When browsing youtube.com for some videos that may inspire discussion, I found a Fox news clip mocking atheist ads posted on buses. I found this an excellent opportunity to mock fox news back, and show their supreme conservative agendas in terms of broadcasting news totally biased.
Watch Fox News attempt to show "fair and unbiased" news:
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Traditions of the Catholic Religion
While watching television, I came across many episodes of my favorite shows that relate to religion and the traditions of being Catholic. This caused me to think about how religion is viewed in the 21st century and what it really means to be a Catholic. The Catholic religion bases itself on traditions and what practitioners are "supposed" to do in order to consider themselves a true Catholic. Growing up, I considered myself Catholic because that is what my family raised me as. When I think more about my religious views though, I wonder if I am still considered a Catholic because I never participate in the traditions Catholics should be doing. I do not go to church anymore, I do not pray to God, I do not attend confession, etc.
This made me think back to a quote from The Transformation of American Religion, "Historian Robert Orsi has written of the "intense devotional creativity and improvisation in American Catholic culture" that characterized the religious life of his parent's generation, but in today's world, one study found that 61 percent of religiously active Catholics never pray with a rosary, 76 percent never engage in the novena (nine consecutive evenings of prayer), 44 percent never participate in the Stations of the Cross, and 53 percent never attend Benediction" (Wolfe).
This all relates back to an episode of That 70s Show that was on TV the other day where Eric's mom asked him and his sister to attend church with her, but they listed off reasons why they did not want to go.
This video shows how being a Catholic has changed over time. There is a clear seperation between Eric and his mom and how they view the Catholic Religion.
This blog post is meant to bring up the question of what it means to be a true Catholic. Must people follow the many traditions of this religion in order to be considered a true and devote Catholic or has the value of being a Catholic and the traditions changed so much over time that it solely depends on the individual and how they choose to practice?
WORKS CITED
Wolfe, Alan. The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith. New York: Free Press, 2003.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgprmIdnGmQ (Youtube video)
This made me think back to a quote from The Transformation of American Religion, "Historian Robert Orsi has written of the "intense devotional creativity and improvisation in American Catholic culture" that characterized the religious life of his parent's generation, but in today's world, one study found that 61 percent of religiously active Catholics never pray with a rosary, 76 percent never engage in the novena (nine consecutive evenings of prayer), 44 percent never participate in the Stations of the Cross, and 53 percent never attend Benediction" (Wolfe).
This all relates back to an episode of That 70s Show that was on TV the other day where Eric's mom asked him and his sister to attend church with her, but they listed off reasons why they did not want to go.
This video shows how being a Catholic has changed over time. There is a clear seperation between Eric and his mom and how they view the Catholic Religion.
This blog post is meant to bring up the question of what it means to be a true Catholic. Must people follow the many traditions of this religion in order to be considered a true and devote Catholic or has the value of being a Catholic and the traditions changed so much over time that it solely depends on the individual and how they choose to practice?
WORKS CITED
Wolfe, Alan. The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith. New York: Free Press, 2003.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgprmIdnGmQ (Youtube video)
Friday, April 3, 2009
Faith Vs. Fanaticism Formal blog post
In class a couple weeks ago we had a discussion on religious fanaticism. It got me thinking, where exactly do we draw the line between faith and fanaticism? What are the boundaries that have to be crossed in order to be considered a fanatic?
In my personal opinion it comes down to simply defining the terms. Faith is defined as: a belief that is not based on proof (dictionary.com). To me what makes someone faithful instead of a fanatic is that they will admit that they believe something, but do not know it, and cannot prove that it is true. When someone expresses their religious beliefs in this way it is less offensive and easier to accept. A person who has religious faith may “think” that they know the truth, but they do not try and force what they believe to be the truth onto others as if there were no other possibilities.
A fanatic is someone who shows aggressive and overweening devotion to a cause or belief (dictionary.com). Or you could choose to agree with the definition provided by urbandictionary.com of a religious fanatic, it is slightly less accurate, but slightly more amusing.
A religious fanatic would not use the words personal belief, or I think, they would be all up in your face with I know and you don’t. They would have an attitude that they know better than anyone who does not share their faith. The whole idea of saving souls was created by religious fanatics who fear others who do not share the same devotion to religion.
Here are some fun examples of religious fanaticism. Also, whenever you get the chance, check out the site for Landover Baptist Church. It is a completely fictional church that was created as a satire, poking fun an religious fanaticism and the commercial side of Christianity.
Athiest Cartoon
So the other night, I was utilizing the oh so wonderful StumbleUpon tool for Firefox and seeing all that the internet had to show me. I had told the tool that I was an atheist at an earlier date, and now almost every time I log in, it shows me a new form of "atheist" cartoon. I thought that the blog would be the best place to share this with the class so as to analyze it as fully as possible.
http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?p=288
http://www.atheistcartoons.com/?p=288
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Religion and Politics, Good Friends.
First, I have to apologize-I' am going to steal Corey's quote...Sorry but I swear I was going to use it and dont worry because I took another angle with it.
While I was reading in Lilla, I came across a quote that stopped me. It just somehow seemed to go along so well with all the heat over the G-20 summit and the protesting going on. “However fraught with discord and even violence is the relation between a nation’s religion and political authority at any particular time, a deeper, more complex reconciliation between them is being worked out in the process.” (Lilla 184) The anarchists in London, with a difference in religion between basically all nations represented keep in mind, were protesting capitalism; and essentially it turned violent. I think that the message of this quote is that although there are differences within religion, political or nationalistic views, while disputing we somehow come closer together and closer to unification...
Either way,I hope that something deeper is being formed here by this meeting and protesting, not just the question of: "What can we do to be rich again?" Yet, doesn't it seems like such an odd concept that these 20 "world leaders" come together and suposidly are going to be able to determine what is going to make things "okay." Doesn't the fact that our whole world economy is failing ring some bells? Maybe this capitalism thing isnt such a good idea after-all? Thats not going so far as to say that anarchism is the way to go, but seriously- lets learn something here suposid world leaders... Having a meeting with 20 people trying to talk about world economy when there are 195 countries in the world is absurd, ludacris and really a slap in so many developing countries faces.
I feel as though it is time we stopped worrying so much about how we are going to get ourselves out of this economic rut when we have more pressing issue's to focus on. Global warming? World hunger? Granted one thing I keep hearing now is more money to the IMF so that developing countries can receive more loans, but is that really solving the problem? The problem with a lot of developing countries is that they are already in a mountain of debt from IMF loans; I think it is time something more drastic was done, not 20 people of the richest countries in the world trying not to have their country become like a developing one. Take Haiti for example, can you imagine living on $1,400 for a whole year? A little more than 100 a month? I mean, I will be the first to admit I spend some days over a hundred dollars, and I know I'm not alone...
All in all, Lilla and this quote better be right. A "more complex reconciliation" better be on the way for all of us, anarchists, Americans, Christians, Haitians. Or else everyone is really in trouble.
While I was reading in Lilla, I came across a quote that stopped me. It just somehow seemed to go along so well with all the heat over the G-20 summit and the protesting going on. “However fraught with discord and even violence is the relation between a nation’s religion and political authority at any particular time, a deeper, more complex reconciliation between them is being worked out in the process.” (Lilla 184) The anarchists in London, with a difference in religion between basically all nations represented keep in mind, were protesting capitalism; and essentially it turned violent. I think that the message of this quote is that although there are differences within religion, political or nationalistic views, while disputing we somehow come closer together and closer to unification...
Either way,I hope that something deeper is being formed here by this meeting and protesting, not just the question of: "What can we do to be rich again?" Yet, doesn't it seems like such an odd concept that these 20 "world leaders" come together and suposidly are going to be able to determine what is going to make things "okay." Doesn't the fact that our whole world economy is failing ring some bells? Maybe this capitalism thing isnt such a good idea after-all? Thats not going so far as to say that anarchism is the way to go, but seriously- lets learn something here suposid world leaders... Having a meeting with 20 people trying to talk about world economy when there are 195 countries in the world is absurd, ludacris and really a slap in so many developing countries faces.
I feel as though it is time we stopped worrying so much about how we are going to get ourselves out of this economic rut when we have more pressing issue's to focus on. Global warming? World hunger? Granted one thing I keep hearing now is more money to the IMF so that developing countries can receive more loans, but is that really solving the problem? The problem with a lot of developing countries is that they are already in a mountain of debt from IMF loans; I think it is time something more drastic was done, not 20 people of the richest countries in the world trying not to have their country become like a developing one. Take Haiti for example, can you imagine living on $1,400 for a whole year? A little more than 100 a month? I mean, I will be the first to admit I spend some days over a hundred dollars, and I know I'm not alone...
All in all, Lilla and this quote better be right. A "more complex reconciliation" better be on the way for all of us, anarchists, Americans, Christians, Haitians. Or else everyone is really in trouble.
Religious Neurosis?
"The general idea of Christ the redeemer belongs to the world wide and pre-Christ theme of the hero and rescuer who, although he has been devoured by a monster, appears again in a miraculous way, having overcome whatever monster it was that swallowed him. When and where such a motif originated nobody knows. We do not even know how to go about investigating the problem. The one apparent certainty is that every generation seems to have known it as a tradition handed down from some preceding time. Thus we can safely assume that it originated at a period when man did not yet know that he possessed a hero myth; in an age, that is to say, when he did not yet consciously reflect on what he was saying. The hero figure is an archetype, which has existed in time immemorial." This idea has been presented by Carl Jung in his book Man and His Symbols.
In contemporary times, this idea explains the nature of why humans create religions. Jung proposes that ideas of Gods and "God-men" are inherent in the human unconscious. We do not create the ideas of Gods or mystical beings, rather our unconscious creates them for us in order to keep our minds stable, and avoid neurosis. It is a necessary part of human existence. Before we had the ability to intellectualize and conceive things on a conscious level, homage was paid to these unconscious figures purely out of instinct. In our current age of intellectual thought however, many people ignore their unconscious and their natural instincts.
In the times of ancient Egypt, people did not try to rationalize why they made sacrifices to their many gods, they just did because it helped them with their daily processes and relieved anxiety. They had ideas of the Hero, like Jesus, in the form of the Osiris-Horus myth, which is a direct parallel to the idea of Christ the Redeemer. The people who followed the Catholic Church for the many years during the dark ages never questioned their beliefs in the way we do now, but again, practiced rituals, like confession and prayer, to aid in their daily lives.
In the age of scientific thought, many of the unconscious elaborations of spirituality and the existence of archetypal themes are forgotten. This leads to neurotic thought, and instability of the human psyche.
The first five minutes of this clip from the film Zeitgeist elaborates on the many themes of religion that seem to reoccur throughout time and history. Check it out!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2740987755232169561
In contemporary times, this idea explains the nature of why humans create religions. Jung proposes that ideas of Gods and "God-men" are inherent in the human unconscious. We do not create the ideas of Gods or mystical beings, rather our unconscious creates them for us in order to keep our minds stable, and avoid neurosis. It is a necessary part of human existence. Before we had the ability to intellectualize and conceive things on a conscious level, homage was paid to these unconscious figures purely out of instinct. In our current age of intellectual thought however, many people ignore their unconscious and their natural instincts.
In the times of ancient Egypt, people did not try to rationalize why they made sacrifices to their many gods, they just did because it helped them with their daily processes and relieved anxiety. They had ideas of the Hero, like Jesus, in the form of the Osiris-Horus myth, which is a direct parallel to the idea of Christ the Redeemer. The people who followed the Catholic Church for the many years during the dark ages never questioned their beliefs in the way we do now, but again, practiced rituals, like confession and prayer, to aid in their daily lives.
In the age of scientific thought, many of the unconscious elaborations of spirituality and the existence of archetypal themes are forgotten. This leads to neurotic thought, and instability of the human psyche.
The first five minutes of this clip from the film Zeitgeist elaborates on the many themes of religion that seem to reoccur throughout time and history. Check it out!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2740987755232169561
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Seperation of Church and State
During the past semester in this class I have heard a lot of new ideas and opinions which have impacted my beliefs on many different issues. One of the most significant changes I feel I have made is on my opinion of separation of church and state. While reading the assigned material I came across a statement that really made me think about this topic.
“However fraught with discord and even violence is the relation between a nation’s religion and political authority at any particular time, a deeper, more complex reconciliation between them is being worked out in the process.” (Lilla 184)
In my opinion what is trying to be stated here is that a nation’s religion and political authority will always have differences and problems but together they are working together to create order between their nations citizens. Both religion and government can create order and obedience and therefore are working towards a common goal. In this way a connection between church and state may not be such a bad thing. If they had a relationship with each other they would be able to coordinate with each other and try to achieve this goal together. The problem is when their goals are not exactly the same, and also when more than one religion is involved, conflict emerges. In most cases government and religion are working towards a common goal of obedience and proper conduct, so this is the less common problem, but it does make the more extreme group upset with the others practices resulting in conflict and/or violence. The problem of more than one organized religion being practiced within the domain of one political system is much more common in today’s world. With immigration being heavily practiced, and the expansion of different religious groups within a single society, most countries include many different religious or non-religious groups. This is where many problems arise. Most religions have different practices and beliefs. Because of this each one has its own goals it hopes to achieve with its followers. When the local government is involved they each fight with one another as well as the government to reach these goals. In this case it is important that the government have no connection between any one religious group. When the government keeps a separation of church and state it will be more successful at implementing its goal of law and order. I feel this separation of church and state can be seen to some extent in the United States. The U.S allows freedom of speech and religion and treats each faith equally, at least in theory.
Before I used to believe that it was a good thing to allow one faith, Christianity, to be connected with the U.S government in order to work together to maintain order and work towards a common goal of peace and unity. I have now come to believe that with the vast number of different beliefs held by American citizens this would only cause problems. I now believe that the most peaceful and proper way is to keep full separation of church and state, even more so than currently exists in America.
And we all love to watch the clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiZcKomzHaU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)