earth day

Today was the Earth Day celebration at Lawrence University. I took part in celebrating by consuming less, conserving more, being aware of carbon footprints and playing in various musical ensembles throughout the day. All this began to make me wonder... 

Why don't religions take an active role in helping the environment?

Then, that got me thinking of possible religions that DO worship/help the environment, and the only thing that I could think of was Wicca or witchcraft. I know that followers take special care and worship of the environment, treating everything in nature as sacred and treating nature almost as gods. Why isn't Wicca  more popular now that Global Warming is such a threat? Why is it frowned upon? I'm not saying that I'd take part in a witchcraft cult or worship, but if it helps the environment I might think about it. 

Could we maybe discuss some of this in class? I'd like to learn more about different religions such as this.

Ethical Stance

In many of the pslams read, there are various views of ethics to be taken in when interpreting each psalm.

Much of these have a "fire and brimstone" tone to them (as mentioned before). For example, in Psalm 18 we analyzed in class, there were a few themes that could represent various ethic issues.

The first involved a spiritual aspect, not really controversial to any ethics, but a good place to start for a psalm. Many people live by spiritual/religious ethics, it's not uncommon.

Then later we move to God's intense action, where there is intense language describing all of that is God's wrath, power and vengeance. This is where it gets to be a problem with a livable ethic. People or followers read this psalm and quiver in fear. This wouldn't be so much an ethic to live by, because this causes discomfort in followers and forces them to do the "right thing". 

Then finally, we talk about God's moral oversight or qualifications. This is from a second party viewpoint (using words such as "my", "me" and "I" in this context), showing the brighter side of God, "saving me from my daunting enemies" and other good things. 

The author of this psalm could have been bi-polar, talking first about dark, scary things that can happen if you disobey the Lord, and then moving to great things that can occur if you follow the Lord. Ethics to live by? Well, maybe. That was kind of an extreme comparison I just listed for a livable ethic or moral. But many religions like Christianity and Judaism use "tactics" like these listed in the psalms to get followers to do the right thing. 

I think the only thing missing may be the "piece of mind" or comfort one would receive from religion.

Lyres and such

There was a point brought up in class, that in one of the Psalms talks of David playing a Lyre to soothe a follower of his. Someone made the connection of the Lyre on the cover of our "Book of Psalms" that the psalms themselves can be used in the same way as the lyre was, to soothe followers. I thought this was a great point made. A good use of an allegory to make that connection. 

What if David played the drums? I'm not sure if that would be as soothing as a lyre, but it is still a musical instrument. 

Music is a pretty common associate in religion or worship. Many religions have different instrumentation for certain songs used for certain times of the year. And lyres, for example could be a good case of an musical instrument for religious purposes.

PSALM II

This version of Psalm II from the Bay Psalm Book has certain differences and similarities with the version we are reading in class. 

The Bay Psalm Book starts off with "Why rage the Heathen furiously?". Already, that gives me the impression of a "Fire & Brimstone" sermon. The use of strong, aggressive words are found throughout the Bay Psalm. This version is considerably darker than the Robert Alter translation of Psalm II. Still, there is some "fire & brimstone" in our version as well. Controlling followers through fear is the way it was back in the 1640's. Ministers, Preachers and other religious leaders would scare followers in trying to do good. Followers or people in general, back then would probably be afraid of the consequences of doing wrong, they would be scared into doing good and following rules. This version of Psalm II would be a great example of controlling followers. 

There are still the same representation of the vain things people do, a master's "wrath", Zion depicted as a holy mountain or hill, the use of a rod to crush pottery (Why does God hate pottery so much?). Many of these elements are "found in translation", because they can provide visuals. 

Palms/Salms/Pslams

The psalms we read could be applied to events of today. Allow me to translate.

Psalm #2:

Why are the nations aroused,

and the peoples murmur vain things?

Kings of the earth take their stand,

and princes conspire together

against the LORD and against His anointed.

"Let us tear off their fetters,

let us fling away their bonds!"

He Who dwells in the heavens will laugh,

and Master derides them.

Then will He speak to them in His wrath,

in His burning anger dismay them:

-

"And I - I appointed My king

on Zion, My holy mountain."

Let me tell as is due of the LORD.

He said to me: "You are My son.

I Myself today did beget you.

Ask of me, and I shall give nations as your estate,

and your holdings, the ends of the earth.

You will smash them with a rod of iron,

like a potter's jar you will smash them"

And now, O you kings, pay mind,

be chastened, you rulers of earth. 

-

Worship the LORD in fear,

and exult in trembling.

With purity be armed,

lest He rage and you be lost on the way.

For His wrath in a moment flares up.

Happy, all who shelter in Him.

(from The Book of Psalms by Robert Alter)

The line "Why are the nations aroused" says in the footnotes that this is in response to a specific historical situation. This could be applied to the current War in Iraq. Wars don't affect just the countries involved, but the rest of the world as well.

"Kings of the earth" could be pictured as a George W. Bush caricature wearing a king get-up with crown, scepter and throne on top of the world. He's the king of the earth that's causing nations to be aroused. 

"His anointed" could be considered the few good, religious persons left in this world, ready to save the day, or save the world. 

In the second part of the psalm, God talks about breaking pottery with an iron rod (perhaps a king's sceptor?). This is a pretty killer visual, this shows the destructive side or wrath of God though people's actions: taking down nations/estates, if you will. 

The "Fire & Brimstone" continues in the third part of Psalm #2, with "worshipping the lord in fear". Religion shouldn't be about controlling people/followers through fear. It's meant to give people comfort and peace of mind. 

"With purity be armed" sounds like a forming of God's army, as said before, ready to save the day or save the world. A call to end the War in Iraq maybe?

In closing, "Happy, all who shelter in Him" shows the brighter side of the psalm. The peace of mind and comfort that religion offers. 

Many old texts or scriptures can be applied to todays times or events. It just takes an open mind. I'm looking forward to reading more in the Book of Psalms. 

animal crackers in my soup...

Native Americans represented various animals (deer, elk, alligators, birds, otters, snakes and even gigantic men) in effigy mounds. They often used these mounds for burying their departed. This form of representing animals makes them sacred, in a way, by associating the shapes of the mounds with the dead. A sensitive subject, if you will.

While in the Lascaux cave, these animal representations could be of religious significance, but not necessarily. These could be drawings/paintings of an example like Mickey Mouse: they could be just pictures, no real significance. Maybe a decoration of living space. (Christopher Lowell should check this out).

Although today, animals are still represented in a variety of ways, in sports teams, business mascots/logos or even maybe animal crackers. Still being represented, they should not be held "sacred" because they represent other things (sports teams/business). Not so much a sensitive subject as loved ones passing away. 

These representation of animals (in regards to the mounds), has religious significance because it involves the burial of sacred relics and lost-loved ones passing to an "afterlife". These animals are important religious symbols because with an association with burial, they become sacred symbols. Opposite, Mickey Mouse or animal crackers couldn't be (or at least shouldn't be) considered as sacred because these examples aren't associated with sacred relics, passed loved ones or an afterlife. 

Although animal crackers would be sacred in my view of an afterlife...

kidding.

Religious Radiohead!?

Many bands have a great following and an established fan base. Would it be possible to take it as far as worship? Or making a religion? In class, still defining religion, we found some elements or characteristics of religion that is common with following a rock band. I found that the UK alternative/electronic band Radiohead would be a good example.

Elements of religion:

Worship of deity: (a bad one to start out with, I assume that most Radiohead fans would be Atheist, so this would be ironic for this to happen. "God loves his children, yeah")

Faith/Belief without hard evidence: (fans belief of Radiohead existing, seeing them on television, the internet, etc., without really meeting them in person.)

A group of people with a common belief: (The fan base, obviously. All of their fans, singing along to their songs, being "packt like sardines in a crushd tin box" to see Radiohead at a venue.)

Set of moral values: (I'm sure some die-hard somewhere wrote some "commandments" for other fans to follow. That could be good morals, you never know.)

Social/Spiritual hierarchy: (A Radiohead hierarchy would be more social than spiritual, at the top would be the band, under that would be associated artists, then management, then close friends to Radiohead and then the foundation for it all: the fans, of course.)

Different traditions/rituals: (Once again, I think the die-hards might have a pre-concert ritual they have, maybe involving a Radiohead shrine, I dunno.)

Emotion/Devotion//personal/spiritual: (Music is a powerful weapon, it can stir up emotions and can soothe the savage beast. Fans listen to and like their music, they can relate to the subject matter and through that, relating towards the band.)

View of afterlife/meaning: (Everybody take a listen to "Motion Picture Soundtrack" (a song describing an ascension to heaven, listen for the harps), that best explains a view of an afterlife, not necessarily a good one, but still a view.)

Texts/Symbols/Stories: (The most important part of a religion dedicated to Radiohead. The songs, music, art, stories are the essence of what people use to grasp the band. This creates the following/fanbase.)

Just a few elements of religion that can be applied to following Radiohead, I'm not saying that I follow these aspects, I'm just saying that if someone were to begin to worship Radiohead, this maybe a way to go about it. 

Clifford Geertz v. Intro to Religious Studies

In class, we talked about definition of religion. One example was from Clifford Geertz, his definition stirred up a little controversy in the Intro to Religious Studies class at Lawrence University. Our class felt many different ways about his definition. 

Some people thought that Geertz's biased definition was too mathematical or too concise for defining religion. Along the same lines, it puts religion "in a box", making it something easy for a simple mind to grab a hold of. Some people thought his definition condescends or belittles religion. 

On the other hand, Geertz's definition does highlight some examples of faith, he uses "moods and motivations" and an "aura of factuality" as examples of faith. These give religion a sort of level of mystery. 

Although, both ways of interpreting this definition can be correct, I feel that I "sharply" disagree with Geertz's definition. He takes something so powerful, and waters it down to a very vague and biased definition. He's taking something intangible and trying to make it tangible. Geertz is putting religion "in a box", if you will.