The Hull House: Bringing people together

After observing all of the images related to the Hull House, I was in awe of the impact the house had on the entire community. It was not only a huge benefit for those living there, but activities and events were also open to the public. When looking at the wage maps, the nationality maps, and the unkept streets of the neighborhoods, the community was in need of something stable and that's exactly what the Hull House provided. Outside of the Hull House it was about survival, "there were eighteen nations being represented in a small section of Chicago, they are more or less intermingled, but a decided tendency to drift into little colonies is apparent." The Hull House allowed children to use their imaginations instead of playing in a disease-infested alleyway. It allowed cultures to come together and actively show their pride in their culture through fiestas, art, music, dancing, food, and craft sales. It was stated that in the Hull House, "Quiet can hardly be expected to be found in a settlement that has really struck its roots deep down into its neighborhood."

I was impressed by the education offered by the Hull House and especially excited to see cultures coming together to learn English! I was also excited to see the arts flourish. I couldn't believe it when I read that the architecture made sure "space was arranged for future installation of a pipe organ."

This assignment questioned if there was public space where people from different groups could mingle. It was interesting to find out that the mingling of different groups was not done by choice but instead was because "it was thought the neighborhood would soon be filled with factories and railroad terminals, and any improvement on property would only be money thrown away. But it is seen that as factories are built, people crowd more and more closely into the houses about them, and rear tenements fill up the few open spaces left." Here is an example of a culture trying to practice their religion in the cramped space they call home:

"The religious rites of their Italian neighbors have a more social, simple, and intimate tone. In the summer, in a little open court where a condemned building has been torn down, they contrive, with a canopy of green boughs and long draped garlands of pink and white tissue-paper roses, the Shrine of the Virgin for the Feast of the Assumption. Sicilian and Neapolitan women, with bright-flowered, yellow and magenta shawls and their best beads, bring out chairs and sit gossiping along the sidewalk before the shrine in the evening. Bands march the street playing "Santa Lucia" and "Francesca"; and the babies creep and tumble almost into the altar of the friendly, approachable little Virgin in her tawdry, hallowed recess behind her converging lines of white tapers."

I first observed the images of empty rooms in the Hull House and came to the conclusion that the rooms are symbolic in that they look as "homey" as possible, but there are no religious or ethnic symbols visible. I soon found out that my presumption was not true at all. Since the Hull House was constantly being revamped, "the terms of the leasehold of the new premises prescribe that in any building to be erected thereon, there shall be provided an audience room suitable for religious worship, and that religious services, under the auspices of an organized church, shall be held therein once on each Sabbath and once on one other day of each week." I still found it interesting that even the picture of the "audience room" did not have any religious symbols in it.

I also learned that Hull House residents had freedom in expressing their religious beliefs and nationalism through art. (One subtle addition I noticed consistently as a decoration were small flags hanging from a chandelier or posted stately in a corner.) It was neat to observe pictures of people of all ages being creative and free from life's discriminations. For example, there was a sculpture of a Mexican church, representing most Mexican's continued practice of Catholicism. There was also a Mexican mural, spinning technique (relating to one's European heritage), reproductions of Christian art (visually representing culture through attire), and prominently, a "Madonna and Child." In fact, all of the interior spaces at the Hull-House can be considered informal galleries. It was also interesting to learn how to interpret the art. One consistent theme I observed in the art was the life of an urban worker. If the picture showed a person carrying a bundle of fabric, one could assume that person is a sweatshop worker.

Jane Addams really "reached out to neighborhood residents who had not previously utilized the settlement's offerings by creating the Labor Museum. The museum aimed to present industry in a historic light for the benefit of alienated factory laborers and older disenfranchised craftspeople. The demonstrators of these "primitive methods" were ideally local elderly immigrants who had used these methods in their youth. By showcasing their special skills and knowledge, Addams hoped to restore the elders' social position in the eyes of their assimilated children." It's as though Addams would not be content until everyone has been touched by this sense of community.

"Although Hull-House was a secular institution, and these [Christmas] celebrations did not constitute worship, they gave a Christian tone to the settlement. Christmas at Hull-House is always an interesting occasion. The Yearbook noted [the Hull House Christmas as] "the bringing together, for the first time, [of] four racial and cultural groups into a co-operative presentation by tableaux, the story of the Nativity ... The four pictures represent the Italian conception of the birth of Christ, the Blessing of Christ in the Church according to the Greek tradition, "Pasada," The Entrance into Bethlehem, according to the Mexican conception and the Adoration of the Magi from the Negro point of view." These quotes paint a very clear picture to me of what the Hull House was all about.

Jane Addams: Religiously-motivated intentions or not?

To begin, I do not think Jane Addams was religiously motivated. I think she religiously adored her father and was motivated to be just like him in ever way BUT religion (ex. wanting her thumb to be flattened).

The first example of Addams' father teaching her about equality was when she was wearing a pretty cloak and her father asked her to change it in order to not make "the other girls feel badly." You can see a parallel of this teaching when Addams is choosing furniture for the Hull-House, "While all the new furniture which was bought was enduring in quality, we were careful to keep it in character with the fine old residence." Addams asked her father if equality could ever be achieved, her dad responded "people might be equal in things that mattered much more than clothes, the affairs of education and religion, for instance." This was quite a lesson, since the young girl loved her beautiful cloak, but the seed was planted that there were more important things that material possessions, such as equality which is necessary and could be achieved.

Her father also taught her "not to pretend to understand", but instead that "mental integrity [should be] above everything else." Although this example came from her father's own religious practices, he was also teaching her a life-long lesson that I think influenced her decision as to where she placed the settlement house, who she allowed in, and the community she formed within the house.

It's also interesting to observe her comparison of "free-ranging country children" and "city children" in which (at such a young age) she recognizes and empathizes with city children's constant interruption of imaginary play that leads them to involve themselves in other activities like "rude horseplay."

All the wisdom given and learned in a Quaker environment was bound to effect Addams' character and morals, but in no way do I see her practicing a specific religion, but instead religiously working for equality for all. She talks about companionship: "it gives a form of expression that has peculiar value." One could relate this to a religious aspect, such as church fellowship being apart of the "body" and the power of community, but instead, Addams takes much pride in the community she has made within the Hull-House. She explains that "many people who were formerly residents of the vicinity, but whom prosperity has carried into more desirable neighborhoods, come back to these meetings and often confess to each other that they have never since found such kindness as in early Chicago when all its citizens came together in mutual enterprises."

Addams' purpose really stands out to me at the end of chapter 5. Addams gives an example of a man questioning the "foreign views on our walls", mind you with no description of religious affiliation; she responds: " I endeavored to set forth our hope that the pictures might afford a familiar island to the immigrants in a sea of new and strange impressions." Addams is trying her best to ease people into a system that clearly is not supportive of their circumstances.

Why build the Hull-House in the inner-city? It's "not strange but natural. If it is natural to feed the hungry and care for the sick, it is certainly natural to give pleasure to the young, comfort to the aged, and to minister to the deep-seated craving for social intercourse that all men feel." The reward? The feeling of gratitude or spontaneous vitality- no strings attached. In my opinion, sometimes religion gets lost in the world of man. Quotes like this become pushed back by politics and greed. Maybe Addams was on to something.

Analyzing Rastafarianism

Our last class discussion, made me wonder how Rastafari feel about their identity in Jamaica and also made me wonder how this religion would survive in a different environment. The phrase "out of many we are one", would be frowned upon by Rastafarian because that would imply that people were conforming to the colonization that they are against. So what if these conflicts did not exist? Would their still be Rastafarianism?

Many Reggae songs are about freedom of oppression, whether mental or physical, and many Rastafarian are about surviving in a land that is not their home (Jamaica). Since most of Rasta's purpose is to fight the system, what if they had no system to fight and they were back in Ethiopia where they belonged? Because Rastas are still "fighting the system", it makes their religion stronger and more motivating to practice. But would they really want to beat the system? Is that even a possible future anywhere? Maybe they set these "unattainable goals" as motivators of their own faith; something to hold them accountable.

The Rastas do not form a division between society and themselves because they are angry and against everyone who is a different race or religion, but they formed it because it's necessary in order for them to practice their beliefs that do not match up with the system, which once again is their purpose, to not conform; being all-inclusive would imply some degree of conformation.

I feel like this religion is credible, especially at seeing the commitment they had in the video: waking up at 3am to worship, for example. They weren't worshiping just to prove a point (going against the system), they were worshiping the god they dedicate their entire being to, hence why only credible people are allowed to live amongst other serious Rastas. I also don't see the idea of setting an "unattainable goal" at all different from numerous religions practiced in America. For example, in Christianity, a large goal is to be like Jesus who was perfect. Although it's impossible to be perfect, it's something people try to attain every day.

Rastafari: Boboshanti

The book does a good job of depicting what the actual video footage of a Rastafarian village shows us. The video helped me to put the specific readings into order. Clearly, there were many symbols that could be recognized based on the books description: Ethiopian colors (red, yellow, green), dreadlocks, Bible verses posted outside on trees and such, and their cause: to go to Africa. A person in the video mentioned that Jamaica was not Africa, but they had to make due with what they had.

The video showed no clips of anyone smoking marijuana. In fact, the video elaborated on their daily rituals and referred to the Boboshanti as a "spiritual cult". I was very surprised to see how much of their life is spent worshiping whether it's waking up at 3am, wearing an "R" for righteousness, or keeping the "fire of life" lit, I was intrigued by the structure since so far I have only seen Bob Marley and his promotion of marijuana as a tool to free your mind.

Although the book talked about the purpose of wearing dreadlocks, it has not mentioned the purpose of wearing a turban like a crown because it is the ancient dressing of an Ethiopian. I also noticed the "patois plus" that was discussed in class was not as prominent in the people who were interviewed. I heard some "ini"but otherwise heard pretty clear English.

I did not come to class having and image of a Rasta, since that is not a religion I am familiar with. Although at the end of our last class I was told that Rastas do not have jobs, especially jobs that are apart of society (like a 9-5 job); this led to the conclusion that most Rastas are apart of the Black Market and sell drugs. I do not agree with this generalization and I do not think it is right for us to make such a generalization. After speaking with a few of my Jamaican friends, who have lived among or observed an actual Rasta village, they tell me that many Rastas have jobs such as selling brooms (like in the movie), selling coconuts, carving figurines out of wood, etc. These jobs are not only common among the Rastas, but also common for the general public who all live in a 3rd World Country. This video has solidified my opinion of the Rastafarian religion as being a legitimate religion that stays true to Geertz's definition.

It's my B-day so let's talk about Geertz and Weber

Chapter 1 of the book Rastafari increasingly reminded me of Geertz's definition of religion. Chapter 1 dealt with Weber's theory of charisma and routinization. I will be focusing on the parallels I found in Weber's following sections: Charisma and Ideas as Social Forces, and Charisma and Rationalization.

Charisma and Ideas as Social Forces
"a group of people armed with a set of ideas and ideals went about organizing their lives according to those ideas and ideals. As a result, they ended up changing the nature of the capitalist economic endeavor by injecting it with an eminently calculating spirit."
The "ideas and ideals" parallels with Geertz's "system of symbols" which work to improve people's way of life or "general order of existence (Geertz)." Both parallels are very cut and dry, not leaving any room for genuine faith.

"A charismatic leader is a person who emerges with essentially new ideas and who, by propagating those ideas, is able to reorient people's approach to the problems they face or the things they consider significant. If the charismatic leader succeeds in gaining a following, and if the charismatic community succeeds in routinizing, then the emergent forces are likely to have long-term consequences for the direction of cultural and social formation." The idea of the "charismatic leader" fits nicely with who the person is that is "clothing these conceptions with an aura of factuality" in Geertz's definition. I feel like the leader Weber describes is an exact extension of what Geertz briefly touches upon in his one-sentence definition of religion.

Charisma and Rationalization
"Rationalization is the process through which cultures create their religious cosmologies and address the problem of meaning." Geertz would say " A system of symbols which uses rationalization ("formulating conceptions") to establish powerful, pervasive . . ." Once again, faith not included.

"As human knowledge increases, rationalization adjusts and matches means to the desired ends, effecting a process of social change generated by rationalization that is gradual and incremental."

We've used this idea of rationalization in class when it comes to the Mormon religion, who, because times have changed and our culture no longer accepts polygamy, they chose to no longer practice that aspect of their religion. They needed a charismatic person to tell them to stop and since their "desired end" would most likely be to live happy and peaceful lives, they had to give reasons as to why practicing polygamy would no longer be in their best interest (jail, persecution, etc). Another example would be sex before marriage in Christianity today. In the past, people were getting married much younger and women were allowed much less opportunities within our culture. Because our culture is socially changing and woman have more opportunities in the workplace, people are getting married later and fornication is becoming a social norm. Churches in the past would ban people practicing this type of behavior, but now must adjust their strict policy to meet more of the majority's needs. Augustine addresses this social change by jumping over the lines of taking text literally and metaphorically, but has the ultimate goal of having faith, love, and fear of God.

Weber and Geertz, however, would both agree that "human beings, [are] purposeful social actors, [who] create, maintain, and change their cosmologies as well as their concrete situations." What are the purposes the actors have in mind? "Behavior is purposely geared to the addressing of existential needs, especially economic survival and the problem of meaning."

How did Ethiopia get its status?

Right in the beginning of the story, it is proclaimed by Domitius and the Archbishop of Rome "that the whole kingdom of the world [belonged] to the Emperor of Rome and the Emperor of Ethiopia." This is a huge statement to make and makes one wonder why both places are so important. They support their claim by verifying that these two Emperors are so important because they're all related and essentially God gave them glory to be #1. The Merchant almost holds the example of how the Ethiopian people want to be represented (through all his good deeds, his travels, and his admiration for King Solomon). He's very well-off, yet he has great admiration for the King. People "who had once come to him [king] did not wish to leave him [king]". Yet, because Tamrin had a mission, he was willing to leave this wonderful king because Ethiopia was more than another place to live, and Tamrin was not just some merchant, but instead was sent away "because of what hath been committed to my [Tamrin's] charge, so that I may give unto her her property." Since the king responded so kindly to both the merchant and the queen by "giving unto him whatever valuable thing he desired for the country of Ethiopia" that's another clue that Ethiopia holds the key to something special.

The charge that Tamrin was sent to do was then passed on to the Queen, who also had a similar reaction after hearing about wise King Solomon. The followers from Ethiopia also showed a strong dedication to their country and their Queen "if thou goest we will go with thee, and if thou sittest down we will sit down with thee; our death shall be with thy death, and our life with thy life."

The charge that Tamrin was sent to do was then passed on to the Queen, who also had a similar reaction after hearing about wise King Solomon. The Queen responds in a very humble way that creates a very close bond between King and Queen. The humble way the queen approaches the king makes her and her country most admirable and raises her status naturally because of their relationship. The humble approach the queen takes allows her to bring herself up by admitting: "from being a fool, I have become wise by following thy wisdom, . . . I have become a CHOSEN woman because of this faith which is in my heart."

I find it very interesting that after they sleep together, Solomon dreams of the brilliant sun that appears in Israel, but leaves Israel and shines in Ethiopia forever "for it [sun] willed to dwell there." (never to return again). The ring that Solomon gave the queen was in correspondence to that dream and was symbolic for the "throne" (sun) being passed over to Ethiopia. Solomon told her that her country " shall be blessed through thee [ring]."

The story smoothly flowed together and by the end of it you realize that the passionate journey of words led to an entire switch of wisdom from Rome to Ethiopia, yet was done in a very flowing way; just like the words.

The Jesus painting

http://www.flickr.com/photos/freestone/135556525/">

The preceding website will take you to a painting of Jesus that I analyzed.

As I browsed through the myriad of pictures, I made an observation about the different body language used between the people being worshiped and the worshipers. In almost all of the pictures, my eye's attention was immediately drawn to their heads. Those being worshiped either had their head cocked to one side or were looking down at their worshipers. Both positions held either a humble or endearing appearance. The worshiper's head was either down in a bowing position or his hands were above his head; both humbling positions.

Universally, this shows me that most religions do look to the sky as something positive, whether it is where they will go after they die, or just a place to cry out to. I did not once see a worshiper looking down at the ground purposely as a way to communicate with a god whom is "located" under the earth.

Other than Jesus being the center focus of the portrait, he also represents an average, lower class man clothed with mere cloth. At the same time, he is also placed at the same level as the clouds and is much larger than an entire city. Jesus' stance over the earth and the gray and white clouds in the background almost imply his power over the earth, like he's controlling the weather; which no mortal could possibly do. The mere glow of this man shows that he represents something symbolic. He is not only a peasant but he is also above all things simultaneously. With arms wide open, and calm inviting eyes, this man is the ultimate symbol of what Christianity is all about. Based on this painting, Jesus' followers are forced to be below him, in a submissive state; but his followers can also relate to his humanistic qualities. Similar to David's idolized, yet relatable position in the Bible, Jesus represents the ultimate goal of perfection.

The system I see begins with natural landscape, man building over that landscape, natural weather happenings affect the people, and Jesus controls all things. Literally Jesus is the King of all, yet can still be someone all of us can strive to be like. Based on the Psalms, this picture would represent Jesus' state of decision upon the nation. If the nation is being righteous and "Christian", the clouds will go away and there will be peace on the land, if the nation is not doing God's will, more than a storm may be a result of their behavior. Overall, the man in the picture has the "whole world in his hands."

Augustine still draws a line

I enjoy Augustine's "whole perspective" on the bible. It's neat to think of the New testament as the answer key and the Old testament as a problem solving exercise that can always be answered (in numerous ways) as long as it "consult[s] the rule of faith, as it is perceived through the plainer passages of scriptures (ex.Old testament) and the authority of the church (Bk.3/3)."

It's also interesting that Augustine doesn't discriminate on where this knowledge is coming from. "Any statements, by those who are called philosophers, which happen to be true and consistent with our faith should not cause alarm, but be claimed for our own use, as it were from owners who have no right to them (Bk.2/144). This method of sticking parts into a whole and having faith/love as the constant, leads to many correct answers that solve any misconceptions one may have about the bible.

But just because I genuinely love something, does that make everything I choose to love moral and "correct" in God's eyes (from Augustine's perspective)? This question helped me understand how far Augustine could take his constant of faith/love and apply it to life outside the bible. "Life outside the bible" being things that were not openly struggled about in the bible and probably were unfathomable to Augustine, but are current questions of morality now, like homosexuality and polygamy. In book 3, #50 Augustine explains that religion does become subjective to the social practices and norms of that specific culture. There is not one truth, but instead the expectation that your practice centers around justice and love.

In class someone asked what Augustine would think about polygamy; during his social norms, the purpose of sex was to procreate. This idea follows suit with polygamists beliefs; but since times have changed (since Augustine's time), this behavior is not accepted in the current day. Another interesting topic someone brought up was the difference between the intention behind murder and the intention behind capitol punishment. Someone suggested that murder would clearly not follow the "just and loving rule", but I don't think Augustine would agree with capitol punishment either (which may be a norm in certain states, but is still a controversial topic). Although people who use capitol punishment believe that that person is "getting what he deserves" so therefore it's just, this action does not follow Augustine's other constant, which is love. I cannot picture someone using capitol punishment to take away someone's life and their intention for this action is to show the person who's dying love.

It's interesting using current day issues and applying them to what we think Augustine would do. I enjoy his subjective view on religion with its solid constants.

Augustine's Take on the Psalms

In the book Saint Augustine on Christian Teaching, it was interesting how he lists the stages that are like the sequential "rules of success in religion". He lists: fear, holiness, knowledge, fortitude, resolve of compassion, purity of the eye, and wisdom.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. (p.35, a.k.a Psalm 110:10)"

I would like to focus on the first stage: the fear of God. Recently, in class discussion, I made a point about the fear of God being a necessity in the Psalms. Augustine's book certainly parallels this fear (p.33/line 16). In the Psalms this fear was either inspired by nationism or in hopes of living a peaceful life by living the life God intends. The book relates to the "reflection about morality" part, but continues into what the Psalms may have been implying to say about the after-life, but never actually went into detail about it.

Parallels are also made about through this fear of God, ultimate faith must be achieved because there will be times when we "rather ponder and believe that what is written there, even if obscure, is better and truer than any insights that we can gain by our own efforts (p.34/17)." This idea happens continuously in the Psalms, which brings us back to the "broken vending machine" analogy. It took faith! When people had doubts, they would "politely" address God about them, yet they would always go back to saying, but I know you will take care of me in the end and therefore I am patient. The book also addresses the idea of faith and divine intervention in line 20 (p.34) "by constant prayer the encouragement of divine intervention, so that he is not crushed by despair".

Both books emphasize the importance of faith and closeness in people's relationship with God. The scriptures are a continuous inspiration, but there are weak moments and it always goes back to people's relationship/fear of God.

Who's the real enemy?

I find the book of Psalms very layered with hundreds of interpretations. Throughout the Psalms, there is much talk of battles and enemies. Although one could read these passages with one "lens", I would like to think of these passages as a personal battle one must face in order to reach his goal. Remember the goal: when on God's side the nation of Israel can then prosper. I'd like to focus on two types of battles; the "vending machine " battle and the "good vs. bad" battle.

There are many battles in the Psalms, but a common situation is when the people are asking God where he is and why hasn't he been helping them. In class, we came up with the broken vending machine analogy. When putting a coin (or a Psalm) in to the machine (or as a prayer up to heaven), we have faith that that machine will give us food (peace/happiness) in return; even if it is broken, we will bang on it for a very long time because in time, we know it will come out. Psalms 79 is a great example of someone maybe getting impatient, giving God a "motivational speech" as to all the reasons why he should discipline their enemies and help them. He lists the hardships they have endured and their need for rescuing, but also shows his faith in verse 13 "But we are Your people and the flock that You tend. We acclaim You forever". This verse to show that even though life is not fair right now they have faith that God knows what he is doing and they are not trying to question him. They knew they had to have faith because similar to Psalms 37:4, 25-26, these things will work themselves out in the long run "I never have seen a just man forsaken". FAITH.

The other battle I wanted to address was the double meaning of the actual battle in the scriptures. This relates to our discussion: good vs. bad. I still argue that the line in between is crossable depending on the narrator. I believe that the person writing about these physical battles is having a mental battle in their head about whether to do the wrong or right thing according to what God wants. The difference in narration is that the person writing is either a believer or non-believer. With the example of David's crime of adultery, it seems that the believer is able to cross from good, to bad, to good again; but, a non-believer has selfish intentions all the time and therefore becomes labeled as an enemy and deserves to be punished by God (Psalm 10, 28). An example or this physical and mental battle is found in Psalms 31:10-14. These verses give a description of the hardships this person is going through and he puts the blame on his enemies who "slander" and "conspire against [him]". He claims he trusts in God and asks to be rescued, but there is still a battle going on between whether he should give in to the slander and stop fighting for God's cause or to continue on the straight and narrow path and soon (by faith) be rescued by God. This could in fact have been a physical battle, but it is more about if this person chooses to keep fighting or give up that shows true commitment.

The book of Psalms' ethical stance

To live ethically, it is mentioned time and time again throughout the Psalms that there must be a healthy fear of God. In Psalms 103:13, it states that "the Lord has compassion for those who fear Him." This Psalm gives a list of reasons why we should worship God and be like him because he is: just, compassionate, righteous, etc. Since God is those things, it is taught that we should therefore try to follow him in order to live peaceful lives (85:9) and stay out of the way of God's wrath.

In Psalms 51, David gives a perspective that is "on the other side" in that because of the sin he's committed he is very fearful and apologetic towards God. This Psalm is an account of how to respond if ethics have been broken blatantly before God.

Psalms 7 shows the type of battle that one can endure and the book portrays them in their time of need. I think the battle that is portrayed is meant for the inner-battle that can sometimes occur according to one's ethics. For example, God is compassionate, for some, that is not an easy task, but it is possible. If you have one the "battle" you have therefore accomplished your ethical goal.

In Judaism, similar to the Psalms, one quickly learns which path is safest to follow in order to avoid God's wrath; which occurs on this Earth. With Christianity, it seems like it's more an after-life affect. I think both religions could consolidate their beliefs and not be missing anything as far as the way to live now that pleases God and therefore the way you will live after this life.

Scientology

I was inspired to do some research on Scientology after I saw people protesting against it while I was in downtown Chicago, IL. I am quite unfamiliar with this religion, other than traumas Scientology-related that have been on the news like mass suicides, for example. There is so much controversy attached to this topic! The coined name is L. Ron Hubbard, who created this religion. Scientology's goals are: to have "a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)

These types of goals can be found in other religions as well; it instantly reminded me of the Baha'i religion I recently wrote about. The key is to find out how different religions plan on accomplishing these goals. Just like any other religion, they too go through prosecution, but the question is how radical are their actions and what actions are they taking that's causing this prosecution.

It was amazing to read all the fraud that goes on amongst the politicians also known as the church leaders (yes, one can find this anywhere). It was frightening to read how many people went to jail for stealing or lying in some way. The members are also very aggressive; if you talk down about their beliefs they're not afraid to use threats or physical contact. What is ironic is if you look back to their goals and purpose it talks about being "honest beings" and a living a life "without criminals".

Personally, I would think for having such positive goals, a lot of money, and so many members, there would be positive reviews on the religion; but as I read on, it became very concerning to me what was really going on. It's scary to think that there's a chance that one day a man decided to make up a religion, because he would make good money, and it is now leading people to be against any type of medical assistance, to people being evaluated on how much evil spirit is in them by recording how conductive they are, and to people dedicating their entire being to Scientology and NOTHING else. What's interesting though, is that one could probably make the same argument about any other religion. Although, this religion seems a lot more radical and controversial and I wonder why. I also wonder if Hubbard, as he was creating this religion truly believed in it or was really just in it for the money. The refinement of this religion is very clearly made because every few years Hubbard would change the definition of Scientology as far as it being a religion, a philosophy, or both.

Baha'i Faith

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to go to one out of the seven Bahai' Temples located around the world. The temple was located in IL and represents the continent of North America. The following site shows the dome area that I sang in: http://www.bahai.us/bahai-temple

I have never heard about this religion prior to my experience over the weekend. Coming from a nondenominational background, I was curious about what I was seeing. I quickly learned the "do's" and "don't" around the temple. We were took into the recital hall that was a circular room shaped like a dome. The director told us that if we stood under the "peak" of the dome and whispered that we would be able to hear our echo. Since I'm a piano major, I was also very interested in the large German-made piano that, later I was told, is the largest piano under that brand in the world! How would a organization like this be able to afford such a thing? Apparently, a man who was one of the first men to follow the Baha'i religion donated it. Considering the price and quality of such a great instrument, it says a lot that a person would have so much faith to donate it!

The temple itself requires everyone to remain quiet. The choir must not be seen when performing in order to create a heavenly, meditative environment. During the service, several scriptures from any religious book you can think of are read aloud and equally chosen throughout the year. After the service, people were led downstairs to the exhibition area where there were signs answering questions about the religion. There was also a presentation being shown (I don't know what they were showing). Since I had never heard of this religion, it was a lot for me to understand.

Nowhere in the service was I reminded of a religious ceremony; instead, it felt more like an ideal. There wasn't the traditional ceremony where the congregation sings and prays, etc. Instead, the religion emphasizes unity and ideas of peace. This is a religion because even to this day, especially in Iran, many people are being prosecuted for their beliefs. It has been around for hundreds of years and is consistently believed by many all over the world.

I'm still wondering why I haven't ever heard of this religion before. It's a very interesting concept. Personally, I feel like their goals for all religions, people, gods, etc. to be unified is impractical. In order to successfully enjoy a service, one must give up parts of their own faith. What I mean by this, is that if I were Jewish, how would I be able to meditate and appreciate a scripture from the New Testament that talks about Jesus' miracles when I don't believe that. This is still a new topic for me and open to learning more, but that was one aspect I just couldn't understand; the acceptance of all religions when religions are constantly butting heads and contradicting each other.

The Psalms

I instantly noticed description differences among the Psalms. The Alter translation impacted me with his detailed descriptor words, the Bay uses weaker, yet more ornamented words. For example (Alter vs. Bay): tear vs. break; burning anger vs. wrath; smash vs. break; chastened vs. learned; worship vs. serve; exult in trembling vs. rejoice; etc. Although these comparisons differ in emphasis, in 1640, the words could have had more significance in their meaning than they do now. That being said, I still believe these comparisons are significant. I think there is simply ornamenting going on in verse 8 where it says "utmost coasts abroad" instead of "earth". Verse 11 also made me wonder why worship vs. serve and exult in trembling vs. rejoice were used. It is almost as if Bay is watering down its original meaning.

Both Pslams are condemning those who don't follow God and uses various words describe God's wrath. Chapter two is closed with blessings and happiness by both versions encouraging those who "shelter in Him [God]".

I think the colonists might have not approved of the Psalm by Bay due to it not following the Hebrew in format or translation, hence why there were many revisions made to it. They may have thought there were too many embellishments added to it that were unrelated to the original text.

Native American Mounds

According to Geertz' definition of religion, one can claim that the construction of these earth mounds were religiously affiliated. One, because the mounds show progress in construction from the Early and Middle Woodland people to the Late Woodland people, who built larger and more extravagant mounds. Two, because there is symbolism everywhere, grouped in three categories air (upperworld): birds, earth (lowerworld): bears , water (lowerworld) : (water spirits) panthers, lizards, turtles , etc. All these symbols were resources that humans depended on. Thirdly, based on the massive amounts of mounds made, the number of years it took to make a mound, and the number of people it took to make a mound, this effort indicates a shared cultural understanding of the sacred places involved.

Similar to the symbols mentioned above, when discussing the Lascaux Cave, one could claim the same thing that the pictures drawn "were resources that humans depended on." The difference between the cave pictures and the Native American mounds are that there is not enough evidence to claim the cave pictures as religiously affiliated. I believe that the cave pictures simply represented what people were seeing and represented the function of animals in their lives. I also believe that these straightforward drawings could have easily evolved into a religion many years after that due to their dependence on animals and nature. The Native American mounds, however, represented a way of thinking about existence, and "ideology from the earth". They believed that mother earth was working with them, which shows their strong connection to nature, and therefore; their strong attachment to the animals they would kill. The mounds were built to symbolize and ritually maintain balance and harmony with the natural world.

Our use of animals in the name of sports clubs is completely different to the reverence the Native Americans had for animals. For example, the animals they would represent in the earth mounds were animals that they lived among and helped them survive by killing them and using every part of that animal. We eat cows, goats, pigs, deer, but rarely, if ever, do you see these animals as mascots because we are not using animals to represent the respect we have for them because they quench our hunger, but instead, we use animals that represent strength, courage, and power. The point of a sports team is to show who is the strongest and who can persevere. Most of the animals represented on sports teams are not animals we see on a daily basis, maybe in the zoo from time to time.

The Grizzly Man

The discussion in class was very interesting because I could see both sides to the "is he crazy question" and the difference from the boundaries that most people have between humans and animals versus the grizzlyman's boundaries, which were really none at all, instead he did live in an ideal world where there was fluidity between humans and animals.
Although I do think that the grizzlyman is misunderstood in that, who are we (we being the everyday people in society living in houses, driving cars, etc.) to judge a man who was quite skilled and knowledgeable about the wilderness and in particular grizzly bears. Unless any of us has gone out for 13 summers, with no gun, just to be "one" with the animals, we have no idea what "bonding" could happen there. I gained this perspective after observing the foxes who showed a friendship between the grizzlyman and themselves. We are not in a position to judge.
I also enjoyed Bridget's point about the grizzlyman having some rational as far as the danger of the grizzly bears, but he also would fall into this child-like state in which the grizzlyman would forget the different cognitive levels humans have from animals and would begin treating the animals like humans and almost try to play with the animals. At these moments, is when I would question the grizzlyman's mental stability.
One last point, is how the cave drawings, even way back when they were drawn, still showed respect and a clear boundary for the animals.

Religion is . . .

Religion is a belief system which must incorporate a group consensus of those beliefs in order to be maintained and followed. Each religion has its own symbols that has significant meaning to those involved. These symbols hold great power which creates long lasting moods and motivations in men as well as creates the continual spread of that religion.
Religion can create a sort of comfort zone to those who may be having hard times or for those who make religion something that is ingrained in their everyday lives. This comfort zone is created by the ornamented "facts" that are given by that religion. For example, if someone is told that they must endure hardships in order to get to heaven, they find comfort in their hardships because they believe that this pain will eventually lead them to heaven.
Although I'd like to think that religion originated from one, honest place, Geertz is correct in saying that the way our religion tells us to live, is clothed with "facts" that are realistic enough for us to stay true to and believe in, but are in fact not always accurate. Since every religion has its own set of "facts", there are bound to be religions with contradicting "facts"; which proves that these "facts" may be "uniquely realistic", but not necessarily "uniquely true".