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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
