Apparently, my practices and beliefs can be offensive, which is odd to me. We have such ethnic and religious diversity in the U.S. that I guess people figure I have to subscribe to something. I don’t. The sum of my upbringing, family history and life experiences have pushed me down a path that is somehow both pragmatic and mystical.
My first mistake, I suppose, is that I don’t believe in god. I definitely don’t believe in a single god whose image we are made in, and my “spiritual” idea of there being a “higher power” is waning. People don’t like to hear that you don’t believe in anything.
Even though I don’t have a stated religion, I’ll practice almost anything. Rituals are fascinating and necessary. I find ritual in almost everything I do from the mundane task of taking a bath to something as permanent as getting a tattoo (I have two and have more planned). I argue with my family often about this, I don’t ritualize in order to praise some arbitrary, all-powerful force, I ritualize the tangible. I believe in being conscious of all your actions, and ritual provides reason for your actions, no matter how silly they may seem.
I wasn’t raised this way. I was raised Christian, went to bible school, even sang in the church youth choir for a time. As a pre-teen I gathered friends together who were god and Jesus-loving and, most important at the time, who weren’t slutty, because somehow that was the ultimate no-no.
So how did I evolve from a good, Christian choir girl to vampy, Atheist pagan woman? I’m not really sure. I think my convoluted life has much to do with it. There are so many twists and turns that it is hard for me to believe that any of it is planned or guided by any higher power. There is just too much stuff going on and multiply that by billions of people; I just don’t think it’s possible to keep up.
Then there’s that I’ve always been open to alternatives to what I learned in bible school. It spurred my own personal quest for truth. Truth, to me means that I have to respect of other people and acknowledge that I may not be right, even if I’ve settled on what I chosen to believe, all those other people can’t all be wrong.
Then, I have to take into account my multi-faceted upbringing. My parents split when I was about two and they are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I’ve dealt with it by trying to find a balance between the two for myself, which is difficult and keeps my forever challenging myself.
This is a good place for me to begin my life journey, at the time of my parent’s split.
When my parents split, my sister and I lived with my mother in Simi Valley. She never really stopped being that crazy free-spirited person. We loved it. She took us everywhere with her and her crazy friends; long hikes in the mountains, bonfires by the train tracks, camping in Ohai, swimming at the beach. There was always company, we were considered “cool kids” and I guess that meant that we could hang. Living with my mom was like a magical adventure everyday of our lives.
Looking back on the reality of it, my mom and her crazy friends were smoking pot, doing coke and drinking all the time. (In my memory have an image of a square mirror with a gorgeous unicorn engraved on it. most of the time it had white powder on that I knew I wasn’t supposed to touch, but I just liked to look at the unicorn.) Our house was the party house because all of my mom’s friends were quite a bit younger than her. If you look at our school records, we were absent about half of the time. Everyday was like an adventure because she would decide that she didn’t feel like stopping her fun to pick us up from school, so she would take us with. At the time, my sister and I never knew the difference, it was just fun.
One Sunday night after a weekend with my dad he took us back to the house in Simi and my mom wasn’t home. We waited in the driveway for what seemed like hours to my seven-year-old mind. We left to go eat and came back, she still wasn’t there. We went to a pay phone and my dad called a couple of her friends, I guess they didn’t know where she was either. Eventually he told me and my sister to go to sleep. We woke the next morning back in our beds at his condo in L.A. My dad went back to Simi couple of times that week; he left us with his girlfriend rather than take us. We asked when we would go home, and never got an answer.
The following Monday my dad enrolled us in Third Street Elementary School. We thought my dad stole us. I would sneak to call my mom and never got an answer. Sometimes in the bathroom with the water running, we would whisper about getting a map and riding all the way to Simi Valley, back to where it was fun and free, and would talk about how much our mom must have missed us.
Life at my dad’s was very different for us. We hated it. It seemed like there was so much school and so many rules. We could never go outside since we lived in the city. We rode our bike and scooter in the building’s underground parking. We had to go to church. We had to wear stockings. When we lived with my mom we only had to do that once a year when we visited our great-grandma for Easter.
At school it wasn’t any better for me. I was an awkward kid with a huge imagination. That was no different from before, I was always the weird geeky kid that boys picked on and girls ignored. What was different in the L.A. school was that the girls picked on me too. More than just picked on me, they were down right mean, some girls even wanted to fight. My keeping to myself was taken as I thought I was better than them because I had “that good hair” and I was suddenly a “high yellow heifer.” I had no idea what they were talking about. I hated my hair, it hurt to comb it and it was frizzy. High yellow, that was beyond me. Mind you, I’m seven, I came from Simi Valley and race was never discussed in my mom’s magical world.
I stayed to myself, but eventually made a few friends who were also misfits. The intense hazing stopped after a few of the black parents caught wind that my dad is who he is, also a few girls saw his girlfriend pick me up and recognized her as well.
We didn’t hear form my mom for about a year. One day she just showed up at our school and we left with her.
I’m not really sure of the period of time in between. Perhaps I had a contact high from my mom’s frequent and indiscreet marijuana habit. We ended up back at my dad’s. He gained physical custody of us and we were to spend weekends with my mother.
The next nine years went on pretty normal. I got use to my dad’s more stringent rules, settled into attending church. My dad was just raised different from my mom, I guess, that’s why he was different with me. My dad is from Akron, Ohio and was raised in a very Christian, middle-class black family. What he said went, even when I knew, and He knew, he was wrong.
That strictness backfired on him. Not so much because I just wanted to go wild, but because he would never give a solid explanation for anything. I started to do Polynesian dance as a young girl, it was fine with him until I was turning 12, and suddenly he said I couldn’t. He said it was too sexy, which was ridiculous to me at 12. My dad’s word was the end of everything, and, looking back on that I guess that wasn’t so wrong, but his inability to explain himself spilled over into so many conversations we had. I almost began to not trust him. He didn’t make sense, so everything he stood for started to not make sense.
When I was a teenager I had an affinity for candlelight, unicorns and dragons. My aunts came to visit and saw the set up in my room (I had about 100 candles) and tried to convince my father I was practicing witchcraft. It was a horrible fight; I’m not quite sure whose side my dad was on. While I was at school one day, my aunts called themselves “exorcising my room.” They threw out everything they decided was demonic. I was furious.
I wasn’t practicing witchcraft, but after that, I started to look into it. I wanted to know what they were so scared of. What I found I loved. I didn’t convert to Wicca, but I enjoyed the mantra: “In harming none, do as you will.” This resonates as empowering and also calls you to be responsible for your actions and the impact you will have on others.
I began to notice the differences between my two parents and that began having an affect on my view of them as people, rather than parents. My father was secretive where my mother was open. My father held thing in where my mother would blow up her anger. My father was close minded where my mother was able to look beyond her personal beliefs. I began to gravitate toward my mother’s side. After a huge fall out with my dad I took off to my mother’s. By ‘took off’ I mean for a week I was taking extra clothes to school and stored them in my locker. I called my uncle, told him to pick me up, forged a note to dismiss me for a ‘doctor’s appointment’ and had my uncle take me to my mother’s in San Diego.
Only she wasn’t the answer either. My mom was definitely less strict, more accepting and definitely more fun. That’s because she’s a drug addict. She is also less reliable. From 16 to 18 years old I picked up my mom’s slack in the house; there was a lot of slack. She had three more kids with her second husband and at the time she was not doing her motherly duties. While I enjoyed more freedom, I also got a huge lesson in responsibility. It’s not like it was all on my own, my Uncle John and family friend C.C. lived there too. The burdens of the house were spread out between us, my mom with the least and me with the most.
Somehow in that time I got a lot of confidence I didn’t have under my dad’s roof. I was getting straight A’s and my social life improved 200 percent. I had two jobs my senior year of high school, a waitress and a go-go dancer. In some ways my mom was a confidence booster, though. Somehow her crazy, druggy rules of accepting who you are and doing the same with others resonated with me. Even though she was high most of the time, she made sense, and when she was wrong, which was most of the time, she admitted to it.
At 18 shit hit the fan in my mom’s. I had to get out of there. I started stripping to make enough money to move out. That, of course became a horrible wrench in my already-damaged relationship with my dad, not that I was trying to make things better (he missed my graduation). Stripping opened up a whole other world for me. I was…. an innocent stripper. I didn’t have an addiction to feed, I was molested, I didn’t have issues other than my mom was going crazy and I wanted out. I met and listened to so many stories of so many men (and women). That job forced me to tolerate other people at least for the time they were in the club.
Something else odd happened to me. I call it “finding my sexy.” I mean I found out just how powerful being a woman can be. The reactions on the Christian side of my family were so strong that I again had to find out what they were so scared of. These two factors got me back into looking at old, let’s call them faiths, like Wicca, which hold a woman, let’s say holy.
The women on my mom’s side have always been a bit witchy. Our intuition is high, we are in tune with the environment. Many of us have had experiences with spirits. We heal with our hands, keep up on herbal remedies. My Great-grandmother, my granddaddy’s mom, was a Cherokee healer and a midwife. I think that passed down through us. On my grandmother’s side they were just seductive. A dangerous combination, but I have decided to own it. That is where I am now in my spiritual quest. I no longer strip, but the things I learned about feminine power while I was doing it are still very much a part of me.
December 18, 2009
December 13, 2009
Religious Studies Final
Religious Studies –Final Exam
1) Kiva Hewett
2) Lilwisegirl
3) I have not missed any classes, but I have been late. My class before this one ends at 12:15. It is across campus and sometimes I have questions I need answered or, heaven forbid, need to use the restroom.
4) Movie link
5) I read all of the Copeland k, it was pretty good, much different than I expected, but anti-climatic. As for the Reader, I have skimmed through quite a bit of it. I find myself attracted to the ones that are about more alternative religions and experience. “Pilar” is one of my favorites, I like witchy women.
6) Midterm grade: A solid C
7) This question of the grade I deserve is a tricky one. On one hand, I have allowed my self to get discouraged not only with how internet and tech-heavy the assignments in this class are, but also with the fact that at least half the time we are in class it is about the new technology coming out. I don’t dig it. That said I’m not as engaged as I could/should be when we finally do get to the topics at hand. Based on that, I would give myself a C.
Then we have to factor in what I understand in the class, what I will take from it. I never really had an “ah ha” moment, I expect those. Something that brings what I already know to a greater understanding. I guess we only scratched the surface of religious diversity in class and the rest was reading done outside of class. The only concept I really have a hard time grasping is the idea of spandrels in terms of religious… I get it but can’t articulate it. On the other hand, I worked really hard on this final, so in this area I would give myself a B.
As far as the over all knowing what you want us to grasp from this class, I already carried with me. I get that religions form for different reasons, and that they actually live on and spread even more. I get that the ties to ones religion is complicated, and I get that here in the U.S. it is predominantly Christian and that is hard to break through. I understand that as people ended up on this soil their believe systems were generally either squashed or adapted as to not offend the dominant belief. Taking this in to account, I would give myself an A.
I guess to average it out, I would give myself a B.
8) I guess the only circumstance is that I’m older and not tech savvy at all, it hurts to look at a screen for too long. I took five classes this semester and have a Friday afternoon radio show and I realize that this definitely was a bit too much, but I don’t know if I like making this excuse, or the one for having a kid and working, but you asked for factors. As for extra credit, I did the Ramadan fast. All of my posts that I pulled off before my laptop decided it hates Yahoo are on my blog, other than that, I tend to sign them (Kiva Hewett, lilwisegirl).
9 and 10) Provided in a separate post
11) 11. How does the miracle story surrounding Our Lady of Guadalupe inform and impact the spiritual lives of those who are believers?
The mythology of Our Lady of Guadalupe is an example of “popular religiosity” or the way a religion is “lived and experienced by a majority of people” (Rodriguez).
The story behind our Lady of Guadalupe is one similar to several other religious icons in history. For example, the image of the Virgin Mary has been use in other countries too, not just Mexico. Wherever all hopes are lost and the people are oppressed, they will often turn to religious icons that represent them. As a result, there has been many versions of the Virgin Mary—Vietnamese, Chinese, Indian, and many other countries.
Our Lady of Guadalupe is a Hispanic religious icon that the people closely associate with. The story behind it is very simple and makes almost no sense to me: a brown skinned Virgin Mary was imprinted on a cloth. That’s it. Nevertheless, it is a huge icon in Hispanic culture. The reason for this is because it comes from popular religiosity. Our Lady of Guadalupe has come to represent the notion of enduring suffering, the ability to hope against all hope, and a sense that everything has meaning and it is the result of God’s will.
The people are rejected by a society and they are poor, the Lady of Guadalupe helped them get through their feeling of being rejected because this was an icon that was like them, ethnic. The Lady gives joy and shares the suffering of the people, and as a bonus, she is also the people’s symbol of resistance to assimilation. This is probably why she is brown-skinned, she is one of them, rather than the pale-skinned icon of the virgin Mary.
If we look at the Hispanic’s history, we can see that the people are usually poor and oppressed. The only possible way for the people to get themselves through when they have no say in their society, at least God’s is on their side. The lady of Guadalupe is a representation of God’s presence in human lives.
12) How is the Latino/a religious experience different than the Asian religious experience in North America? In what ways are they fundamentally similar?
One of the biggest differences between the two is that most Latinos are Catholic, which is basically Christian in that they celebrate the same god and savior. Because this faith is very close to the predominate one in North America, Latinos didn’t have to readjust themselves by changing to a new religion. Asian-Americans however didn’t have it so easy. Since many Asians came to this country with religions and ideals so different from the predominant ones, they had to create their own institutions of worship.
Although both the Latino and Asian were oppressed for a period of time in America, Asians had to deal with the issue of retaining their religion. The Asian generations that were born in the States were tempted to assimilate into American culture because it was an easier. Many did. This is similar to the African-Americans creating their own form of Christianity so that they could be more accepted by white men.
Some Latinos also suffered from this problem, those who continued to practice religions like Cuban-Americans practicing Santeria (Garcia).
The biggest difference between the Asian and Latino religious experience in America is the pressure of converting. Nobody ever told the Latinos that their religion is wrong. However, for Asians who believed in icon such as Buddha, they were pressured to assimilate by the virus Christianity. The Asian were harassed by the whites, so naturally they would want the harassment to stop by whatever means possible. The Chinese slowly converted, while the Japanese had a big tug-a-war. The Japanese began to change and convert and then during World War II they and being put in concentration camps they began to dissociate from American society and took a second look at their old Jodo Buddhist religion.
13) What role did the Buddhist Church serve in the "ethnic adjustment of Japanese Americans"?
The Buddhist Church served as a cultural anchor in the Japanese community in some ways even more so than a religious center. While the church held ceremonies and followed the teachings of Buddha, there was not an expectation that you be Buddhist. The church helped as a place to work out the cultural differences in language and custom. Where language was an issue of misunderstanding (in the case of the woman’s breast) the church helped by changing the words so it would not be taken out of context.
Over all, the Buddhist temples were a refuge for the Japanese community to help deal with the stresses of being in a new land with people that did not really accept them.
During World War II most of the Japanese people in America were forced into concentration camps and all of their goods were taken and sold off to buy weapons, the Japanese had nowhere else to turn to. Once they were released from the camps, the Japanese didn’t have anything to start over with so the Buddhist church offered their temple as a sanctuary for the newly released Japanese. They help these people start new lives. The church also offer religious service and stuff (I am not going to list them all) such as Sunday school, wedding ceremonies and helped their people to learn English.
14) Overall, what lessons should we draw from the diversity of religious experiences in America? More specifically, what hurdles or conflicts do Americans still face in trying to practice their respective religions? Can they be overcome? How?
Although people today are not being persecuted for their religious ideas, especially here in America, they do deal with a more subtle form of persecution. The problem here is that, even though it’s said to be different, there is no separation between church and state. This causes an underlying mentality where people tend to be very narrow-minded and consider their religion to be the only true religion that can be correct. Here in the States, that religion is most often Christian.
Religion is a very sensitive issue amongst people, they do not like others criticizing their beliefs and most people will become very defensive when the issue is brought up. Thanks to such narrow-mindedness, many Americans would prefer to leave religion out of any conversation and will avoid the issue when possible to avoid being criticized or judged based on their belief system. This is a major issue amongst the political realm because those “unexpressed” religions tend to get pushed out to the margins. When a person hears that there is a Mormon, or even worse, Muslim (who’s not Muslim) candidate running for president, they immediately begin to pass judgment on him based on his religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter how little or how much this man is involved with this religion, he is still judged accordingly. If he decides not to mention his religion then he is seen as an immoral person because he doesn’t have the teachings of religion to “help him lead a good life.”
The hurdle that Americans have to face in practicing their religions is the mentality that one religion is more true than any other one, they are all constructs of the imagination. One needs to sit down and realize that each person has the right to choose the religious path of their choosing. When it comes down to it they are all just teachings and guides on how not to live a self-destructive life. Once people begin to realize that religion is a matter of personal choice and decision and not a competition, one will be able to worship in peace. Religious groups tend to look down upon other religious practicing groups which go against what is taught especially that of the Christian faith. Therefore in order to overcome this obstacle, people must realize that religion is not a competition and is not a game, it is simply a way to live life.
15) Describe how one new religious movement (founded in America) has transformed American life in unexpected ways?
I am going to take a huge leap here and say that all of the new religious movements that were founded on American soil had huge impacts in one of two ways based on whether the new religion was a “made up” one (for lack of a better term) or an assimilation of an old, earthy religion that was meshed with Christianity.
A) Caused typical Judeo-Christian Americans to be skeptical of their religion and the origins of it because they took a look at the new ones, like Scientology or Jehovah’s Witnesses, and see utter bologna.
B) Caused typical Judeo-Christian American to grow in their convictions because the “almighty god” prevailed and those “heathens” saw the true way.
The reason why I chose to answer this question this way is that no one new religion has made an impact on American life as a whole. The Native American Church only impacts the lives of Native Americans; Scientology has impacted Hollywood as a networking club. What is more common is the view that outsiders have of each new religion, and how that makes them feel.
16) There is an "arc" in each of the readings in the READER... If you were to start a new religion in America how would you best adapt it to the Judeo-Christian ethos in the United States? How have some of the religions mentioned in the Reader done the same?
The common “arc” in this reader is that each non-European culture had some adaptations to make in order to cope with the presence and beliefs of “white” America.
Usually when a people’s religion is oppressed by another they have three options; to abandon their own religion altogether (usually not voluntarily, like African-Americans), to incorporate the new religion (like Native American did), or to choose just to be different (like early Asian immigrants).
If I were creating a new religion in America I would choose to stand apart rather than adapt. The odd way I would choose to stand apart is by incorporating rituals and celebrations from all religions as best as possible.
17) Take one of the gurus/groups mentioned in the GURU IN AMERICA and describe
how they "branched" off from their original influences.
Eckankar Versus Radhasoami on “Soul Travel”
The conflict between more traditional Radhasoami and Twitchell’s new Eckankar is super interesting to me. That some level of waking time outer body experience is a big part of the traditional branches in order for the experience to have any merit and along came this newbie changing the game is maddening.
In the States where people want instant satisfaction, it is not surprising that people were drawn to the newer Eckankar version of this religion. It just goes to show just how desparate Americans are to have some sort of rooted spirituality.
18) Why do some religions get "stronger" and more resilient after they make an
extraordinary claim that gets disconfirmed? In addition, why do some religions
gather more followers after they have been publicly criticized and/or exposed in
the public media?
There are two ways that certain religions get “stronger” and possibly gain membership in the face of public opposition. The first is, of course that they get publicity. Not so well known religions have a lot of land to cover, and as we know, religions catch on by spreading their ideas. Negative attention is better than no attention at all.
The other part is more so regarding the ideas of the religion. Even if they get disproved in the public eye their will still be those die-hard members who don’t care what the public thinks. Those are the member that will stick it out, those who were riding the fence will fall off and what they left is a core group of true followers who will ultimately be more affective in spreading the message and gathering new recruits.
19) What is the most important thing you learned this semester?
This semester the most important thing I learned is that my teacher is an idiot. ;)
20. Extra credit: describe how you would make a successful new religion in
America? What would be some of the things that you would implement that would be
different from already existing religions?
1) Kiva Hewett
2) Lilwisegirl
3) I have not missed any classes, but I have been late. My class before this one ends at 12:15. It is across campus and sometimes I have questions I need answered or, heaven forbid, need to use the restroom.
4) Movie link
5) I read all of the Copeland k, it was pretty good, much different than I expected, but anti-climatic. As for the Reader, I have skimmed through quite a bit of it. I find myself attracted to the ones that are about more alternative religions and experience. “Pilar” is one of my favorites, I like witchy women.
6) Midterm grade: A solid C
7) This question of the grade I deserve is a tricky one. On one hand, I have allowed my self to get discouraged not only with how internet and tech-heavy the assignments in this class are, but also with the fact that at least half the time we are in class it is about the new technology coming out. I don’t dig it. That said I’m not as engaged as I could/should be when we finally do get to the topics at hand. Based on that, I would give myself a C.
Then we have to factor in what I understand in the class, what I will take from it. I never really had an “ah ha” moment, I expect those. Something that brings what I already know to a greater understanding. I guess we only scratched the surface of religious diversity in class and the rest was reading done outside of class. The only concept I really have a hard time grasping is the idea of spandrels in terms of religious… I get it but can’t articulate it. On the other hand, I worked really hard on this final, so in this area I would give myself a B.
As far as the over all knowing what you want us to grasp from this class, I already carried with me. I get that religions form for different reasons, and that they actually live on and spread even more. I get that the ties to ones religion is complicated, and I get that here in the U.S. it is predominantly Christian and that is hard to break through. I understand that as people ended up on this soil their believe systems were generally either squashed or adapted as to not offend the dominant belief. Taking this in to account, I would give myself an A.
I guess to average it out, I would give myself a B.
8) I guess the only circumstance is that I’m older and not tech savvy at all, it hurts to look at a screen for too long. I took five classes this semester and have a Friday afternoon radio show and I realize that this definitely was a bit too much, but I don’t know if I like making this excuse, or the one for having a kid and working, but you asked for factors. As for extra credit, I did the Ramadan fast. All of my posts that I pulled off before my laptop decided it hates Yahoo are on my blog, other than that, I tend to sign them (Kiva Hewett, lilwisegirl).
9 and 10) Provided in a separate post
11) 11. How does the miracle story surrounding Our Lady of Guadalupe inform and impact the spiritual lives of those who are believers?
The mythology of Our Lady of Guadalupe is an example of “popular religiosity” or the way a religion is “lived and experienced by a majority of people” (Rodriguez).
The story behind our Lady of Guadalupe is one similar to several other religious icons in history. For example, the image of the Virgin Mary has been use in other countries too, not just Mexico. Wherever all hopes are lost and the people are oppressed, they will often turn to religious icons that represent them. As a result, there has been many versions of the Virgin Mary—Vietnamese, Chinese, Indian, and many other countries.
Our Lady of Guadalupe is a Hispanic religious icon that the people closely associate with. The story behind it is very simple and makes almost no sense to me: a brown skinned Virgin Mary was imprinted on a cloth. That’s it. Nevertheless, it is a huge icon in Hispanic culture. The reason for this is because it comes from popular religiosity. Our Lady of Guadalupe has come to represent the notion of enduring suffering, the ability to hope against all hope, and a sense that everything has meaning and it is the result of God’s will.
The people are rejected by a society and they are poor, the Lady of Guadalupe helped them get through their feeling of being rejected because this was an icon that was like them, ethnic. The Lady gives joy and shares the suffering of the people, and as a bonus, she is also the people’s symbol of resistance to assimilation. This is probably why she is brown-skinned, she is one of them, rather than the pale-skinned icon of the virgin Mary.
If we look at the Hispanic’s history, we can see that the people are usually poor and oppressed. The only possible way for the people to get themselves through when they have no say in their society, at least God’s is on their side. The lady of Guadalupe is a representation of God’s presence in human lives.
12) How is the Latino/a religious experience different than the Asian religious experience in North America? In what ways are they fundamentally similar?
One of the biggest differences between the two is that most Latinos are Catholic, which is basically Christian in that they celebrate the same god and savior. Because this faith is very close to the predominate one in North America, Latinos didn’t have to readjust themselves by changing to a new religion. Asian-Americans however didn’t have it so easy. Since many Asians came to this country with religions and ideals so different from the predominant ones, they had to create their own institutions of worship.
Although both the Latino and Asian were oppressed for a period of time in America, Asians had to deal with the issue of retaining their religion. The Asian generations that were born in the States were tempted to assimilate into American culture because it was an easier. Many did. This is similar to the African-Americans creating their own form of Christianity so that they could be more accepted by white men.
Some Latinos also suffered from this problem, those who continued to practice religions like Cuban-Americans practicing Santeria (Garcia).
The biggest difference between the Asian and Latino religious experience in America is the pressure of converting. Nobody ever told the Latinos that their religion is wrong. However, for Asians who believed in icon such as Buddha, they were pressured to assimilate by the virus Christianity. The Asian were harassed by the whites, so naturally they would want the harassment to stop by whatever means possible. The Chinese slowly converted, while the Japanese had a big tug-a-war. The Japanese began to change and convert and then during World War II they and being put in concentration camps they began to dissociate from American society and took a second look at their old Jodo Buddhist religion.
13) What role did the Buddhist Church serve in the "ethnic adjustment of Japanese Americans"?
The Buddhist Church served as a cultural anchor in the Japanese community in some ways even more so than a religious center. While the church held ceremonies and followed the teachings of Buddha, there was not an expectation that you be Buddhist. The church helped as a place to work out the cultural differences in language and custom. Where language was an issue of misunderstanding (in the case of the woman’s breast) the church helped by changing the words so it would not be taken out of context.
Over all, the Buddhist temples were a refuge for the Japanese community to help deal with the stresses of being in a new land with people that did not really accept them.
During World War II most of the Japanese people in America were forced into concentration camps and all of their goods were taken and sold off to buy weapons, the Japanese had nowhere else to turn to. Once they were released from the camps, the Japanese didn’t have anything to start over with so the Buddhist church offered their temple as a sanctuary for the newly released Japanese. They help these people start new lives. The church also offer religious service and stuff (I am not going to list them all) such as Sunday school, wedding ceremonies and helped their people to learn English.
14) Overall, what lessons should we draw from the diversity of religious experiences in America? More specifically, what hurdles or conflicts do Americans still face in trying to practice their respective religions? Can they be overcome? How?
Although people today are not being persecuted for their religious ideas, especially here in America, they do deal with a more subtle form of persecution. The problem here is that, even though it’s said to be different, there is no separation between church and state. This causes an underlying mentality where people tend to be very narrow-minded and consider their religion to be the only true religion that can be correct. Here in the States, that religion is most often Christian.
Religion is a very sensitive issue amongst people, they do not like others criticizing their beliefs and most people will become very defensive when the issue is brought up. Thanks to such narrow-mindedness, many Americans would prefer to leave religion out of any conversation and will avoid the issue when possible to avoid being criticized or judged based on their belief system. This is a major issue amongst the political realm because those “unexpressed” religions tend to get pushed out to the margins. When a person hears that there is a Mormon, or even worse, Muslim (who’s not Muslim) candidate running for president, they immediately begin to pass judgment on him based on his religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter how little or how much this man is involved with this religion, he is still judged accordingly. If he decides not to mention his religion then he is seen as an immoral person because he doesn’t have the teachings of religion to “help him lead a good life.”
The hurdle that Americans have to face in practicing their religions is the mentality that one religion is more true than any other one, they are all constructs of the imagination. One needs to sit down and realize that each person has the right to choose the religious path of their choosing. When it comes down to it they are all just teachings and guides on how not to live a self-destructive life. Once people begin to realize that religion is a matter of personal choice and decision and not a competition, one will be able to worship in peace. Religious groups tend to look down upon other religious practicing groups which go against what is taught especially that of the Christian faith. Therefore in order to overcome this obstacle, people must realize that religion is not a competition and is not a game, it is simply a way to live life.
15) Describe how one new religious movement (founded in America) has transformed American life in unexpected ways?
I am going to take a huge leap here and say that all of the new religious movements that were founded on American soil had huge impacts in one of two ways based on whether the new religion was a “made up” one (for lack of a better term) or an assimilation of an old, earthy religion that was meshed with Christianity.
A) Caused typical Judeo-Christian Americans to be skeptical of their religion and the origins of it because they took a look at the new ones, like Scientology or Jehovah’s Witnesses, and see utter bologna.
B) Caused typical Judeo-Christian American to grow in their convictions because the “almighty god” prevailed and those “heathens” saw the true way.
The reason why I chose to answer this question this way is that no one new religion has made an impact on American life as a whole. The Native American Church only impacts the lives of Native Americans; Scientology has impacted Hollywood as a networking club. What is more common is the view that outsiders have of each new religion, and how that makes them feel.
16) There is an "arc" in each of the readings in the READER... If you were to start a new religion in America how would you best adapt it to the Judeo-Christian ethos in the United States? How have some of the religions mentioned in the Reader done the same?
The common “arc” in this reader is that each non-European culture had some adaptations to make in order to cope with the presence and beliefs of “white” America.
Usually when a people’s religion is oppressed by another they have three options; to abandon their own religion altogether (usually not voluntarily, like African-Americans), to incorporate the new religion (like Native American did), or to choose just to be different (like early Asian immigrants).
If I were creating a new religion in America I would choose to stand apart rather than adapt. The odd way I would choose to stand apart is by incorporating rituals and celebrations from all religions as best as possible.
17) Take one of the gurus/groups mentioned in the GURU IN AMERICA and describe
how they "branched" off from their original influences.
Eckankar Versus Radhasoami on “Soul Travel”
The conflict between more traditional Radhasoami and Twitchell’s new Eckankar is super interesting to me. That some level of waking time outer body experience is a big part of the traditional branches in order for the experience to have any merit and along came this newbie changing the game is maddening.
In the States where people want instant satisfaction, it is not surprising that people were drawn to the newer Eckankar version of this religion. It just goes to show just how desparate Americans are to have some sort of rooted spirituality.
18) Why do some religions get "stronger" and more resilient after they make an
extraordinary claim that gets disconfirmed? In addition, why do some religions
gather more followers after they have been publicly criticized and/or exposed in
the public media?
There are two ways that certain religions get “stronger” and possibly gain membership in the face of public opposition. The first is, of course that they get publicity. Not so well known religions have a lot of land to cover, and as we know, religions catch on by spreading their ideas. Negative attention is better than no attention at all.
The other part is more so regarding the ideas of the religion. Even if they get disproved in the public eye their will still be those die-hard members who don’t care what the public thinks. Those are the member that will stick it out, those who were riding the fence will fall off and what they left is a core group of true followers who will ultimately be more affective in spreading the message and gathering new recruits.
19) What is the most important thing you learned this semester?
This semester the most important thing I learned is that my teacher is an idiot. ;)
20. Extra credit: describe how you would make a successful new religion in
America? What would be some of the things that you would implement that would be
different from already existing religions?
December 12, 2009
A Trippy Trip into Scientology
THE PERSONALITY TEST
My sister and I were hanging out on Melrose Avenue just killing time when we saw a sign we’d passed a hundred times before. It was for a free personality test in the little scientology annex. We decided to try it out, our car still wasn’t ready.
When we entered we were greeted by a super touchy-feely white man with wide blue eyes. His energy felt cool and sticky to me. The test took about 35 minutes, the evaluation was even longer at an hour and a half. They gave us our results in separate “counseling” sessions where they told each of us that there was some hidden sadness that was holding us back from achieving our greatest heights.
Before leaving this counseling session, they tried desperately hard to get us to commit to doing extensive sessions auditing to help deal with our issues. I asked to see and keep my personality chart and that I would think about it. Though he was really trying to hide it, the man became irritated with this request. He said he can’t give them to me.
“Why not, they’re mine?”
“Actually, they belong to us.” He answered. “It’s just policy.”
“Well that’s just stupid.” I retorted. “Can I at least see them?”
“No.”
“Well now I really don’t trust you.”
“If I let you see them will you sign up?” He asked.
“If you let me have a copy I might sign up.”
This banter went on for another 15 minutes or so. I definitely wasn’t signing up for something if they wouldn’t even let me see my own personality test. Eventually, he got up and made me a copy. I won!
When he came back he wanted me to sign up, since he did something for me. The auditing sessions were too expensive for me anyhow and I told him that was a big part of it. He tried to convince me that it was an investment for my spirit and that it would pay off for me. He gave me his personal testimony on how much it changed his life.
“So you guys only offer salvation for those who can afford it?” I challenged.
“Well, it is more of a donation for the time and effort we put in here.”
“But donations aren’t mandatory fees.” I continued the argument. “And I’m not going to commit money I already don’t have for something I don’t even know I like.”
Eventually I was able to wear him down; I got a trial audit session for a nominal $5 fee. My sister did not sign up, but she grabbed a copy of Dianetics so we could look into it more. She thought I was a bit crazy to sign up for anything; I wasn’t so sure she wasn’t right. At the time we were engaged in a joint effort to find truth.
AUDITING
Auditing is the Scientology practice recalling a traumatic experience and dealing with it in a more rational frame of mind, in the present, in order to become “clear.” The reason one would want to be “clear” is so they can reach their full potential. Scientology basically says that through out your life you have created “engrams,” or blocks, that are keeping you from living a life of full spiritual awareness and physical power.
The session is kind of like Catholic confession, only instead of an anonymous booth you close your eyes and hold onto this E-meter that is supposed to measure your resistance and help the auditor to find where your “engrams are.
You begin the session by counting backwards from ten in order to relax you. Then you begin telling the auditor your traumatic experience over and over again, in greater detail each time. It feels a lot like a police interrogation, it’s not pleasant or warm, but very pragmatic. You are to tell the same story until you “feel joy in telling it.” This joy is indicated by smiling, even laughing, rather than the sadness or anger you may have expressed before.
The next step is to pick an event that was similar to the first and do the same thing. When you reach that point of joy you are done. Then the auditor asks you a few questions that eventually lead to that the events weren’t your fault. When you come to grips with that and forgive yourself for being so hard on yourself the auditor then asks you to clear the trauma from your ‘soul’ by stating out loud that you renounce the hold it has had on you. You count forward to ten and open your eyes.
WHAT I TOOK WITH ME
I never went back for another session, but I can’t say it wasn’t beneficial in some way. I actually hold that this auditing serves as a good psychological exercise. Since then the issue I chose to deal with hasn’t affected me as much as it used to. I think that was L. Ron Hubbard’s original intent anyhow. From what my sister and I read in Dianetics, he never meant for Scientology to become a religion, just a self-help system.
The man at the center called me for a few weeks following my session. No doubt this was more to get money out of me. The last time we spoke I politely told him I wasn’t interested in joining the church, it just wasn’t for me. I’ve had to go to their big event center on several occasions for performances and every time I feel creepy when they come at us saying how they like to help performance artists and we should talk. More than anything it’s there forceful ways and slimy feeling I get that turns me off. I find myself using the auditing process on my own now. I am able to get a clear perspective on how things go down, I find that beneficial. The only difference is that sometimes I find that my trauma is entirely my own fault.
My sister and I were hanging out on Melrose Avenue just killing time when we saw a sign we’d passed a hundred times before. It was for a free personality test in the little scientology annex. We decided to try it out, our car still wasn’t ready.
When we entered we were greeted by a super touchy-feely white man with wide blue eyes. His energy felt cool and sticky to me. The test took about 35 minutes, the evaluation was even longer at an hour and a half. They gave us our results in separate “counseling” sessions where they told each of us that there was some hidden sadness that was holding us back from achieving our greatest heights.
Before leaving this counseling session, they tried desperately hard to get us to commit to doing extensive sessions auditing to help deal with our issues. I asked to see and keep my personality chart and that I would think about it. Though he was really trying to hide it, the man became irritated with this request. He said he can’t give them to me.
“Why not, they’re mine?”
“Actually, they belong to us.” He answered. “It’s just policy.”
“Well that’s just stupid.” I retorted. “Can I at least see them?”
“No.”
“Well now I really don’t trust you.”
“If I let you see them will you sign up?” He asked.
“If you let me have a copy I might sign up.”
This banter went on for another 15 minutes or so. I definitely wasn’t signing up for something if they wouldn’t even let me see my own personality test. Eventually, he got up and made me a copy. I won!
When he came back he wanted me to sign up, since he did something for me. The auditing sessions were too expensive for me anyhow and I told him that was a big part of it. He tried to convince me that it was an investment for my spirit and that it would pay off for me. He gave me his personal testimony on how much it changed his life.
“So you guys only offer salvation for those who can afford it?” I challenged.
“Well, it is more of a donation for the time and effort we put in here.”
“But donations aren’t mandatory fees.” I continued the argument. “And I’m not going to commit money I already don’t have for something I don’t even know I like.”
Eventually I was able to wear him down; I got a trial audit session for a nominal $5 fee. My sister did not sign up, but she grabbed a copy of Dianetics so we could look into it more. She thought I was a bit crazy to sign up for anything; I wasn’t so sure she wasn’t right. At the time we were engaged in a joint effort to find truth.
AUDITING
Auditing is the Scientology practice recalling a traumatic experience and dealing with it in a more rational frame of mind, in the present, in order to become “clear.” The reason one would want to be “clear” is so they can reach their full potential. Scientology basically says that through out your life you have created “engrams,” or blocks, that are keeping you from living a life of full spiritual awareness and physical power.
The session is kind of like Catholic confession, only instead of an anonymous booth you close your eyes and hold onto this E-meter that is supposed to measure your resistance and help the auditor to find where your “engrams are.
You begin the session by counting backwards from ten in order to relax you. Then you begin telling the auditor your traumatic experience over and over again, in greater detail each time. It feels a lot like a police interrogation, it’s not pleasant or warm, but very pragmatic. You are to tell the same story until you “feel joy in telling it.” This joy is indicated by smiling, even laughing, rather than the sadness or anger you may have expressed before.
The next step is to pick an event that was similar to the first and do the same thing. When you reach that point of joy you are done. Then the auditor asks you a few questions that eventually lead to that the events weren’t your fault. When you come to grips with that and forgive yourself for being so hard on yourself the auditor then asks you to clear the trauma from your ‘soul’ by stating out loud that you renounce the hold it has had on you. You count forward to ten and open your eyes.
WHAT I TOOK WITH ME
I never went back for another session, but I can’t say it wasn’t beneficial in some way. I actually hold that this auditing serves as a good psychological exercise. Since then the issue I chose to deal with hasn’t affected me as much as it used to. I think that was L. Ron Hubbard’s original intent anyhow. From what my sister and I read in Dianetics, he never meant for Scientology to become a religion, just a self-help system.
The man at the center called me for a few weeks following my session. No doubt this was more to get money out of me. The last time we spoke I politely told him I wasn’t interested in joining the church, it just wasn’t for me. I’ve had to go to their big event center on several occasions for performances and every time I feel creepy when they come at us saying how they like to help performance artists and we should talk. More than anything it’s there forceful ways and slimy feeling I get that turns me off. I find myself using the auditing process on my own now. I am able to get a clear perspective on how things go down, I find that beneficial. The only difference is that sometimes I find that my trauma is entirely my own fault.
November 13, 2009
Damn Sheep
It is so not logical. There is no proof of the event TYPED in this video, just like there is no proof that there is a god. Just like "The Bible", a person wrote this and spread it around.
Even though you can't see it, air is a tangible substance with measurable make-up. It has particles. It is there.
I saw in here the flip flop of do you believe in god and do you believe in Jesus. That's a big mistake. You can believe in one and not the other, that's why religions are different around the world. (Which by the way, is why we don't do god and Jesus in schools, out of respect for the diversity of the U.S. Because Christian people would get so ticked off if we were opening class with the Hindu Sun Salutation. I actually find this a much better way to get my brain and body moving and in line than a prayer. During prayer time my mind always wonders off.)
We can't say 'oh don't offend the Christians' and then offend everyone else, that's just selfish....
I believe in Jesus. I believe he was a man who had a good heart and had a beautiful new message for society. Same with the other prophets in "The Bible". Same as Buddha. Same as Krishna. Same as the prophet Muhammad. Same as that whack job who leads Agape in L.A. Same as L. Ron Hubbard..... Some messages just resonate with people.
And "Keep the Christ in CHRISTmas"!!! WTF, the holiday isn't even a Christian holiday anyway! It was just given a Christian name. It's a pagan holiday for the Winter Solstice, and celebration of the return of the Sun, it's when the days start getting longer again. Dang Christians figured they could replace Sun with Son and over time it would work.... And it did... Because Christians are sheep, just like "The Bible" calls them. They follow along with anything and don't question it.... Just like the event in this video.... if it is at all true.
November 6, 2009
Religious Diversity Midterm
MIDTERM EXAM
NAME: Kiva Hewett
USERNAME: lilwisegirl
WEBSITE ADDRESS:
1. LIST ALL OF YOUR POSTINGS (copy and paste them or provide direct links to
each specific post)
2. Attendance:
How many times late? 3 (but for good reason, not cause I was just messing around.)
How many classes missed? 0
3. 1st Digital Film: Name and Describe (how long? how did you edit it? in what
format? on what day did you show it?) Provide your youtube or google video link
here. Sent to you already
4. To read or not to read, that is the question: Be honest. How much of the
following book did you read? Not a Genuine Black Man? Required readings from the
Reader?
I have read quite a bit of the textbook, but not all of it. I have made a point to read the one’s for this exam. Surprisingly enough, I have finished Copeland’s book, despite my significant other’s protests because he knows of Copeland, and grew up in the Bay Area, is black and said “that I’m-not-that-kind-of-black-guy attitude doesn’t fly with us.” (I told him he should read it, he might be able to relate.)
5. Give an example of a "consilience" explanation to one specific religious
phenomenon (e.g., why do people worship snakes, etc
Why do people dance as a form of worship?
At the religious level, some people use dance as way to worship or communicate with their god(s) because they want to please them. These “dancing religions” believe that the dancers enter a state of religious ecstasy induced by the music and movement.
When you take it down the sociological level, you’ll find that the exact manner and expected outcome of the dance differs from one society to the next. In some cases the dance can be performed by anyone and is all improvisation. In others, the dancer must be deemed sacred and has rigid instruction before performing the dance. People in that society have learned to perceive these dances as sacred.
At a biological/biochemical level, chemicals the body releases when it feels good can induce a euphoric feeling during the dancing. What the dancer feels during the dance is sometimes referred to as an altered state of reality.
6. How can the theory of memetics help in understanding WHY certain religions
are more successful than others (in terms of popularity) in the USA? Be sure to
explain how memes are different than genes.
Memetics is Richard Dawkins’ view on the cultural information transfer from one generation, and even one geographical region, to another. The theory states that cultural behavior is stored in the brain as a piece of information, waiting to “infect” another person. It is passed on to the next simply by being exposed to that idea or behavior.
7. Describe how evolutionary theory (via natural selection as first presented by
Charles Darwin and later by Richard Dawkins) helps in understanding human
migration, cultural development, and social identity. (Think of evolutionary
psychology).
Humans migrated and developed social identities all because of our advanced brains and the ability to think, “I don’t feel like I belong here” or even as simple as “it’s kinda crowded here.” So people moved around, and they had to adapt to where they moved to, so they developed new practices and passed those on to the next generation.
8. Why is the notion of "race" biologically obsolete, yet culturally viable?
(hint: difference between "nature" and "nurture"... or biology vs. sociology)
Replace “race” with “ethnicity” and it is no longer an obsolete idea. People are attached to the term as being a negative thing (oh, you’re a racist) and so there is a whole camp of people who’ve been trying to prove it does not exist. When you look at race or ethnicity from a biological perspective you see differences in what people look like and in how they do things. This is not saying that we are a different species as many of the past arguments for race have tried to say. So, we are all human, we can all have babies together but we look different based on what paths our ancestors traveled. We do things differently based on the activities and social norms we grew up with. I like to think of it as “breeds” of people. Most people hate it when I say that cause they don’t like feeling like I’m calling them a dog…. But we are just animals.
9. Explain how a religious idea/ritual/practice gets transformed in American
soil. For ex: I described how circumcision evolved from a religious ritual (from
Egyptian to Judaic to Islamic) into a routinely performed medical procedure.
This is a tougher question than you might suspect. Think before you leap. You
want to describe how a religious idea/ritual/practice CHANGES in a North
American environment. You can draw from ANY religion for your developmental
example. Be sure, though, that it is YOUR example.
The Celtic celebration Sahmein is known here in the states as Halloween. The Celts celebrated the lighter half of the year meeting the darker half (for us this is why we turn our clocks), when the days are shorter from the way Earth rotates. On this night they believed that the barrier between the mortal world and that of spirits is thin and that spirits can pass through. So they wore costumes to trick bad spirits and hoped they wouldn’t cause harm.
Later, Catholics took over the holiday and meshed it with their own All Saints Day, which is actually the day after Halloween, where they pay homage to their favorite saints by dressing up as them. Hispanic cultures celebrate the Day of the Dead, where they invite the spirits of their dead loved ones to come back home and entice them with treats and feasts.
All this somehow got all mixed together in the U.S. as Halloween and is pretty much a capitalist venture. People dress up for reasons they don’t know, kids go from house to house demanding candy (they don’t even say “trick-or-treat” anymore, the Celt kids had to do a little performance), we carve pumpkins to ward off spirits that we (the general Christian-American population) supposedly don’t believe in. All this production just for someone somewhere to make money.
10. Explain Peter Berger's concept of the "heretical imperative" (hint: think of
class lecture: deductive, reductive, inductive) and how it applies to religious
pluralism in general.
There access to so much more information nowadays, that people can choose to look at religion with eyes and brains that know more than just how they were raised. That said, a person now can decide how literal or right they think their religion is. On a level of reasoning, a person can decide that they have all the answers, regardless of evidence, and reject anything opposing their religion (deductive, like my father). One can decide that the evidence of evolution is so overwhelming that there is definitely no “real” religion (reductive, like atheists). And last, a person can decide that they just don’t know and keep themselves open to whatever (inductive, like I was for years). With this arises an array of beliefs that are on kind of a spectrum.
13. Take ONE new religious movement (any religion founded after the 16th century
CE) and describe, in brief, its influence in North America. Use hypertext when
necessary.
Scientology is an interesting religion. I notice that the people who choose to follow it are very caught up in the material manifestation of their faith. For most of us it has become the faith of the stars. There are “normal” people who follow as well, but those that I have spoken with are just as caught up in the material aspect.
A few years ago I went into one of the scientology centers on Melrose in L.A. I took the personality quiz and it listed all these generic issues that I think most people in Los Angeles possess. After I even took it a step further and went through on of the sessions that is supposed to “clear” you. I really can’t knock it. This was one of the best therapy sessions I have ever had. They usually make people pay a lot of money for these sessions, I got off with only $10 since they were trying to recruit me and I haggled.
Since the “religion” is a spin off of L. Ron Hubbard’s self help regimen, I think the appeal to people is that it serves as an alternative to getting therapy. In a sense it helps you avoid the humility of saying that you are in therapy. It also goes hand in hand with The Secret, a self initiated process of healing and manifestation of your goals.
That The Secret and Scientology are becoming so popular is indicative of people moving away from faiths that rely on arbitrary and invisible beings and moving toward taking destiny into their own hands.
14. How would Nietzsche describe the "death" of God and the rise of new
religions?
Nietzche is an interesting philosopher. I happen to really love him, despite his beliefs being used by Hitler, because he didn’t really mean what Hitler twisted it into (perhaps another example of the ‘breaking off of a religion’ at it’s founder,) Nietzche says that even if people “kill off” their god, eventually a new one will rise up because humans seem to need the guidance that a higher power provides. So even if you stop following the Christian god, another will come in its place. In some ways this is indicative of the phrase “you need to stand for something or you will fall for anything.”
15. How does Stephen Wolfram's "new kind of science" support Stephen Jay Gould's
notion of spandrels or unintended consequences/complexities? Hint: think of how
complexity is the result of simpler computational-like programs.
“New kind of science” supports the notion of spandrels or unintended consequences/complexities in that Wolfram discovered that there was randomness in repetitive behaviors; which one would think would lead to predictability or order. If one follows complex repetitive laws then predictability should result. Jay Gould’s notion of unintended consequences could be supported due to the fact that randomness still results using repetition. This randomness then produces results that were not the goal of the one causing the repetitive nature, leading to unintended consequences and outcomes that were not being sought. I suppose a good example might be the way we celebrate Christmas, that it has become so attached to the Christian celebration of the birth of Christ even though lighting up a tree is a pagan ritual. Since Catholics allowed this practice for so long, it is now just the way it is.
16. Why does religious "diversity" almost always start with its founder? Explain
in detail your answer.
Religious diversification at the level of the founder happens, as lane says, when the founder dies. But this is not the only time. When someone speaks, different people hear all sorts of different things. Or the message hits them in a certain way, or they have selective hearing, or they don’t agree and decide that they don’t believe everything just as the founder taught it.
So diversification begins the moment the founder opens his mouth. Most followers are never going to get the opportunity to meet and speak and learn from the person who started the belief they follow. So usually followers are relying on some follower to pass down the message. Here’s my question--- I wonder how often the people that carry the torch of a religion have some point of contention with their teachers?
17. What was the tipping point in Brian Copeland's life which prompted him to
want to commit suicide?
After Copeland’s 35th birthday, a few things came to a head and caused him to actually try to commit suicide. The three events the immediately led up to that were his son’s little request to not get the black doll family, hearing old classmates say “he’s still a nigger,” and a phone call from his grandmother to visit his mom’s grave. However, there are a couple examples in his young life where, while he doesn’t make an attempt to kill himself, he feels like he doesn’t want to live.
Anytime that a person expresses that they don’t want to do anything, especially at eight years old, there is something wrong. So I think the first time Copeland ever thought about suicide was with the incident with the police officer when he was eight and he said he didn’t want to do anything ever again.
18. What were the more "subtle" forms of racism that Brian encountered when
growing up in San Leandro?
First of all, I don’t think any of these were subtle. They all seemed out and out nasty and those people knew what they were doing. All of these, from not cutting his hair, to stopping him, to the nun hitting him, to the incident with the Scout’s fishing badge were racist acts. And not one of them was subtle.
19. How does Brian's experience of racism dovetail with the experiences of
Malcolm X? How are they different?
Malcolm X and Copeland both experience serious incidents of racial profiling. Where they differ is that Copeland just wanted to fit in and X didn’t want anything from the white population but for them to leave black people alone.
20. In what ways did certain North American Indian religions ABSORB and
INTEGRATE Christianity into their own religious ideas and rituals?
More than anything, I think the North American Indians saw that Christian beliefs were not so far off from what any good person would do, so they could easily incorporate Christian teachings alongside of theirs. Just take the “god” out of it.
21. In Laverne Jacobs' narrative he speaks about how he felt conflicted about
his Native American religious identity and his newfound faith in Christianity.
How did he attempt to reconcile the two beliefs?
Jacobs tells of his reluctance to engage in any of his native practices for fear of demeaning his now Christian self. It took him some time and being very alone before he realized that his two beliefs were not in opposition, that his native rituals were more about bonding and honoring the land, yourself and truth than about worshipping some evil being.
22. What is the Native American Church of Jesus Christ? How did it evolve?
The church evolved within an already-existing Sioux church. It wasn’t a Christian church. It was a peyote-based church. The cactus fruit is used to induce an altered state of mind. Traditional Christian churches were known to oppress the practices of native people (think Hawaii, and any where else Jesus-following people landed and took over) but the Mormon’s Latter Day Saints church allowed the natives to practice spirituality as they saw fit. The Mormons taught that it is all the same god and so it doesn’t matter how they worship, so long as they do.
Given this, the Mormon Church was an easy blend for many native people who enjoyed the Christian ideology, but also wanted to practice their native rituals. And so the Native American Church of Jesus Christ was formed.
23. Detail Frederick Douglass' critique of slavery by via his autobiography? In
what specific ways is it a critique of conventional religion?
Fredrick Douglas felt much the way I do about the relationship of Christianity and African Americans. Being white gave you the right to enslave and abuse other people. In many ways being Christian does the same.
24. What are the major differences between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King,
Jr., when it comes to liberating blacks from oppression?
Malcolm X and Dr. King had two very conflicting views on oppression. Their styles would be the first that you notice between them; King being articulate, calm but still powerful and carrying the message of his dream of harmony between all people, regardless of their skin tone or creed. Malcolm X, on the other hand, was abrasive, mean sounding, almost scary. He spoke more of blacks taking their rights. Instead of coming to an understanding, he proposed that we continue to have separations, almost like the Native Americans and the reservations. He did not want any mutual respect; he wanted whites to leave blacks alone all together.
How they delivered their message was only one factor in how each was received. There was also a difference in what “god” was backing them up. King was devoutly Christian; something that white America could understand and get behind and understand. Malcolm X, on the other hand, considered himself Muslim and preached that Islam was the original religion. Not only was he cramming down the throats of white Americans the idea that they should drink from the same water fountains and use the same bathrooms, but now you have this big, mean black man screaming that their religion is wrong.
The last factor in the differences in the message of these two men comes from which direction they are looking at. Malcolm X wanted blacks to look at their history for empowerment, while King spoke of his dream of a future. King’s message went over well with progressive thinkers. It’s hard to sell a new idea while talking about the past.
25. Why is genealogical dissociation a key factor in understanding the emergence
of new religions in America?
Humans have a tendency to want to make sense of things and to need a purpose to live. People who can think of a good enough reason to survive win and get to pass on their genes, in turn possibly passing on those great imaginations, and then the next generation can make up good reasons to survive.
EXTRA CREDIT:
27. Write your own analysis (in 300 words or more) of the "arc" (or overall
theme) in the Reader for either the American Indian experience or the African
American experience. Be sure to substantiate your interpretation.
28. Compare and contrast one reading from the American Indian section with the
African American section. Be sure to illustrate the differences and the
commonalities.
29. Make a film based on one of the readings provided in the reader. MORE EXTRA
CREDIT FORTHCOMING.
NAME: Kiva Hewett
USERNAME: lilwisegirl
WEBSITE ADDRESS:
1. LIST ALL OF YOUR POSTINGS (copy and paste them or provide direct links to
each specific post)
2. Attendance:
How many times late? 3 (but for good reason, not cause I was just messing around.)
How many classes missed? 0
3. 1st Digital Film: Name and Describe (how long? how did you edit it? in what
format? on what day did you show it?) Provide your youtube or google video link
here. Sent to you already
4. To read or not to read, that is the question: Be honest. How much of the
following book did you read? Not a Genuine Black Man? Required readings from the
Reader?
I have read quite a bit of the textbook, but not all of it. I have made a point to read the one’s for this exam. Surprisingly enough, I have finished Copeland’s book, despite my significant other’s protests because he knows of Copeland, and grew up in the Bay Area, is black and said “that I’m-not-that-kind-of-black-guy attitude doesn’t fly with us.” (I told him he should read it, he might be able to relate.)
5. Give an example of a "consilience" explanation to one specific religious
phenomenon (e.g., why do people worship snakes, etc
Why do people dance as a form of worship?
At the religious level, some people use dance as way to worship or communicate with their god(s) because they want to please them. These “dancing religions” believe that the dancers enter a state of religious ecstasy induced by the music and movement.
When you take it down the sociological level, you’ll find that the exact manner and expected outcome of the dance differs from one society to the next. In some cases the dance can be performed by anyone and is all improvisation. In others, the dancer must be deemed sacred and has rigid instruction before performing the dance. People in that society have learned to perceive these dances as sacred.
At a biological/biochemical level, chemicals the body releases when it feels good can induce a euphoric feeling during the dancing. What the dancer feels during the dance is sometimes referred to as an altered state of reality.
6. How can the theory of memetics help in understanding WHY certain religions
are more successful than others (in terms of popularity) in the USA? Be sure to
explain how memes are different than genes.
Memetics is Richard Dawkins’ view on the cultural information transfer from one generation, and even one geographical region, to another. The theory states that cultural behavior is stored in the brain as a piece of information, waiting to “infect” another person. It is passed on to the next simply by being exposed to that idea or behavior.
7. Describe how evolutionary theory (via natural selection as first presented by
Charles Darwin and later by Richard Dawkins) helps in understanding human
migration, cultural development, and social identity. (Think of evolutionary
psychology).
Humans migrated and developed social identities all because of our advanced brains and the ability to think, “I don’t feel like I belong here” or even as simple as “it’s kinda crowded here.” So people moved around, and they had to adapt to where they moved to, so they developed new practices and passed those on to the next generation.
8. Why is the notion of "race" biologically obsolete, yet culturally viable?
(hint: difference between "nature" and "nurture"... or biology vs. sociology)
Replace “race” with “ethnicity” and it is no longer an obsolete idea. People are attached to the term as being a negative thing (oh, you’re a racist) and so there is a whole camp of people who’ve been trying to prove it does not exist. When you look at race or ethnicity from a biological perspective you see differences in what people look like and in how they do things. This is not saying that we are a different species as many of the past arguments for race have tried to say. So, we are all human, we can all have babies together but we look different based on what paths our ancestors traveled. We do things differently based on the activities and social norms we grew up with. I like to think of it as “breeds” of people. Most people hate it when I say that cause they don’t like feeling like I’m calling them a dog…. But we are just animals.
9. Explain how a religious idea/ritual/practice gets transformed in American
soil. For ex: I described how circumcision evolved from a religious ritual (from
Egyptian to Judaic to Islamic) into a routinely performed medical procedure.
This is a tougher question than you might suspect. Think before you leap. You
want to describe how a religious idea/ritual/practice CHANGES in a North
American environment. You can draw from ANY religion for your developmental
example. Be sure, though, that it is YOUR example.
The Celtic celebration Sahmein is known here in the states as Halloween. The Celts celebrated the lighter half of the year meeting the darker half (for us this is why we turn our clocks), when the days are shorter from the way Earth rotates. On this night they believed that the barrier between the mortal world and that of spirits is thin and that spirits can pass through. So they wore costumes to trick bad spirits and hoped they wouldn’t cause harm.
Later, Catholics took over the holiday and meshed it with their own All Saints Day, which is actually the day after Halloween, where they pay homage to their favorite saints by dressing up as them. Hispanic cultures celebrate the Day of the Dead, where they invite the spirits of their dead loved ones to come back home and entice them with treats and feasts.
All this somehow got all mixed together in the U.S. as Halloween and is pretty much a capitalist venture. People dress up for reasons they don’t know, kids go from house to house demanding candy (they don’t even say “trick-or-treat” anymore, the Celt kids had to do a little performance), we carve pumpkins to ward off spirits that we (the general Christian-American population) supposedly don’t believe in. All this production just for someone somewhere to make money.
10. Explain Peter Berger's concept of the "heretical imperative" (hint: think of
class lecture: deductive, reductive, inductive) and how it applies to religious
pluralism in general.
There access to so much more information nowadays, that people can choose to look at religion with eyes and brains that know more than just how they were raised. That said, a person now can decide how literal or right they think their religion is. On a level of reasoning, a person can decide that they have all the answers, regardless of evidence, and reject anything opposing their religion (deductive, like my father). One can decide that the evidence of evolution is so overwhelming that there is definitely no “real” religion (reductive, like atheists). And last, a person can decide that they just don’t know and keep themselves open to whatever (inductive, like I was for years). With this arises an array of beliefs that are on kind of a spectrum.
13. Take ONE new religious movement (any religion founded after the 16th century
CE) and describe, in brief, its influence in North America. Use hypertext when
necessary.
Scientology is an interesting religion. I notice that the people who choose to follow it are very caught up in the material manifestation of their faith. For most of us it has become the faith of the stars. There are “normal” people who follow as well, but those that I have spoken with are just as caught up in the material aspect.
A few years ago I went into one of the scientology centers on Melrose in L.A. I took the personality quiz and it listed all these generic issues that I think most people in Los Angeles possess. After I even took it a step further and went through on of the sessions that is supposed to “clear” you. I really can’t knock it. This was one of the best therapy sessions I have ever had. They usually make people pay a lot of money for these sessions, I got off with only $10 since they were trying to recruit me and I haggled.
Since the “religion” is a spin off of L. Ron Hubbard’s self help regimen, I think the appeal to people is that it serves as an alternative to getting therapy. In a sense it helps you avoid the humility of saying that you are in therapy. It also goes hand in hand with The Secret, a self initiated process of healing and manifestation of your goals.
That The Secret and Scientology are becoming so popular is indicative of people moving away from faiths that rely on arbitrary and invisible beings and moving toward taking destiny into their own hands.
14. How would Nietzsche describe the "death" of God and the rise of new
religions?
Nietzche is an interesting philosopher. I happen to really love him, despite his beliefs being used by Hitler, because he didn’t really mean what Hitler twisted it into (perhaps another example of the ‘breaking off of a religion’ at it’s founder,) Nietzche says that even if people “kill off” their god, eventually a new one will rise up because humans seem to need the guidance that a higher power provides. So even if you stop following the Christian god, another will come in its place. In some ways this is indicative of the phrase “you need to stand for something or you will fall for anything.”
15. How does Stephen Wolfram's "new kind of science" support Stephen Jay Gould's
notion of spandrels or unintended consequences/complexities? Hint: think of how
complexity is the result of simpler computational-like programs.
“New kind of science” supports the notion of spandrels or unintended consequences/complexities in that Wolfram discovered that there was randomness in repetitive behaviors; which one would think would lead to predictability or order. If one follows complex repetitive laws then predictability should result. Jay Gould’s notion of unintended consequences could be supported due to the fact that randomness still results using repetition. This randomness then produces results that were not the goal of the one causing the repetitive nature, leading to unintended consequences and outcomes that were not being sought. I suppose a good example might be the way we celebrate Christmas, that it has become so attached to the Christian celebration of the birth of Christ even though lighting up a tree is a pagan ritual. Since Catholics allowed this practice for so long, it is now just the way it is.
16. Why does religious "diversity" almost always start with its founder? Explain
in detail your answer.
Religious diversification at the level of the founder happens, as lane says, when the founder dies. But this is not the only time. When someone speaks, different people hear all sorts of different things. Or the message hits them in a certain way, or they have selective hearing, or they don’t agree and decide that they don’t believe everything just as the founder taught it.
So diversification begins the moment the founder opens his mouth. Most followers are never going to get the opportunity to meet and speak and learn from the person who started the belief they follow. So usually followers are relying on some follower to pass down the message. Here’s my question--- I wonder how often the people that carry the torch of a religion have some point of contention with their teachers?
17. What was the tipping point in Brian Copeland's life which prompted him to
want to commit suicide?
After Copeland’s 35th birthday, a few things came to a head and caused him to actually try to commit suicide. The three events the immediately led up to that were his son’s little request to not get the black doll family, hearing old classmates say “he’s still a nigger,” and a phone call from his grandmother to visit his mom’s grave. However, there are a couple examples in his young life where, while he doesn’t make an attempt to kill himself, he feels like he doesn’t want to live.
Anytime that a person expresses that they don’t want to do anything, especially at eight years old, there is something wrong. So I think the first time Copeland ever thought about suicide was with the incident with the police officer when he was eight and he said he didn’t want to do anything ever again.
18. What were the more "subtle" forms of racism that Brian encountered when
growing up in San Leandro?
First of all, I don’t think any of these were subtle. They all seemed out and out nasty and those people knew what they were doing. All of these, from not cutting his hair, to stopping him, to the nun hitting him, to the incident with the Scout’s fishing badge were racist acts. And not one of them was subtle.
19. How does Brian's experience of racism dovetail with the experiences of
Malcolm X? How are they different?
Malcolm X and Copeland both experience serious incidents of racial profiling. Where they differ is that Copeland just wanted to fit in and X didn’t want anything from the white population but for them to leave black people alone.
20. In what ways did certain North American Indian religions ABSORB and
INTEGRATE Christianity into their own religious ideas and rituals?
More than anything, I think the North American Indians saw that Christian beliefs were not so far off from what any good person would do, so they could easily incorporate Christian teachings alongside of theirs. Just take the “god” out of it.
21. In Laverne Jacobs' narrative he speaks about how he felt conflicted about
his Native American religious identity and his newfound faith in Christianity.
How did he attempt to reconcile the two beliefs?
Jacobs tells of his reluctance to engage in any of his native practices for fear of demeaning his now Christian self. It took him some time and being very alone before he realized that his two beliefs were not in opposition, that his native rituals were more about bonding and honoring the land, yourself and truth than about worshipping some evil being.
22. What is the Native American Church of Jesus Christ? How did it evolve?
The church evolved within an already-existing Sioux church. It wasn’t a Christian church. It was a peyote-based church. The cactus fruit is used to induce an altered state of mind. Traditional Christian churches were known to oppress the practices of native people (think Hawaii, and any where else Jesus-following people landed and took over) but the Mormon’s Latter Day Saints church allowed the natives to practice spirituality as they saw fit. The Mormons taught that it is all the same god and so it doesn’t matter how they worship, so long as they do.
Given this, the Mormon Church was an easy blend for many native people who enjoyed the Christian ideology, but also wanted to practice their native rituals. And so the Native American Church of Jesus Christ was formed.
23. Detail Frederick Douglass' critique of slavery by via his autobiography? In
what specific ways is it a critique of conventional religion?
Fredrick Douglas felt much the way I do about the relationship of Christianity and African Americans. Being white gave you the right to enslave and abuse other people. In many ways being Christian does the same.
24. What are the major differences between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King,
Jr., when it comes to liberating blacks from oppression?
Malcolm X and Dr. King had two very conflicting views on oppression. Their styles would be the first that you notice between them; King being articulate, calm but still powerful and carrying the message of his dream of harmony between all people, regardless of their skin tone or creed. Malcolm X, on the other hand, was abrasive, mean sounding, almost scary. He spoke more of blacks taking their rights. Instead of coming to an understanding, he proposed that we continue to have separations, almost like the Native Americans and the reservations. He did not want any mutual respect; he wanted whites to leave blacks alone all together.
How they delivered their message was only one factor in how each was received. There was also a difference in what “god” was backing them up. King was devoutly Christian; something that white America could understand and get behind and understand. Malcolm X, on the other hand, considered himself Muslim and preached that Islam was the original religion. Not only was he cramming down the throats of white Americans the idea that they should drink from the same water fountains and use the same bathrooms, but now you have this big, mean black man screaming that their religion is wrong.
The last factor in the differences in the message of these two men comes from which direction they are looking at. Malcolm X wanted blacks to look at their history for empowerment, while King spoke of his dream of a future. King’s message went over well with progressive thinkers. It’s hard to sell a new idea while talking about the past.
25. Why is genealogical dissociation a key factor in understanding the emergence
of new religions in America?
Humans have a tendency to want to make sense of things and to need a purpose to live. People who can think of a good enough reason to survive win and get to pass on their genes, in turn possibly passing on those great imaginations, and then the next generation can make up good reasons to survive.
EXTRA CREDIT:
27. Write your own analysis (in 300 words or more) of the "arc" (or overall
theme) in the Reader for either the American Indian experience or the African
American experience. Be sure to substantiate your interpretation.
28. Compare and contrast one reading from the American Indian section with the
African American section. Be sure to illustrate the differences and the
commonalities.
29. Make a film based on one of the readings provided in the reader. MORE EXTRA
CREDIT FORTHCOMING.
September 21, 2009
Ramadan '09
Re: Muslim FASTING
An Idiot Guide to Ramadan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2005/09/27/idiots_guide_to_rama\
dhan_faith_feature.shtml
AP- Muslims find new Ramadan fast partners: Christians
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_eVypKpB1pgxRFGuwI-ZAKCOxWQD9\
APUMD80
whyislam.org
I opted to fast as well, because I wanted to help them get more sponsors for the
feed the hungry effort. I am always down to help fellow students meet their
goals.
Anyhow, I also went looking for more information on what I was doing, I had a
vague idea from an experience years ago, but needed a brush up. I started at the
Muslim student table and picked up a few pamphlets and then went online.
There is, of course, tons of stuff but the above three are my favorite. The Why
Islam site is from the pamphlets and the article I thought was a good example of
what we are supposed to be doing in this class: opening up and being accepting
that other people have different ways of living their lives.
All Love,
Kiva
--- In religiousdiversity2@yahoogroups.com, "kjballew" wrote:
>
> I opted to fast on THURSDAY, Sept 17 in honor of the Muslim student Union on
campus, and their goal of getting sponserships for Heritage day. I consider
myself Christian, or some variation of the sort. My best friend in the entire
world is Muslim. Growing up with her, I never understood wy she couldn't come to
church with me, or why her family followed certain rituals that mine did not. As
we got older, i started asking questions, becuase i wanted to learn more about
her religion/ culture. Recently, i have aquired a few more friends who were
traveling the U.S from Turkey, Germany and Saudi Arabia. This month, they have
all been fasting. It interupted my birthday plans last week becuase none of them
could hang out, or eat when I was. and when they could eat, i wasnt hungry. It
was more annoyign than anything. Then we had the two girls visit our class and
ask us to pledge to fast on one day. I decided that it was for a good cause, and
it was only one day, so why not. It couldnt have been too difficult, and i would
eliminate some unecessary calories while i was at it. I did not realize how
difficult it was actaully going to be. I contacted my muslim friends and told
them about the pledge i had made. It made them very proud of me, and they felt a
new respect for our relationship. I woke up at 4 am to eat a huge bowl of
cereal, drink water, and take my allergy medication. Then from my 8 am class all
the way till 646pm, i couldnt have any water, food, gum or anything. As the pain
in my body started to grow, i had to keep reminding myself it was for a good
cause. Granted, i COULD have ate and no one would have known. But i would know.
and this is a religious diversity class- GOD WOULD KNOW. so i kept to the
pledge. It was one of the most difficult things ive done in a long time. it was
exhausting, painful, and annoying. the second the clock turned 647, i ate, and
ate like a pig. then passed out. I woke up to all kinds of calls and text
messages from my muslim friends congratualting me, and showing their support. I
did not realize how difficult RAMADAN must be for them, and how it makes you
feel like part of a community to do something like that. In america, they are
kind of outsiders. So what did i learn? Fasting is difficult. It takes more self
control than i have. It interupts daily life. But fasting with a group of
friends with a common goal, makes you feel like you are apart of something
greater than yourself- a community. It was a great experience, and even though i
probably wont be making a habit of denying myself nutrients, I felt good about
honoring my muslim friends. Out of respect for them, I was "hungry for a
change."
An Idiot Guide to Ramadan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2005/09/27/idiots_guide_to_rama\
dhan_faith_feature.shtml
AP- Muslims find new Ramadan fast partners: Christians
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i_eVypKpB1pgxRFGuwI-ZAKCOxWQD9\
APUMD80
whyislam.org
I opted to fast as well, because I wanted to help them get more sponsors for the
feed the hungry effort. I am always down to help fellow students meet their
goals.
Anyhow, I also went looking for more information on what I was doing, I had a
vague idea from an experience years ago, but needed a brush up. I started at the
Muslim student table and picked up a few pamphlets and then went online.
There is, of course, tons of stuff but the above three are my favorite. The Why
Islam site is from the pamphlets and the article I thought was a good example of
what we are supposed to be doing in this class: opening up and being accepting
that other people have different ways of living their lives.
All Love,
Kiva
--- In religiousdiversity2@yahoogroups.com, "kjballew"
>
> I opted to fast on THURSDAY, Sept 17 in honor of the Muslim student Union on
campus, and their goal of getting sponserships for Heritage day. I consider
myself Christian, or some variation of the sort. My best friend in the entire
world is Muslim. Growing up with her, I never understood wy she couldn't come to
church with me, or why her family followed certain rituals that mine did not. As
we got older, i started asking questions, becuase i wanted to learn more about
her religion/ culture. Recently, i have aquired a few more friends who were
traveling the U.S from Turkey, Germany and Saudi Arabia. This month, they have
all been fasting. It interupted my birthday plans last week becuase none of them
could hang out, or eat when I was. and when they could eat, i wasnt hungry. It
was more annoyign than anything. Then we had the two girls visit our class and
ask us to pledge to fast on one day. I decided that it was for a good cause, and
it was only one day, so why not. It couldnt have been too difficult, and i would
eliminate some unecessary calories while i was at it. I did not realize how
difficult it was actaully going to be. I contacted my muslim friends and told
them about the pledge i had made. It made them very proud of me, and they felt a
new respect for our relationship. I woke up at 4 am to eat a huge bowl of
cereal, drink water, and take my allergy medication. Then from my 8 am class all
the way till 646pm, i couldnt have any water, food, gum or anything. As the pain
in my body started to grow, i had to keep reminding myself it was for a good
cause. Granted, i COULD have ate and no one would have known. But i would know.
and this is a religious diversity class- GOD WOULD KNOW. so i kept to the
pledge. It was one of the most difficult things ive done in a long time. it was
exhausting, painful, and annoying. the second the clock turned 647, i ate, and
ate like a pig. then passed out. I woke up to all kinds of calls and text
messages from my muslim friends congratualting me, and showing their support. I
did not realize how difficult RAMADAN must be for them, and how it makes you
feel like part of a community to do something like that. In america, they are
kind of outsiders. So what did i learn? Fasting is difficult. It takes more self
control than i have. It interupts daily life. But fasting with a group of
friends with a common goal, makes you feel like you are apart of something
greater than yourself- a community. It was a great experience, and even though i
probably wont be making a habit of denying myself nutrients, I felt good about
honoring my muslim friends. Out of respect for them, I was "hungry for a
change."
Damn Crazies
Re: clinton is the last satan, ...... Umm, does this worry any one else
Umm, I'm afraid if you keep posting these things some one is going to have to
report you to federal officials.
No threats here, please. We are just students trying to make it through school.
We happen to live here, at least for the moment, and would appreciate it if you
would not destroy the country and to leave our leaders be, they have enough to
deal with.
Your beliefs are welcome, we'll be glad to hear you out, but just lay off the
threats... maybe we can talk this out.
I wouldn't take the words in those scriptures too literal, and really, if you
are hearing "god" say to kill or destroy.... we should take a closer look at
that.
All Love,
Kiva
--- In religiousdiversity2@yahoogroups.com, "Miryam Shoshan Yosef"
wrote:
>
> clinton is the last satan, possessed, in the world in the last days (
> Please forward)
>
>
>
>
> I am called by HaShem of Israel - my Father GOD, the Most High, and the
> Son of GOD, the Messiah of Israel - my LORD Yeshua to convey GOD's Words
> to people in the last days. I have proof, the visible Sign of HOLY
> SPIRIT like a Light Dove on my forehead, and the Sign of Light Cross on
> my face.
>
> It is no wonder Obama demotes the Jews and in his speech there has been
> the scenes of the fiercest anti-Israel, etc. For the reason, in fact,
> satan-possessed clinton pretends, practises deception, division,
> corruption, and the evil spirit of clinton enters Obama's body and
> mind. Evil spirits and demons control those whom they enter, to affect
> their minds, bodies, actions, illusions and speaking. Our Almighty GOD
> of Israel told me and confirmed to me that clinton is the last satan,
> possessed, in the world in the last days; and, clinton commits
> fornication with his daughter; their mouths are full of blasphemy and
> dirtiness. clinton, hillary and their evil family must be nailed into
> crosses.
>
> GOD revealed to me HIS words at Zephaniah 1: 2-3 that " I will utterly
> consume everything from the face of the earth, I will consume humans and
> beasts; I will consume the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, and
> the stumbling blocks with the wicked. I will cut off humankind from the
> face of the earth."
>
> Our Father GOD and Our LORD are at work. It is revealed to me what must
> soon take place in the last days. GOD will do what He has said in His
> time. Now it is the end time of last days, satan and all evil spirits
> and devils will be destroyed completely by our Almighty GOD.
>
> The death time of lucifer and united states and clinton is come. GOD
> said: " Kill clinton , Destroy united states !" That the matter has been
> firmly decided by GOD and GOD will do it soon. And, GOD said I will
> bless those who bless Abraham and I will curse those who curse Abraham.
> So its downfall for a country which go against Israel .
>
> These are what I am told and confirmed from my Father GOD of Israel and
> my LORD of Israel .
>
> This is my ministry to tell people the true from Our Holy, Heavenly
> Father GOD of Israel and Our LORD of Israel .
>
> Sha'alu (Pray) for the Shalom ( Peace ) of Jerusalem and all of Israel!
>
> ( Please forward)
>
>
Umm, I'm afraid if you keep posting these things some one is going to have to
report you to federal officials.
No threats here, please. We are just students trying to make it through school.
We happen to live here, at least for the moment, and would appreciate it if you
would not destroy the country and to leave our leaders be, they have enough to
deal with.
Your beliefs are welcome, we'll be glad to hear you out, but just lay off the
threats... maybe we can talk this out.
I wouldn't take the words in those scriptures too literal, and really, if you
are hearing "god" say to kill or destroy.... we should take a closer look at
that.
All Love,
Kiva
--- In religiousdiversity2@yahoogroups.com, "Miryam Shoshan Yosef"
>
> clinton is the last satan, possessed, in the world in the last days (
> Please forward)
>
>
>
>
> I am called by HaShem of Israel - my Father GOD, the Most High, and the
> Son of GOD, the Messiah of Israel - my LORD Yeshua to convey GOD's Words
> to people in the last days. I have proof, the visible Sign of HOLY
> SPIRIT like a Light Dove on my forehead, and the Sign of Light Cross on
> my face.
>
> It is no wonder Obama demotes the Jews and in his speech there has been
> the scenes of the fiercest anti-Israel, etc. For the reason, in fact,
> satan-possessed clinton pretends, practises deception, division,
> corruption, and the evil spirit of clinton enters Obama's body and
> mind. Evil spirits and demons control those whom they enter, to affect
> their minds, bodies, actions, illusions and speaking. Our Almighty GOD
> of Israel told me and confirmed to me that clinton is the last satan,
> possessed, in the world in the last days; and, clinton commits
> fornication with his daughter; their mouths are full of blasphemy and
> dirtiness. clinton, hillary and their evil family must be nailed into
> crosses.
>
> GOD revealed to me HIS words at Zephaniah 1: 2-3 that " I will utterly
> consume everything from the face of the earth, I will consume humans and
> beasts; I will consume the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, and
> the stumbling blocks with the wicked. I will cut off humankind from the
> face of the earth."
>
> Our Father GOD and Our LORD are at work. It is revealed to me what must
> soon take place in the last days. GOD will do what He has said in His
> time. Now it is the end time of last days, satan and all evil spirits
> and devils will be destroyed completely by our Almighty GOD.
>
> The death time of lucifer and united states and clinton is come. GOD
> said: " Kill clinton , Destroy united states !" That the matter has been
> firmly decided by GOD and GOD will do it soon. And, GOD said I will
> bless those who bless Abraham and I will curse those who curse Abraham.
> So its downfall for a country which go against Israel .
>
> These are what I am told and confirmed from my Father GOD of Israel and
> my LORD of Israel .
>
> This is my ministry to tell people the true from Our Holy, Heavenly
> Father GOD of Israel and Our LORD of Israel .
>
> Sha'alu (Pray) for the Shalom ( Peace ) of Jerusalem and all of Israel!
>
> ( Please forward)
>
>
Poisoning Cats
Re: Cat In Poisonous Box
I think "chance" might be Lane's euphemistic way of saying that religion is all
in our heads. When I looked at the Wikipedia article posted something caught my
eye... In the ORIGIN AND MOTIVATION section it said that Schrodinger intended
this cat thing to be a "thought experiment" to evoke discussion about an article
by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen that talked about quantum superpositions; the
combination of all possibilities of something.
So I clicked on the link to that entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
Here is the opening sentence:
"Quantum superposition is the fundamental law of quantum mechanics. It defines
the collection of all possible states that an object can have."
And here is the article's easy explanation ( yea right )
Superposition principle:
"The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any
configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world
could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state
which is a superposition of the two, where the amount of each configuration that
is in the superposition is specified by a complex number."
What it says to me is that until you actually KNOW what something is (is the cat
alive or dead?) all about what you think it is (I don't know, but I think I
heard the glass break so the poison must be out and the cat must be dead.) and
the person next to you may think it is something different (No, I didn't hear
glass breaking, so I think the cat is still alive.)
Until you open that box and look neither of you know if the cat is alive. Yes,
there is a 50/50 chance, but this is not so much about probability as it is
about certainty and until you open that box no one is truly certain.
Apply this to religion it's the same thing, but you can't just open up a box to
look. Figuratively, that entity responsible for human kind is what is in that
box. Instead of just two possibilities there are hundreds, all attached to some
very passionate people who feel like they need answers, something to believe in,
hold on to.
I mean, these scientists, geniuses really, felt the need to do experiments,
write papers and create formulas about uncertainty. Really, just skim those
articles and some of the links. They couldn't just settle for that they really
don't know. That is what uncertainty is, after all.
And the truth of religion is that none of us know.
All Love,
Kiva
--- In religiousdiversity2@yahoogroups.com, "caitlinstevens8"
wrote:
>
>
> After Monday's lecture the thing that stuck out in my mind the most was the
picture of the cat in the box with the poison and pop rocks that Dr. Lane
created on the board. I researched this topic on a few websites and this is
what I came up with.
>
> The original experiment was done by Erwin Schr�dinger in 1935. This idea
was created to illustrate that Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics
is incorrect. The experiment was to demonstrate that whether the cat lives or
dies is due to random chance (50/50). It was used as a model to inform everyday
people how quantum mechanics works. Copenhagen tries to explain that the cat is
both alive and dead until something happens or the box is opened. Schrodinger
says that the cat is either alive or dead, not both at the same time. This
experiment wasn't used as a joke or to torture cats, but to show the randomness
of quantum mechanics and physics.
>
> Wikipedia is always a good way to find information about a particular topic,
and it did not fail me when I researched Schrodinger's experiment.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
>
> The other website that I looked at was actually quite funny. It shows that
the poison in the box was useless because the cat would not be able to breath
after a period of time. This is because the box would eventually run out of
oxygen, therefore not giving enough air for the cat to breathe. This isn't what
the model represents but I thought it was an interesting interpretation.
>
> http://www.messybeast.com/moggycat/schrodinger.htm
>
> I think Dr. Lane presented this topic in class because he wanted to emphasize
the fact that the world revolves around chance. Any situation could happen for
any given reason. I think this will later relate to studying religion because
each of the different religions were created by chance and where people were
positioned in the world. This experiment also shows that every person has there
own opinion or idea about how something works, and religion is also run in a
similar aspect. Every person has there own idea about a higher power and how it
relates to their life.
>
I think "chance" might be Lane's euphemistic way of saying that religion is all
in our heads. When I looked at the Wikipedia article posted something caught my
eye... In the ORIGIN AND MOTIVATION section it said that Schrodinger intended
this cat thing to be a "thought experiment" to evoke discussion about an article
by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen that talked about quantum superpositions; the
combination of all possibilities of something.
So I clicked on the link to that entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
Here is the opening sentence:
"Quantum superposition is the fundamental law of quantum mechanics. It defines
the collection of all possible states that an object can have."
And here is the article's easy explanation ( yea right )
Superposition principle:
"The principle of superposition states that if the world can be in any
configuration, any possible arrangement of particles or fields, and if the world
could also be in another configuration, then the world can also be in a state
which is a superposition of the two, where the amount of each configuration that
is in the superposition is specified by a complex number."
What it says to me is that until you actually KNOW what something is (is the cat
alive or dead?) all about what you think it is (I don't know, but I think I
heard the glass break so the poison must be out and the cat must be dead.) and
the person next to you may think it is something different (No, I didn't hear
glass breaking, so I think the cat is still alive.)
Until you open that box and look neither of you know if the cat is alive. Yes,
there is a 50/50 chance, but this is not so much about probability as it is
about certainty and until you open that box no one is truly certain.
Apply this to religion it's the same thing, but you can't just open up a box to
look. Figuratively, that entity responsible for human kind is what is in that
box. Instead of just two possibilities there are hundreds, all attached to some
very passionate people who feel like they need answers, something to believe in,
hold on to.
I mean, these scientists, geniuses really, felt the need to do experiments,
write papers and create formulas about uncertainty. Really, just skim those
articles and some of the links. They couldn't just settle for that they really
don't know. That is what uncertainty is, after all.
And the truth of religion is that none of us know.
All Love,
Kiva
--- In religiousdiversity2@yahoogroups.com, "caitlinstevens8"
>
>
> After Monday's lecture the thing that stuck out in my mind the most was the
picture of the cat in the box with the poison and pop rocks that Dr. Lane
created on the board. I researched this topic on a few websites and this is
what I came up with.
>
> The original experiment was done by Erwin Schr�dinger in 1935. This idea
was created to illustrate that Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics
is incorrect. The experiment was to demonstrate that whether the cat lives or
dies is due to random chance (50/50). It was used as a model to inform everyday
people how quantum mechanics works. Copenhagen tries to explain that the cat is
both alive and dead until something happens or the box is opened. Schrodinger
says that the cat is either alive or dead, not both at the same time. This
experiment wasn't used as a joke or to torture cats, but to show the randomness
of quantum mechanics and physics.
>
> Wikipedia is always a good way to find information about a particular topic,
and it did not fail me when I researched Schrodinger's experiment.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
>
> The other website that I looked at was actually quite funny. It shows that
the poison in the box was useless because the cat would not be able to breath
after a period of time. This is because the box would eventually run out of
oxygen, therefore not giving enough air for the cat to breathe. This isn't what
the model represents but I thought it was an interesting interpretation.
>
> http://www.messybeast.com/moggycat/schrodinger.htm
>
> I think Dr. Lane presented this topic in class because he wanted to emphasize
the fact that the world revolves around chance. Any situation could happen for
any given reason. I think this will later relate to studying religion because
each of the different religions were created by chance and where people were
positioned in the world. This experiment also shows that every person has there
own opinion or idea about how something works, and religion is also run in a
similar aspect. Every person has there own idea about a higher power and how it
relates to their life.
>
Re: ANGRY WITH GOD? NEVER!
What ever happened to going and getting what you want? The idea that you could
get mad at some being that you've never seen, spoke to or even received an
e-mail from it crazy to me.
praying to a god and hoping they will grant what you wish... what about working
to get what you want? Even if you carry a Christian faith on your shoulder isn't
there a passage somewhere that says "god helps those who help themselves"? That
says something to me. This Christianity faith wants you to work as well as pray
for what you want.
What?!?! Work for it!!!
Yes, work for it. And guess what. This is the real world with billions of people
in it. Chances are there are at least a few hundred people asking and working
for the same thing you are... and in most cases not every one of them can have
it. So someone loses out.
It's not that some god didn't give it to you... It's not necessarily that you
didn't work hard enough... It's just that it wasn't your turn. You weren't in
the right place at the right time. What ever the case may have been... it was
CHANCE.
That said, I'm not saying don't pray, but rather redirect the focus of prayer.
Use it as a meditation, a time to focus and refine your wish rather than a
request for maintenance form that you drop in some higher power's mail box that
you hope they'll get to sometime soon.
--- In religiousdiversity2@yahoogroups.com, Bayo Afolaranmi
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Beloved,
> ANGRY WITH GOD? NEVER!
> "Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though
the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep
in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will
be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign LORD is my strength; he makes my feet
like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights" (Habakkuk 3:17-19,
NIV).
> As I was coming out of the US embassy after the third consecutive visa
refusal, I was embittered. What really went wrong? Did I not pray enough? What
of the prayers and prophecies of hundreds of people towards the success of this
visa interview? What of my numerous fastings? Does God not answer prayers again?
Why did He deprive me of overseas trip for further studies these three times?
These thoughts were making me to be angry at life and with God. Is He still
worthy of my praises and worship? Then the words of Habakkuk came to my mind:
though God does not "answer" my prayers and there might be no visible evidence
of His care, yet I will praise Him!
> The book of Habakkuk portrays God as awesome, yet Habakkuk was complaining
about why the wicked prospered while the righteous suffered. It seemed God did
not acted as he had expected. Yet he concluded his prophecy with praises of God
because he knew that there was a benevolent God behind the seemingly unpleasant
circumstance. He would rather rejoice in the Lord than to be angry with Him.
> Job, in his anguish praised God. Why? He remembered in his pains that God's
purpose is always good. Hear him, "Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him…"
(Job 13:15, NIV); "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will
stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I
will see God…" (Job 19:25-26, NIV); and "But he knows the way that I take;
when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold" (Job 23:10, NIV).
> Have you been asking God to do something for you but He seems to be delaying
it? Are you thinking of abandoning your initial trust in Him because of this? Do
you doubt the worthiness of His praises and worship? Are you also at the point
of being angry with Him for this? Never think so!
> The psalmist boasted of God's care, "Even though I walk through the valley of
the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your
staff, they comfort me" (Psalm 23:4, NIV), and Solomon also said, "When calamity
comes, the wicked are brought down, but even in death the righteous have a
refuge" (Proverbs 14:32, NIV).
> God has a purpose in your pain. This purpose is always good. The grief may be
divinely arranged to re-examine our desires and reveal His better plan to us.
Turn your anxiety to Him. He will prove Himself to you. He is still God. He is
worthy of your trust and worship. Angry with God? Never!
> In His service,
> Bayo Afolaranmi (Pastor).
> NB
> This message was first posted on July 19, 2004.
>
> Bayo Afolaranmi (Pastor).
> +234 805 515 9591
> http://www.thewordthruthenet.org/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spiritualdigest2003/
> http://www.facebook.com/bayo.afolaranmi
> Visit and become a follower of http://thewordthruthenet.blogspot.com/
>
> I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will
> have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted
> in my body, whether by life or by death. FOR TO ME, TO LIVE IS CHRIST
> AND TO DIE IS GAIN (Philippians 1:20-21, NIV).
>
>
What ever happened to going and getting what you want? The idea that you could
get mad at some being that you've never seen, spoke to or even received an
e-mail from it crazy to me.
praying to a god and hoping they will grant what you wish... what about working
to get what you want? Even if you carry a Christian faith on your shoulder isn't
there a passage somewhere that says "god helps those who help themselves"? That
says something to me. This Christianity faith wants you to work as well as pray
for what you want.
What?!?! Work for it!!!
Yes, work for it. And guess what. This is the real world with billions of people
in it. Chances are there are at least a few hundred people asking and working
for the same thing you are... and in most cases not every one of them can have
it. So someone loses out.
It's not that some god didn't give it to you... It's not necessarily that you
didn't work hard enough... It's just that it wasn't your turn. You weren't in
the right place at the right time. What ever the case may have been... it was
CHANCE.
That said, I'm not saying don't pray, but rather redirect the focus of prayer.
Use it as a meditation, a time to focus and refine your wish rather than a
request for maintenance form that you drop in some higher power's mail box that
you hope they'll get to sometime soon.
--- In religiousdiversity2@yahoogroups.com, Bayo Afolaranmi
>
>
> Dear Beloved,
> ANGRY WITH GOD? NEVER!
> "Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though
the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep
in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will
be joyful in God my Savior. The Sovereign LORD is my strength; he makes my feet
like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go on the heights" (Habakkuk 3:17-19,
NIV).
> As I was coming out of the US embassy after the third consecutive visa
refusal, I was embittered. What really went wrong? Did I not pray enough? What
of the prayers and prophecies of hundreds of people towards the success of this
visa interview? What of my numerous fastings? Does God not answer prayers again?
Why did He deprive me of overseas trip for further studies these three times?
These thoughts were making me to be angry at life and with God. Is He still
worthy of my praises and worship? Then the words of Habakkuk came to my mind:
though God does not "answer" my prayers and there might be no visible evidence
of His care, yet I will praise Him!
> The book of Habakkuk portrays God as awesome, yet Habakkuk was complaining
about why the wicked prospered while the righteous suffered. It seemed God did
not acted as he had expected. Yet he concluded his prophecy with praises of God
because he knew that there was a benevolent God behind the seemingly unpleasant
circumstance. He would rather rejoice in the Lord than to be angry with Him.
> Job, in his anguish praised God. Why? He remembered in his pains that God's
purpose is always good. Hear him, "Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him…"
(Job 13:15, NIV); "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will
stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I
will see God…" (Job 19:25-26, NIV); and "But he knows the way that I take;
when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold" (Job 23:10, NIV).
> Have you been asking God to do something for you but He seems to be delaying
it? Are you thinking of abandoning your initial trust in Him because of this? Do
you doubt the worthiness of His praises and worship? Are you also at the point
of being angry with Him for this? Never think so!
> The psalmist boasted of God's care, "Even though I walk through the valley of
the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your
staff, they comfort me" (Psalm 23:4, NIV), and Solomon also said, "When calamity
comes, the wicked are brought down, but even in death the righteous have a
refuge" (Proverbs 14:32, NIV).
> God has a purpose in your pain. This purpose is always good. The grief may be
divinely arranged to re-examine our desires and reveal His better plan to us.
Turn your anxiety to Him. He will prove Himself to you. He is still God. He is
worthy of your trust and worship. Angry with God? Never!
> In His service,
> Bayo Afolaranmi (Pastor).
> NB
> This message was first posted on July 19, 2004.
>
> Bayo Afolaranmi (Pastor).
> +234 805 515 9591
> http://www.thewordthruthenet.org/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spiritualdigest2003/
> http://www.facebook.com/bayo.afolaranmi
> Visit and become a follower of http://thewordthruthenet.blogspot.com/
>
> I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will
> have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted
> in my body, whether by life or by death. FOR TO ME, TO LIVE IS CHRIST
> AND TO DIE IS GAIN (Philippians 1:20-21, NIV).
>
>
This is going to be super long. I am old and just starting to use the internet
for more than communication and research, so I don't know how to attach this in
a better way. That Said, I did not find this on a website, per se. This is a
reading assigned this week for my Politics and Culture class: Karl Marx "The
German Ideology."
As I was reading I reflected a bit on what Lane said about the geography of
religion. While the subject in this article is really on politics, capitalism
and ruling parties, it seemed it could also be applied to religions of the
world.
This country uses religion as a tool quite a bit. Even though there is supposed
to be a separation of church and state, the law makers don't abide entirely to
this. Here, we are Christ-based (yes, I meant to make that a lower cased 'c')
and in developing this country and ruling it now, people tend to resort to that
ideology when stuck on what policies to pass through. How our country blends
capitalism and Christianity is super interesting to me. It is like a split
personality.
The U.S. is, of course, not the only country that rules with religion in it's
pocket. We see examples of this EVERYWHERE. So as you put on your sneakers and
walk across the globe, look for examples of the intertwining of the two.
I highlighted some sections that really stuck out to me, cause the
language is super, well..... blegh, but it wouldn't let me.
EnJoy
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, from The German Ideology,
in Collected Works, vol.5 (Lawrence and Wishart, 1976),
J3J. 35—7,59—61
Karl Marx (1818—1883) was born into a middle class family in Trier in Germany
and educated in Bonn and Berlin. A radical journalist, he became a communist
from 1843, arguing for the central role of economic structure in understanding
politics and history. In The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), which he
wrote with Engels, he viewed history as a process of struggle among social
classes, which would culminate in the triumph of working class and the abolition
of capitalism. Exiled to London after the revolutions of 1848, he concentrated
his
intellectual efforts on political economy although only the first volume of his
principal study Capital (1867) was published in his lifetime. He had a leading
role in the International Working Men's Association, but only after his death.
did his theoretical ideas became central to working class parties in Europe.
Marx was invoked in support of a range of dictatorial communist movements in
Russia, China, and elsewhere in the twentieth century, usually with little
regard for niceties of what Marx actually thought.
Friedrich Engels (1820—1895) was born into a wealthy family of factory owners in
the Rhineland in Germany. He went to work for his family but was appalled at the
factory conditions that he encountered. He collaborated with Marx on The Holy
Family (1844), a scathing attack on German philosophy, and on subsequent works
up to Marx's move to England. After Marx's death, he became the literary
executor and interpreter of Marxism for the European Marxist political parties.
The German Ideology was posthumously published in 1932.
The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active
in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations.
Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and
without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and
political structure with production. The social structure and the state are
continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, however,
of these individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people's
imagination, but as they actually are, i.e., as they act, produce materially,
and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and
conditions independent of their will.
The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first
directly interwoven
with the material activity and the material intercourse of men—the language of
real life.
Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men at this stage stifi appear
as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental
productions expressed in the language of the politics, laws, morality; religion,
metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions,
ideas, etc., that is, real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite
development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to
these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness [das Bewusstsein] can never be
anything else than conscious being [das bewusste Semi,] and the being of men is
their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their relations appear
upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from
their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does
from their physical life-process.
In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth,
here it is a matter of ascending from earth to heaven. That is to say, not of
setting out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated,
thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh; but
setting out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process
demonstrating the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this
life-process. The phantoms formed in the brains of men are also, necessarily,
sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and
bound to material premises. Morality; religion, metaphysics, and all the rest of
ideology as well as the forms of consciousness corresponding to these, thus no
longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history; no
development; but men, developing their material production and their material
intercourse, alter, along with this their actual world, also their thinking and
the products of their thinking. It is not consciousness that determines life,
but life that determines consciousness. For the first manner of approach the
starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; for the second
manner of approach, which conforms to real life, it is the real living
individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their
consciousness.
This manner of approach is not devoid of premises. It starts out from the
real premises and does not abandon them for a moment. Its premises are men, not
in any fantastic isolation and fIexity, but in their actual, empirically
perceptible process of development under definite conditions. As soon as this
active life-process is described, history ceases to be a collection of dead
facts, as it is with the empiricists (themselves stifi abstract),or an imagined
activity of imagined subjects, as with the idealists.
Where speculation ends, where real life starts, there consequently begins
real, positive science, the expounding of the practical activity, of the
practical process of development of men. Empty phrases about consciousness end,
and real knowledge has to take their
place. When the reality is described, a self-sufficient philosophy [die
selbstandige Philosoptie] loses its medium of existence. At the best its place
can only be taken by a summing up of the most general results, abstractions
which are derived from the observation of the historical development of men.
These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value
whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical
material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means
afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for neatly trimming the epochs of
history.
On the contrary, the difficulties begin only when one sets about the
examination and arrangement of the material—whether of a past epoch or of the
present—and its actual presentation. The removal of these difficulties is
governed by premises which certainly cannot be stated here, but which only the
study of the actual life-process and the activity of the individuals of each
epoch will make evident.
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the
class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its
ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production
at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so
that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole
subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of
the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations
grasped as ideas; hence of the relations which make the one class the ruling
one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling
class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. In so far,
therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an
historical epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence
among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate
the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are
the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where
royal power, aristocracy and bourgeoisie are contending for domination and
where, therefore, domination is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers
proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an "eternal law".
The division of labour, which we already saw above… as one of the chief forces
of history up till now, manifests itself also in the ruling class as the
division of mental and material labour, so that inside this class one part
appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who
make the formation of the illusions of the class about itself their chief source
of livelihood), while the others' attitude to these ideas and effusions is more
passive and receptive, because they are in reality the active members of this
class and have less time to make up effusions and ideas about themselves. Within
this class this cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and
hostility between the two parts, but whenever a practical coffision occurs in
which the class itself is endangered they automatically vanish, in which case
there also vanishes the appearance of the ruling ideas being not the ideas of
the ruling class and having a power distinct from the power of this class. The
existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period presupposes the
existence of a revolutionary class; about the premises of the latter sufficient
has already been said above...
If now in considering the course of history we detach the ideas of the ruling
class from the ruling class itself and attribute to them an independent
existence, if we confine ourselves to saying that these or those ideas were
dominant at a given time, without bothering ourselves about the conditions of
production and the producers of these ideas, if we thus ignore the individuals
and world conditions which are the source of the ideas, then we can say, for
instance, that during the time the aristocracy was dominant, the concepts
honour, loyalty; etc., were dominant, during the dominance of the bourgeoisie
the concepts freedom, equality, etc. The ruling class itself on the whole
imagines this to be so.
This conception of history, which is common to all historians, particularly
since the eighteenth century, which necessarily come up against the phenomenon
that ever more abstract ideas hold sway, i.e., ideas which increasingly take on
the form of universality.
For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is
compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as
the common interest of
all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its
ideas the form of universality, and present them as the only rational,
universally valid ones. The class making a revolution comes forward from the
very start, if only because it is opposed to a class, not as a class but as the
representative of the whole of society, as the whole mass of society confronting
the one ruling class. It can do this because initially its interest really is as
yet mostly connected with the common interest of all other non-ruling classes,
because under the pressure of hitherto existing conditions its interest has not
yet been able to develop as the particular interest of a particular class. Its
victory, therefore, benefits also many individuals of other classes which are
not winning a dominant position, but only insofar as it now enables these
individuals to raise themselves into the ruling class. When the French
bourgeoisie overthrew the rule of the aristocracy, it thereby made it possible
for many proletarians to raise themselves above the proletariat, but only
insofar as they became bourgeois. Every new class, therefore, achieves
domination only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously; on
the other hand the opposition of the non-ruling class to the new ruling class
then develops all the more sharply and profoundity. Both these things determine
the fact that the struggle to be waged against this new ruling class, in its
turn, has as its aim a more decisive and more radical negation of the previous
conditions of society than all previous classes which sought to rule could have.
This whole appearance, that the rule of a certain class is only the rule of
certain ideas, comes to a natural end, of course, as soon as class rule in
general ceases to be the form in which society is organised, that is to say, as
soon as it is no longer necessary to represent a particular interest as general
or the "general interest" as ruling.
for more than communication and research, so I don't know how to attach this in
a better way. That Said, I did not find this on a website, per se. This is a
reading assigned this week for my Politics and Culture class: Karl Marx "The
German Ideology."
As I was reading I reflected a bit on what Lane said about the geography of
religion. While the subject in this article is really on politics, capitalism
and ruling parties, it seemed it could also be applied to religions of the
world.
This country uses religion as a tool quite a bit. Even though there is supposed
to be a separation of church and state, the law makers don't abide entirely to
this. Here, we are Christ-based (yes, I meant to make that a lower cased 'c')
and in developing this country and ruling it now, people tend to resort to that
ideology when stuck on what policies to pass through. How our country blends
capitalism and Christianity is super interesting to me. It is like a split
personality.
The U.S. is, of course, not the only country that rules with religion in it's
pocket. We see examples of this EVERYWHERE. So as you put on your sneakers and
walk across the globe, look for examples of the intertwining of the two.
I highlighted some sections that really stuck out to me, cause the
language is super, well..... blegh, but it wouldn't let me.
EnJoy
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, from The German Ideology,
in Collected Works, vol.5 (Lawrence and Wishart, 1976),
J3J. 35—7,59—61
Karl Marx (1818—1883) was born into a middle class family in Trier in Germany
and educated in Bonn and Berlin. A radical journalist, he became a communist
from 1843, arguing for the central role of economic structure in understanding
politics and history. In The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), which he
wrote with Engels, he viewed history as a process of struggle among social
classes, which would culminate in the triumph of working class and the abolition
of capitalism. Exiled to London after the revolutions of 1848, he concentrated
his
intellectual efforts on political economy although only the first volume of his
principal study Capital (1867) was published in his lifetime. He had a leading
role in the International Working Men's Association, but only after his death.
did his theoretical ideas became central to working class parties in Europe.
Marx was invoked in support of a range of dictatorial communist movements in
Russia, China, and elsewhere in the twentieth century, usually with little
regard for niceties of what Marx actually thought.
Friedrich Engels (1820—1895) was born into a wealthy family of factory owners in
the Rhineland in Germany. He went to work for his family but was appalled at the
factory conditions that he encountered. He collaborated with Marx on The Holy
Family (1844), a scathing attack on German philosophy, and on subsequent works
up to Marx's move to England. After Marx's death, he became the literary
executor and interpreter of Marxism for the European Marxist political parties.
The German Ideology was posthumously published in 1932.
The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active
in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations.
Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and
without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and
political structure with production. The social structure and the state are
continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, however,
of these individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people's
imagination, but as they actually are, i.e., as they act, produce materially,
and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and
conditions independent of their will.
The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first
directly interwoven
with the material activity and the material intercourse of men—the language of
real life.
Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men at this stage stifi appear
as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental
productions expressed in the language of the politics, laws, morality; religion,
metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions,
ideas, etc., that is, real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite
development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to
these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness [das Bewusstsein] can never be
anything else than conscious being [das bewusste Semi,] and the being of men is
their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their relations appear
upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from
their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does
from their physical life-process.
In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth,
here it is a matter of ascending from earth to heaven. That is to say, not of
setting out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated,
thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh; but
setting out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process
demonstrating the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this
life-process. The phantoms formed in the brains of men are also, necessarily,
sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and
bound to material premises. Morality; religion, metaphysics, and all the rest of
ideology as well as the forms of consciousness corresponding to these, thus no
longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history; no
development; but men, developing their material production and their material
intercourse, alter, along with this their actual world, also their thinking and
the products of their thinking. It is not consciousness that determines life,
but life that determines consciousness. For the first manner of approach the
starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; for the second
manner of approach, which conforms to real life, it is the real living
individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their
consciousness.
This manner of approach is not devoid of premises. It starts out from the
real premises and does not abandon them for a moment. Its premises are men, not
in any fantastic isolation and fIexity, but in their actual, empirically
perceptible process of development under definite conditions. As soon as this
active life-process is described, history ceases to be a collection of dead
facts, as it is with the empiricists (themselves stifi abstract),or an imagined
activity of imagined subjects, as with the idealists.
Where speculation ends, where real life starts, there consequently begins
real, positive science, the expounding of the practical activity, of the
practical process of development of men. Empty phrases about consciousness end,
and real knowledge has to take their
place. When the reality is described, a self-sufficient philosophy [die
selbstandige Philosoptie] loses its medium of existence. At the best its place
can only be taken by a summing up of the most general results, abstractions
which are derived from the observation of the historical development of men.
These abstractions in themselves, divorced from real history, have no value
whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical
material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means
afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for neatly trimming the epochs of
history.
On the contrary, the difficulties begin only when one sets about the
examination and arrangement of the material—whether of a past epoch or of the
present—and its actual presentation. The removal of these difficulties is
governed by premises which certainly cannot be stated here, but which only the
study of the actual life-process and the activity of the individuals of each
epoch will make evident.
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the
class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its
ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production
at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so
that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole
subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of
the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations
grasped as ideas; hence of the relations which make the one class the ruling
one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling
class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. In so far,
therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an
historical epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence
among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate
the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are
the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where
royal power, aristocracy and bourgeoisie are contending for domination and
where, therefore, domination is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers
proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an "eternal law".
The division of labour, which we already saw above… as one of the chief forces
of history up till now, manifests itself also in the ruling class as the
division of mental and material labour, so that inside this class one part
appears as the thinkers of the class (its active, conceptive ideologists, who
make the formation of the illusions of the class about itself their chief source
of livelihood), while the others' attitude to these ideas and effusions is more
passive and receptive, because they are in reality the active members of this
class and have less time to make up effusions and ideas about themselves. Within
this class this cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and
hostility between the two parts, but whenever a practical coffision occurs in
which the class itself is endangered they automatically vanish, in which case
there also vanishes the appearance of the ruling ideas being not the ideas of
the ruling class and having a power distinct from the power of this class. The
existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period presupposes the
existence of a revolutionary class; about the premises of the latter sufficient
has already been said above...
If now in considering the course of history we detach the ideas of the ruling
class from the ruling class itself and attribute to them an independent
existence, if we confine ourselves to saying that these or those ideas were
dominant at a given time, without bothering ourselves about the conditions of
production and the producers of these ideas, if we thus ignore the individuals
and world conditions which are the source of the ideas, then we can say, for
instance, that during the time the aristocracy was dominant, the concepts
honour, loyalty; etc., were dominant, during the dominance of the bourgeoisie
the concepts freedom, equality, etc. The ruling class itself on the whole
imagines this to be so.
This conception of history, which is common to all historians, particularly
since the eighteenth century, which necessarily come up against the phenomenon
that ever more abstract ideas hold sway, i.e., ideas which increasingly take on
the form of universality.
For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is
compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as
the common interest of
all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its
ideas the form of universality, and present them as the only rational,
universally valid ones. The class making a revolution comes forward from the
very start, if only because it is opposed to a class, not as a class but as the
representative of the whole of society, as the whole mass of society confronting
the one ruling class. It can do this because initially its interest really is as
yet mostly connected with the common interest of all other non-ruling classes,
because under the pressure of hitherto existing conditions its interest has not
yet been able to develop as the particular interest of a particular class. Its
victory, therefore, benefits also many individuals of other classes which are
not winning a dominant position, but only insofar as it now enables these
individuals to raise themselves into the ruling class. When the French
bourgeoisie overthrew the rule of the aristocracy, it thereby made it possible
for many proletarians to raise themselves above the proletariat, but only
insofar as they became bourgeois. Every new class, therefore, achieves
domination only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously; on
the other hand the opposition of the non-ruling class to the new ruling class
then develops all the more sharply and profoundity. Both these things determine
the fact that the struggle to be waged against this new ruling class, in its
turn, has as its aim a more decisive and more radical negation of the previous
conditions of society than all previous classes which sought to rule could have.
This whole appearance, that the rule of a certain class is only the rule of
certain ideas, comes to a natural end, of course, as soon as class rule in
general ceases to be the form in which society is organised, that is to say, as
soon as it is no longer necessary to represent a particular interest as general
or the "general interest" as ruling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
