The New Front of Religion in Young America

With this blog post, I want to identify some thoughts I had, how the transformation of religion in America is leading to massive mega-churches. Churches with booming numbers with booming believers as they lead to a new face and front of religion in the US.
During this past week, glazing my eyes over at the sight of a computer monitor, I decided to read those two articles related to our paper due Friday. The article that most intrigued me was from the NY times, titled "The Soul of the New Exurb," written by Jonathan Mahler. This article highlights these growing mega churches in the US signifying the transformation, and increase of religious practices in booming cities among the young, married, white, middle-class conservative demographics in our country. The article was referring specifically to Surprise, AZ, a thriving town, thriving on a prosperous housing market, leading to a populous developing city. With this attraction for cheaper middle class homes in a thriving area for middle class couples, these conservative couples are being drawn to the city, increasing the population significantly. With this influx of a specific demographic, religious mega-churches have a great opportunity to recruit these new people who want to know more about the community, and the church. Hence, the advent of Radiant Church, founded in Surprise, AZ, recruiting these exact people I'm referring to, leading to the mass popularity the church has today.
The founder of Radiant church, Lee McFarland, saw an opportunity to build a successful church. When he came to Surprise to pursue this idea, McFarland came to a ''a radically 'un-churched' area.'' The article indicates that when he started to build this church he started to appeal to these families by sending out flyer's that attracted them, inviting them to Radiant. He needed a new modern approach to religion, to attract new members, instead on the traditional methods of church going. He says, ''You think church is boring and judgmental, and that all they want is your money?'' the flyer asked. ''At Radiant you'll hear a rockin' band and a positive, relevant message. Come as you are. We won't beg for your money. Your kids will love it!'' The church took of from there, the article informs, with its first Sunday meeting with 147 members, to its thousands of members steadily growing ever since. These religious practices appeal to this young front of America. The ways of practices, and the values presented at Radiant Church directly influence and target these conservative families, usually married and middle class, as the article suggests. Surprise, AZ voted in majority for Bush in the 2004 elections over John Kerry, if that doesn't suggest something, I don't know what does. This is a prime example of a mega-church in my opinion that is the new face, the new front of religion and politics in America. These churches populations are booming, the populations of the surrounding cities are booming, thus leading to an influx in church goers and recruiters in that city!
In the text, ''The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith,'' Alan Wolfe, writes that ''American faith has met American culture...and American culture has triumphed.'' The Radiant church appears to embody this claim, as well as my point for this post embodies this idea, that the massive front of American culture greatly involves American faith within it, as seen by the massive growing popularity of the Mega-church Radiant. 
The article identifies McFarland's long-term plan for his congregates at Radiant, which "involves much more than playing video games and eating dough nuts. He says that his hope -- his expectation, really -- is that casual worshipers will gradually immerse themselves in Radiants many Christ-based programs, from financial planning to parenthood and education, until they have eventually incorporated Christian values into every aspect of their lives." This furthers the notion that mega churches are the new American cultural front in terms of religious views, and that they hope to incorporate these religious views within peoples day to day lives in American culture. This highlights this root for modern American religion in our modern times.
To conclude my point, this mega church phenomenon is the new face of American mass religion. The article also says, " It's (Referring to Surprise) an attractive price (Homes)  for many families who are either trying to make the move into the middle class...which explains why the typical Surprise resident, as in many fast-growing exurbs, is a young, white, married couple of modest means."
This is my point here, this is the young generation making new families, this is the new face of America. This new front of American faith, which is mainly a conservative group in Surprise, AZ. The groups flocks to the community, attracting to the mega church there, and thus adding to the booming of the churches, therefore leading to this massive new front of prominent American religion in modern American culture. To me this exurban mega church, as well as many others, represents the future of Christianity in this country.

Works Cited:

Mahler, Jonathan. "The Soul of the New Exurb." The New York Times. March 17, 2005.

Wolfe, Alan. The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith. New York: Free Press, 2003.

YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnWg4wvwxpI


For some video for thought, here is a you tube video on a 20/20 investigation discussing the "possible rip-offs" or fallacies in these mega churches as the booming new front of American religion.

Marketing in Religion

For a long time now in Western Society, Christianity has had the most powerful marketting campaign of any existing religion. I can't remember the last time a Jewish person knocked on my door to try to get me to convert, but in suburban America you probably get a few calls a year from one Christian group or another. Despite this continuous truth, the way in which Religion has been marketted has changed quite a bit over the years.

Originally, Christianity was packaged as a religion for the masses. The Savior, Jesus, was a carpenter, not a king, and walked the earth without need of material wealth. So too did the followers of Christianity preach in a way that made the poor seem superior: things like "The meek shall inherit the earth" or the concept that there is a Heaven where even the poorest are saved. One can see how it would be appealing to a serf that his downtrodden state was not an eternal affliction.

However, in the past few hundred years there have been many different takes on spreading Christianity. The Spanish spread it with missionaries and conquistadors as they pillaged the Americas. The puritans came to take religion as a strict social order, keeping the Word as a stern reminder against a wrathful God. The tactic of the Great Awakening was one of fear; messages like "You are held above a fiery pit and are doomed to burn. All that keeps you aloft is God's good grace; and don't think he won't let go!"
The Catholic Church has long taken the position of a moral compass, providing guidance for people and a translation of the word of God. This has proven more effective at some times than others, and in a modern arena more and more new tactics have been used to secure the faith of churchgoers.

What I find to be particularly surprising is that some churches are beginning to strip away the religious iconography in favor of a more powerful marketing campaign. When I first saw Dogma, I thought that such a time would never come when the cross would be replaced with an icon like "Buddy Jesus. "

Yet to my surprise, reading this article in the NY Times by Jonathan Mahler, "The Soul of the New Exurb," I found out that this new megachurch has ditched the cross in favor of lattes and Xboxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/magazine/327MEGACHURCH.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1
The first thing Pastor Lee did when establishing this "Radiant" church was to ask people why they didn't go to church and then change the church to fit their complaints.

Is this the new face of Christianity? A religion packaged in pop culture and stripped of all dogmatic influence?

The next thing we should ask is this: Is this a good change or a bad one?
On one hand, there is danger in having a moral compass that changes with the wind. If a religion embraces every trend that comes down the avenue there is a chance that the message will be lost along the way.
On the other, one of the most damaging properties of existing religion is the tendency to attack, exclude, or ignore others because they don't share the same belief system (a point that was made in Dogma by the Muse). Would a Christianity focuses on self-improvement and goodwill over scripture and Dogma be a negative change?

For class discussion today, if we have any, I wanted to discuss this because I have little experience with traditional religion and thought that perhaps the more informed members of our class would do a better job at weighing the positives and negatives of this situation.

For course readings click here:
http://secularsacred05.blogspot.com/search/label/course%20texts

Returning to the Past

The past class we started to watch the film Dogma. This movie has countless underlying themes and connections to the controversial issues paired with religious belief. In the past, many religions groups sold indulgences. An indulgence is defined as a pardon of sins already confessed and absolved. Being baptized Protestant and then re-baptized Catholic, indulgences have always been a touchy issue.

Why would someone want to pay for an indulgence if they have already been absolved for their sins? An article in The New York Times that pertains to this topic said, "According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven." Although paying for indulgences was made illegal as of 1957, the church can still accept contributions. I don’t believe the church should be able to make money by helping people repent and be saved from their sins.

This is where Dogma falls into comparison. Mooby the golden calf was a false idol that was turned into a marketable character. One particular scene showed the company’s executive board with evidence scattered around that they had made quite a profit through their sins. One of the biggest commandments as discussed in class is “Thou Shall have no other gods besides me.” They created wealth for themselves by exploiting the belief of something portrayed as more important than God himself. This is one of the greater sins that according to religion holds more weight than other sins. For worse sins, you will spend more time in purgatory.

The article from the NY Times emphasized that the church is simply trying to boost the numbers of Catholics attending confession. They want to focus less on the Purgatory aspect, and more about living as Jesus did. Some churches advertise the choice to receive indulgences, and some don’t. The Catholic Church wanted to bring personal sin back into the lives of millions. They are doing so however, by holding punishment above our heads. God is metaphorically holding us above the fiery pit of hell in his fingertips. Simply sinning could send you through the cracks of God’s metaphorical fingers and send you spiraling to hell. I don’t believe in using hell as leverage to gain followers and support.

This same idea is touched upon in Dogma. The sole mission of Bartleby and Loki is to walk through the arches to be absolved of their sins to die with no sins on their slate. Bethany even speaks about going to church for fear of the wrath of God. The church is trying to scare us back into the pews. With mass attendees low, how better to get people to fill those seats than scaring people with the idea of sin, punishment, and hell?

Increasing knowledge of sin is a positive motive for bringing indulgences back into play, however I am still uneasy. How can an act or contribution be measured in the amount of years taken off of your punishment sentence? This isn’t how my personal beliefs line up. My belief is God doesn’t calculate how he’s going to punish every single one of his children every time they sin. I believe in a just God who forgives and loves. I don’t feel he is taking attendance at church or checking your name off when you pray. I believe in a God I was raised learning about, one who possesses unconditional love for everyone and anyone.

link to NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/nyregion/10indulgence.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2

Vitello, Paul. "For Catholics, a Door to Absolution Is Reopened." The New York Times [New York City] 09 Feb. 2009.

The Tradition of Marriage is Troubled Because of Individualism? I Think Not

Our class discussions have touched upon serious social issues that are being battled out between what Alan Wolfe describes in the introduction of The Transformation of American Religion as believers and non-believers. These discussions have touched upon suicide, homosexuality, and morality, but a subject that hasn't been discussed in great detail is marriage.

An article (which I'm going to link below) I stumbled across defined marriage as "previously understood as a sacred union given and governed by God for the stability of society". My question to the class then is, does marriage still stand as a sacred union given and governed by God? What difference is there between non-believers who get married and a gay couple who believes in God who want to get married, that gives the former the right to get married but not the latter?

The article I mentioned above is called "The Capital 'I' in 'I Do'" and discusses a survey by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers State University that claims that "the tradition of marriage is troubled today in large part because of an emerging cultural emphasis on individualism". I think this is bull, but let's look at what they have to say.

"Social scientists suggest the significant societal shift that is taking its toll on the institution of marriage can be attributed to the themes of personal independence and self-fulfillment....

...The recent family trends in the Western nations have been largely generated by a distinctive set of cultural values that scholars have come to label ‘secular individualism.’ It features the gradual abandonment of religious attendance and beliefs, a strong leaning toward ‘expressive’ values that are preoccupied with personal autonomy and self-fulfillment, and a political emphasis on egalitarianism and the tolerance of diverse lifestyles. An established empirical generalization is that the greater the dominance of secular individualism in a culture, the more fragmented the families...

...Increasingly, marriage—previously understood as a sacred union given and governed by God for the stability of society—is becoming viewed as a social contract to be terminated if it frustrates self-fulfillment...

...“The fundamental reason is that the traditional nuclear family is a somewhat inegalitarian group (not only between husbands and wives but also parents and children) that requires the suppression of some individuality and also has been strongly supported by, and governed by the rules of, orthodox religions. As a seeming impediment to personal autonomy and social equality, therefore, the traditional family is an especially attractive unit for attacks from a secular individualistic perspective."

Let's take a breather here for a moment and look at what they've said so far. Secular individualism teaches us to abandon religion to fulfill our own personal goals (because our personal goals can't be fulfilled while being religious?), while pushing us to believe in equality for all and the tolerance of diverse lifestyles (which we all know is a horrible goal to strive for). They go on to talk about how marriage is ended because of a lack of "self-fulfillment" and that the traditional family cannot be egalitarian because families require a "supression of some individuality" in order to function.

What? Perhaps my feelings on marriage is a belief not shared by my fellow peers across the nation, or perhaps even it is the secular individualism of the nation holding sway over me, but I feel like marriage does not require a sacrifice of oneself in order to make things work. I was under the impression that the vows given during a wedding meant that you accept the other person fully - both bad and good. That you're swearing to accept every part of them because you're willing to live with who they are.

I will often claim that the social value I hold in highest regard is my independence and personal freedom - it is one of the few things I would never give up no matter what. Without my freedoms I cannot be happy with who I am or where I am. My family understands this, and rather than being splintered away from my family because of my individualism, I am closer to them now than ever before. They support my right to make my own decisions and work with me to continually work as family unit even when I am states, or countries, away. And it is well understand that anyone who enters my life as a significant other must respect my high regard for these values, or in minimizing my freedoms, are disrespecting who I am.

Does this mean I can't be who I am - beyond the fact that I do not believe in a traditional God - and still be happily bound in matrimony?According to the National Marriage Project codirector Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, it does.
“We will have to adopt the view that personal happiness depends on high-trust and lasting relationships and that such relationships require constraints on short-term adult interests in order to foster long-term commitments to children, and thus to the future.”

I cannot accept that my personal happiness depends on another person, but that comes from my Native American upbringings and the beliefs I was raised on. I was told from a young age that "Only you can make yourself truly happy", and I will stick by that to the end. But that doesn't mean that I can't be happy in union with another person. It doesn't mean that I can't be a good parent and raise children in a stable atmosphere. I know what it means to be raised in a broken household, and I never want that for my children. And I don't need to sacrifice who I am to do that, because I believe who I am, or who I will be when I finally have children of my own, is the kind of person who will do just fine as a parent.

A conclusion statement from Barbara Whitehead went as followed:

"With each passing year these nations—including the United States—are more secular than ever before. The National Cultural Values Survey . . . found that regular churchgoing has dipped below 50 percent and only 36 percent believe “people should live by God’s principles.” The logical conclusion then, is that “America no longer enjoys cultural consensus on God, religion, and what constitutes right and wrong.”

Yet, Alan Wolfe would disagree.

"Religions can be astonishingly different, while human beings can be surprisingly the same... Study real people, and one is more likely to notice the similarities, not only among people of different faiths, but also between those for whom religion matters greatly and those for whom it matters not at all" (5).

I would ask each member of our class then - what does marriage mean to you, and how has your religious upbringing, or lack-there-of, affected it?

the last time I went to church

I'm not sure what else to do for my blog post, so I guess I will just tell you a story.
In Junior high I had a friend named Sheri, who was a Christian, she said, a real one. She asked me to go to church with her when I was thirteen. There was a band playing and lots of snacks. She said the boys in the band were really cute. She said that the music was good and then afterwards there were skits and only a very short sermon. It didn’t sound so bad, being saved.

In the church there was a ruby red carpet and checkered tablecloths. It was set up like a cheap coffeehouse. There were pimply preteens everywhere. The band was okay. I remember wishing we could all just sit down in our chairs, I didn’t understand why we all had to stand with our hands in the air, and why no one was looking at the band, but at the ceiling instead. About halfway through the show I realized that people weren’t dancing; they were swaying and praying, and half of them were crying. I felt my face getting red again, the kind of red that it only gets in church.

After the band played some girls did a skit. One of the girls didn’t devote herself to Jesus. Her friend was begging her to save her soul from hell. The devil girl agreed and they were on their way to church when they both were killed by a car. The angel girl went to heaven, while the devil girl was dragged to hell by demons, screaming the entire way off stage. My friend Sheri turned to me clapping hysterically, “wasn’t that powerful?” About a year later her church was shut down and charged with embezzlement. All the souls that they saved cried for days.

Religious Tradition in Law

Religious tradition has had a strong influence on American society from the get-go. As many religious traditionalists have pointed out, our founding fathers were Christian and the belief system that they based the Constitution on was that of enlightenment-period Christiandom.
Interestingly, although the founding fathers intended a "seperation of church and state," they also granted both the freedom to practice religion and the freedom to vote. Combined, these two form the right to vote based on your religious belief; something that is not uncommon in modern American society.

Because our lawmakers are elected, this means that the religious beliefs of the masses can have a subtle yet no less powerful impact on the way laws are written. In America today, I would describe our law as "selectively Christian" in the sense that, although many laws based on religion are rejected as unconstitutional, many laws which do not uphold traditional religious values meet heavy resistance because the voters have religious opinions. Take for instance the example in The Transformation of American Religion regarding the idea that the galvanization of the evangelical right against Roe v Wade may well have made the difference in the election of George W. Bush (Wolfe 117).

This is by no means a recent occurance. In fact, our laws have been passively created from a Christian foundation despite the secular nature we attribute to them. As I have mentioned before, suicide is considered illegal in most places in the U.S. In fact, it has long been supposed that suicide denotes insanity (suicidal tendencies can be used as proof of insanity in a courtroom). I maintain that this is a fundamentally Judeo-Christian viewpoint. Although it may be considered a sin in the eyes of the Judeo-Christian God, under the first ammendment we should not require the non-Christian to abide by a traditionalist's definition of sin.
We have the right to life, liberty, and property. We are allowed to give up our property and our liberty, why wouldn't we be allowed to give up life?

There has been a debate over whether suicide denotes insanity. This NY Times article draws a line between "true suicide" for trivial reasons, and "reasonable suicide" when circumstances make life too painful to live. (Article by S.A.K. Strahan)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9403E3DC1F39E033A25757C1A9679C94659ED7CF

This issue is still very much at hand in American politics. California act AB 374 was incredibly controversial. This act gives the dying the right to suicide to avoid the last painful moments of a deadly disease. Click here for an article by Frank D. Russo about the "Compassionate Choice" act:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/03/california_comp_1.html

Check out this Youtube video on AB 374 (I couldn't figure out how to embed). Tom MacDonald speaks to the California assembly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82vi7F5mnsE

I find it amazing that there is so much controversy over suicide among dying people. It seems we are a long way off from legalizing meaningless suicide. Apparently you have to live your life whether you like it or not. That's what we call freedom.

For more citation info on Wolfe, http://secularsacred05.blogspot.com/search/label/course%20texts

All men are created equal

Over the course of this class one question has continued to bother me. My question is that if in the U.S. “All men are created equal” why are people who simply give themselves another label or are labeled something outside the norm treated differently and more importantly why do people care so much.
I don’t have a complete answer to this question but I do have a theory. My theory is that people who believe in their religion beyond a shadow of a doubt believe that there religion is the right one and therefore the one that everyone should fallow. This takes its most basic form in religious symbols and objects. According to McDannell “Religious objects also signal who is in the group and who is not. They teach people how to think and act like Christians. They are used to lure, encourage, and shock non-Christians into considering the truth of Christianity”. I for one believe that a person should be able to believe in whatever they want so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of anyone else. Hopefully our old friend George Carlin can help me get this point across.
Work cited
McDannell, Colleen. Material Christianity. London: Yale University Press, 1995.
“THIS COUNTRY IS FINISHED GEORGE CARLIN ON COUNTDOWN” YouTube. 23 October 2007. 16
February 2009.

Altars

This week we spent time a full class going around the room discussing each of our altars. They all represented our personalities and who we are as people. It got me thinking about how we each our own person and this brought me back to the old saying that the USA is the Great Melting Pot. This brought back some memories of School House Rock and this video:



This brought me to thinking about the slide show of altars that we saw in class earlier and how even within a single religion there are vast differences in what people believe and how they show that belief.

Ten Commandments

Ten Commandments, what are they and who really cares? Our last class discussion ended on the Ten Commandments and I thought it would be a good topic to bring up for our next blog discussion. As I read Alan Wolfe The Transformation of American Religion, it inspired me to think about how people today are so vulnerable towards religion. From Alan Wolfe’s readings I gathered from that resource that most people today have very strong beliefs in a said religion but they don’t necessarily understand it. That’s why the Ten Commandments were a perfect specimen to observe.

“Most people know the Ten Commandments or perhaps it is better to say that they think they know the Ten Commandments. The commandments are one of those cultural products that people imagine that they understand, but in reality, they frequently can't even name all of them, let alone explain them.”

So, what do people really believe when it comes to the Ten Commandments? Well I would like to think that there is a small gap between what the Ten Commandments actually state, and what people really follow. Most people incorrectly believe that all of the Commandments represent moral behavior in current society. For instance: to not lie, steal, or commit adultery. However I believe that in today’s age the messages that were trying to be conveyed back when the Commandments were written has a slightly different juxtaposition of poise and content conveyance towards a progressive neutral society.

I also found an interesting website 10 Commandments in America that asks some of the important questions like: What are the Ten Commandments? What do people believe about the Ten Commandments? Should people follow the Ten Commandments? If you would like to know the answers,check out the website.

Evidence of this conclusion can be found in many text books, both of philosophers and mildly entertaining connoisseurs of religious preferences. However there is hope that one may find the answer to this religious argument by simply asking themselves: what are the real definitions of these religious jurisdictions and how would the hypothesis benefit society in general, or even, just maybe benefit everyone individually as they see fit.

This video is about how Ten Commandments can be turned just only in three.



-Andrei

Organ's Are Not The Problem

This past weekend, I arrived at UVM's Catholic Center at 5:30 to practice the various musical pieces and hymns in the mass. As we sang the opening song, I felt a rush of emotion that I can only describe as a spiritual connection. The music that was only text on a page a few moments ago was suddenly full of a new meaning to me. The harmonious sound of the choir imbued a feeling of joy to be in God's presence. I could not help but smile as I sang! (The congregation also seemed to appreciate the sound as well as I saw quite a few people swaying back and forth and bouncing.)

In Alan Wolfe's book The Transformation of American Religion, Wolfe says that many members of churches prefer to hear more modern music and "turn away and leave the moment they hear an organ". (29)

RUN! IT'S AN ORGAN!

I must respectfully disagree.

I believe that bad music drives people out of church, not old or unfamiliar music. Due to dwindling numbers of churchgoers, musicians for each and every church have been hard to find. Most churches are so desperate to find a musician, they let almost anyone who can play a piano or barely carry a tune do it. Nobody wants to sing in mass when the pianist can't keep the rhythm consistent. (True story but that's for another time.)

One thing I do not disagree with Wolfe in is the idea that music is a key factor in keeping attendance! In my experience, the churches that I have attended in the past (about 15-20 different ones) that have, in my opinion, better music than others, get higher attendance and more participation from mass goers. The Cathedral in my home town pays a different professional musician to come each week. These paid musicians give outstanding performances and each week there is a new one to see. Compared to other churches in the area, the number of people who show up for this mass in particular is quite large. There are so many, that I often times cannot find a seat for myself. Another example is a comparison between two churches similar in location and but different in size. St. Mary's church and St. Matthew's are close to each other distance wise, but St. Matthew's is a bit larger and has a larger member base. However more people attend St. Mary's each week. Why? Most people you ask will tell you (I have asked myself) the music is better.

Now, I can go on and on listing examples of why I think GOOD music increases attendance (If you want the full list ask me when you have about an hour or two to spare). But I think an even more important question is why. I think that the power of music lies in its ability to channel ideas and emotions into one output. Music makes it easy to combine the intent of words, with the feeling behind the intent. It makes having a sacred moment easier and more natural. I don't think there is anything natural about reciting a prayer in a zombie like fashion. But when put to music, people put the words together with the feeling of the music. Crescendos tell people of climax and importance, and musical notes help put together the phrasing of sentences in ways that make sense. As one of my choir teachers once told me, singing in church is like praying twice. I think she meant that in one sense you are saying the prayer, and in another sense, the music you are putting behind the prayer is giving it meaning to you.

I know it's a little cheesy, but I'm sure many of you are familiar with the movie Sister Act, with Whoopie Goldberg:

Direct Link Here

This clip sums up my ideas on how good music can stir people to become more involved and connected in their respective religious experiences.

So my question for this week is: What are your thoughts and experiences with religion, music and spiritual connections?

Feel free to use the comments section and tell me what you think!

Religion = Violence ?

Religion means many things to many different people. It gives us a set of ways to live our lives. It gives us a reason to why we exist. It gives us a sense of belonging. It gives us something to believe in. Religion is supposed to bring us together. However, when different religions are brought into close contact with each other conflict and violence sometimes erupts. As Alan Wolfe states in The Transformation of American Religion “ Religion, in short, is valued because it opens a window on the sacred, a realm of life that we treat, in the words of Peter L. Berger, ‘as ‘sticking out’ from the normal routines of everyday life, as something extraordinary and potentially dangerous’” (Wolfe 245).

Different religions give us different things to believe in, and sometimes when these different beliefs come into contact with each other violence erupts. This isn’t because religion tells us to be violent towards other different religions. Religion does not tell us to fight and kill those that don’t believe in the same things we do. People sometimes take religion in this way and some of the biggest conflicts in history were based off of these religious conflicts (such as the holocaust). Some people tend to feel so strongly about their religion that when they see other people who follow some other religion that conflicts with theirs, they feel the need to do something about it. Sometimes this might just be trying to convert them to your religion or it can be praying for their soul. Other times, a small fight could start which can then grow into a large war between the two religions.

Even though religions are able to coexist in many parts of the world, violence still erupts to this day between different religions across the world. This video shows how in Orissa, Hindu believers attacked Christian homes and churches.

Zombie Jesus

So, I was surfing the web right after class and cam across this. I thought it might get some laughs and kinda pull out a lighter side of religion.

Lewis Black and the Superbowl Take 2: The Ritual

I think this is more relevant to our discussion today than Geoff's post, and definitely contains less profanity!! We'll watch in conjunction with Cal's post on Friday.

Comedy Central Presents

Lewis Black - The Super Bowl

More Funny Videos
Comedians on Tour

Get Funny Ringtones
Stand-Up Comedy

Lewis Black and the Superbowl

Television Religion

In light of the Altar Project and thinking about how I can relate my major to this course I came up with one of the largest symbolistic culprit of our time, television. Being  a digital film major makes it difficult to not see the influence of mass media on the general public. When I went looking around for statistics I began to notice something. Television and religion do not exactly get along, in fact religion is threatened by it. In l985 the A. C. Nielsen Company said that , "the television set was on in the average home seven hours and seven minutes a day." That was in 1985! Since then not seeing a television anywhere has become irregular . Most of us get our daily information fix for the day from it. From weather to current news, constant entertainment and information is available at just the push of a button. Its easy to see why religion can become fearful of TV, because TV is the new age opiate of the masses. Many of us don't even realize how powerful television is in shaping culture. In my a/v digital editing class we are learning about how the juxtaposition of certain images cut in a sequence can bring about different ideas and emotions that are not literally shown. Just like the Bible uses different passages to convey meaning that most of the time is not literally what is presented. Much like religion people tent to put "faith" into there television watching subconsciously. Its easy to believe everything that is on television, and for our society today "easy" is most definitely in. 

Mind Control

Alan Wolfe writes in The Transformation of American Religion, 

Ritualized worship has many distinctive characteristics, including its emphasis on drama  and narrative, its reliance on symbols, and its bodily appeal to the senses more than to the mindful qualities of the intellect. But what distinguishes ritual above all else is the lack of space it makes available for individuals to decide for themselves methods of worship that fit their own dispositions. Protestantism, in the view of many Catholic traditionalists, puts its emphasis on an individual's sense of inner conviction, while Catholicism, at its core, stresses the magical power that flows from collective participation in sacramental worship.

I attend Catholic Mass regularly, so many things this reading discussed were familiar to me. 

A couple of months ago, in the middle of the presidential campaign circus, I had read this excellent article on Cracked.com: 6 Brainwashing Techniques They're Using On You Right Now.

Chanting Slogans

There are many points during the Mass where all the assembled people are supposed to speak together in unison. Services are filled with the singing of lyrics based on Biblical versus. At one point the people speak the Nicene Creed, professing their beliefs. At another point the Deacon reads a list of prayer intentions, and the congregation is expected to say "Lord, hear our prayer," in response to each. I make sure I remain silent when they get to the part about protecting the alleged sanctity of marriage.

Controlling what you watch and read

The church is quick to pass judgement on what films a good Christian should and shouldn't watch.

The Da Vinci Code - Bad!

The Golden Compass - Bad!

Brokeback Mountain - Bad! 

The Chronicles of Narnia - Good!

Private schools and homeschooling are also popular among religious families, to protect the children from the secular influence of the public school system. A group called Exodus Mandate calls for an exodus from the public schools.

Keeping you in line with shame

Black and white choices

Us vs. Them

The Catholic church regularly declares that something is Truth. It makes sure its followers are familiar with its laundry list of sins. There's the black and there's the white, there's good and there's evil, Heaven for Us and Hell for Them. Moral relativism is dangerous according to the Pope, the infallible leader of the Catholic church.

When I think of organized religion I am often reminded of The Sharing from the Animorphs book series by K.A. Applegate, a series I loved as a kid. Part of the premise of the books is that aliens called Yeerks are seeking to enslave the human race. Yeerks are parasitic slugs that crawl into a person's ear and meld into the brain, controlling everything the person does from then on. Instead of waging a war to conquer the planet, the Yeerks decide to secretly infiltrate human society through an organization called The Sharing. 

On the surface, The Sharing is a friendly organization committed to serving the community. It is often compared to the Boy Scouts. It provides people with a sense of community, a sense of belonging, of being part of something greater than the self. But once you join them, they slip a slug into your ear and gain control of your brain. An interesting metaphor.

That's an image that often sticks with me when I'm at church, surrounded by people speaking in unison. Or when I hear anything about the Church of Scientology. It's an image that sticks with me when I watch videos of the children of Westboro Baptist Church smiling sweetly and singing about eternal damnation for everyone God hates.

This except from the Animorphs book Visser describes the formation of The Sharing, how it was designed to exploit the weaknesses of the human race:

And, once I had the seed money, several hundred million, I began to create The Sharing.

It would cater to one of the most fundamental human weaknesses: the need to belong. The fear of loneliness. The hunger to be special. The craving for an exaggerated importance.

I would make a haven for the weak, the inadequate, the fearful. I would wrap it up in all the bright packaging that humans love so much.

The Sharing would never be about weak people being led to submit to a stronger will, no, no, it would be about family, virtue, righteousness, brotherhood and sisterhood. I would offer people an identity. A place to go. I would give them a new vision of themselves as part of something larger, erasing their individuality.

I needed only one thing before I could go to the Empire, call the Council of Thirteen, and present them with my accomplished fact: I needed one human, just one, to submit voluntarily.

If I could show them one human who had surrendered his or her will and freedom, without threat of violence, I could convince the Empire to follow my path. The way of infiltration.

The first meeting of The Sharing took place on a Saturday. Thirty-five people attended.

I had done a tremendous job in a very short time. I had studied human history, supplementing what Allison Kim already knew. I studied every cult, every movement, every great, mesmerizing leader that had ever held sway over humans.

And by the time those thirty-five humans came into the rented hall, I had adorned the walls with symbols and flags and icons. All the visual nonsense that moves the susceptible human mind.

They filed in, some in small groups, but most alone. They were stirred by the inspirational music. Flattered by the attention paid them by attendants I’d hired from a temp agency. Impressed by the expensively produced booklets we handed out. Awed by the pictures and symbols that draped the walls.

I spoke to them from the stage. Not as Allison Kim, of course, because all my links to Allison Kim would have to be concealed before my fellow Yeerks arrived.

I had carefully picked a human host for just this one purpose. His name was Lawrence Alter.

A real estate salesman. I changed his name to Lore David Altman. Three name combinations were popular then.

He was a charismatic man with a loud, deep voice and an abundance of hair. Just the sort of face that humans respond to, though his brain was a wasteland compared to Allison’s.

Allison Kim had been left handcuffed to a radiator in a hotel room, awaiting my return.

Later, after it was over, I found I couldn’t recall exactly what I’d said to this first meeting of The Sharing, not the specific words. A lot of high-flown rhetoric touching on the themes humans love to hear: that they are special, superior, a chosen few. That their failures in life are all someone else’s fault. That mystical, unseen forces and secret knowledge will give them power.

The next Saturday there were more than twice the number of humans. And already I had begun to explain that there was an “Outer” Sharing, and an “Inner” one. The humans in the “Outer” Sharing were wiser, better, more moral, superior to the average human, but not as superior as those lucky few who had entered the “Inner” Sharing.

Of course at that point there was no “Inner” Sharing. Just seventy or eighty humans sitting in plush chairs and being fed an endless diet of words that had no clear meaning.

The Inner-Sharing, that was the test of true greatness. And all a human had to do to enter was to surrender their will.

This was what Essam, who had infested only Lowenstein and Hildy, would not credit: that humans would surrender their freedom in exchange for empty words. But I had infested the lost soldier, and the even more lost Jenny Lines. I had tasted human defeat and superstition and weakness.

I knew.

 - K.A. Applegate, Visser, p98-100.

Craziness at Kansas City

This past week in class we have discussed variety of topics on religion and to be more specific we talked about religion and gay marriage. Gay marriage is considered to be wrong and there are a lot people who really hate even to think that they are living among them. Well in Kansas City the religious fanatics of the Westboro Baptist Church are taking things to the extreme level.

The church fanatics were protesting outside the military funeral with very provocative signs. Those horrible signs were offending the families of the dead soldiers, but it also offended me as I watch this craziness to unfold. I still can’t believe that people take religion so serious that they actually lose their mind in it. It shocks me to see how people can be manipulated so easily just by one person name Phelps(The leader of the church). As for the follower, those people can’t think for themselves, they are brain washed with this rubbish since they were little kids. The worst part about it is that most of the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are from Phelps’ own family. There is defiantly something wrong with this family, maybe they’re inbred, mentally if not physically.

This issue was brought up because some people say it was a violation of the 1st commandment(Freedom of Speech). Well let’s look at it a little closer. The Phelps people still have the right to say whatever they want. But they do not, however, have the right to say it wherever or whenever they want. What kind of church going person with a good appreciation towards Gods' teachings would ever hold up a sign saying “God hates Fags”.

If there is a hell, these idiots will have a special place waiting for them. Plus those Westboro Baptist Church fanatics got sued for 11 million dollar. There are a lot of people hoping it will be the end of the Westboro Baptist Church and their stupidity. The full story is available here.



Thank you for reading,

-Andrei
P.S I'm still outraged by those brain washed idiots.

Formal Post: The "Stupid-Bowl"

Alright-symbols. How about a great American one; Football...

With the super-bowl coming up in a couple hours now and everyone getting all pumped up as I sit in my room contemplating this ridiculous event, and wonder what to write my blog post about. I'm thinking of symbols, religion, some sort of issue that would create a good discussion. So, getting more and more fed-up thinking about it, I realize here in itself is a great symbol, and some even call it their religion. Football, is it Sacred or Secular, Super or Stupid?
What is it about this game that makes it so American's love it? We have taken a secular activity in my mind and transformed into a sacred pass time. I am so sick of how overblown and capitalistic this sport has become, and how we all sit around and let it totally consume us. Even people who I know dont like football simply watch it for the commercials- come on! (Although I will admit the Bridgestone commercials were brilliant, yes I am a hypocrite.)
In our readings McDannell says,"During the first half of the twentieth century, cultural critics observed that a powerful "cultural industry" made up of the media, popular arts, entertainment, and fashion controlled the desires and needs of the "mases"."(10) The media has shoved whatever it has wanted down our throats whether we like it or not just as the church did before the media was around. "For the sixteenth-century Protestant reformers and the powerful Catholic church manipulated weak people through images and trinkets." The media has turned football into our religion.
I have done a fair amount of traveling outside of the United States and have come to understand football as being the iconic American sport in the eyes of the majority of each person I have talked to. Why is this I ask myself? Could it possible be the relation between America being the most materialistic and capitalistic driven country in the world and football being the most popular form of media mindwash? Either way it is a symbol that speaks loud and clear the more I think about it. Our general of central command tossed the coin to open the game for goodness sake... If that doesn't say "this is America" I don't know what does.
I do know that I have had enough between John Madden, the 3 hour pregame show, hour long halftime show with good old "born in the USA" Bruce Springsteen and 10 million dollar commercials which lets be honest...half of our class probably could come up with more entertaining ones.

Okay, I'm done my rant now.



-Cal

p.s. I know I started with saying it was a couple hours before the game and I posted this at 6:30 on Monday, but I needed to add a few more thoughts after letting the full scale of the event set-in.