Final Project- The Symbols Of Passover

Basic History- Passover comes from the Jewish tradition of commemorating the Jewish slaves escape from their servitude in Egypt. Moses called for God’s help and he sent ten plagues upon the Egyptians, the last seven were supposed to not affect the slaves at all. They were turning water to blood, frogs, lice, disease that affected livestock, boils, hail, locusts, and the ninth was darkness. When God sent the tenth and final plague on the Egyptians, the death of the firstborn child, all of the Jewish families slaughtered a lamb and spread the blood on their door, thus the Angel of Death would Passover those homes. Passover is also known as the Pesach.

Matzah- when the Jews fled from Egypt, they did not have time to allow their bread to leaven, leaving them with the flat bread known as Matzah. This includes “anything made from the five major grains (wheat, rye, barley, oats and spelt) that has not been completely cooked within 18 minutes after coming into contact with water.” Because of this, no leavened bread is eaten during the duration of Passover, which lasts seven or eight days. The extra day is added in preparation of many things. In case of discrepancies in the interpretation of the Jewish calendar, local calendars compared to the temple at Jerusalem and to allow travelers time to arrive, and in areas of danger, to prevent knowledge on the better day for enemies to attack.

Minor Fast- the first born must partake in a minor fast the day before Passover, which consists from dawn to nightfall in honor of being one of the firstborn spared during the tenth plague. If the firstborn son has not reached his Bar Mitzvah, the Jewish coming of age ceremony, his father observes the fast for him.

Haggadah- This translates to “telling” and is the book that holds the instructions for the Seder. In Hebrew, the book is read from the top right, to the top left and down from right to left. Thus the books’ spine is located on the right and the pages flip that way as well.

Elijah- was a prophet and maricle worker in Israel. Elijah raised the dead, brought fire down from the sky, and ascended into heaven in a chariot.There is always an empty chair left at the table for him during the Passover Seder. He also has his own wine glass and at some part during the meal, the door is open and he is invited to join the Seder.

Candles- in the Jewish tradition, the day begins and ends at sunset. The lighting of the candles symbolizes the change into a new day. They are lighted before the Seder begins and a blessing is recited.

The Seder plate consists of six symbolic foods-

The Zeroa- this is a roasted shank bone that represents the lamb sacrificed on the temple of Jerusalem as a offering to God.

The Beitzah- a hard boiled egg that symbolizes the rebirth of spring.

The Morar- a bitter herb that is a remembrance of the bitterness of slavery. It is dipped in saltwater before being consumed.

Charoset- a combination of dates, apples, nuts, cinnamon, and wine that symbolizes the mortar the slaves of Egypt used in their labors.

Karpas- a green vegetable that is another sign of the coming of spring and hope.

Chazeret- another bitter herb as a reminder that the Jewish ancestors ate matzah with bitter herbs.

Saltwater- this represents the tears shed during the slaves' time in Egypt. The bitter herbs are dipped in the saltwater before being eaten.

Wine-Wine symbolizes the "joy of life." This is drunk four times during the Seder to represent the four promises God made to the Israelites in their freedom from slavery.

1. "I will free you."

2. "I will deliver you."

3. "I will redeem you."

4. "I will take you to be my people."

"I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an out-stretched arm and with great acts of judgment, and I will take you for my people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; I will give it to you for a possession. I am the Lord" (Exodus 6:6-8).

Hand Washing- the hands are washed in preparation for the Seder, as a way of getting ready.

Breaking the Middle Matzah- The leader at the Seder breaks the middle piece of Matzah in half, the larger of the two pieces is set aside as the Afikkoman, which will be explained below. The smaller piece is returned to the table.

Questions- these are traditionally asked by the youngest child present. This symbolizes the need to share the traditions of the Seder with children and many parts of the Seder are directed towards the education of children.

-"Why is this night different from all other nights?"
-"On all other nights, we eat either unleavened or leavened bread, but tonight we eat only -unleavened bread?"
-"On all other nights, we eat all kinds of vegetables, but tonight, we eat only bitter herbs?"
-"On all other nights, we do not dip [our food] even once, but tonight we dip twice?"
-"On all other nights, we eat either sitting or reclining, but tonight we only recline?"

Telling the story- The story of passover is told during this section of the Seder, as a reminder of what God did for their ancestors in Egypt.

The four sons- This section also relates to the importance of the education of the children in relation to the Passover tradition. Four sons, one wise, one wicked, one simple, and one who does not know to ask. They are all given answers to their questions in ways that will benefit them individually.

-The wise son inquires "What is the meaning of the statutes and laws that God has commanded you to do?" He is answered with "You should reply to him the laws of pesach: one may not eat any dessert after the paschal sacrifice."

-The wicked son asks, "What is this service to you?" He is rebuked by the explanation that "It is because God acted for my sake when I left Egypt."

-The simple son, asks, "What is this?" and he is answered with "With a strong hand the Almighty led us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage."

-The son who does not know to ask is told, "It is because of what the Almighty did for me when I left Egypt."

Afikkoman- This is the larger of the two pieces of Matzah broken earlier in the Seder. The piece is traditionally either hid by the parents for the children to find, and when they do, they are usually rewarded with some prize which varies. The children can also hide the Afikkoman for the adults to find. Sometimes it can be stolen during the meal by the children, who then demand a reward for it's return. This tradition is also aimed at keeping the children invested and excited about the Seder.

This is not an entirely comprehensive list of the Passover Seder, there are many repetitions of certain actions, such as hand washing that occurs during the Seder. There are also many other subtleties that can be followed in the Haggadah. There are songs, blessings, and other traditions that happen during the meal, as well as special foods that are traditionally eaten, such as gefilte fish (left) and matzo ball soup (right).

The Religious Side of the Swastika

So, awhile back I blogged about the Baha'i temple in Chicago, and I promised some more information in regards to a picture I took while I was there. That included what looked like a swastika on the side of the temple. Which, if that was true, would be about as opposite to the religious beliefs of the Baha'i as possible. While watching part two of the video presentation that introduces the temple, they explain that there are other religious symbols included in the side of the temple to symbolize their acceptance of everyone. In the picture to the left you can see the Cross that represents Christianity, the Star of David that represents Judaism, and what is called the Hooked Cross, which has been used, according to the video, to represent Hinduism, Buddhism, and some Native America religions. However, the same symbol was used by Nazi Germany. In their case, the hooked cross represented the "Aryan race," while when it is used as a religious symbol, it means good fortune. The way the hooks of the arms face matters, but it is a religious symbol either way. According to a website about the Hindu swastika, "The auspicious symbol of the swastika is very commonly used in Hindu art, architecture and decoration. It can be seen on temples, houses, doorways, clothing, cars, and even cakes. It is usually a major part of the decoration for festivals and special ceremonies like weddings."

"The right-hand swastika is one of the 108 symbols of the god Vishnu as well as a symbol of the sun and of the sun god Surya. The symbol imitates in the rotation of its arms the course taken daily by the sun, which appears in the Northern Hemisphere to pass from east, then south, to west. (It is also a symbol of the sun among Native Americans.)"

"The left-hand swastika (called a sauvastika) usually represents the terrifying goddess Kali, night and magic. However, this form of the swastika is not "evil" and it is the form most commonly used in Buddhism."

Link to the website about the Hindu Swastika

Separation of Church and State

Apparently the phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the United States constitution. It was introduced as a part of the first amendment as "the wall of separation between church and state." One of the first references to this idea is by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, stating "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, [the people, in the 1st Amendment,] declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." "In 1785, Jefferson drafted a bill that was designed to squash an attempt by some to provide taxes for the purpose of furthering religious education. He wrote that such support for religion was counter to a natural right of man:'... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.'"
If the separation of Church and State is apart of our national constitution, then why was such a big deal made about Barack Obama possibly being Muslim? About his having a crazy pastor, Reverend Jeremiah White? Why is "under God" in the pledge of allegiance? Why is "In God We Trust" stamped on all of our coins and dollars? Why do people have to swear on the Bible in court? Why are all political speeches ended with "God bless America?" Why was prayer in school even an option? Religion and "polytricks" cross and conincide often and though politicians may like to assume that there is a separation between the Church and the State, there are many instances that prove otherwise. Actually, the only way that I can think of their separate is through the exemption of places of Worship in paying taxes. A Time magazine from January 1934 states, "Of the $20,000,000,000 worth of U. S. property exempt from taxation, nearly one quarter is owned by churches." If that was the cost back in the 1930's, the numbers must be astronomical now. This suppose separation does not appear consistent or in some cases, even legal.

This is a link to the website where I found the information on the Constitution

Time Article- Religion: Church Taxes

Baha'u'llah and the Processes of a New Religion

To me, the founding of a new religion seems to be a intense process wrought with persecution, prevention, and premature deaths. The new religion needs a founder, a person on whom to base basically everything. This leader needs to be charismatic and persuasive, and in most cases, leads by love instead of fear. In the Baha'i Faith, there was two leaders. The first was called the Bab and he was the precursor to Baha'u'llah, pictured to the left, who then became the head of the new faith. The Bab started the movement and predicted the leadership that Baha'u'llah would eventually produce. To prove the idea of love over fear, there were mentions of suicide in the book at the thought of followers being separated from Baha'u'llah, their leader. The span of the section assigned was over twenty four years, and it was not until near the end of that time that the Babis changed their title to the Baha'is in honor of their leader. It also took Baha'u'llah an extended period of time to announce to his followers that he was "He Whom God shall make manifest," an individual that the Bab had foretold of. The Baha'u'llah's self proclaimed title indicated a change in authority, but not in his actions. Baha'u'llah was always non violent peaceful, choosing to talk with his attackers, assassins, and protesters instead of accepting the protection he was always offered. His ways of peace inspired many of his followers. Baha'u'llah's barber was propositioned by Azal, his half brother, to kill Baha'u'llah and the barber almost killed Azal on the spot, but instead restrained himself because he knew Baha'u'llah would ask him why he had done it and he did not have a good enough reason. Baha'u'llah and his family were continuously forced to move locations, basically being asked to go into exile. In every place he went, Baha'u'llah influenced a large gathering of those interested in the Babis/ Baha'is faith, inspiring intense loyalty and dedication until the group was deemed to large and dangerous to be allowed to remain. The leader is a figure that the followers are desperate to learn from and imitate. Without a leader to cling to, new groups would be impossible. The fierce love and devotion shown to Baha'u'llah allowed for him to help benevolently control and inspire the Babis/ Baha'is faith. The continuous process of motivation, defense, and movement that Baha'u'llah, his family and followers went through shows that instigating a new religion involves dedication, immense effort, a charismatic leader or two, as well as bloodshed.

Rastafari Art

While reading the final chapters of Rastafari, the idea of the artwork of the Jamaican Rastas interested me. I was of course aware of the cultural effects that reggae has had on the Rastafari faith, as well as the rest of the world, but I was unaware of the important artistic works of the era. These were and still are important works, however, they are not as well known as the music of Bob Marley, at least to me. My initial thought for this blog was to show some of the art mentioned in the book, however, most of the works I researched are not easily accessible online. To the left is a sculpture by Edna Manley, entitled Negro Aroused was one of the only pieces of artwork mentioned in the book I could find. I am curious as to why the pieces of art are not visible on a common search engine, such as google. I am lead to dead ends in google books that have a brief reference to the works, as our textbook has. Other famous pieces of art appear; the Mona Lisa is plastered all over the Internet. The book explains that there are "dreadlocksed Jesus" and "black madonnas," indicating that cultural divides are breached when it comes to Rasta artwork. There are many non-Rastafarian artists who borrow images and symbols from the Rastafari culture to use in their work. A black madonna, by the way, is also called the Black Virgin and is the virgin Mary depicted as a black women. Why are these works that were heavily praised and deemed important in the book not available for others to enjoy, appreciate, and learn from?

The website of the National Gallery of Jamaica

Rastafari Symbols from the Video

Some of the symbols and traditions I caught from the video include the specific times of prayer the Boboshanti branch of the Rastafari faith observe are 3 am, 9am, and 3pm, and I am not sure of the significance of these times, but the individuals on the video expressed how religious (ha!) they were about the timing of these prayers. The colors red, yellow, green, and black were prevalent through, mainly on the homes. The people where clothed in red, with red turbans over dreadlocks. The signs around the village had bible teachings and encouragement for equality. They had black over white, and r over x. Both R and black represented righteousness while white and x were evil and wrong. They always made sure the "fire of life" was lit at the top of the mountain, as close to God as they could be. The people observed the Sabbath. The creators of the video had a similar design as is seen on the back of Bob Marley's "Exodus" cd cover, seen to the left. A verseion of the lion from the video, with the flag, or simiar object with the green, yellow, and red coloration is shown above.

The differences between the imagery of the Rastafari people I get when I listen to Marley and the actual images of the Boboshanti people involve basic ways of life. To the Boboshanti, the turbans are important, but to the sect that Marley believes in, the visible dreadlocks are more important. I had never really considered that there are sects that might live in shacks or may not have clean running water or that their livelihood comes at least partly from creating brooms. Marley's music makes me think more about a civilized nation that is working for more rights and equality. Maybe more along the lines of a middle class, especially with the popularity of Bob Marley? The views of the lifestyle, at least in comparison to the lifestyles I imagined, was the biggest difference, but now that I have more insight through the video, I understand that there are diverse sects of Rastafari who live differently.

here is a link to the website of the people who made the video

Bob Marley

So, after starting the reading about the Rastafarian ideals, I immediately thought of Bob Marley, and he is even quoted in our textbook. I'm a big fan of reggae, and he and the Wailers are masters and are the face of reggae. It is really hard to chose a song to show here, but I decided on "Exodus,"so here is a video and the lyrics via links-

Sorry, the ability to embed this video was removed, but here is the link to a video of Bob Marley performing "Exodus" live.

Here is a link to a page that has the lyrics to "Exodus"

and just for fun, this a link to Bob Marley's website.

Exodus relates to many of the topics we have been studying, from the original flight out of Egypt, to the pilgrimages to Jerusalem as expressed through the Psalms, to the latest movement from Israel to Ethiopia. Bob Marley sings, "We're leaving Babylon, We're going to our Father land." Depending on who is relating to this, it could mean a multitude of pilgrimages.

From his website, "Bob's story is that of an archetype, which is why it continues to have such a powerful and ever-growing resonance: it embodies political repression, metaphysical and artistic insights, gangland warfare and various periods of mystical wilderness. And his audience continues to widen: to westerners Bob's apocalyptic truths prove inspirational and life-changing; in the Third World his impact goes much further. Not just among Jamaicans, but also the Hopi Indians of New Mexico and the Maoris of New Zealand, in Indonesia and India, and especially in those parts of West Africa from wihch slaves were plucked and taken to the New World, Bob is seen as a redeemer figure returning to lead this."

Bob Marley is not afraid to discuss unsafe topics for modern music. "When you need to refer to a certain situation or crisis, there will always be a Bob Marley song that will relate to it. Bob was a musical prophet." claimed Judy Mowatt of the I-Threes, also found on his website.

If you have never listened to any of his music, you probably should. It is powerful and poignant.

Ethiopia

This version of the story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba dwells mainly on the importance of wisdom. The importance that Ethiopia has is eventually expressed near the end of the story. The light that moved from Israel to Ethiopia could signify a multitude of things. Israel has always been considered the promise land and the Israelites were God's chosen people. The light maintained its position over Israel for a time to represent that idea, however, the light then moved to Ethiopia and stayed there, shining brighter "for it willed to dwell there." Ethiopia, in this reading, appears to be the new chosen place, the new promise land for the followers of God.

This idea is suprising to me because I had never even considered Ethiopia to be a strong religious power. I was unaware that it was a Christian state. This story counters that ignorance quite strongly, the vision that Solomon received was, to him, apparently directly from God. The sun followed the light of God, or was perhaps instructed by God to no longer shine on Israel. The story shows that the Israelites hated the Sun for ignoring them and this hatred permanently ruined their relationship with the Sun, which is a representation for the light of God. The Sun ends up illuminating the whole world, besides Israel. This does not really make any sense.

The light of God, without warning, decides that Ethiopia is more worthy than Israel and leaves that state forever. It does not explain what Israel nor what Ethiopia did to deserve their respective kinds of treatment. There had to be a distinct reason for God to completely and utterly abandon his chosen people. He basically indicated that his intention was to leave Israel forever. Does God mean the land, the people, their way of life, or a combination of all of them is upsetting him enough to move his light and love to Ethiopia? The fact that it was a dream and Solomon was more concerned with how beautiful the Queen of Sheba was in some ways undermines this apparent warning. Or is it a warning? If the Israelites change something will they not be banished forever into darkness? Or is this event inevitable? There was no timeline given for this light exodus either.

Conceptual Blending and Analogy

I was wondering while reading this article about the "obvious dissimilarity that enhances the learning efficiency," in relation to holding the champagne glasses while skiing and how, if at all, this could connect to religion. Maybe because religion itself is such an intangible thing that humans are trying to connect to in a tangible world. If there were more aspects of religion that were not based off of faith, would it be such a powerful force? Maybe because there can be no absolute proof to any religion or lack there of, it makes the reasons to believe in faith stronger, in a skewed version of reverse psychology.

Also the idea of the mirror network was interesting to me, "because the same organizing frame is common to all spaces in the network" which continues on to discuss the connection of blending. I think this could also fit into religion. If the "network" can be considered to be all religious and spiritual people, then there is a similar organizing frame that most of them can be categorized into. There are many different religions in the world, however, many aspects of them are "blended" and have many basic ideas in common. To put this into a perspective in relation to how I am thinking about this, imagine all the religions of the world in a huge ven diagram, with each religion having its own circle for its own specific conditions, yet sharing parts with its neighbors and ultimately, every other religion in the world. Just as a side note- I did just try to google a religious ven diagram and apparently they actually exist. Not to the extend I was hoping for, since most of the ones that showed up involved religion in comparison to politics and stupidity.

Cognitive Linguistics By Dirk Geeraerts

This is a book I found on google books that talks about mirror networks more in depth with the same conceits. The information starts on page 341 if the link does not go there directly.
Here is a link to the religion ven diagram.
I figured I would put it as a link in case it offends anyone.

"Warlocks are Enemies of God"

For this week, I was thinking about the movie "Jesus Camp" and though I have not seen it, I thought I would take a look at some parts of it online. This is what I found.

This is an interesting video debate that mentions "Jesus Camp" and does some comparisons between religions. For me, the most poignant part is about 8:15 seconds into it.



Reza Aslan, who is a middle east analysis for CBS news, is saying that religion does not create bigots or misogynists, people are just bigots and misogynists. "religion it is a powerful language through which you can justify any ideology." I think this point is dead on. People use religion as an excuse for many things, war being one of the most extreme.

Also, here is the trailer for "Jesus Camp," which to me, personally, looks like one of the scariest movies ever made.



Here is another "Jesus Camp" video that denounces Harry Potter. Sorry for all the videos, but this is pretty intense. According to the leader of the "Jesus Camp, "Harry Potter would have been put to death in the old testament.



There were plenty of other videos on "Jesus Camp" and I eventually want to watch the entire movie. There are some scenes shown in clips where the children speak in tongues while praying to God. Kids are lying on the floor in what looks like a seizure. They pray to a cardboard cut out of George Bush. A five year old was saved because he wanted more out of his life. A FIVE year old. They destory mugs with "government" written on them. They denounce evolution. They are being trained to "be God's army." Has anyone actually seen the movie?

Here is a link to the movie's website
Article review of Jesus Camp
This is an interesting article, first of all because it comes from RichardDawkins.net, and secondly, because a lot of people posted responses to the article.

On Christain Teaching in Relation to the Pslams

The part of Saint Augustine's On Christian Teaching that immediately caught my attention was the lines "but no one disputes that it is much more pleasant to learn lessons presented through imagery, and much more rewarding to discover meanings that are won only with difficulty." This reminded me of the Psalms because the ones that were most interesting to discuss involved intense descriptions of God coming down from the heavens basically breathing fire or God giving the speaker enough strength to utterly destroy his enemies. Imagery does make the Psalms more intriguing, which in turns makes them more exciting to analyze. The second part of the quote indicates that the message is much more likely to stay with the reader when it has to be deciphered. Here the Psalms varied. Some were more straight forward, but does that then mean that they are less important and less time should be spent reading over them? Some Psalms involved understanding historical meanings and certain rituals relating to the time period. Understanding the background helped to appreciate the meaning more fully. Not only through how the Psalms can be interpreted on a personal level now, but how they might have been viewed in the time that they were written can combine to offer a meaning "won only with difficulty."

Also the question of translators comes up in Saint Augustine's On Christian Teaching, which I found to be another connection to the Psalms. Since they were written in ancient Hebrew, there are some open ended lines that may have been interpreted maybe not wrongly, but maybe not entirely correctly either. This is an interesting concept. These Psalms have been around for hundreds of years, yet, some religions may be instructing their members on Psalms that have been translated in a different way than their original intention. This brings up the question of if there was a mistake, whether it is better to not know that the translation was wrong and continue to teach the wrong message from the perspective of the original author, or is it alright to accept this varied view?

Saved!

Has anyone seen the movie Saved!?



I am not sure how well this trailer portrays the actual movie plot line, so here is what IMDB has to say:
"Mary is a good Christian girl who goes to a good Christian high school where she has good Christian friends, mainly Hilary Faye, and a perfect Christian boyfriend, Dean. Her life seems perfect, until the day that she finds out that Dean may be gay. After "seeing" a vision of Jesus in a pool, she does everything in her power to help him turn straight, including offering up her virginity. But none of it helps because Dean's caught and sent to a "degayification" center and Mary ends up pregnant. It's during her time of need that she becomes real friends with the school's set of "misfits," including Cassandra, the school's only Jewish girl; Roland, Hilary Faye's wheelchair-bound brother, and Patrick, the skateboarder son of the school's principal, Pastor Skip; whilst Hilary Faye turns her into a social outcast."

I was thinking about Happy Feet and how religion is portrayed in the movies and immediately thought of this movie. It is a satire of the Christian faith. The media has a lot to do with the characterization of certain religions, from newspapers and magazines to movies and books. Many people are solely exposed to some religions from the news and other decently unreliable sources. Religions are associated with things heard about in the news. People react differently to different depictions. I am sure there are some Christians who find Saved! absolutely hilarious while others are probably horribly offended. The way religions are shown in the media ranges from mocking and degradation to support and necessity. It is interesting to think about how people respond to watching others' religions mocked and how they react when the motives of their own religion is questioned.

Here is a movie review from the L.A. Times

Psalm 18

I find this image of God quite intimidating. The speaker shares how God helped him defeat his enemies in two ways. First God came down riding a cherub and was basically on fire, both of which are interesting things to think about. I do not really know why God would have wanted or needed to ride a cherub (pictured to the left) but the speaker claims he did. Also, I am not sure when heaven and hell comes into play with these psalms, but the description given to God seems much more like something related to the fiery pits of hell and the devil than the pearly white gates of heaven. God then destroys the enemies but not really because the speaker has to do that later in the psalm. Apparently they were not as pious as the speaker who at great length describes how blameless he is before God, which gives him the right to call on God's help for this fight. So after God saved the speaker from "drowning" by throwing lightning bolts, he gives the speaker enough strength to go back and crush his enemies without the use of God's arrows. Even though the enemies cried out for God's protection, he ignored them and continued to supply the speaker with the ability to kill them. This is a conflicting point of view and it gets tricky to question this matter, let alone explain it, but it does not make sense that God would be so adamant about helping this one man destroy many, even though he was pious. Here is where it gets confusing. If there is only one God, and the many different religions with different beliefs end up all praying to the same higher power, then God would not be able to help them destroy each other because they all worship the same higher power and are all pious in their own right. This then throws into question if there is only one higher power or that the Jewish God is different from the Christian God who is different from the higher power from all other religions. It is incredibly scary to think of God assisting someone in battle, especially sense in this situation it was one man against many.

(Disclaimer- I'm sorry to bring this up and I do not know too much about it and if I am wrong please correct me and I of course do not condone any terrorist actions but I do think this is a valid point.) The terrorists that were responsible for the 9/11 attacks were under the distinct impression that God was on their side and was supporting them in their actions. "The majority of terrorist attacks have been committed by groups claiming to act on the basis of religious motivation"(Burns). On the flip side, I am sure that some of the innocent people who died that day were devout individuals who believed in God. So who was in the right if both sides believed that they had the support their God? Religion has been the cause of many violent acts, which always seems contradictory, but again, if two religious groups of people with the belief that God is on their side, especially with the way God fights in Psalm 18, what is the outcome going to be like?

Work Cited:
Burns, Charlene. "Terrorists base motivation on beliefs Religious, political commitments are powerful allegiances." The Spectator. 2009. 21 Apr. 2009 .

For this week's blog, I entered "Religion" into Google and found a website that has the basic views of forty different religions. The first one on the list is on the Bah

à'i Faith. This is how it was described:

"We desire but the good of the world and happiness of the nations....That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled... Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the "Most Great Peace" shall come.... These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as one kindred and one family.... Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind." Baha'u'llah, (1890)

I actually was able to see and walk around inside the Bahà'i temple near Chicago over fall term reading period. We were not allowed to take pictures of the inside, but here are some of the pictures from the outside. It was absolutely gorgeous. There was an elaborate walkway up to the entrance and there were pamphlets offered in many different languages in the enterance. The outside was very intricately designed. What I did not understand was that one of the symbols on the side of the Temple had what looked like a modified Star of David interlocked with what appears to be a Nazi Swastica. This is shown in the picture below. I looked up what symbol represents the Bahai faith and it is a nine pointed star, which does not really correspond to the symbols seen on the temple itself. I do not really know what to make of that, but I will try to do some more reasearch to try and decipher the meanings. There are only eight Bahai temples in the entire world, so having one in Chicago is amazingly special, not to mention acessible!

Religious Tolerance Website
The Bahai Temple in Chicago's Website

Psalm 2

What has struck me most about all of the Psalms in general, not just Psalm 2, is the fear these authors have in God. "Rejoice in Him with fear" is a line from Psalm 2 in the Bay Psalm Book and that seems a little bit counter intuitive. "Rejoice" gives the impression of a happy celebration, of thankfulness and joy in Him. "With fear" contradicts these first emotions with different ones entirely. Also, the line "...in his ire, and wrath..." gives the image of an intimidating God that is prone to violence and vengeance. The last line of the Psalm reiterates the idea of an angry God by again referring to His wrath. Personally, I remember a different God growing up. One that was benevolent and merciful, that loves everyone and everything is a part of His plan and He only wants the best for everyone. This is one huge paradox. An all powerful being that created you and everything around you and has complete control over everything is pretty intimidating. Give that being a temper and we have a potential Apocalypse to worry about. Oh, yeah. We did have a complete annihilation. The flood.
If I had grown up with the idea that God was wrathful and went around crushing people with rods, as psalm 2 suggests, as those in early America probably did, I am assuming I would have very different Religious views now. Since this Psalm was in the first book ever printed in America, this view of God was common as well as expected. The changing view of God seems, to me, to make this Psalm less valid and meaningful in the modern world. The Psalm is important in a historical interpretation, but for actual spiritual guidance, I feel like it is lacking relevance to the current times. This point about religion, at least as far as I am aware, is a constantly changing one. The idea of an angry God has dissipated and the idea of a merciful God has taken its place.

Elizabeth Smart and the Separation of Church and State

I am a few chapters into Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, the scariest book I have ever read, and though I intend to blog about it when I am further in, it has brought up many interesting things to think about. My first reaction to the stories of the members of LDS, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints was to be appalled, shocked, and disgusted at these men who marry multiple women, girls actually. They pull thirteen year old girls out of school and force them to marry men who are many times older then them. Well, maybe force is not the right word. These girls have grown up in a culture that considers this act an honor while my culture calls it rape. Many of these girls are pregnant before their fourteenth birthday, as their job in the community is to produce more members for the sect. They call it a way of life, I considered it brainwash.
The case of Elizabeth Smart is an example of this. A fourteen year old girl was kidnapped from her home by a man named Brian David Mitchell. He was convinced that his name was actually Immanuel David Isaiah "and he had been placed on earth to serve as a mouthpiece for the Lord during the Last Days" (Krakauer). He ended up doing some yard work for the Smarts and decided that "God intended [Elizabeth] to be his polygamous wife" (Krakauer). He kidnapped Elizabeth and unbenounced to him, her little sister was awake. Mitchell lead her at knife point a few miles away where his other wife Barzee and him performed a twisted ceremony to bind Elizabeth to him in a polygamous marriage. Then he raped her to consummate it.
The search parties were always within ear shot of the hiding places Elizabeth was kept for two months.
"Using his gift for fundamentalist rhetoric and adroitly manipulating the religious indoctrination Elizabeth had received since she was old enough to talk, Mitchell cowed the girl into becoming an utterly submissive polygamous concubine" (Krakauer) Charles Manson style. Because of Elizabeth's Mormon background, as "she was raised to obey figures of Mormon authority unquestioningly, and to believe that LDS doctrine is the law of God, she would have been particularly susceptible to the dexterous fundamentalist spin Mitchell applied to familiar Mormon scripture" (Krakauer). Mitchell utilized and manipulated the words of Joesph Smith, the prophet and starter of the Mormon faith, to submitting to his "carnal demands" (Krakauer). He became psychologically in control of her and was able to bring her into public or leave her alone without fear that she would run away or even make her presence known. She was missing for nine months and the case was brought up again when Mitchell tried to kidnap another young girl, one of Elizabeth's fifteen year old cousins and failed. At this point, Elizabeth's sister was finally able to express who the kidnapper was and Mitchell was eventually found. When she was questioned directly, Elizabeth denied being who she was, claiming she was eighteen and that Mitchell was his father. Finally, she relented and acknowledged that she was Elizabeth Smart, the kidnapped girl who was missing for nine months. While being tried, Mitchell argued that he was innocent because "forcing a fourteen-year-old girl into polygamous bondage was not a criminal act because it was a 'call from God' "(Krakauer).

I go back and forth about the morals of this predicament. I still believe the situation was wrong, creepy, and disgusting, (by the way, Mitchell was forty nine years old) but who am I to judge this religious tradition? But then again, this was definitely illegal and to me, morally wrong and disturbing. It was detrimental to a young girl's psychological well being and I cannot even imagine myself in her predicament. I would like to think that I would never accept my kidnapper, as Elizabeth did, but I did not have a Mormon upbringing. Does government reign over religion? Or is one's belief in God the most prominent rules and regulations in one's life? Some might argue that God, a benevolent and understanding God, would never want something like this to happen, but then again, there is no way to know God's will, in this situation or any. Where does religion trump the government? There is a supposed separation of church and state, but when does the state step in because the church is participating in actions considered illegal by the government?

Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven. New York: Anchor Books, 2004.

Interview with the family about Elizabeth's return
Another article from when she was found
Apparently a movie was made about the kidnapping, here is a link to IMDB
and there are many books written specifically about the kidnapping.

Geertz's Definition of Religion in Relation to Effigy

Geertz's definition of Religion, as a reminder, "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."

The system of symbols in this case is elaborate, huge- tall and long-, and extensive. The effigy mounds "on a more spiritual level, the rituals that attended the construction of the mounds joined the concepts of birth, death, and the symbolic renewal of the world" (Birmingham). The basic symbols of the mounds can be divided into three separate categories, the upperworld and the lowerworld, which can again be separated into two categories: Earth and Water. Each branch has in turn different symbolic representations of that "division of the universe" (Birmingham).

The upperworld is represented by mainly bird shapes, which also are usually at the highest levels of mound elevation. The height of the mounds decrease as the divisions increase, the lowerworld of earth's main shape is the bear, however, there are other animals that reperesnt this level. There is also the beaver, buffalo, canine, deer, and turtle. This section is mostly represented by animals with antlers or canine teeth. The water part of the lowerworld is made up of panther like creatures that are symbolic representations of the water spirits. This level is the lowest in elevation and is usuall located nearer to water.

In relation to Geertz's definition of religion, the individuals who build the effigy mounds could have their meticulous mounds considered as a religion. There is a system of symbols, as expressed by the elaborate seperation of the upper and lower worlds. This definetly forms powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods, as these mounds are often the careful locations that the native americans buried their dead with great ceremony and specific traditions. The order of exsistance again comes from the seperation of the worlds, from the benevolent bird figures to the malevolent water spirits. The specifics of the ceremonies indicates mood and motivation. To them during their time period, this was an incredibly realistic tradition and way of life, to us in the modern times, this was an incredibly unique tradtion and way of life.


Work Cited-
Birmingham, Robert A., and Leslie E. Eisenberg. Indian Mounds of Wisconsin. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2000.

Jim Gaffigan- Christmas and Easter

This is a video in response to the George Carlin video Jacklyn posted. She mentions that Carlin touches on a lot of facets of religion that do not make much sense, but Carlin left out berating the commercial aspects of religion. Here is a Jim Gaffigan video that does just that. The first two minutes are the important ones, when he discusses the traditions of Christmas and Easter, however, he makes good points about other holidays that started as religious celebrations but have incredibly limited connection to them anymore.
For example, the history of Halloween dates back to Celtic festivals. As History.com states the "Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth." This has nothing to do with candy, yet, modern day Halloween traditions remain. Enjoy, Jim Gaffigan is hilarious!

Parents and Religion

I have been curious for a long time about how parental influence affects children’s religious views. Religions are cultural, religions are social, religions are personal, but religions are also subjectively imposed. Children are malleable and are integrated into their family’s religious traditions at a young age. I do not believe that this is necessarily fair or ethically right. Parents are selecting children’s religions before the children are old enough to understand what religion is and religion is one of the most personal parts of a person. A baby baptized has no say in whether they would like to be bathed in holy water and have their life dedicated to Christ. The same thing is similar for most religions. For example, a Jewish Bar or Bat Mitzvah comes at the young age of thirteen where the parental, social, and cultural pressures often leaves the child no choice but to participate.

Most children are not exposed to other religions until they are older, and usually not by their parents or religious leaders. Even then there are the unknown aspects of the new religion and sometimes more obscure or religions that are not as commonly found in certain areas are harder to find, learn about and experience. The same routine and traditions utilized by the congregation the children have known for many years can leave a child no other option but the one their parents originally chose for them. Some religions ostracize others, leaving no room for the exploration of different religions without the risk of disapproval or in extreme cases, exclusion. Parents often decide a child’s religion for them unless the child has the opportunity to discover a religion they feel more connected to.

The Primary Element of Religion

“...Religion originated in an innate desire to explain the world.” (Palaeolithic). Taken out of context, this sentence appears to be a valid option for the primary element of religion. Though according to Jean Clottes and David Lewis-Williams in their article Paleolithic Art and Religion, there is more to religion than this. The way religion has transgressed from symbolic cave paintings to religious leaders maintaining their own cities makes it difficult for those of us who have grown up surrounded by religion, its ideas and practices, to think back to the beginning of this thousand of years old tradition. I view religion in the way I was brought up, in the services I attended growing up, and the decisions I made when I realized what religion suited me and my beliefs. I have biased opinions intergraded into me by my environment and culture during this time period. The modern views of religion do not always correspond with those from years past.

The importance of symbols in Religion is not enough to be considered the primary element. Each religion has a symbol that represents them, though the symbols are depictions of other things that must have come first, ruling out a symbol initiating everything in the first place. For example, the symbol that represents Christianity is a cross, but the cross did not start Christianity. The same is true for the Jewish Star of David.

Symbols inevitably lead to art, as the symbols become more elaborate, intricate, and complex, but artwork is a purely human tendency based off of other things, be it objects or ideas. Artwork does not seem to be the primary element of religion either. The article mentions that “belief in a supernatural world to which the dead go can be safely assumed” (Palaeolithic) and if this is true, then the supernatural world just be an explanation of what happens after death. Again, the idea that religion was based off “universal human traits, such as a desire to explain natural phenomena” (Palaeolithic) indicates the primary element of religion is a removal of the unknown. This in turn is somewhat ironic, as religion cannot be proven or confirmed. The answers to the unknown come from the epitome of the unidentified in the form of a higher power. That is why they call it “Faith.”