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.