During class time, we often focus on our perspective of religions as we know them here in America, but I'm sure that other from around the world will view these issues in a very different light. Fall of this year, I will be studying abroad on the Champlain Campus in Dublin, Ireland, immersed in a culture I truly know nothing about - even if I think I do. I've been spending a lot of time lately thinking about where else I want to travel during my four months in Europe and I know that England, Germany, and Italy are solidified on my list, with Spain and Scotland as close seconds.
I could easily give an explanation for what draws me towards England, Germany, Spain and even Scotland, but what perplexes me is my intense need to visit Italy. What about Vatican City draws me to it despite my distinct lack of belief in the Christian/Catholic religion? Why do I believe that visiting these places will enlightenment me - make me feel something beyond this world - a sort of mystical transcendence?
In a web magazine for New York teens, Nicole Farrow, a non-religious teen who visited Vatican City, quoted her experience
"It was overwhelming to experience the love and faith of all the followers in the church, and in a way I felt as though I belonged. The artwork and the beauty of the church made me feel guilty for not believing as devoutly as the pious followers believe. I felt serenity as I walked passed the ancient and historic artwork. I was able to just sit back and absorb the experience and reflect on where I am now and where I am going to be. As I looked around, I saw that people have found peace through religion, and I wondered whether I would be able to find that type of peace if I were religious."
Nicole was drastically changed by her experience in Vatican City, but I still want to know why.
In Material Christianity, McDannell briefly touches upon the studies done on how architecture effects religion.
"Increasingly, studies of architecture and art are being conducted by scholars outside of the art disciplines. These scholars wonder what social messages we receive as we walk through an art or a natural history museum?"
I don't know what this experience will bring to me. What affect do you believe Holy places would have on you? Do you think it would be a life changing experience?
Showing posts with label Heather Ryder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heather Ryder. Show all posts
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Batman and Morality (Informal Post)
During one of the last classes, I brought up the end of Dark Knight when the Joker and Batman are discussing the morality of the people of Gotham City.
The first youtube clip shows the part of the movie where the inmate takes the mechanism to blow up the other ship and tosses it out the window, while the regular citizens on the other boat all want to blow the inmates up, but don't have the guts to do it.
The second clip is the discussion between Batman and the Joker. Batman talks about how the residents of Gotham were ready to believe in good, but the Joker knows that they'll break after they see the corruption of Harvey Dent. Harvey Dent, the White Light of Gotham, was symbolic for the idea that people need something to believe in - one of the primary reasons many of us believe religion exists.
First Part
Second Part
Does religion give people everything they need to believe in? If not, what else is there?
And what happens when religion fails to fulfill this goal?
The first youtube clip shows the part of the movie where the inmate takes the mechanism to blow up the other ship and tosses it out the window, while the regular citizens on the other boat all want to blow the inmates up, but don't have the guts to do it.
The second clip is the discussion between Batman and the Joker. Batman talks about how the residents of Gotham were ready to believe in good, but the Joker knows that they'll break after they see the corruption of Harvey Dent. Harvey Dent, the White Light of Gotham, was symbolic for the idea that people need something to believe in - one of the primary reasons many of us believe religion exists.
First Part
Second Part
Does religion give people everything they need to believe in? If not, what else is there?
And what happens when religion fails to fulfill this goal?
Saturday, February 21, 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?
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?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Symbols and their Negative Connotations?
As we have explored the first chapter of Material Christianity and delved into McDannell's view of symbols and how "the scrambling of the sacred and the profane is common in American Christianity", I've noticed that the majority of our discussions have been placed upon symbols that are hopeful, or inspirational, or patriotic. In truth, we view just as many symbols daily that are given negative connotations as we do symbols that give positive ideals/feelings. While looking for an article to fit in with my point for this blog, I came across a news article that discusses a current trial occurring in Sioux City for a double homicide.
Lawerence Douglas Harris Sr. is being charged with two counts of first degree murder for the death of his two step-daughters, age 8 and 10. Harris' defense is that "the girls had died when a spell he was casting 'had gone bad'" (Sioux City Journal). Harris was a known to practice witchcraft, and was a selfproclaimed Wiccan, and due to the inverted pentagram found on the floor of his basement and the various books found within Harris' home (including The Satanic Bible), both Satanism and Wicca have been dragged into the trial. The prosecution is claiming that "Harris was practicing satanism and carefully planned the killings as part of a spell or ritual from "The Satanic Bible", throwing various religious groups up in arms. Expert witnesses had to be called in to explain to the jury that pentagrams were not part of the Wiccan religion, and that one of the laws of Satanism is that children are to never be harmed.
As I read the article, I found myself amazed at how misunderstood and misrepresented both the pentagram and the religions that use it as a symbol are. I find it unfair that experts in these religions have to get up and protect themselves in our courts when people try to use their beliefs as excuses for committing horrible crimes. Although we all realize that many religious symbols are misunderstood or simplified, such as the Jesus fish example we had in our previous class, it is important to remember that many religions and people suffer from this misunderstanding as well as some people use that misunderstanding to their advantage.
Lawerence Douglas Harris Sr. is being charged with two counts of first degree murder for the death of his two step-daughters, age 8 and 10. Harris' defense is that "the girls had died when a spell he was casting 'had gone bad'" (Sioux City Journal). Harris was a known to practice witchcraft, and was a selfproclaimed Wiccan, and due to the inverted pentagram found on the floor of his basement and the various books found within Harris' home (including The Satanic Bible), both Satanism and Wicca have been dragged into the trial. The prosecution is claiming that "Harris was practicing satanism and carefully planned the killings as part of a spell or ritual from "The Satanic Bible", throwing various religious groups up in arms. Expert witnesses had to be called in to explain to the jury that pentagrams were not part of the Wiccan religion, and that one of the laws of Satanism is that children are to never be harmed.
As I read the article, I found myself amazed at how misunderstood and misrepresented both the pentagram and the religions that use it as a symbol are. I find it unfair that experts in these religions have to get up and protect themselves in our courts when people try to use their beliefs as excuses for committing horrible crimes. Although we all realize that many religious symbols are misunderstood or simplified, such as the Jesus fish example we had in our previous class, it is important to remember that many religions and people suffer from this misunderstanding as well as some people use that misunderstanding to their advantage.
Monday, January 19, 2009
First Blog - Shrine Making
Hey all - Heather here!
The first thought that came to my mind when I signed up for this core class was the fact that I know very little about religion. I grew up in a non-practicing Christian household, but from my early teen years and especially after my parents divorce, my dad worked to instill in me Native American beliefs he was raised on, so my view of spirituality is pretty different than most. That being said, I'm most looking forward to the shrine project we are going to have, and although we haven't gotten the assignment yet, I've already been struggling with what to do for mine.
While perusing the internet, I happened across this neat site on shrine making. (http://gomakesomething.com/ht/shrines/shrine-making/) I thought I'd post it in case other people struggle with the prokect. For those who don't have the time to read it, the most interesting notion I pulled from it was:
"a shrine is a self-contained expression of a single thought or theme".
Hopefully it will be useful for some during our project!
~Heather Ryder~
The first thought that came to my mind when I signed up for this core class was the fact that I know very little about religion. I grew up in a non-practicing Christian household, but from my early teen years and especially after my parents divorce, my dad worked to instill in me Native American beliefs he was raised on, so my view of spirituality is pretty different than most. That being said, I'm most looking forward to the shrine project we are going to have, and although we haven't gotten the assignment yet, I've already been struggling with what to do for mine.
While perusing the internet, I happened across this neat site on shrine making. (http://gomakesomething.com/ht/shrines/shrine-making/) I thought I'd post it in case other people struggle with the prokect. For those who don't have the time to read it, the most interesting notion I pulled from it was:
"a shrine is a self-contained expression of a single thought or theme".
Hopefully it will be useful for some during our project!
~Heather Ryder~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)