Church and State

I was skimming through some religious topics through google and I found something very interesting. Apparently, anti-abortion and Christian license-plates can be bought for a premium in some states, yet there are no pro-choice license-plates available. Is this unconstitutional? My first instinct was to not care about license-plate sales, but I think this issue goes much deeper.

I believe if the government would offer any sort of religious paraphernalia, they should offer all (or at least, most) of beliefs. But more than that, I think no religious related items should be sold in the first place. Even in a small instance like this, religion should remain separate from government. Of course this isn't happening right now, it would be near impossible for a secular presidential candidate to win. But the reason why I think they should be separate goes back to our definition of religion by Geertz. Religion gives 'powerful and persuasive moods.' Obviously, for different beliefs, the moods and ideas will be different from each other. And since we live in a diverse country and world, how could we say that one religion is capable of choosing what is right?

On the other hand, I also believe that even an athiest or agnostic couldn't lead a country perfectly. I've been reading some atheist blogs lately and many of them seem quite hostile towards other religions (one stating that it is even foolish to respect beliefs of higher powers). So perhaps no one is suited to run a country perfectly. And perhaps different religions will always clash. But at least give the non-christian side a chance to argue their beliefs on their license-plates as well!

Psalm 18

The images in my head while reading Psalm 18 were that of a Zeus-like god that throws lightening bolts and rides on clouds. A lot of religions also had a punishing god that would take revenge on wrongdoers. The difference between these gods and the one we are used to hearing of in the psalms is the vividness of the actions.

In this psalm, God is described as descending on earth and taking his retribution. This is much more concrete than the usual 'fluffy' metaphorical language about God usually used. The uses of this language are clear though. While it may seem scary, a more vengeful God can probably yield a far greater turnout on Sunday mornings. If people fear God, it is likely they are more likely to worship him. I realize that many will worship God if he is loving and less interfering, but I also believe that more will follow if they dread the consequences of disobeying.

I think this Psalm could be a very powerful motivator for someone trying to get more people to believe in God. I was certainly a little scared while reading it. Will I become Christian because of it? Probably not, but words back then packed a lot more punch as well.

Harry Potter in Religion

I know this is two blogs in one day, but I thought it best to just get ahead on these blogs. Also, I was thinking of a topic for my 'free' entry and I wanted to write about it while it was fresh.

Recent debate has sprung up over the Harry Potter series use of witchcraft but in actuality is one that has been going on for quite some time. The separation of church and state has been over the news since the beginning of our country. While some religious communities believe that books should be banned, advocates of free press believe that all books should be allowed. Book burning was certainly a part of many cultures past and is still a part of some. Authors like Ray Bradbury have warned against it in Fahrenheit 451 and banning books is a more modern approach. Harry Potter is a prime example having been named one of the most banned books last year(http://www.education-world.com/a_admin/admin/admin157.shtml).

My opinion is on the side of freedom of press, however, I think the religious communities provide an interesting point. If I believed the plot of these books was evil, of course I would not want my children to read them. A lot of the country think the 'religious zealots' should calm down about harry potter and let children read about a fictional story. In fact the religious community at large is divided on book banning. I know families on both sides of the issue and both have valid opinions. Some believe that a fictional story can be read by children as fiction and is meant purely for entertainment. Others believe that children can be very impressionable (I definitely believed Hogwarts was real in 4th grade).

I find banning books to be offensive to the very nature of them. While some families may not want their children reading material that contradicts their beliefs, banning these books is not the right step. Books should be available for all to read and individual discretion used from that point on.

Translations of Psalm 2

So after comparing the version of psalm two in the Alter translation with the one given to us in class, there are some key differences I identified. The main one was that in the Earlier translation in the 8th stanza it reads: "and of the earth thou shalt possess the utmost coasts abroad." I think what this meant to early Americans is quite clear. In the newer edition the line reads: "Ask of me, and I shall give nations as your estate, and your holdings, the end of the earth." The earlier edition makes the inheritance of land a given, the latter, more of a blessing. This would fit with early American worldview that America was meant for them to take. Since religion often fits with culture and society, it's probably more than a coincidence that the translation was different than the one we read for class.

Another difference between the texts was in the first line. In our current edition it reads: "Why are the nations aroused" The second version is much angrier in comparision. " Why rage the Heathen Furiously?" This different, more bold and mean version could also fit in with society in early america. Not only was Puritanism popular in America, being a religious haven, an angry foe (such as the british?) could help the Americans with their independance cause.

So those are some differences in the text I found. There are definitely more, but I found these to be the most interesting.

Significance of caves in other religions

I was thinking more about the Lascaux cave and it's significance in paleolithic religion, and it started me thinking on other important caves in religions throughout the world. After a quick Google search I found this interesting article/blog thingie:
http://www.relijournal.com/Religion/Five-Holy-Caves-in-the-World.302101

I don't mean to bore by making anyone read another article, but I found it interesting in the context of our reading and discussions. Some of the caves were important because of burials, others because they were the places of special events in the religion.

While the paleolithic caves represented a connection to the spirit world, caves in other religions mean other things. Even with these different meanings, it is quite clear that the eerie quality caves lend is crucial to their significance. Even a religiously insignificant cave feels somehow special because of the way sound and light are carried. This could be why caves appear so much in early belief systems. Since the early religions were usually about being in harmony with nature, caves seem to transport you into a different world. While there are different interpretations of the meanings of caves, it is important to delve into the significance in religious history.

Do the effigy mound builders of wisconsin/midwest follow the definition made by Geertz? The effigy mounds could certainly be called symbols, it is quite clear they represent the spirits and animals from the upper, middle and lower worlds (not unlike the paleolithic cave art). While it is hard for archeologists to discover facts about what early native americans believed, there are some things known that make the effigy mound builders seem to go along with Geertz's definition.

We do know that the mounds were honorific towards the earth, water and air animals/spirits. The water spirits were known to be vengeful upon the native american's canoes so they would build mounds to honor them. But more than that, the mounds were meant to show the harmony between the different forms of nature and humans.

By believing these mounds could improve their lives or at least show what they believe in, the native americans were following Geertz's definition. What's interesting is that I don't think this belief system could fit in all definitions of religion which commonly use a 'higher power' as the main definition of belief. Native American's seemed to believe in the harmony of nature, and less in the power of an unknown deity. I suppose water spirits could be described as a higher power, but I think that these spirits were more of a explanation of why boats sink- similar to the concept of myths we discussed in class today.

As I'm sure everyone is well aware, God's name has been used as a justification for war for a very long time. However I hadn't considered the implications of this until I read an article entitled "The Gospel according to Dubya" on a site called Killing the Buddha.

Ok, so it's a weird name for a website ( I swear I didn't know about it when I came up for the title of my site). It's sort of an anti-religion site but basically it just has a lot of editorials to peruse. I kind of stumbled upon it yesterday and thought with a name like Killing the Buddha, there's gotta be some pretty good stuff to blog about. But anyways, back to the article.

The main point of the column was to give examples of the duplicitous nature of Jesus from the bible and how George Bush used these examples in his 2000 campaign. A lot of Christians quote the peacenik side of Jesus and while does this, he also quotes a fiercer, war-mongering Jesus.

While the article fails at being objective, it still made me intrigued about how humans can use religion as a cause for violence. It's clear that it is used when another person/people violate the beliefs the other holds. Terrorists certainly violate morals that the majority of Americans hold. Then why would Bush feel the need to use Jesus as a means for justification? If by saying it's what Jesus would have wanted, Bush can gain backing by the christian right, but are all the other religions and beliefs supposed to follow along? Perhaps it relates to the elements of Religion we discussed in class. I think Bush was trying to make a tighter-knit community, but in reality, made most secular citizens wary. Whatever the reason, it is hard to say whether religion should be used as a means for war, I say no, but the world thus far is disagreeing.