Week 10

One pattern I noticed from the beginning came from the portion of Geertz's definition about religion being comprised of a system of symbols. Symbols were prevalent throughout all of the works we studied.
The symbols found in the cave paintings and the Indian Mounds are somewhat ambiguous to modern observers . It is unclear what they represent or, in the case of the paintings, if they are religiously significant at all. We can't know from looking at the symbols what the religion was really all about. I think this illustrates how sometimes symbols that are important to a religious group might not be understood by outsiders. Even if someone knows that something is religiously symbolic, they cannot necessarily surmise any concrete information about the religion from it. Symbols in a religion often have a deeper meaning than can be completely understood by an outsider.
Religious texts themselves can be, in a way, symbols. Sacred texts hold a great significance in many religions. The Bible in Christianity. The Torah and various Hebrew texts in Judaism, the Qur'an in Islam, etc. We studied the significance of the Kebra Negast in Ethiopia. These texts hold a great deal of meaning to people who practice the religions and could be considered symbolic in many ways.
Symbols can function within and outside of the religion as well. Some do both. For example, the cross and crucifix symbolize Christianity to people in general. However, similar to the mounds or the cave paintings, while to outsiders, a cross simply means "Christianity," within the religion, it symbolizes specific things (i.e. Christ's death and resurrection). In Rastafari, things such as dreadlocks are representational of the religion to those of us who do not practice it. To people who do, they do not necessarily represent the religion as a whole, but certain aspects of it.
Symbols are prevalent in all religions and are important, but they represent different things to different people, especially when the distinction is made between an "outsider" and an "insider" of the religion.

Jane Addams

The work Jane Addams did could, arguably, be associated with religion simply due to its nature. Much charity work is connected to religion. Most religious groups have some sort of underlying principle of doing good for others, helping the poor, etc.
Jane Addams was raised a Quaker and her upbringing presumably had an effect on her world-view. She did, apparently, turn away from the Quaker tradition later in life. However, it seems that other experiences in her life had more of an effect than her religion. It appears that she was more strongly affected by the poverty she witnessed: at home as a child and later in Europe.
She does discuss the nature of the early Christian church as being non-resistant and sort of "all loving," so to speak. The ideals of embodying Christ through service to others was prevalent in the early church. Addams mentions that there seemed to be a rebirth of these ideals in America at the time she was writing. She mentions the religious and spiritual force behind the Settlement movement, but also seems to feel that the movement is not strictly or exclusively religious.

Haile Selassie did not consider himself a god, yet the people who would become known as the Rastafarians see him as one. Despite the fact that he never said he was a deity, a whole religion and way of life were built upon the belief that he was. His coronation occurred along with several movements (i.e. Garveyism) and cultural conditions that influenced the rise of this belief. As we discussed in class, the belief that Selassie was indeed a god was rather a "perception of convenience." A group of people needed something to believe in and to hang onto and Selassie's coronation presented them with the opportunity.
Selassie himself did not explicitly state that he was a god but also did nothing to dissuade them. He believed he was descended from Solomon, after all, so he did believe he was something special. He did not mind being a symbol for the Rastafari people. Even though he never agreed outright that he was a god, his attitude combined with the social, cultural, and political conditions of the time helped to create the "aura of factuality" needed for people to accept that he was a deity.

Rastafari Video

Many aspects of the video seemed to agree with what we've learned about Rastafari so far. The parts about back to Africa movements as well as fighting oppression were fitting with what we've talked about in class. A lot of what the people interviewed talked about involved fighting oppression and having their culture come out on top. This is consistent with the fighting against "Babylon" we read and talked about. They seemed very proud of their culture and their way of life. They seemed particularly proud of their spirituality and the way they pray. The idea of Rastafari as a way of life was very apparent from the video. The way they lived seemed very much centered around the Rastafari tradition and culture. From what I understand, they do not like to be told what to do and I definitely got that sense from the video.

Week 7, Blog 2

I thought that the historical and cultural conditions behind the emergence of Rastafari were interesting. There were so many different movements that influenced Rastafari. It was heavily influenced by back to Africa movements (i.e. Marcus Garvey). It was because of movements such as Garveyism and Ethiopianism that the crowning of Haile Selassie became significant among certain groups of Jamaicans. It was actually a rather complex combination of elements that led to the emergence of Rastafari.
Geertz's definition of religion talks about the element of "an aura of factuality." Early proponents of Rastafari were able to achieve this through the usage of various biblical passages that backed up their ideas. The various socio-cultural movements going on at the time served a similar purpose in helping give the movement power.
It seems that for a religious movement to gain strength many things have to come together at the right time.

Week 7

It was especially interesting how the writers of the Kebra Negast took a story from the Bible and filled in some holes to weave Ethiopia further into the story. The Queen's role was carefully filled in. I am not entirely sure where this story differs from the Bible, but presumably, the writers of the Kebra Negast answered questions raised by ambiguous portions of the actual Bible story.
The intention was obviously to make Ethiopia look good. Solomon is a well known and respected Biblical figure and tying themselves to him was a way to do this. It is interesting, though, how the queen and Solomon had to behave in less than admirable ways in order to make this connection. However, the writers were careful to make Solomon more of a "bad guy" than queen Sheba, which, given their purpose, makes sense.

Picture

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/414062482_05e37724e5_m.jpg

The image of Jesus shown on these cups is quite well known. It can be found in many, many churches all over. While no one really knows what Jesus looked like, the man portrayed in this image is a well known representation of him. I first find it interesting that this particular image is so representative of Jesus in the Christian church when we do not actually know what he looked like. The symbol is so strong that when we look at an image of this man, we think that he is Jesus. It is interesting how this symbol has become such a strong representation of Christianity when it is probably not even an accurate representation of how Jesus looked.
Also, in this photograph, the image has become extremely commercialized. The image of Jesus is a sacred symbol in the Christian church. It is amazing how it has permeated our culture enough to appear in mass quantities on what appears to be some sort of container. (Maybe a candle holder?) The fact that you can go to the grocery store and buy a religious symbol seems to indicate that the symbol has become part of life, even for people who do not observe the religion. This could be caused by the religion, the culture, or both. Religions might put their symbols in the world through their worship or in hopes of influencing others. In a culture, especially one as commercial and material as ours, selling religious symbols is a way to make money. Something that began as a symbol of something greater and more spiritual can quickly become less meaningful.

Week 6

I think it is interesting how Augustine talks about all of the scripture interpreting itself and how you should use clearer more concrete passages to interpret the more ambiguous ones. It is quite an ingenious concept in terms of defending scripture. Augustine could use this concept to defend many parts of the Bible that are said to be unclear or contradictory. He basically says that when parts conflict, the clearer part is true and can be used to somehow explain the less clear part. The concept of looking at the Bible as a whole unit is much different than what we did with the psalms. Augustine looks at the Bible as a unit that can be used to explain itself, which is interesting. Today, many Christian scholars write whole books commenting on the Bible and their interpretations of it, which is quite different from Augustine's approach. Augustine would probably disapprove of these sorts of books, stating that the Bible alone is enough to understand God's word and that some parts are difficult/complicated for a reason.

Week 5

I thought that Augustine's comments about language were interesting in terms of thinking about the psalms. One thing that intrigued me about our reading of the psalms was how different the translation was from the others I have seen. I think when looking at any religious text that has been translated from its original language, it is important to realize that parts of the meaning can be lost. Augustine points out that in many languages, some words do not directly translate to other languages. While main ideas can be translated, slight implications or connotations can be lost. Unfortunately, sometimes these underlying meanings are important to gaining understanding of the scripture. If the wording in the original language is ambiguous, it becomes even more difficult to get an accurate translation. The psalms are very poetic so it seems that they would be prone to ambiguous language and translation. I think it is important to keep this in mind when reading the psalms. The meaning we are getting from them might be quite different from the meaning the readers would get when reading it in the original Hebrew.

Psalm 128

My first reaction to this Psalm is that it is really pretty. It is very simple and is almost like a "recipe" for happiness. I found the first line interesting right away, that those who fear the Lord and walk in his ways are happy. The idea that fearing God is necessary is interesting. Obviously obeying him is considered necessary for gaining God's favor but to think about it as giving happiness is a slightly different angle. And being fearful of God causing happiness is not something I had thought of before. Enjoying the fruits of your labor, having a family and a home, all of these are, according to the writer of the psalm, things that will make you happy. It reminded me of the part of Geertz's definition that refers to the order of existence. Not only does having a religion (following God, in this case) give an explanation for the world, it makes you happy. If you do what God wants, you will live a happy and peaceful life. If you don't, presumably, bad things will happen to you. This psalm seems to be one of the more instructive of the psalms, a "do this and God will love you and give you blessings" sort of poem. Even the second half, which is the speaker praying for blessings to be given to someone else, seems dependent on the first part.

Week 4, Blog 1

Psalm 92 says in the second verse that it is "good to acclaim the Lord." Many of the psalms of praise urge the reader to shout,sing, etc. to God (e.g. Psalms 66, 96, 98). Worshiping God and giving him glory seem to be expected of the people who read the psalms. This expectation could be considered an ethical guideline.
In general, the psalms do not give specific ethical guidelines. Some do seem to refer to rewards and punishments for obeying or not obeying some sort of moral code. What this moral code actually is, however, is not really specified in the psalms. The guideline of giving glory to God isn't terribly hard to follow, provided one believes in his existence. However, the hints of God condemning those who do not obey him, whether here or in the afterlife (e.g. Psalms 2, 5, 28) might be rather hard for people to accept.
Other parts of the ancient Hebrew texts include many very detailed laws. These are not described in the Psalms but the original readers of them would most likely have been familiar with them. They would have taken the threats of condemnation to be in terms of breaking these laws.
The commands to be worshipful of and thankful to God seem to be part of what we consider to be Christian ethics. However, most ethical commands relating to killing, stealing, etc. are relatively absent from the psalms.

Week 3, Blog 2

It is interesting how many of the psalms have been taken from their original contexts to mean quite different things than the authors intended. The psalms, with much of the ancient Hebrew texts, including the Torah, have been adopted as part of the Christian Bible. Therefore, it is reasonable that in their Christian usage, they would take on Christian meanings and ideas. So much time has passed since the psalms were written that most likely even modern day Jews read them with meanings that differ from the original.
Like much of Scripture, many psalms were likely written in response to events that were occurring at the time. People who read them at the time they were written understood them in a way that is impossible for modern readers. When reading a religious text, people look at it through a certain lens. They have a preconceived framework into which they attempt to fit the text. Especially in modern times, readers want to apply ancient text to their own lives. In the case of the psalms, this can be done, but the original meanings might be lost. Religious writings can be very ambiguous in this way. While a religion as a whole might accept a text as truth and generally read most of it in the same way, different members can derive different meanings from the same writing. And this interpretation can be quite different from the original meaning of the text, especially when the text has been translated from a different language. We all come at everything we read and study with a certain perspective; it is impossible to be entirely objective. This goes for religious texts as well as other things we read. When reading the psalms, we read them with our own ideas of God, ideas which might be vastly different from those of the authors. The tendency to over-personalize the psalms is not a bad thing, it is fulfills the purpose of gaining personal satisfaction from the psalms. However, it does not allow one to read the psalms looking for their original meanings.

Psalm 2

The language in the two different versions of the Psalm is so radically different, it hardly seems like they are the same piece of writing. They were translated from the same Hebrew text but differ drastically. The translation in the Book of Psalms is quite modern while the other is fairly old-fashioned. Overall, the general meaning of the Psalm does not change drastically, but in many places the differences in language create differences in connotation. For example, in v. 2, in the Book of Psalms version, the word "conspire" is used as opposed to the word "consult." These two words mean relatively similar things but "conspire" holds a more sinister and secretive connotation. It is difficult to know what the original author intended.
The place where I notice rather large difference in actual meanings is in v. 1. ("Why rage the heathen furiously?" vs. "Why are the nations aroused?"). Heathens raging furiously and nations being aroused seem like very different things to me. Heathen, in a religious context, especially, is quite different from "nation" which also has it's own unique Biblical connotation.
If I was puritan, I would probably think I was doing alright in obeying God but be worried that I might make a mistake. The writer of the psalm seems to condemn others for their actions and defend/promote himself and his actions. The Puritans were generally fearful of God's wrath and very serious about obeying him. They were often scornful and distrustful of those who did not do the same.

Religion and Theology (among other things)

First, I have to say how weird it is for me to read about places I am familiar with in a book for a class. I live right in the middle of the area that contains effigy mounds. My hometown is just north of Madison and there are many parks in the area that have mounds. As I said in class, almost everyone I know at home has seen an effigy mound. We went on field trips to see them when I was a kid. We were told that out of respect, we should not walk on them. I never drew much significance from their presence. They were just sort of there. The mounds I'm most familiar with are in a state park and are easily overshadowed by the natural beauty surrounding them. I've found it interesting to learn more about the history behind them.
That said, I found the discussion in class about theology and religion to be very interesting. I firmly believe theology and religion to be connected but two separate things. The abstract and spiritual principles that religion is based on are made concrete by theology. In a way, it is theology that takes simple spirituality and turns it into a practiced religion. The theology behind a religion helps to tie its members into a cohesive group . However, religion is more than a set of ideas, on a both a cultural and on a spiritual level. Culturally, religion ties people together in a community. There is a sense of togetherness that comes from more than just theology. Theology, in the end is a set of ideas. People can practice a religion and believe all, some, or none of the theology. People can study the theology and believe it, or not believe it, without practicing the religion. The two are connected and one could not exist without the other, but they are not the same thing.

Week 2 Blog

One difference between the animals in the effigy mounds of Wisconsin and the animals in the cave of Lascaux is simply the types of animals portrayed. For example, in the caves, animals such as bison are more common, while birds are more often seen. This could simply be a result of what types of animals the people who created the paintings and the mounds, respectively, were used to seeing. Also, certain animals have held a cultural and possibly religious significance in Native American culture that can be traced back considerably. For example, bears have held a significance that can be traced back to the Middle Woodland. In the case of the caves of Lascaux, it is unknown whether the animals portrayed held any cultural or religious significance.
Another difference is the way in which animals are portrayed. In general, the animals in the cave of Lascaux are portrayed more literally than those in the effigy mounds. The animals in the effigy mounds are generally abstract. Some, in fact, do not look like animals at all. These may be representations of various spirits or mythical creatures, which also lends to the theory that the creation of the mounds was rooted in religion. Also, while you can stand in the cave of Lascaux and look the paintings and tell what they are, to get a good look at an effigy mound, you must look at it from above.
Our use of animals in the names of sports clubs seems quite different from the use of animals in the building of effigy mounds. Unlike the effigy mound builders, who built mounds representing animals they were familiar with, sports clubs do not always name their teams after an animal that can be found in the area. And, in sports clubs there is no worship of the animal for which the team is named. Respect, perhaps, but no worship. There isn't the spiritual connection to the animal that the mound builders seemed to have.
If religion is a system of symbols, mound building definitely fits into the definition. What are mounds if not some sort of symbol? They are also very permanent and were difficult to build, which suggests that they served some long-lasting purpose. The fact that some of the mounds represented spirits and other supernatural creatures suggests that the mounds are tied to some belief in a higher power or higher order of things.

Blog 2

I find the differences between Timothy Treadwell's fascination with bears and Native American religions/cave painting very interesting.
Many Native American religions involve animals in some way. There is a certain amount of respect for and connection with animals, somewhat like what Timothy Treadwell had. However, unlike Mr. Treadwell, Native Americans who practiced these religions (from what I understand) still viewed themselves as separate from nature and from animals. Sometimes animals were a source of food and there was always a sense of respect and gratitude toward them. In some religions, I believe, people would try to exhibit characteristics of various animals, such as bravery, strength, intelligence, etc. However, there doesn't seem to be the same desire to actually become the animal like Timothy Treadwell did with the grizzly bears. While Native American religions held a certain respect and reverence for nature and for animals, it seems that Mr. Treadwell took this respect a step further in his devotion to the grizzly bears.
Similarly, the cave paintings we discussed in class do not depict humans and animals as equals (like Mr. Treadwell seemed to view them). The only scene to contain a human is one that depicts hunting and the human being attacked by the bison. This shows the relationship between humans and animals as well as a respect for the power and strength of the animals. It does not depict humans and animals as equals.
Timothy Treadwell seemed to have a view of animals and their relationship with people that few others share. The boundary that the rest of us have did not exist for him. Even Native Americans, whose religions often showed a definite connection with nature, have this boundary that Mr. Treadwell seemed to lack.

Blog 1: "Definition of Religion"

To paraphrase Geertz's definition:

Religion is a collection/group of things (Geertz uses the word "symbols" which I think could refer to physical symbols as well as rituals, traditions, etc.) that affect people's moods and behaviors. Religion exists to give people a sense of how the world works and creates a belief that their view of the world is correct or factual. Each religious group has a set of beliefs and assumes that its beliefs are more factual than the beliefs of other groups.

Geertz's definition holds a connotation that the beliefs in which religion is rooted are false. It looks at religion only as an institution and leaves no room for the possibility that any religion's beliefs might be true. I disagree with this interpretation. I don't think it is fair to make religion strictly about an institution created by men. Geertz's definition doesn't allow any possibility that the beliefs a religious group holds might actually be factual and it implies the religion is solely about the motivation to better understand the world. Not all people who have religion have actual faith in a deity, but some do and it doesn't seem fair to leave this faith out when describing religion.