"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.