to give life, and more. When the Queen of Ethiopia asked Solomon about the true higher power, he told her that the only true power was God. Right on the spot, she decided to convert her country to Christianity. I wonder when Ethiopia actually did convert to Christianity, because the conversion would also take lots of time and effort.
The story had a lot of interesting ideas in it, but I would personally like to know the true historical account of Ethiopia's conversion. If I knew the history, then I could compare the two stories and appreciate this account for its effect on the bible.

Conceptual Blending

Although I thought that this article was difficult to read (I haven't kept up with my linguistic jargon), I settled upon Fauconnier's basic idea of conceptual blending. The idea is that people use simple, comfortable, and old ideas to learn new concepts and skills. An example of this is the skier (or snowboarder) who is trying to stay upright. His instructor tells him to pretend that he's carrying a tray of croissants and champagne. This concept that he's familiar with helps him with the development of his new skill. Eventually, the motion becomes natural, and he no longer has to rely upon the idea of carrying croissants to ski. Basically, humans rely upon past experience and thoughts to fit new ones into their heads. In a way, it implies that humans, at birth, are not blank slates, but that they are building upon genetic experience. We can only understand things if they can be related to what we know.

When I considered relating conceptual blending to religion, I immediately thought of the psalms, or just general religious literature. When we read the bible or the psalms, we take what we read and apply it to our own lives. We take the psalms as historic literature, but the emotions and feelings are so universal that we can apply them to our own lives. We don't completely understand the historical context of when the psalm was reading, but humans can relate to emotion. We use our own emotion to understand the psalms, and therefore apply them to our lives. We can also perhaps use our own modern context and apply events to these biblical events. It's an interesting idea, but makes complete sense.

Religious Superiority

Today, my ethnic studies class went on a field trip to Chicago to explore ethnic and immigrant centers. One of the stops was a Mexican cultural museum, which displayed contemporary Mexican art and murals as well as information on the ancient Maya civilization. One display discussed their religion and how it was affected by the Spanish conquistadors. Before the invasion, the Mayas had a polytheistic belief system. They had many gods and goddesses, and paid their respective sacrifices to each of them. Then the Spanish came, and put it upon themselves to convert these "heathens" to Christianity. They set up churches and schools in order to educate the indigenous people. For some reason, not a lot of success was made until bishops and people of religious importance starting settling in Mexico. The Mayan people seemed to accept this religion without much of a fight; in fact, they were able to relate Christianity to aspects of their own religion. For example, the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary was similar to one of their goddesses, so they were fairly content with the change. Gradually, their religious traditions were conquered, along with their cities and people.

So, the question I asked myself is, why did the Spanish people take it upon themselves to "Christianize" the Mayans? It reminded me of the "white man's burden:" the duty of American missionaries to educate and Christianize people who lived in countries of the American empire. Similarly, why did the U.S. feel it necessary to change the ways of perfectly happy people? It seems like pretension to me. It makes me think of the United State's attempt to democratize Iraq. I don't think that it's fair. If their system worked for thousands of years, who are we to change it? It's just egotistical to try to Americanize or Christianize the rest of the world. It's a form of globalization. But back to my original question. I don't think that the Spanish conquistadors were worried about the indigenous people's souls. In fact, I don't think that the Spanish cared much about the indigenous people's well-being at all. They looked down on the Mayans, they saw them as people in the way of their grand plan to conquer a new world. Was there a practical reason for converting the Mayans? Or maybe they did it because they were convinced that their religion was correct, and that the rest of the world should think likewise. I tend to agree with the latter statement. I understand why the Spanish did this, but I still think that it's wrong. Why can't we respect and preserve unique cultures?
Neat website with chronological order of conquest

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/new-spain.html

St. Augustine on the Scriptures

Reading St. Augustine's advice on reading scripture mostly reaffirmed some of my beliefs. Obviously there's the issue of not understanding certain historical and cultural references that were made in the scripture. An example is the significance of certain numbers, like the number three or ten. There are also references made to plants and animals that don't have such significance in modern society, such as the hyssop. According to St. Augustine, the hyssop is used to clear one's lungs and keep them from boasting. The information that St. Augustine provides is interesting, but I personally am pretty aware of cultural and historical differences.

St. Augustine also writes about the different translations of the scriptures. He basically states that in order to understand the scriptures fully, one must have read all of the translations. When it comes to being accuracy, the Greek edition is of the highest quality. Obviously, it is not feasible for normal people to read all editions of the scripture. Therefore, it's very important to discriminate meaning when reading the psalms. He talks about how some translations misinterpret and change the original meaning of the psalms. It is important to read with a cautious eye. While his advice is useful, it reaffirmed what I thought about reading scripture. Since the Hebrew was translated over and over into eventually the English that I was reading, I was carefully not to take it as the complete representation of the original texts. Scriptures are meant to be read carefully, and with a grain of salt (in the case of the translations).

Religious Identity

On Wednesday, we discussed how identity and religion relate. It was stated that religion is one aspect of identity. I think that that's true, depending on the religion, and society. In America, religion is a part of one's identity, along with race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Religion is just as important as those other aspects, but they are separate. Most Americans don't allow their religion to take over their whole identity. How did this happen? Well, for one, a person's (or country's) identity changes over time. As time goes on, different aspects of one's life (or country) are emphasized. For example, a homosexual person who lived 80 years ago would not be open about their sexuality. Today, as a result of the ban of gay marriage, this person would be proud and open about their sexuality. The person doesn't change-everything is still intact, but for the current situation they happen to be proud of one certain part of the identity. Another example involves women during the feminist movement. America is similar. As a beginning nation, America was a place of religious freedom and refuge for the Puritans. Over time, church and state became separate. Religion had a smaller place in the grand scheme of the United States. Now, America might be considered as a place of economic greed. In any case, most Americans wouldn't first and foremost consider themselves to be just Catholic or Jewish.

One's religion as an identity still occurs in certain religions in countries. For example, Islam. This religion is so strong in people's lives because it affects so much of their lives: what they eat, how they behave socially, what they wear, and more. The call to prayer occurs five times a day. With such a reminder, it's hard to forget that you're Islamic. Now what about Americans? I'll use myself as an example. It is not often that I am consciously Presbyterian. I hardly think about my religious upbringing, unless there is something that triggers a thought. I know that this also relates to my skepticism of faith. Even so, my religious upbringing doesn't affect what I wear or eat. My life and religion seem to be detached.
I don't know how Americans became so disconnected from faith. I don't know how religion became just a facet of so many people's identity. I do know that it must completely change the way you look at the world.

A bishop (from the Church of Pakistan) talking about religious identity. (Relevant part at the beginning.)

My God is Better Than Your God

I read Psalm 18. This particular was fairly similar to others with its message of God as a shield, except for the intense imagery of God's wrath and fury against others. Take this piece of imagery: "They heaved, for smoke rose from His nostrils/and fire from His mouth consumed,/ coals blazed up around Him." Well. This is not a happy God, but I don't find the imagery to be frightening or even contradictory. The Hebrew people claim that he is their sole protector of the "chosen ones." I understand why a Hebrew psalm would recognize God as their sole protector, but I don't like the "my God is better than your God" idea.

Perhaps the idea of God accepting and enveloping all Christians is a modern idea. The problem is that I'm looking at the situation from a modern perspective. It seems that in Hebrew times, God was theirs to claim. He was responsible for their fortune, and killed the enemies. Other groups held this belief; look at the crusaders, for example. They killed many Jewish and Muslim people in the name of God. It seems that today, most people accept that most religions have a higher power, and respect those beliefs. Different religions may fight, but I think that it has less to do with their higher power than history, revenge, or territory. What about the case of the suicide bomber? Their sacrifices may be in the name of their religion, but I think it has more to do with their traditions that are being threatened, than their higher power. Now that I think about it, I feel that religious intolerance doesn't really deal with God, it deals with foreign traditions and beliefs. After all, God's existence and attitudes are created by each individual religion. If there is a universal higher power, it seems that it would be merciful to all religions.

Some depictions of the higher power. I randomly typed in: God and Allah.





Article discusses the craziness of this belief.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/TheocracyAlert/html/060305seesholtz.html

Religion and TV

So, I've been thinking more about religion and modern society, which eventually lead to me thinking about religion as it is portrayed in the media. It seems as though, in many TV shows, people who are religious tend to be portrayed as being up-tight or fanatical. There's the conservative Christian on the popular TV show. Or there's the passionate televangelist on the local cable channel. There's always something a bit odd about the religious character.

To me, it seems paradoxical that (if what I found out regarding young people and religion is true) religious characters would be portrayed in such a negative light, especially if it's such a societal connection. Perhaps, as religion is becoming a deeply personal ritual or belief, people are less open to expressing themselves. One of my other blogs talked about symbols being personal; maybe the expression of religion is, as well. For some reason, people seem more inclined to keep quiet about religion, and portray it jokingly. Perhaps it is because religion isn't quite "politically correct." As being politically correct becomes the norm, we are more aware of hurting people's feelings; perhaps they aren't part of a main-stream religion, or maybe they are atheist. So we portray religious characters less seriously. Hmm. I think that in every religion or cultural group, there are weirdos. It is unfair, however, that most Christians are portrayed as fanatical and close-minded.

Article on religion in TV.

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/religionontv.htm

Native Americans=Ancient Israeli Civilizations

After reading the early American (would that be puritan?) version of Psalm 2 in the hymn book, I noticed some interesting changes to the text. Though I don't like the implications that the changes express, I think that their version was really quite appropriate for their time. It makes sense to localize a text to your surroundings. The settlers can't relate to events happening in ancient Israel, but they can relate to current events and people, such as the native Americans. If people understand what they are reading, they are more likely to believe in the text. So I think that the adaptation worked well for the new Americans. Although it is very possible that the text is using the word "heathen" to mean non-Christian, I think that it would be interesting to look at it in this light. Here are some of the changes made in the updated text:

First of all, the "nations aroused" become "heathens." Huh. In the new psalm, it appears that the native Americans that were encountered by early settlers are equivalent to the conspiring nations in the Middle East. The change is completely degrading to the native Americans. However, ethnocentrism was rampant during the settlement, and for long after. The settlers saw native Americans as primitive people, completely undeveloped to the settler's "sophisticated ways. I am not trying to say that if I were a settler at the time, I would view them differently; definitely not. I would probably follow the popular belief and think of them as sub-human, even though that is something that they are NOT. Anyway, the settler's saw the native Americans as threats to their ways and beliefs, and since they didn't seem to have religion (they did, of course), labeled them to be heathens. In the new psalm, the native Americans were, like the ancient countries, the immediate threat to the settler's religion. Therefore, they needed God's help to get rid of them.

In addition to the distinct change in text concerning native Americans, there new version is also updated in its basic syntax. It incorporates regional language and symbols (such as the "potters sherds" instead of jars). The language is less sophisticated than the original text. The basic reason for this is to make the text accessible to citizens of that time. Makes perfect sense to me!
However, I find the "heathen" replacement offensive. They should have just left the text alone...

Tangential side-note: I noticed how one of the sections used the word "fire." This was a pretty big symbol for puritans: symbolizing the burning flames of hell. All you have to do is read John Edward's sermon "Sinner's at the Hands of an Angry God," which compares people to dangling spiders above the fire, being supported by God's mercy. I thought it was interesting that fire was incorporated.

Cultural Values

Today, we talked about how basic things (like roads and cityscapes) can tell a lot about a society's cultural and religious values. So, this inspired me to explore my dorm room and discover what my values are. I'll list off things that I see and think about what they would symbolize from an outside perspective.

Cell phone: A society in which it possibly easier than ever to keep in contact with friends and family. Result of readily available transportation. May result in low family contact.

Dorm room (general): High value on physical comfort. Because there are two beds in the room, there must be a low population relative to area of university. Shows the civilization's dominance over nature; there is now a line drawn between nature and humans. Humans may not respect nature as they once did.

Toiletries (deodorant, toothpaste, hairbrush, etc.): Value on physical appearance. Advancements in hygiene and self-care.

Calendar/date book: Time rigid. Life may not be in accord with the movement of the sun. Days are carefully planned, with little flexibility.

Clock: Shows man's creation of "time." Not according to sun. Possibly caused by distance of civilians, and their desire to gather at specified moments.

Books: Value on education. Most books academic or fictitious, none religious by nature. Perhaps not a strongly religious citizen.

Debit card: Value on material possessions. Enables user to acquire necessities and desires. Shows good trade and economy.

Computer: New form of communication. Direct socialization unnecessary. Value on entertainment and communication.

Well, that was an interesting experiment. I must say, it doesn't reflect well upon my values, or American values in general. The experiment might not have been directly related to religious studies. However, I think that cultural values greatly affect/are affected by religion. It was interesting because I didn't find any religious symbols in my room. That may reflect upon my personal beliefs, but I think that it also has to do with society. As someone said in class, Americans are so careful with religion; you rarely see religious symbols in public, because there are so many different religions represented. Another factor might be related with the separation of church and state. Or perhaps religious doesn't need to be physically represented? Maybe it is something that one carries in him/herself, and doesn't always need to show to the world. I feel that I am a spiritual person, but I don't feel the need to express it to other people. What do you all think? Do you think that symbols are completely necessary for the individual? (Not the community of religious people.) Thanks!

Symbols of Effigy Mounds

Geertz's definition of religion states that religion is "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."

To connect this definition to the effigy mounds made by Native Americans, it is obviously necessary to look at symbols in the mounds that connect to their spiritual beliefs/reality. I'll begin by covering the symbols used in the effigy mounds. Native Americans believed that there were three main elements of the earth: the upperworld (sky), middleworld (earth), and underworld (water). These elements manifested into mound shapes. The upperworld was represented by birds (often thunderbirds) and sometimes human-birds (representing shaman priests). The middleworld animals include bears, deer, elk, and lizards. Underworld animals include water panthers and fish. These three elements were symbols of harmony, and therefore, where there was one element in a mound group, there was its complementary element.

The symbolic power of the three elements manifest into the social order of some Native American tribes, for example, the Ho-Chunk. They divide themselves into either the upperworld or lowerworld. Each division is comprised of clans, represented by a respective animal (i.e. the thunderbird clan of the upperworld). The members of each division were encourage to stay within their group and intermarry. It is evident that religious beliefs can influence social structure.

Another aspect of the effigy mounds is the ideology behind the burials. Native American tribes were very much in touch with the earth, seeking a balance between it and themselves. Because of this, they saw burial as a way to replenish and renew the earth. As a result, they often structured water effigies near springs, which were symbols of re-birth and renewal. Another reason for the placement near springs is because they symbolize the spirit's entrance to the underworld. Everything about the order of the effigy mounds is symbolic. Water animal effigies are place closer to water than others. Upperworld bird effigies are often placed on cliffs, or generally elevated areas. There is a pretty logical reason for most of the effigy placement.

The fact that the mounds are also gathering places is appropriate. Not only do the mounds illustrate the Native Americans' belief systems, they serve as a way to bring people together, in life and in death.

I think that the effigy mounds are amazing. I'll be able to appreciate them so much more when I go home (I live in Madison).

Picture above is a bird effigy in Washington, WI (http://www.co.washington.wi.us/images/PAR_BirdEffigy.jpg)

The Younger Generation's Religion

Something I've always been curious about is the decline of traditional religious practice in younger generations of America. The decline seems to be in the practice of religion, but not necessarily in the belief system. Almost all of my friends who were raised in religious households profess negative attitudes towards church services. However, most of these people seem to have a personal belief system. I know that it's unscientific to generalize because most of these people are my socioeconomic equals, but I believe that there is a noticeable belief gap between younger and older generations. The younger generation is not only more likely than the other generation to avoid going to church, but also is more likely practice atheism or go by his/her own spiritual beliefs. The decline in traditional religious beliefs is illustrated by Willits (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3511025), who, in his studies, noted that church attendance among adolescents and young adults significantly decreased in a span of 10 years (1970-80).

This fairly recent trend caused me to think about its possible causes. The first idea that comes to mind is the use of skepticism and its popularity. In this age of technology, it seems as though the events that were once considered miraculous can be easily explained by science. Religion cannot be explained through science. It takes enormous faith to believe in what one is taught at church. As more and more people become college-educated, they question what they accepted as children in the church system.

Another theory I have deals with economic difference and how that might reflect religious belief. The people I have been dealing with have been mainly white and middle-classed. Most of these people live comfortably, with most needs obtained. I lived in Nicaragua for two years where most of the population lived in poverty. The majority of these people were strongly religious. For these people, religion is comfort; comfort in knowing that most matters are out of their hands. They turn to God to change their lives because their personal poverty is sadly out of their hands. Perhaps comfort keeps some white, middle-classed people from turning to religion.
I'm personally somewhat skeptical about this theory. It makes sense in specific contexts, but the fact of the matter is that there are always religious people. This idea, however, deals with the decreasing number of religious/church-going people.
Well, those are my ideas. I know it involved a lot of speculation and concentrated on a certain type of young person, but it's an interesting idea that I wanted to explore. Comment and give me some of your own insight on the matter!

Also, I interviewed some of my friends via Facebook (of course), asking them about their general thoughts on religion, and here are some snippets of what they said (that dealt with church):

-Like, my parents are hard-core Catholics, and I just don't really follow that so strongly, but I still have my beliefs, whether I see the church as necessary to be in touch with God or not.
-Most religions are so tainted by history that you can’t take scriptures too literally but still can be really good for people to have core values and a way to deal with life.
-I feel kinda as religous as my parents (my Italian ones). I basically don't go to church; I think sometimes it goes into superstition and according to my thinking I can't follow it.
-I don't think of myself as "religious" in a traditional sense. I feel that I am very spiritual, and that I am just as spiritual as my parents. My general attitude toward spirituality is positive - I think it provides comfort and security when we need it most.
-I already said this but I guess I can write it as well... I generally feel less religious than my parents. They would say that they aren't part of any specific tradition but the fact does remain that they are active members of our local UU church.
-It's never been a real topic of conversation - they tend not to tell me about their own views until I've developed my own independently - but both of them seem to be fairly firm non-believers. I suppose I consider myself less religious than they are just because I've had no real exposure to or experience with it, and no desire to seek it out.
-Not/anti- religious / Spiritual in a way that includes no mysticism or faith whatsoever.

P.S. I realize that my sample size is small and not very diverse, but I thought that it was a cool experiment.