Sept. 29, 2010

"The particular virtues they promote depend, naturally, on the kind of society they live in, for "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch of the ruling ideas." In the middle ages, when farming was the chief means of production, all lands were owned by bishops of the church or by feudal lords...should we be surprised, then, that the moral code of the day stressed devotion to the church, along with warrior virtues such as obedience, honor, and loyalty to one's feudal master?..."

Pals, Daniel L. Eight Theories of Religion. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

In this chapter, Pals explains Marx's perspective on religion, which is ultimately tied to economic oppression of lower classes. Here, he discusses how religion ultimately preaches doctrines which side with the ruling class, enslaving the proletariat unknowingly to the bourgeois. This applies to the modern era, when religion promotes humility and a degree of poverty. Strangely, with the Christian doctrine's preaching of poverty and the meek inheriting the earth, it does almost create a vicious circle: the more oppressed one is, the more tied and connected to their religion they feel. Their reality validates their religion, and their religion validates their reality, creating a nearly unbreakable covenant between them.

This can even be seen in the etiological stories of the Bible--however, in a way these stories promote one's own wealth. In the old testament, we see an obvious favoring of the shepherd, who fulfills a unique niche unable to be taken by others, as the work was deemed unclean to other cultures. And, in other cultures, I know the religion is often the cause of economic overthrow, usually being the first thing affected by the harming of the proletariat. I'd be curious to see how Marx's philosophy is carried into religions beyond the Abrahamic ones.

9-28-2010

"[For Marx], religion is a symptom of a sick social system, which is used by both the ruling class and the exploited workers as a means of obscuring the root problems of economic and political inequality."

Nye, Malory. Religion: the Basics. 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge, 2008.

In this passage, Nye refers to Marxism, and how it does not view religion itself as the cause of economic inequality, but rather is a symptom--that it is not the Church that causes a divide in class, but that the Church hierarchy clearly is a gauge of this inequality. Later Marxist writers will go farther, to say that religion perpetuates inequality, but still is not the cause. There is little to comment on by Nye himself, as he is seemingly absent from his own writing (as usual).

However, one must wonder whether these Marxist writers are "trapped into an ideology that tells them they are free." Truly, as much as communism/Marxism marks itself as an international movement, they fail to recognize that in other nations, it is religion that leads to equalization and revolt. In Buddhist countries, it is often monks who fight back for the lay populace, as their welfare is intimately intertwined with theirs. I think these writers can be used, but within their own context.

9-25-2010

"A caption frames how one should "read" an image, foreclosing certain possibilities and narrowing interpretation as much as possible...Even when words are literally absent in Protestant imagery, textuality is not."

Morgan, David.

C: In this passage, Morgan argues that a caption connected to any visualization is ultimately meant to guide the viewers perceptions; that it allows minimal free-thought, and instead forces the reader to view the object as the creator or commenter would like it to be viewed. Morgan believes that in fundamental Protestantism, the Bible serves as this caption, but is almost a caption to life as a whole.

He uses Anderson's "God's Two Books" perfectly to show this. Although the artist likely is implying that Nature and the Bible are both reflections of God, Morgan argues that the Bible creates a caption to nature and the whole world. In the image of a woman gazing into the woods, the Bible does not allow her to see anything else but the human-form of God. Ultimately, it is the covenant one makes with the image, but this covenant is formed by the provided text.

Q: "...digital technology might somehow dilute the sacredness of a religious message. Is something important lost in the 2005 translation of the entire Bible into SMS, when the first passage in Genesis becomes: 'In da Bginnin God cre8d da heavens & da earth?'"

Wagner, Rachel. "Sacred Texting: When Religious Writ gets Wired." Religion Dispatches. 23 Oct. 2008.

C: In this passage, Wagner questions whether or not modern, electronic adaptations of religious messages can corrupt or dilute the original text or the religion as a whole. She cites the SMS translation of the Bible, which translates the Bible into text-speech, and refers to Tweeting services which send out Biblical passages to those who follow them. Whether or not this corrupts religious texts is not necessarily important to the author, but the implications of changing a text at all is a subject worthy of study when we are analyzing both religions and culture.

Now, to put in my 2 cents on the matter: I think there definitely is a certain degree of corruption that occurs when one tweets a Bible passage, or when one translates the Bible into SMS. However, this corruption does not occur because it is technological, but because by nature it respectively removes the context of the passage, and presents the reader with possible translation errors. When analyzing the Bible, it is important to understand the context in which the text occurs; a tweet removes this, creating an island of text. This sort of "corruption" can occur with a physical Bible, for example, if one is asked ONLY to analyze one passage from the Bible to prove a point, without looking for the context. With SMS translation, we are essentially seeing a copy-of-a-copy; a translation from English, which was derived from Hebrew/Aramaic. So, one must wonder what Bible this SMS was copied from.

Ultimately, these problems with technology are not new, but the medium through which these problems occur is.

Sept. 19, 2010

Q: “Even if we follow [Mullers] advice and read the great/high works of a religious tradition, in so doing we are adding our own interpretations to all the other interpretations that exist on those particular texts. Such a reading is simply a starting point; it cannot be taken as the primary basis for ‘knowing’ or ‘understanding’ the religious tradition.”

Nye, Malory. Religion: the Basics. 2nd Ed. New York: Routledge, 2008.

C: In this passage, Nye proposes a synthesis between textual study and cultural study, arguing that if one were to read religious texts without cultural reference (as Muller proposed), one would simply be interpreting said religion in one’s own perspective, wholly missing both the point of textual study, cultural study, and religious study. He instead proposes that one should study texts, but do so within the context of the practitioner—both modern and ancient.

Ultimately, I think the validity of Malory’s opinion solely rests upon the intention of the scholar—whether they want to study texts for literature or for religious studies. If one is looking to study the almost-pure, untouched text and analyze it as a reader, then Muller makes a good point. However, if one is looking to see how a text affects the modern practitioner, then it is impossible not to study the modern practitioner themselves, and see how they apply and interpret that text.

"A very early image is that of the earth as sacred mother, the source of all living things. The sacred marriage of the divine sky father and earth mother is found in many mythologies [examples are listed]...The sky fertilizes the earth with rain, and the earth produces grains and grass. With the coming of agriculture and close human involvement in cultivation of plants and grains, the earlier symbol of the earth as mother is often overlaid by that of the great goddess..."

Pals, Daniel L. Eight Theories of Religion. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

In this passage, the Pals makes a claim that the notion of the "earth mother" goddess is directly related to humankind's connection to agriculture. He also draws connections between the act of procreation and agriculture, with the masculine sky fertilizing the earth with its water, and the mother earth producing crops. Because of this universality of agriculture, it seems fitting that the earth-mother would like be universal, which Pals does attest to, citing Eliade for this belief.

I am curious to see how this applies to Abrahamic religions, which notably lack this earthy, maternal figure and solely rely upon the notion of the sky god. Eliade does mention that Abrahamic religions forgo nature, and instead embrace history, but he never quite cites why. Although Eliade believes firmly in a definite, firm belief that perhaps defies socio-economic causes. However, I believe that in this case, we cannot deny how agriculture has influenced religion, and this comes through clearly when we consider the difference with Abrahamic religions. After all, in the Pentateuch, the herdsman is glorified over the farmer--after The Fall, it is man's curse to toil in the fields, and it is Cain, the farmer, who does not find favor with the Lord. Etiologically, it seems that most Biblical stories point away from farming, and when we consider the climate and terrain of the ancient Middle Easterner, farming is not practical. Thus, maybe it is the barren, harsh nature of the Middle East that prevented the ancient Jew to believe in a fertile mother goddess, and instead rely upon the more distant, powerful sky god.

Sept. 12, 2010

Q: “‘A religious phenomena,’ [Eliade] insists,

will only be recognized as such if it grasped at its own level, that is to say, if it studied ad something religious. To try to grasp the essence of such a phenomenon by means of physiology, psychology, sociology, economics, linguistics, art, or any other study is false; it misses the one unique and irreducible element in it—the element of the sacred.

Pals, Daniel L. Eight Theories of Religion. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

C:

In this section, the author quotes Eliade directly. Eliade is unique from other religion scholars, in that he did not reduce religion to the factors that influence it—he did not claim that religion is sheerly a matter of economics or politics, but rather something that exists in tandem with these multiple forces.

This perspective also does not reject the feeling of the practitioner; it does not imply that the religious in this world are merely tricked into finding religion because of, say, their social stance. Eliade accounts for authentic experiences and the true intentions of the practitioner, and more importantly believes that these feelings are true. He is not caught up in whether the objective truth of a religion is true, but rather how the subjective truth one finds from said religion is authentically true to that individual.

Challenge: Xena, Warrior Princess

Though I could only deduce little of the plot from clips I found from “The Way,” the references to Hindu lore within the plot were obvious. Gods and avatars are depicted and acted by humans, and fight in epic battle—not all to strange considering the Bhagavad Gita’s epic war. However, the Bhagavad Gita did not make Hanuman look like Chewbacca.

Likewise, Hindu practices such as meditation are portrayed in mystical, exotic, and often negative ways (ie: the Gabriel being tortured in meditation). Even more so, these rituals and the very archetypical sultan “Indrajit” are pitted against Eli, a character who’s Biblical sounding name and Christlike appearance seem to imitate Christ, and thus embody more Western Christianity (a belief I base further upon Indrajit’s calling Gabriel Eli’s “disciple”). Indrajit takes on the metaphorical role of Satan, tempting Eli with promises of glory and wonder. Perhaps we can perceive this as a metaphor for the appeal of Hindu belief, and the evil that some would say lies just beneath its seemingly exotic surface. Created in a time when Eastern religions were growing quickly into white, middle class societies—namely through popular Hare Krishna movements and the New Age movements—this episode seems to be imploring viewers to stay true to their faith, ultimately implying that Hindu beliefs are untrue, or do not fit with reality.

Between that and a God being portrayed as Chewbacca, the Hindu community’s resentment to this episode is understandable.

9/10/2010

[For the record: this was written in a concussed state of mind--if the reader finds that the writing reflects this head injury, please be forgiving of its errors. If it is better than normal, please occasionally beat me in the head]

Q:

Wade Clark Roof...has called this “seeker” or “quester” religiosity, where individuals see themselves to be on a spiritual journey devoted to creating an ideal “self.” This means that religious consciousness is consistent with the overall nature of contemporary life, which Anthony Giddens has suggested is oriented toward the self and self identity. Religion is thus less about belief (in the sense of adhering to a particular creed) than it is about behavior and how specific behaviors are directed toward acquiring ideas, symbols, and resources which one can craft a consciousness unique to oneself.

C:

Essentially, Hoover uses other sociologists to make and emphasize the claim that religion is no longer a matter of culture or society, necessarily, but is now of an increasingly personal nature, in that its center is around how one relates to religion specifically. This fits well with the very nature of our modern world, which also focuses on the self rather than society as a whole—almost an echo of classical American independence.

However, I must wonder where evangelical and more faith-based churches work into this picture—after all, the “super church,” with its massive services, is undeniably community based. I’m also curious to see how churches/religious groups have changed to fit this emerging individualism.

[An unrelated but brief complaint: it bothers me how most of these writers use “self” as the ultimate goal of religion, when Buddhism—an increasingly practiced but misunderstood religion—clearly urges the follower to work towards no-self. A small issue, I suppose, but if we’re going to use ‘God/Gods,’ etc., I kind of wish Buddhists would get a place of respect as well.]

Sept. 6, 2010

Q: We must reconstruct on the evidence of the images themselves the spectrum of messages that were likely to be received by the worshippers who lived with them in vitally interested contemplation on a daily basis throughout their lives. Our job is thus complex and somewhat frightening, protected from guess-work only by an educated eye trained by long and patient looking. Moreover, we must be content with working hypotheses, suggestions, and the description of a range of probable interpretations rather than "proof" for a single meaning identical for all persons who had access to the image.

C:

This quote is a nice change in perspective: it argues that we should try to view religious arts/visualizations within the context of the worshipper; that we must preserve their religious nature. The author admits that this is hard, as religious/anthropological studies can only work with this visual media with their own theories, which can only create a generalized interpretation. In truth, there really is no way to find “a single meaning identical for all persons who had access to the image,” as each person who came in contact with that image was very different.

However, what is refreshing is the way the writer acknowledges that we must try to relate religious iconography back to the religious, and try not to view it from the religious-hermetically sealed position where we often view religion nowadays in our very secular culture. Morgan does a good job of bridging this gap in his chapter, as he uses individual, personal examples and accounts to show a broader perspective, as in having quote by Buddhists about their relation to the image of the Buddha as a way of showing how people relate to iconography.

Sept. 2, 2010

Q: “Arguing against those who subordinated scripture to the effervescent and antinomian dictates of the holy spirit, Calvin insisted on the complete and binding agreement of spirit and scripture. The spirit, he contended, ‘would have us recognize him in his own image, which he has stamped upon the scriptures. He is the Author of the Scriptures: he cannot vary and differ from himself.” ...Is holy writ really free of the cultural interests of its plethora of individual authors and redactors?”

Morgan, David. The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice. Berkley: University of California Press, 2005.

C: Morgan uses this quote from Calvin to show that art has gone almost unnoticed as a means of expressing religious culture due to anti-iconism of Protestants like Calvin. Calvin expresses concerns that one cannot express God/Jesus beyond the teachings offered: that anything else simply creates a false idea that can never sync with the reality of what that spirit is. Morgan claims that this view is archaic, considering that the Bible itself has been changed, edited, translated, added to, and deleted from so many times that it is on level with the picture.

However, Morgan is thinking from a strictly anthropological point of view: he does not care about the religion itself, but how we relate to it. If we look at religion and art in this fashion then yes, Morgan has a point. But if we are to look at religion as something done by practitioners—something to be believed and followed—then what we really see is that perhaps Calvin makes a valid point. A painting of a religious figure or scene is entirely dependent on the imagination of the individual who reads the texts. Thus, when we look at this painting, what we are seeing is not even a copy of a copy, but an interpretation of a copy, which brings us farther from the original text. If we want to see how people interpret religion, then Morgan is correct; if we want to understand the religion itself, as Calvin is saying, then we cannot rely solely on art. Calvin’s quote is essentially being used in the wrong context.