ReligionNerd.com » Guest Contributor

NASA, the Mayan Apocalypse, and the Study of Non-Events

religionnerd — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:17:01 +0000

By Matt Sheedy, Religion Bulletin

A recent article posted on the Scientific American website entitled, “NASA Crushes 2012 Mayan Apocalypse Claims,” provides a good example of what is wrong with common secular approaches to religion in the public sphere. The article features a three-minute video put out by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, where spokesperson Don Yeoman discusses “false claims about the Mayan apocalypse,” including fears that we will fall prey to solar flares, tidal effects or, even more fantastically, that the “imaginary planet Nibiru, will collide with earth,” a premise that, he notes with a chuckle, is impossible, for if it were true “we would have seen it long ago.” All things considered we can rest assured, the article’s author tells us, that this is a “non-event.”

While happily affirming the logic of these scientific claims, it is worth considering what type of social ontology this line of reasoning suggests. Among other things, this hermeneutic works through a binary logic where the actions or claims of an individual or group are measured solely on the basis of whether they are able to follow and assent to certain logical propositions about evidence-based reality regarding the workings of the natural world. What is concealed here are the ways in which this strategy serves to privilege a particular method of reasoning and system of knowledge production, while excluding the larger social field of political, historical, and cultural explanations that also contribute to seemingly bizarre claims.

Although the implications of this kind of taxonomy may appear relatively benign when classifying those who believe in the Mayan apocalypse, it is worth recalling how a similar taxonomy was deployed by the “New Atheists” in their classification of religion (especially Islam), where large groups of people from different countries, cultures, etc., were often reduced to the category of irrational social actors in need of our help, be it through forceful arguments or, failing that, through bombs raining down from the sky.

A more fruitful approach to phenomena like the Mayan apocalypse is one that begins with social practices as the primary site of investigation and expands outward towards other convergent ideas, be they historical, political, cognitive, or what have you. For example, Kate Dailey-Baley’s recent post, “Theorizing Zombies” looks at the ways in which Haitian zombies and the American zombie apocalypse genre are tied to 1) a history of colonial and racial oppression and 2) a culture of fear amidst economic troubles and the War on Terror. While this general approach is no doubt familiar to many of us, it is worth considering its value not only in the world of scholarship, but also as an alternative to more popular secular discourses about religion in the public sphere. While not discounting cognitive explanations like those offered by Yeoman, this approach has the additional merit of showing how seemingly irrational beliefs and practices must be explained not only in terms of individual minds, but also in relation to larger social forces that implicate society as a whole, thus making explicit the fact that we are all in the soup together.

At the risk of sounding apologetic, in this year of 2012, where increased public attention on the theme of apocalypse is on the rise, it is also worth considering how this so-called “non-event” offers scholars of religion an opportunity to contribute to a broader public conversation, drawing attention, for example, to how fears of apocalypse are connected to other myths and narratives, both historically and in the present, how they are reflected in popular culture (e.g., Hollywood films), or how this interest in the Maya might be situated in relation to new age movements and the long-standing Western idealization of so-called “Eastern” and/or polytheistic traditions. In these frightening and uncertain times (read “under the yoke of neo-liberal economic policies”), this may be just the kind of publicity that the academic study of religion needs to help save it from what looks to some like the dawn of our own impending doom!

Visit Religion Bulletin and follow on Facebook.

For End of the World, a French Peak Holds Allure By MAÏA de la BAUME, New York Times BUGARACH, France — The rocky mountain of Bugarach, rising just over 4,000 feet in the Corbières Mountains, in one of the poorest and least populated areas of France, has long attracted hikers and nature ...
On Trayvon Martin, Perceived Identities, and Zombie Imaginaries By Kenny Smith, Religion Bulletin In his recent comments on the Fox News Channel’s FOX & Friends morning show, Geraldo Rivera claimed that the shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was equally the result of (i) an “overzealous and irrational” neighborhood watchman (George Zimmerman) as ...

Pop Culture & the Universalization of Religion through Disney: An Emic Perspective

religionnerd — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:36:16 +0000

Get Shareaholic

About the Author: Lizabeth Lyon-Brown is a Religious Studies major (philosophy minor) at Georgia State University. Her focus is on ethics, pre-Christian, and early-Christian Europe (500 bce to 500 ce). She plans to pursue a Master’s and Ph.D. in Religious Studies, possibly in Europe.

By Lizabeth Lyon-Brown, Georgia State University

Is it possible to have a new religious symbol in the 21st Century? How about this Image: Take three circles, two are the same size but smaller than the third. A circle is a clean and even symbol that translates into every language, nationality, and religion. Now take those three circles and place the two smaller ones on top of the third at the 10 and 2 positions of a clock. Those three circles together, in this new symbol, now bring to mind Mickey Mouse, Disney, and all that goes with it. Other ‘legitimate religions’ would balk at the thought of a new secular religion and religious symbol. They would denounce Disney as an illegitimate religion. But even the three most populous religions have their detractors. David Chidester defines religion as: an arena of human activity marked by the concerns of the transcendent, the sacred, the ultimate – concerns that enable people to experiment with what it means to be human. [i] Using this definition of religion, I will show the many ways Disney functions, for millions of people around the world, as a religion. Universalizing many stories taken from all walks-of-life. Making this a human story.

The date is the end of the Twentieth Century and the beginning of the next. The place is Anywhere, America and the home belongs to the average Joe. The father comes home and prepares to watch college basketball, he checks CNN on his laptop for pre-game news and reads an article about the “Cinderella Story” player that is going to “The Ball.”[ii] He watches the game and “Cinderella” wins. Afterwards, the player is interviewed. When asked what he plans to do next, he answers, “I’m going to Disney World!” The father jumps up and down with joy and excitement.

Disney has so permeated every part of American life that it seems natural for it to be included in a national news article about a college sports team. Disney becomes an expected response to the question: what comes after an achievement? Americans go and pay homage. They go to Mecca. They go to their religion’s holy ground. They go to Disney World.

From the top please!

How did this new religion start? Well, let us take a step back in time, and start at the beginning. Mickey Mouse made his 1928 debut in Steamboat Willie. It was the beginning of a love affair that has endured to this day. In 1937, the first of the European fairytales followed in the form of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Before Walt Disney died in 1967, he had produced seventeen feature length animated cartoons. Of those seventeen, fourteen were based on European fairy or folk tales. These stories were not told in their original forms. They were homogenized, or universalized to make them simpler for the children, less frightening.

While these stories were simpler, they had one common theme: the triumph of good over evil. These fairytales, from Snow White, to Cinderella, to Sleeping Beauty, all paint a picture of fantasy. They are part of what is sacred in the world of Disney. They help tell the Disney myth. These original animations are a part of Disney religious texts. Of course, these texts are a bit different from the usual books written about “thou shalt not”, as the Disney mythos is “written” in the movies.

The Disney narratives have similarities; they are all stories of being true to yourself, good triumphing over evil, and being good, kind, and forgiving. All values American’s would want to instill in their children in the 1940s and 1950s, the timeline in which these movies were made.

The narratives were made available to the public at large, in a way that might not have happened had Walt Disney not made his films. The public acquired a familiarity with the stories, albeit in a simpler version, and because of this, a completely new world opened to the public. These stories played over-and-over at the movie theater and they were incorporated into books, allowing parents to read the narratives to their children at night. And, in case the movies and books were not enough, Walt Disney had the first park built in southern California, which opened in 1955. With the second, larger and more expansive park built in central Florida in 1971.

I’ve got some swampland for sale, cheap!

With the land purchase in central Florida, Walt Disney was able to make Disney World just as he had always imagined. The transformation began with swampland and through the magic of Walt Disney’s creative vision, “the popular culture capital of America”[iii] materialized.

Like Mecca and other sacred pilgrimage sites, Disney World is separate, set apart from the rest of the world. You have to travel to get there. When entering the property, there is a liminal transition, allowing you entrance into the beginning of the magic. You leave your car, the last part of your original self, in the parking lot and board a tram that takes you to either a monorail, which travels around the lake or a boat that traverses the lake. Both forms of transportation moves you through liminal space and toward your final destination—the entrance to the main park. It was a pilgrimage just to get this far and once through the last stage of liminal transition, there is now only one-way to walk: straight down Main Street, USA.

One thing you will notice while walking down Main Street, USA (in any one of the parks) is that you will see every possible building except a church.[iv] This was done on purpose. According to Bob Thomas, “Walt considered himself religious, but he still admired and respected every religion.”[v] That meant leaving overtly religious symbols out of the parks and the movies. While visitors may not encounter a Christian cross, Jewish Star of David, or any other popular religious symbol, they will see, if they look closely, the hidden Mickey’s[vi].

Throughout the park, visitors will find the religious symbol of Disney–Mickey Mouse. The flowers are arranged to bloom in that shape; the fences along the pathways proudly display Mickey’s familiar face; the artwork found on many walls and buildings include hidden Mickey images; the signs outside the stores and restaurants all include the iconic Mickey Mouse form. Some are easy to spot, while others tease passersby with their implied presence.

If this were a church or a synagogue, would it be that unusual to see religious icons everywhere? To see it’s mythos displayed on the walls in story forms for the masses to read about? In many churches, visitors encounter important biblical stories artistically displayed on the walls or in the form of stained glass windows. These visual sacred narratives help people to learn, from an early age, the important stories of that particular tradition.

For Disney, it is no different. They display their myths on their walls. Their religious symbols are incorporated into the overall landscape of the park. These symbols, like the artist’s renderings in churches and synagogues, transmit Disney’s mythos—sacred narratives—to children and adults alike. This transmission is not done through marble, stone, or stained glass but through the modern medium of animation. But are they really that different?

The participants in the rituals that take place around Disney World are fully enveloped in the Disney religion. They have transcended the everyday hustle and bustle of the world, and are living every moment within the fantasy created by Disney. They are surrounded by the symbols and the myths of the religion. They have entered into sacred space. These participants come from, as I said earlier, Anywhere, America. Nobody knows which participant is a bank president, a landscaper, a stay-at-home mother of three, or a university professor working on her fourth book. Everyone who journeys to Disney is treated as a prince or princess, no matter their age. This universalizing aspect helps the participants to relax into their ‘roles’ and helps sustain the fantasy for everyone.

Cher Krause Knight, in her article on Disney World and pilgrimage, discusses how the movements of Disney visitors are controlled and how that optimizes the pilgrimage experience. She continues with,

There is an intellectual and moral uniformity of conduct and thought among the pilgrims, whose goals and moral ideals are higher than in the everyday world. At Disney, these goals and ideals are nothing short of universal niceness and total world peace, in a Disneyfied context, of course[vii] (page 34).

The pilgrims want to follow the rules set forth by Disney; rules that, time-and-again, play out and are experienced in and through Disney movies. Follow the rules, as the characters do, and you too can live happily ever after, at least for as long as you are here—in sacred Disney space.

Eventually all pilgrims must return home. Slowly retracing the steps outward, passing through the same transitions that now, reintroduce them back into the ordinary world. They reemerge, changed in some way. The average American family takes with them fond memories of their Disney experience and commemorates their visit with their own “everyone must have their picture taken from here” family photo. Families are changed through their Disney experience. They retain, forever, those cherished memories and will reminisce about the time they spent there.

Where to now?

EuroDisney opened in 1992 to mixed reviews but after many behind the scene changes, including a name change, Disneyland Paris found firm footing on the road to success. It is here that Walt Disney returns the reimagined European castle—a Disneyfied castle—complete with narratives, myths, and the Disney religion. A new European Disney Mecca.

European pilgrims are akin to American pilgrims. Disney was not new to Europe, as many Europeans had journeyed to Florida in search of the Disney experience. The creation of Disneyland Paris was, in some ways, a homecoming—a return to the land where the stories began—where the inspiration for Cinderella’s Castle is just a day’s drive away.[viii] Visitors still have the pilgrimage-like experience. They negotiate liminal space through different transitions. They move from profane space to sacred space and ultimately end up at Main Street, USA. The icons are the same, Mickey’s face still smiles on all visitors, and the myths are unchanged. Yet the visitor is in another country, another continent. The experience is pure Disney, as it is in California or Florida. Time and space seem to stop and yet bend at the same time. Time exists only through the change of seasons and the seasonal Disney parades that follow the march of the calendar. The uniqueness, the sameness that pilgrims encounter, regardless of which park they visit, unifies the feelings of all those that choose to experience the religious overtones of Disney. Yes, the stories that were originally told by the Europeans are coming back to them in a different form, but for the pilgrims at Disneyland Paris, there doesn’t seem to be a negative care about it.

A new religion?

Since its inception, Disney has given immense joy and happiness to children and families from all over the world. It has done so through its theme parks and movies—movies that offer a type of mythos to its audience, with leading characters such as Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White all portraying images of people following the rules and ultimately triumphing over evil. Disney is a Mecca to which pilgrims travel but it is not a single sacred place. The varied locations allow pilgrims to choose their destination, but in all, they are sure to encounter the three simple circles that form the now famous Mickey head and the possibility of a new religious icon.

Almost 15 million pilgrims traveled to California in 2009 to visit Mickey Mouse. That same year more than 41 million visited the various Disney themed parks in Florida, with over 17 million visiting Mickey Mouse specifically. Tokyo Disney saw 13.5 million visitors in 2009, and Disneyland Paris welcomed just under 13 million, while Hong Kong received 4.6 million.[ix] These numbers are interesting in light of the world’s economy. There are always certain things that people cannot live without. Religion is one of those. These numbers seem to indicate that many find joy and comfort in the Disney stories, myths, and movies.

Forty-five years after his death in 1966, Walt Disney’s company, his dreams of magical cities, and his beloved Mickey Mouse have endured. Mickey Mouse seems stronger than ever these days, as visitors to Disney parks are expected to reach 100 million in the very near future. Walt Disney dreamed of bringing happiness to children;[x] most anyone would say he has succeeded.

Disney’s success has transcended the simple animated stories with which it began. Disney has become so much more; it has grown into a myth of its own making, reaching people worldwide. Pilgrims travel to the parks to experience and participate in a special fantasy, one that escapes the bounds of time and space, and pay homage to Mickey: the Mouse that started it all. The pilgrims wait patiently in long lines, entertained along the way by classic movies, to have their individual photos taken with the iconic Mickey Mouse. These photos are taken home, framed, and looked back upon with fond memories. Future visits produce more photos, which are hung next to the first ones, recording the physical changes of the pilgrims and noting the unchanged, timelessness of Mickey who is forever joyful and welcoming. Time stands still for Mickey.

In the end, it is up to the reader to decide. Does Disney have the attributes of a religion? Does it function like a religion? Would a churchgoer see it as a religion? The pilgrims who visit the parks year-after-year, do they see it? Or, is Disney just another corporation? Maybe the answer is a little of both?

[i] Chidester, David, Authentic Fakes: religion and American popular culture (University of California Press 2005) page 1
[ii] http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/01/final.four.cinderella.sweep/index.html?hpt=C1
[iii] King, Margaret, “Disneyland and Walt Disney World: traditional values in futuristic form” Journal of Popular Culture V. 15, 1 (summer) page 117.
[iv] Douglas Brode, From Walt to Woodstock: How Disney created the counter culture (University of Texas Press 2004) pg 106.
[v] Bob Thomas, Walt Disney, An American Original (New York; Hyperion, 1976) 194 – 195
[vi] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Mickey
[vii] Cher Krause Knight, “Mickey, Minnie, and Mecca: Destination Disney World, Pilgrimage in the Twentieth century” Reclaiming Spiritual Art (1999), Galileo
[viii] http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rlz=&=&q=paris+to+neuschwanstein&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl ix] http://www.scottware.com.au/theme/feature/atend_disparks.htm
[x] http://www.disneydreamer.com/walt/quotes.htm

Jesus in Disneyland, the Church of Body Modifications, and Postmodern Religion in America By Kenny Smith Recalling his first encounter with Jesus in Disneyland (2000), author David Lyon explains, The scene is Anaheim, California, home of Disneyland. Not unusually, 10,000 people are streaming through the turnstiles. Only today they are heading for a Harvest Day ...
There is Something About Mary Magdalene, Part III By Catherine Schmidt, Georgia State University This is part III of a IV part series exploring popular culture depictions of Mary Magdalene. In part I, we looked at a brief history of pre-Vatican II portrayals of Mary. Part II discussed the ...

The Dogs of God

religionnerd — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:56:14 +0000

Get Shareaholic

An intriguing excerpt from Gregory L. Reece’s upcoming book: “Creatures of the Night: In Search of Ghosts, Vampires, Werewolves and Demons.”

The sound began down deep in his chest, rose to a growl in his throat, and then forced its way between his lips as a snarl. The coarse silver hair on his neck bristled. His ears, covered with the same silver fur, twitched. There was a burst of air from his nostrils, a snort of warning and territorial claim. The muscles in his arm began to twitch. His head snapped quickly to the left, then to the right. Thrown back against my seat by a sudden change in direction and speed, I instinctively clutched at the door handle of the mini-van, my eyes darting between the oncoming traffic and the hairy form in the driver’s seat. His reactions to the traffic were quick and aggressive – canine reactions, lupine reactions. For just a moment I was terrorized, speeding down the highway with a werewolf at the wheel.

***

I had lunch with Wolf at a local “meat and three” restaurant. Unlike Warren Zevon’s London werewolf, we didn’t have beef chow mein or pina coladas (and Wolf’s unruly fur was far from “perfect”), but instead ordered meat loaf, tomato pie, and iced tea. Throughout the meal Wolf was uncomfortable in his straight-backed chair which offered no place for his (invisible) tail. Other than that he seemed completely at ease in his own skin, more than happy to talk to me about his wolf-nature and the werewolf community of which he is a part.

Werewolves, Wolf explained, are by their nature mostly solitary creatures, joining packs only occasionally for woodland gatherings known as Howls. Wolf is one of the elder weres in an annual gathering known as the Southeastern or SEHowl, billed as one of the largest and longest running Howls in the country. Mostly, however, the werewolf community is found online, in chatrooms like The Werewolf Café (werewolfcafe.com) and The Werelist (werelist.net). Online, Wolf often plays the role of an expert, or at least as someone who has been around for a while, knows a lot of other werepeople, and is not afraid to state his mind and share his personal experiences.

Wolf traces the origins of modern werewolves to the late twentieth century, when some people began realizing, as children, that there was something different about them. They lived life more intentionally, paid more attention to what was going on around them, were more empathic, and felt as though they did not quite fit in with the people around them. On the other hand, they identified very well with various nonhuman animals – often to the point of conceptualizing themselves as nonhuman. (thetheriantimeline.com)

These individuals should not be thought of dysfunctional misfits, however. According to wolf

On the average, they got along well with their families, they had friends, they succeeded in school, many worked for themselves, many worked for others, and they were happy and well adjusted. But they were unique, as far as they knew, and they kept their differences a secret.

Then, in the early 1990’s, with the birth of the internet, this diverse group of individuals began to find each other. An online group, alt.horror.werewolves, founded as a forum for fans of werewolf movies soon became a forum for the discussion of members’ personal lives and experiences. As Wolf puts it, “The Weres had found each other.”

***

Though always careful to emphasize that his theories are his alone and that he does not speak for the therian community as a whole, Wolf does not hesitate in sharing his own personal understanding of the modern werewolf phenomenon. He believes, for example, that present-day therians are genetically linked to the European werewolf community of the middle ages and that population and environmental pressures may have resulted in the reawakening of this long-hidden hereditary strain.

Wolf writes,

Before the Werewolf Trials of the later Middle Ages when thousands of mentally ill or simply despised people were tortured to death by the Inquisition for being “werewolves”, there really were people known as “werewolves”. Far from being insane, they were respected in their communities. They even had a special position in the church – they were called the Dogs of God and Saint Peter’s Wolves.

Wolf finds evidence for the existence of these holy werewolves in some of the ancient legends themselves, but especially in the records of the Inquisition regarding the trial in 1692 of the Livonian werewolf Thiess as recorded by Carlo Ginzburg in his The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1983).

According to Ginzburg, the elder Thiess confessed freely to the charge of being a werewolf. He also claimed that he once suffered a broken nose during a battle with a peasant named Skeistan, who happened to have been deceased at the time. Skeistan was a witch and had risen from his grave along with other witches to carry seed grain into hell in order to curse the community’s crops. Thiess, as a werewolf, had battled to stop this travesty, and had been hit in the face with a broomstick by the witch. Thiess also claimed that such battles took place three times each year, on the night of St. Lucia before Christmas, at Pentecost, and on the night of St. John. On these nights

The werewolves proceeded on foot, in the form of wolves, to a place ‘beyond the sea’: hell. There they battled the devil and witches, striking them with long iron rods, and pursuing them like dogs. Werewolves, Thiess exclaimed, ‘cannot tolerate the devil.’ (29)

When the judges demanded to know why Thiess and the others would transform themselves into dogs and journey to hell, he explained that they went in order to bring back from hell those things that had been taken there by the witches, livestock, grain and other agriculture fruits. To fail in their task would mean a lean year for the harvest and hunger for the people.

The judges in this account seemed quite shaken by this strange testimony. They apparently had great difficulty in understanding werewolves as being on the side of God and opposed to the devil. Thiess kept insisting however, that

werewolves were anything but the servants of the devil. The devil was their enemy to the point that they, just like dogs – because werewolves were indeed the hounds of God – pursued him, tracked him down, and scourged him with whips of iron. They did all of this for the sake of mankind: without their good work the devil would carry off the fruits of the earth and everyone would be deprived as consequence. (29)

Ginzburg argues that judges’ understanding of werewolves as servants of the devil notorious for destroying livestock was incompatible with what seems to be an older concept of werewolves as servants of God. Thiess, he argues, represents an older understanding of werewolves in which the dogs of God battle witches and devils in defense of a bountiful harvest. In addition to the evidence of Thiess’s advanced age, and the assumption that he acquired his beliefs about werewolves at an early age, Ginzburg also notes a mid-sixteenth century tale of a young man of Riga who fell to the ground during a banquet. One of the witnesses recognized the man as a werewolf. When he revived the young man related that he had left his body to battle a witch that had been flying around in the shape of a red-hot butterfly.

This was an ancient belief, then. But . . . under pressure from the judges, the original positive qualities of the werewolves began gradually to fade away and become corrupted into the execrable image of the man-wolf, ravager of the livestock. (31-32)

Wolf VanZandt believes that the ancient dogs of God, the hounds of St. Peter, are once again on the move, called for what purpose he is not yet sure. Modern therians may be the new hounds of God, when their struggling consciousness finally comes to shake off the false histories that they have been taught. Hundreds of years of false consciousness must fade away for the werewolf to once again hear the call to battle with the forces of evil. All the horrible tales of old were told from confused or sinister motives, but the truth remains, hidden even in the ancient legends and tales. The wholly other within the werewolf breast is the presence of the divine.

**********************

About the author: Gregory L. Reece, Ph.D

Greg holds a Ph.D in Religious Studies from the Claremont Graduate University with a specialty in philosophy of religion and theology, an M.Div. from the Vanderbilt University Divinity School, a B.A. from Samford University, and an A.A. from Martin Methodist College.

His studies in philosophy of religion, particularly his work on irony and religious belief, have led Greg to explore religion from its more idiosyncratic border regions rather than from its more stable centre. In pursuit of an understanding of religion, he has attended an Elvis Impersonator contest in Las Vegas, celebrated the birth of the King of Rock and Roll in Memphis, attended UFO and Tesla Technology conventions, had his molecules rejuvenated via the alien technology of the Integratron, visited Roswell and Area 51, had a close encounter with the extraterrestrials known as the Tall Whites, explored an underground cavern rumored to lead to a subterranean civilization, hunted Bigfoot outside of Paris, Texas, attended a Satanic mass, interviewed vampires, been trained in the art of exorcism, and gone hiking with a werewolf.

Greg’s fancy degrees and weird adventures, while incredibly interesting, have not provided him with steady employment. For that he works as a technical writer and consultant, providing human resources support to municipal governments and colleges. He occasionally teaches courses in philosophy and religion at Birmingham, Alabama colleges.

Greg lives at Brookehouse, a big, old home in the Montevallo, Alabama historic district, along with his wife Kristen, his son Sam, and his daughter Olivia. In his spare time, and when he is not making plumbing repairs, he likes to build robot, spaceship, and ray-gun sculptures from junk he finds at the thrift store.

Red Riding Hood Arouses Man’s Inner (Were)Wolf By Louis A Ruprecht, Religion Dispatches There have been ample opportunities over the past few years for explorations of the religious, cultural and artistic valence of the vampire, but it’s beginning to seem as if werewolves are every bit as worthy ...
Real Witches Cry Foul at Portrayal on “True Blood” By Coeli Carr, Reuters (Reuters) - Critics of bloody violence and excessive sex on TV have long had HBO's vampire drama "True Blood" in their cross hairs, but now the popular series has another group of wary citizens -- witches, real ...

Trans-Vaginal Politics

religionnerd — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:32:59 +0000

Get Shareaholic

Maureen Dempsey, RNC-OB

Friday morning, on the Huffington Post, the first story to catch my eye was this: “David Albo, Virginia Lawmaker, Says Wife Wouldn’t Have Sex Because Of Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill.” As I clicked on the headline, I thought, this is going to be good. And the gentleman from Fairfax didn’t disappoint me. I watched a three-minute video of Mr. Albo describing to his fellow delegates how he tried to seduce his wife with a combination of red wine and the Redskins on big screen television. They were on the sofa, he was snuggling up to her while changing the channel, things were heating up…when he inadvertently stopped on MSNBC and saw his name plastered across the 46-inch screen and heard his colleague, David Englin, repeatedly using the term “trans-vaginal.” After a few minutes of this, his wife excused herself and went to bed alone.

Mr. Albo obviously went to some effort to plan the description of this failed seduction. He set the stage visually. At an appropriate time in the story, he played some sexy music. However, when the moment came for him to describe what he and his wife saw and heard on the TV, his story telling technique fell apart. He couldn’t bring himself to say the word, “trans-vaginal.” He got part of the word out and then the rest of the sentence dissolved into incoherent gibberish. “Trans-V this and Trans-V that,” he said next, using a guttural tone of voice – the kind of voice people use when they think they’re saying something dirty.

Now I was confused. What had turned off Mr. Albo’s wife? Originally, I had thought it was her solidarity with other women – her disgust at the thought that the state might require this unnecessary, uncomfortable, and invasive procedure. But now I wondered if she wasn’t just disgusted at the blatant use of the word, “vagina.” I decided to see if I could find any other information about this story online. The first retelling of the story I found, at www.dailycaller.com, referred to “the unfortunately named, ‘trans-vaginal ultrasound.’” Apparently the Albos aren’t the only people uncomfortable with the word vagina.

Why is vagina so hard to say? Why is it “unfortunate” to use the term vaginal to describe a medical procedure that occurs in the vagina? Why does the gentleman from Fairfax use a special, bawdy tone of voice when he refers to “trans-V this and trans-V that?” Why is this story even funny? I have a theory. I do not know Mr. Albo personally. But he and I attended high school in Virginia at roughly the same time. I think I knew guys like him. A smart guy, a funny guy, a mostly proper guy. He couldn’t say vagina because what he was really talking about was pussy. He was telling a story – an ironic story, a bawdy story – about how he didn’t get any pussy because of his involvement in some notorious pussy-related legislation.

This is important because when men who can’t say the word, “vagina,” get together with other likeminded men to discuss contraception, the discussion ends up being about sex, about pussy, rather than about women’s health. I encourage all men, but particularly those involved in the legislative process, to practice saying the word, “vagina,” every day.

SLUT By Maureen Dempsey, RNC-OB Just what exactly is a slut? According to Rush Limbaugh, because Sandra Fluke thinks that all insurance providers – even those with a religious objection – should provide coverage for contraception, she is a slut. “She wants ...
Religion Lately: Extraterrestrial Christs and Jedi Blues, Salem Witches Counter Tebow-Magic, Domestic-Violence Video Games By Kenny Smith, Emory University Explore artistic renditions of Christ-figures blended with the extraterrestrial, technological, and trans-human. Star Visitor theology, anyone? A journalist ponders the odds of extraterrestrial encounters, arguing that UFO-based religions require as much faith as any other. Rev. Ed ...

The Final Harvest

religionnerd — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:19:14 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Lady Arsinoe

Samhain is fast approaching. Many of us look forward to this time of year. Candy, carved jack-o-lanterns, itty-bitty children dressed up as adorable bumblebees, princesses, or pirates. This is a joyous time of year! The leaves begin to crunch beneath our feet. And the crisp breeze begins to pinch our faces and burnish our cheeks. There is nothing so beautiful as frost on crimson leaves gleaming in the morning sun.

At this time, my thoughts turn to death and dying. Whoa! What? O, not in a fatalistic manner, or in the Goth-cool fashion either. Samhain is when the veil between the worlds is thinnest, when we celebrate those who have crossed over during the past year, and when we make reckonings of our lives. I’ve always seen parting the final veil as an adventure to be anticipated. Those who have taken this journey before me have all the secrets of the Universe on 3X5 notecards. Lucky! To be one with the Divine? Wow. Death is not the end, merely a new beginning.

“Death— the last sleep? No, the final awakening.”….Walter Scott

“Because I could not stop for death
He kindly stopped for me
The carriage held but just ourselves
And immortality.”….Emily Dickinson

“Seeing death as the end of life is like seeing the horizon as the end of the ocean.”….David Searls

“The day which we fear as our last is but the birthday of eternity.”….Seneca

“For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun?”….Kahlil Gibran

“People sleep, and when they die, they awake.”….Mohammed

“I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.”….Winston Churchill

I can’t help but find comfort and solace in these words. To awaken from sleep? To melt into the sun? How wonderful! How beautiful! How glorious! I hope to live my life in a manner deserving of such beauty.

Life, as someone once said, is a sexually transmitted terminal disease. We start the journey to death the moment we first hit the atmosphere. Nobody gets out alive. Yet, that is no reason to be fearful, or dread the inevitable. Embrace life, and live it to the fullest! One of my favorite sayings hangs in the kitchen of our dear friends, which sums up a wonderful approach to life:

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming “WOO HOO what a ride!”

That’s going to be me, sliding into home plate with a martini in one hand and a bar of chocolate in the other. Wow! That was fun! Let’s to that again! After all, if life is too short to drink shitty beer, is there any good reason to fill it with fear, bitterness, and assorted and sundry negative crap? We are so much better off enjoying ourselves!

There is no escape from this prison called life, yet one day, we will be freed. In the meantime, we should endeavor to make Heaven/Summerland/Nirvana this life on earth. Be nice to people. Actually treat everyone and everything like you would want to be treated. Be compassionate. Be loving. There is no sense in waiting till we’re on the other side. That’s the ultimate in procrastination. Instead of bitching and whining about how badly life has treated us, why not, in the words of Mohandas Gandhi, “Be the change that you want to see in the world.”

Living in a compassionate, grateful state of mind prepares us for the inevitability of crossing the veil. The Buddhists say that one’s frame of mind at the end helps determine how one enters the next life. Filling our minds with happy, compassionate, and grateful thoughts as we cross the bridge helps move us into a new and better life. Thoughts of fear and anxiety hinder our progress on the spiral. Frankly, I don’t want to come back as a mosquito.

No one has ever come back to give a travelogue of the Summerland. Yet, I still get glimpses and fleeting sensations of those who have gone on before me. I swear I can smell my dog every once in a while. He and my cat are happily chasing each other around. My Mother and Father appear to me in my dreams and provide words of love, comfort, and encouragement. Based on this, I know the Summerland is a place of joy, peace, and fulfillment.

Of course we miss those who have gone before. That’s only natural. What kind of sick puppies would we be if we didn’t fell that loss? But, how dare we hinder their progress on the Path just because we can’t stand to let them go? That is the height of selfishness! By letting our loved ones go with love and compassion, we elevate ourselves on the spiral of life/death/rebirth as well. We will be with them again. And their echoes remain to guide us along the Path until our time to rejoin them. Dry your tears, my friends. Though our loved ones go before us, they are the lucky ones! And one day, we will be tenderly and joyfully caught up in their love and laughter again. Of that, I have no doubt.

How can we know there is life after death? We know our bodies decay. What about that which makes us us? A small, but increasing, number of scientists theorize that consciousness is related to, but not dependent on, the material brain. One scientist has even found that the brains of people who have had near-death experiences closely mirror those of nuns and monks, who are considered spiritual adepts. I have my own theory on what happens to us when we die. As Kahlil Gibran said, “we melt into the sun;” or, according to my theory, we melt into the All That Is. Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, the neuroscientist who suffered a massive stroke chronicled in My Stroke of Insight, said, “Our bodies are portals for energy.” I believe that which makes me me is the energy that comes through that portal, and that energy is part of God/dess. When our bodies cease to function, and are thoroughly used up, our consciousness is freed to join that of the All from which we came. So, death is nothing to fear! It is to be adoringly and joyfully anticipated, yet not sought. We have so many lessons to learn here, after all. Life is a journey to be savored, and the final awakening is the reward for a path well-traveled.

Think of who you were before you were born. That is who you will be again.

Yes, indeed, this is a joyous time of year! Happy Samhain!

********************************************

Lady Arsinoe’s Bio:

I was initiated into the Wiccan spiritual tradition as a First Degree in 1993. Over the years, I continued my studies and increased my involvement. In 2000, the members of OakSpring (www.HouseOfOakSpring.org) separated from Ravenwood to go our own way. In 2006, I became the High Priestess of OakSpring, with my husband serving as High Priest. OakSpring is large by Wiccan standards, and has been blessed to own and maintain our covenstead on 38 acres of woodland in the Metro-Atlanta area.

Like most Wiccans, my mundane life is similar to anyone else’s: I go to work each day (for a large engineering firm), bear with traffic, and go home to relax with my family and pets. Living a magical life isn’t always about the spells; it’s about living in a way that is harmonious with Nature, the Universe, and ourselves. I do my best to live in accordance with Wiccan principles every day of my life. I think that is the best way to show the world what Wicca is all about.

Ding Dong bin Laden’s Dead! By Lady Arsinoe Well, Enemy No. 1 of the World is dead. Osama bin Laden was killed by a Navy Seal team just over a week ago. Goodie for us. Yay! Don’t get me wrong. The guy deserved it. He was the ...
The Lusty Month of May “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; I wish you a happy day; I'm come to show my garland, because it's the First of May. A bunch of May I have brought you, and at your door it stands; it is but a ...

An Atheist with Atheists United

religionnerd — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 22:52:35 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Kile Jones, Claremont School of Theology

On February 28, 2011, I attended a meeting of Atheists United at the Center for Inquiry (CFI) in Hollywood, California. It was a typical day in southern California—sunny, beautiful, without a cloud in sight—when I pulled into the parking lot of the CFI. On a nearby mountain you could see the famous Hollywood Sign looming in the distance. The CFI is located next to a Mexican Pentecostal Church and a Christian Science Reading Room, proof of the religious diversity in Los Angeles.

From the outside, CFI looks like more like a warehouse than a Church. Its electric sign, found on the street corner, not only announces headlines and CFI news, but also provides one of the only ways of detecting the building. While in the parking lot I was approached by the treasurer of Atheists United, Norm, who politely asked me if I was attending their meeting. Answering yes, I then told him that I was a Ph.D. student at Claremont School of Theology. To this he comically asked, “What are you, an Episcopalian Priest?” With a few chucks and giggles I proceeded to tell him that I was one of the only atheists who attend Claremont School of Theology. Having come to hear Dan Barker talk, Norm told me that Mr. Barker could not make it and that somebody else would be presenting. Although surprised, Norm’s friendly nature calmed my disappointment.

Walking into the building, past a tranquil patio with “Einstein the Atheist Dog” (a very sweet animal) tied to the fence, I noticed that the inside was much more adorned than the outside. There was a bookstore, an information and welcoming counter, tables where food is eaten after the service, a book table with almost all of the books required for my Atheism and Secularity course (i.e. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Zuckerman, etc.), a food counter with various waters and sodas, and a golden thread with the names of “Heroic Freethinkers” painted around the top of the inside wall. These thinkers included: Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilie, Baruch Spinoza, David Hume, Charles Darwin, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell. Upon viewing this tribute, I was struck by a rich sense of the history and tradition of unbelief.

Inside the “Steve Allen” theatre, a room at the back of the building where the service takes place, the narrative of a beautiful interior falls apart. This theatre had orange walls, electric wires dangling around, and looked more like a run-down Improv stage than an actual theatre. It was humble, and may have been breaking fire codes. The theatre seating was comfortable, and coffee in the theatre was apparently acceptable (I never asked but I never got reprimanded), and compared to sitting through a Catholic Mass on wooden pews, it was rather relaxing. The microphone kept cutting out, the sound could use improvement, and it was apparent that they needed an electronic make over. These failures of production stand in stark contrast with many Evangelical Churches that have concert sound, high tech equipment, and professionally trained sound engineers. It was clear that they do not have anywhere near the amount of funding an average Christian Church has.

When I entered the building, two members of Atheists United greeted me with bright smiles. They asked me if I had attended before, if I wanted to sign up for email updates from Atheists United, and handed me a nametag that I quickly filled out and stuck to my chest. You could hear various groups of two to four people discussing topics from the separation of Church and State, to Richard Dawkins, to the weather. The people were friendly, non-confrontational, and appeared to have a sincere interest in those who attend their services. Most people seemed to know each other, but you could tell that this was less so than the usual small, intimate Church. When I found out that they only meet on the last Sunday of every month, it made sense why this was the case.

While sitting at one of the tables writing notes before the service, I was approached by the Vice President of Atheists United, Ingemar. The first thing I noticed about him was his Swedish accent and friendly demeanor. I talked with him about Atheists United, the CFI, Church and State relations in Sweden, and religion in contemporary America. I told him that I was taking a class with Dr. Phil Zuckerman at Claremont Graduate University, which appeared to have perked his interest. He mentioned how Dr. Zuckerman had just spoken at their meeting, and how enjoyable and stimulating his talk was. After a loud call announcing the beginning of service, reminiscent of a Christian herald publicly announcing Church service to his puritan neighbors, I entered the theatre.

In my estimation, the 35 or so people who were in attendance were 95% white, 60% men, 10% were couples, with 50% of the crowd over the age of 35. They were primarily lower middle class. There was only one child and one teenager present. This makes sense given the fact that religious persons have more children than atheists.[1] The clothing they wore was casual and relaxed, probably no different from what they would wear any other day of the week. From the view I had sitting in the back, I noticed that most of the men were balding. The women dressed as humble as the men. According to contemporary standards in the culture of southern California, they were lacking in make-up, nail, and hair work. This stands in contrast to the attire worn by those attending the Mexican Pentecostal Church next door. The Pentecostals were in their best Sunday suits, dolled-up for the Sabbath. I was thoroughly surprised by the “blue collar/working stiff” atmosphere, since I had previously found out that the majority of self-identifying atheists are white, middle class, males.[2] Having a building in Hollywood may have also unconsciously contributed to this suprisement.

At the opening of the service, the President of Atheists United, Bobbie, made a few announcements. She mentioned an upcoming “tabling” training that teaches people how to manage an Atheists United table at local fairs and public events. She also mentioned how this service would be recorded and made available on Ustream. One of the most interesting and comical announcements was when Billie asked everyone in the audience to turn on their cell phones and invite someone to Atheists United. I observed a handful of audience members actually making calls.

As I mentioned earlier, I was expecting Dan Barker to speak, but instead it was a Thomas Jefferson impersonator who took his place. He walked out in a purple coat, laced with white linen, and with shoes one would not wish to walk one city block in. He held a silver chalice in his hand, spoke with a dignified accent, and received a great amount of clapping from the audience. He had an impressive knowledge of Thomas Jefferson that was seen clearly when he recited the Declaration of Independence from memory. He mentioned some of Jefferson’s accomplishments, which I will list here:

Wrote Declaration of Independence in seventeen days
Founded the University of Virginia
Created his own amended New Testament
Founded a Navy
Fought against smallpox

He also mentioned how Jefferson promoted freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the separation of Church and State, the right of citizens to petition their government, and democracy. He pointed out how Jefferson thought of Christianity as the best manifestation of religion, but believed that Unitarian Universalism would eventually become the dominant religion of the country. He spoke of Jefferson’s distaste for slavery (even though he owned slaves and took one as his concubine), how he was opposed to factionalism, didn’t believe in standing armies, and was self-conscious and shy when speaking in public.

The questions asked by the audience members revealed something about their interest in Jefferson. As the microphone was passed around, audience members began asking questions.

(me) Why do you think that religion is essential to maintaining a civil society?
(man) Did you start factionalism by establishing the Democratic-Republican Party?
(older woman) What about slavery? Why did you own slaves?
(man) Did you commit adultery with a slave woman?
(me) Did God grant us rights, and if so, how can they be thought of as natural?
(woman) What about Tripoli and North Africa?
(man) Could you tell us about your fall out with John Adams and your eventual reconciliation?
(man) What would you say to the Tea Party?
(fellow student) How would Jefferson have thought about Islam?
(woman) How did you become President?

To the audience’s pleasure, each of these questions was answered with historical dates and facts. He never avoided a question and answered each of them fully, even if it made Jefferson look bad (like the question about slaves).

The dialogue between the speaker and the audience had a certain feel about it. The questions showed how the audience was generally critical of the Tea Party, Republicans, conservative politics, and religious zealots. This made sense to me, since 32% of those who mark “none” as their religious affiliation are registered Democrats, and 43% of them are registered Independents.[3] Finding a politically conservative atheist is a difficult task. The people in the audience were generally interested and focused, even though I found one older man sleeping during the service. The speaker had many jokes to say, and the audience seemed to appreciate it. A couple of the older women had trouble turning the microphone on, and the audience had to direct them by yelling, “Turn the microphone on!”

After the speaker finished, Bobbie made another couple of announcements. She mentioned the family who brought the only child, thanking them for coming and mentioning the child’s name, to make sure the audience remembered it. Bobbie went on the mention a recent article in the men’s magazine GQ, where Billy Ray Cyrus mentions viewing a highway sign with his daughter, Miley Cyrus, sponsored by Atheists United. Apparently, Mr. Cyrus commented that the sponsored highway sign might as well have read: “You will now be attacked by Satan.”[4] Bobbie, in comical fashion, responded by saying, “As long as all Christians are as convincing as Billy Ray Cyrus, we atheists have nothing to fear.” She also mentioned how interesting it is that the CFI “speaks for the devil.” Chuckles were heard throughout the theatre.

When the service was over, Bobbie announced that there would be Dominos pizza, free of charge, for everyone to enjoy. She said it was free because, “we [Atheists United] value community.” Due to time constraints, I had to leave without any pizza. The service had been interesting, intellectually stimulating, and presented an admirable picture of what atheist meet-ups ought to look like. In my opinion, many religious believers would enjoy the people at Atheists United, even if they do not agree with their beliefs.

If asked to suggest any changes to the meeting, I could only answer with superficial, financially related critiques. They would be twofold: revamp the electronic and sound issues, and repaint the inside of the theatre. Besides these, I cannot think of anything else I would have changed about the meeting. The drive home to Claremont was just as enjoyable. A close friend and I discussed the meeting and compared it to other religious services we have attended. We both agreed that, in contrast to many Christian services in southern California, the Atheists United group was less funded, less fashion-focused, and had significantly less kids and teenagers. It was also more personal and intimate than large church meetings and mega-church services.

In conclusion, the Atheists United meeting I attended bore out most of the limited statistics on atheism. It showed me a concrete manifestation of atheistic beliefs. Although the service mirrored many of the statistics on atheists, the people in attendance were more than mere statistics. They were unique individuals, in a unique location, with a unique ethos. To put it frankly: they bore out most of the statistics, but in their own unique way. I thoroughly enjoyed the service and would ask other religious groups to see the positive elements at play in meetings like Atheists United. These atheists—usually considered to be in opposition to any and all religion—actually form a pivotal role in the religious and philosophical diversity of southern California, and the greater world.

Originally posted on State of Formation

******************

Kile Jones, 28, holds a Bachelors of Theology (B.Th.) from Faith Seminary, a Masters of Theological Studies (M.T.S.) and a Masters of Sacred Theology (S.T.M.) from Boston University. He also holds a Certificate in Science and Religion from the Boston Theological Institute. He is current pursuing a Ph.D. in Religion at Claremont Lincoln University.

Mr. Jones has been published in Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Philosophy Now, Free Inquiry, World Futures, Human Affairs, and the Secular Web. He has presented at Conferences around the United States and the United Kingdom, particularly at Trinity College Dublin, University of York, Harvard Divinity School, Plymouth State University, Boston University, and Claremont Graduate University. He is the Founder/Editor-in-chief of Claremont Journal of Religion. His interests include religion and science, atheism, secularism, and philosophy of religion. He also reviews books for Reviews in Religion and Theology (RRT) and is a Contributing Scholar for State of Formation, an academic blog for emerging religious and ethical leaders. He maintains his personal blog at: www.kilejones.com

[1] Andrew Greenly and Michael Hout, The Truth about Conservative Christians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 97

[2] Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, Religion in a Free Market (New York: Paramount Market, 2007), 236 (white), 157 (middle-class), (males) 70.

[3] Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, Religion in a Free Market (New York: Paramount Market, 2006), 212

[4] Found at: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/celebrities/201103/billy-ray-cyrus-mr-hannah-montana-miley?currentPage=5

Museum restores Jefferson’s unique Bible Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service A Smithsonian museum is restoring the "Jefferson Bible," a unique volume the third president cut and pasted himself — omitting lots of theology — from portions of the New Testament. Thomas Jefferson assembled the book in ...
Way Beyond Atheism: God Does Not (Not) Exist Why Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist, and why most atheists reject far too little. By Paul Wallace, Religion Dispatches Last year I delivered a presentation at a nearby college about science and faith. I spoke of my attraction to so-called negative, or ...

Stonewalling Social Justice: Sex, Sin and Family Values in Sodom and Gomorrah

religionnerd — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:21:41 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Sherry Morton

On June 28, 1969 the New York police raided the Stonewall Inn, a mafia run basement bar in Greenwich Village known as a haven for homosexuals.

In an effort to root out this “undesirable element,” Stonewall was a too often the target of police raids. On this particular sultry summer night, the desperation of a people oppressed for no reason other than their sexual orientation (the police seem to have no particular issue with mafia run establishments), boiled to the surface. Gay patrons and onlookers stood their ground, refusing to tolerate brutality and unjust treatment at the hands of the police. Patrons of Stonewall stopped dancing and started resisting; the police were trapped inside the Inn and days of rioting followed. Instead of containing the “social ill of homosexuality,” the Stonewall raid provided the necessary fuel to set the gay pride movement in motion.

The LBGT community has not only experienced legal oppression but sadly, it has also suffered theological oppression. Practitioners, from a variety of religious traditions, often interpret their sacred texts as condemning homosexual acts and the people who engage in them. One of the most widely cited examples of sacred condemnation of homosexuality is the Sodom and Gomorrah account found in Genesis 19 of the Hebrew Bible.

The debate around this passage centers on a vague insinuation of same-gender sex. While some argue this is evidence of strong Biblical condemnation of homosexuality there is a resounding silence around issues of social justice, most striking, a disregard for the care and well-being of young girls.

As the story goes, two travelers (angels) arrive in the city of Sodom and meet with Lot, one of the righteous citizens of the city. Lot, convinces the travelers to take shelter in his home for the evening. A mob comprised of every remaining male in the city gathers at Lot’s door, demanding that he send the strangers out “so that they may know them.” Lot begs the mob to leave his guests unharmed and offers in their place his two daughters; telling the mob they may do with them as they please (Genesis 19:1-8).

The subsequent destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is often used in conjunction with this passage as proof that the God of Abraham strongly condemns homosexuality, but there are challenges in interpreting Genesis 19 as the definitive condemnation of homosexuality.

First, if there is a reference to sexual action in this passage, it is most probably a reference to some type of sexual assault and not equivalent to modern notions of homosexuality. Also, considering the passage in context with other Biblical passages on Sodom and Gomorrah, there is a case to be made that the destruction of the cities was more closely related to a disregard for the hospitality codes of the age, issues of social justice, and denigration of the sacrificial system.

Those who hold the position that Genesis 19 is concerned with homosexuality commonly use one particular phrase, Genesis 19:5, as central to their argument. The passage reads:

Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know them.

As an angry mob of one social group proposes this in relation to another foreign social group, it is likely a reference to some type of assault. If sex is implied, it would be within the bounds of sexual assault and as all parties (mob and travelers) are male, it would more specifically be same-gender sexual assault.

Sexual assault is not equivalent to our modern understanding of homosexuality. Contemporary homosexuality extends far beyond the boundaries of simple same-gender sexual intercourse and is not synonymous with sexual assault. It includes the full spectrum of behaviours associated with committed relationships: love, joint property, child rearing, and all manner of responsibilities for health and welfare.

Genesis 19’s veiled reference to what might be same-gender-sexual assault appears to be more concerned with the establishment of social dominance of one group of people over another more than sexual gratification. If sexual gratification were the goal, the mob would have accepted Lot’s offer of his daughters. While the passage may condemn abusive same-gender-sexual assault, it does not make a coherent moral statement about the contemporary understanding of homosexuality, which is often comprised of partners engaged in mutually loving relationships.

Given Lot’s focus on protecting his guests, this passage is likely to be a statement on the strict observance of hospitality laws rather than on sexuality. The mob may have intended to disregard the traveler’s rights to safe harbour in a foreign land. The harsh climate of the ancient world of the Hebrew Bible made strict hospitality codes necessary. There were no Super 8 Motels to leave the light on for you or Waffle Houses to provide corned beef hash and biscuits for breakfast. In the ancient world, an open threat against the lives of foreign travelers was as an egregious offense and one that would have warranted the harshest judgment. The phrase “so we may know them” is vague and it is possible that the mob only intended to talk with the strangers to determine whether or not they were a threat to their community. Both issues—the incongruence between ancient and modern understandings of homosexuality and the challenge of hospitality laws—have been heavily debated by scholars. Oddly, many who engage in the passionate debate around this passage pay relatively little attention to the treatment of Lot’s young daughters.

Following the portion of the passage that may or may not condemn some type of same-gender sexual assault is:

I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, they have come under the shelter of my roof. (Genesis 19:7-8)

Using the Sodom and Gomorrah account to condemn homosexuality while ignoring the failure of family values in Lot’s treatment of his daughters is a glaring omission. If this Genesis account is a strong argument for the immorality of homosexuality then it is a scandalous argument regarding the treatment of young women.

Religious historian David Carr points out that, Biblical sexual morality was directly shaped by the harsh and unpredictable living conditions of the desert agricultural life of the Israelite people. A minority of live births survived past the age of two and for this minority the life expectancy was only twenty-five to thirty-five years (49). Carr also asserts that, Genesis 19 is specifically concerned with the maintenance of hospitality laws and supports this claim by citing Judges 19, which states that a man might choose to offer his daughter’s or concubine’s to be raped in order to provide protection for a guest (186-187).

However, the Biblical position on the treatment of women, like its treatment of many important subjects, is ambiguous. Scholars K. C. Hanson and Douglas Oakman highlight the Bible’s assertion that with rulership comes responsibility, while women must submit to the authority of fathers, brothers and husbands; only an obedient woman was worthy of love, care, and respect (25).

With a life expectancy of thirty-five years, it is easy to assume that if Lot’s daughters were still unmarried they were probably young teenagers. Lot was willing to and justified in sacrificing his young daughters for the protection of adult men. When I read the account of the damnation and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah what is most vivid, in a long sad discussion of condemnation, is that a father begs potentially violent rapists to do as they will with his young daughters to save the life of grown men. Lot’s family values were such that he could dispose of his daughters as he pleased, even if that meant their death and disgrace, and still be the “most righteous” man in the city. Hopefully this is a morality that most could not sanction.

When considering the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah further, another salient fact emerges that may better explain why God destroyed the cities—aside from their uncertain sexual behaviour. God has grown tired of the wickedness in Sodom and Gomorrah, according to Isaiah 1:10-17; the tiresome sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was worship divorced from social justice.

Hear the words of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah ! What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says. the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts;…..When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand? …Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed defend the orphan plead for the widow. (Isaiah 1:10-17)

This is the longest passage speaking directly to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah outside of the Genesis 19 account. In the remaining six passages, the two cities are mentioned as exemplars and modes of comparison for the wicked life. This passage from Isaiah supports a reading of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah not as the final judgment on contemporary homosexuality, but on grounds that they repeatedly defiled the sacrificial system—a system critical to the Hebrew God’s relationship with the Israelite people—by living in ways that were unjust to those most vulnerable in society.

Some interpreting Genesis 19 are so narrowly focused on the vague insinuation of what might be same-gender-sex assault that they miss the social injustice that motivated the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. A contextual reading of the Genesis 19 narrative shows that what was of utmost importance at the time was maintaining strict hospitality codes and the integrity of the sacrificial system. Unfortunately, the social justice necessary to maintain these systems did not appear to include concern for the wellbeing of young women.

Using the Sodom and Gomorrah account to condemn homosexuality without addressing the issues of social injustice, particularly the disregard for the welfare of young women, is a case of theological stonewalling. How ironic that the Stonewall Inn was the place where those so greatly oppressed by the interpretation of Genesis 19, as the definitive Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, finally defied that oppression.

***********************

About the Author

Sherry Morton completed her MA in Religious Studies at GSU in 2010. Her interests lie in the intersection of cognitive science of religion, particularly the impact of religious ritual on the brain.

What’s in Your Bible? By Kenny Smith, Religion Bulletin In a recent piece for CNN’s religion blog, “Actually, that’s not in the Bible,” John Blake examines the ubiquity of “phantom scripture” in American Christian communities. By “phantom scripture” he means ideas, teachings, and passages that sound like they ...
Weathering Religion: Weather Channel Theodicies? Kate Daley-Bailey, Religion Nerd “TUSCALOOSA, Ala. -- The death toll from severe storms that punished five Southern U.S. states has jumped to 269.” This is the opening statement from Weather.com's article, “Tornadoes Cut Path of Destruction,” which documented the devastating tornadoes that hit ...

Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1879) – The Question of Polygamy

religionnerd — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:07:25 +0000

Get Shareaholic

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… Amendment I, U.S. Constitution

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1802

By: Christa Lasher

Reynolds has the prestigious position of being the first case in the U.S. Supreme Court’s history involving either the Establishment Clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…) or the Free Exercise Clause (…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…). Reynolds was the first Free Exercise case heard by the Supreme Court who would not agree to hear an Establishment case until 1947 with Everson v. Board of Education. After Reynolds, the Court did not consider another Free Exercise case until 1940 with Cantwell v. Connecticut. (That is not to say that lower courts did not hear and adjudicate other Establishment or Free Exercise cases. In fact, they did. The Supreme Court simply did not choose to hear any until about 60 years after Reynolds.) Up until 1940, Reynolds was the only precedent involving religion decided by the Supreme Court. The decision in that case still has effect today.

Joseph Smith

I will spend very little time discussing the history surrounding this case and instead defer to Sarah Barringer Gordon’s The Mormon Question (2002) which carefully and thoroughly outlines not only the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as they journeyed from New York to the Utah Territory but also of the reaction to and debate about Mormonism and polygamy. A brief survey of the highlights will do. Joseph Smith, while living in upstate New York, claimed to have been guided by an angel to golden plates which he translated into the Book of Mormon in 1830. He quickly attracted a good number of disciples who followed him through Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. In 1843, he received the “Revelation on Celestial Marriage,” (see LDS Doctrine and Covenant 132) which remained a secret held by Joseph Smith and his intimate circle for almost a decade after. During the intervening years, Mormons met with discrimination and violence wherever they went. In 1844, Smith was murdered by a mob that attacked the jail where he was being held awaiting trial. Following his

Mormon Temple

death, faithful Mormons migrated to what would become the Utah Territory in 1847 with Brigham Young at the lead. In 1850, Congress organized the Utah Territory, and two years later, the church acknowledged and read aloud the “Revelation on Celestial Marriage.” After years of intense debate (polygamy was rhetorically connected to slavery, so states’ rights became an issue in the debate over polygamy as well), Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862. In order to challenge this act, and the federal government’s right to interfere with local government (at the time, the federal government had little significant control over the states and other local governments), the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (LDS) decided to get a member convicted of polygamy and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court. George Reynolds was a perfect candidate for this test case, for he was both a dedicated Mormon and yet of only modest standing within the Church. In 1878, the Court heard the case, and in 1879, it handed down its decision.

Chief Justice Waite wrote the decision of the Court, with no dissenting and only one concurring opinion. He identified six questions before the Court, the first four of which were technical issues such as improperly excusing jurors or improperly admitting evidence. The fifth question interests us here: “Should the accused have been acquitted if he married the second time, because he believed it to be his religious duty?” The first four questions were dismissed – the court below had not acted improperly. On this question about the exercise of religion Chief Justice Waite spent proportionally more time than any other question.

This was the first time the Court adjudicated the significance of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, and so first, they set about defining religion. Here, they used Thomas Jefferson’s understanding – the Jeffersonian interpretation of the wall of separation – to determine what religion and freedom of religion meant. Quoting Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, the court determined that religion – at least that part of it which was to be protected – sat in the realm of opinion. The letter, the Court stated, “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” That is, belief is protected absolutely according this decision, but action is not. Reynolds may believe whatever he wishes about the importance of polygamy, but that did not mean he could necessarily act upon that belief. The Court had then to tackle the issue of polygamy itself.

Chief Justice Waite traced the history of marriage – monogamy versus polygamy – within Europe, declaring polygamy to be “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Polygamy had virtually always been a disagreeable and punishable offence in all European societies and their descendents. Moreover, it was not just a “sacred obligation” but also a “civil contract” which could be regulated by law.

Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties… In fact, according that monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people… rests.

Marriage, according to this reading, is the base of the entire society. From the marriage comes every other social relationship and institution, all the way up to the government. Depending upon the type of marriage allowed the government is formed accordingly. Polygamous marriage, the Court, and the larger culture, “fetters the people in stationary despotism.” Only monogamous marriage could form the society necessary to support a democratic government.

Still, was the government not required to give Reynolds – and the Mormons – an exemption because of religious belief? No—certainly not. “This would be introducing a new element into criminal law.” After all, as the Court already determined, law may interfere with the practice of religion. Suppose, the government asked, someone believed human sacrifice was a religious necessity? Or the practice of sati? Could these practices – central as they may be – be exempted from criminal law? Absolutely not, according to Chief Justice Waite, “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Law had to be the final authority. The Free Exercise Clause, according to Reynolds, does not allow religion to exempt a citizen from criminal law.

Reynolds was, and in certain cases, still is good law, according to the Supreme Court. Until 1940 in Cantwell v. Connecticut, Reynolds was the only decision on Free Exercise, and the rule of law was this: Belief is protected absolutely by the First Amendment. The government could not dictate to people their beliefs, nor make belief a prerequisite for benefits given to citizens, nor outlaw or punish citizens for their beliefs. However, practice is not so absolutely protected. A generally applicable law was constitutional even if it impinged upon a citizen’s free exercise.

Reynolds was the first case—but case law is not static. Cantwell v. Connecticut, the next opinion I intend to examine for Religion Nerd, will expand upon Reynolds and apply the First Amendment to the States.

Cantwell v. Connecticut – Jehovah’s Witnesses Challenge The State By Christa Lasher What is the first word of the First Amendment? Congress—"Congress shall make no law…" And for most of American history, following the creation of the Bill of Rights, that is just to whom the First Amendment applied—Congress. That ...
Christian Legal Society V. Martinez Good news Religion Nerd readers! Christa Lasher of Georgia State University has joined RN as a guest blogger. Christa will be keeping us up to date on U.S. Supreme Court cases involving 1st amendment issues and will be contributing articles ...

Religion, Politics & Patronage: The Galileo Affair

religionnerd — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:22:52 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Alex Johnson

Galileo Galilei once said that, “There is no event in nature, not even the least that exists, such that it will ever be completely understood by theorists” (Drake 91). This is certainly true for natural phenomenon, even though they are constantly available to us for observation, but sadly, we find that this statement is often true of historical phenomenon as well, because they can only be observed through the surviving records.

Despite this, or perhaps, in spite of this, we are in constant pursuit of an understanding of the past. The Galileo Affair is a prime example of this. Every facet of this event has fascinated historians and scholars of religion for almost 400 years. What happened? Why, and what does it all mean for us today? That last question is something that I am attempting to answer in my undergraduate thesis and is a question that requires much more time than I will have in this short essay, so instead I will concern myself with giving a brief overview of what I perceive to be the answers to those first two questions; what happened and why?

The core events of the Galileo affair occurred in 1633, when Galileo stood trial for heresy concerning the content of his book A Dialogue Between the Two Chief World Systems. Found guilty, he was sentenced to an indefinite period of imprisonment, which was later commuted to life under house arrest. The crime that he was convicted of was vehement suspicion of heresy, a technical term meaning that he had taught a false, heretical doctrine, but had not done so out of deliberate malice toward the Church.

He was also accused of having violated a previous order that had been given to him in 1616 by Pope Paul V, via a messenger, Cardinal Bellarmine. According to the Inquisition, Galileo had been forbidden to “hold, teach or defend” the notion that the Earth moved and that it moved around the sun.

Galileo’s version of these events is slightly different. He presented, at trial, a signed letter from the messenger, Cardinal Bellarmine, which stated that Pope Paul had only commanded Galileo to avoid holding or defending heliocentrism. The letter said that Galileo should only have been told not to teach heliocentrism, if he resisted the initial order.

Unfortunately for Galileo, the head of the Inquisition invited himself to this meeting and upon seeing that Galileo did not resist, he exploded into rage and insisted that Galileo should also refrain from teaching heliocentrism. Because this was a violation of the orders he had been given, Cardinal Bellarmine did not sign the document Paul V had given him containing these orders. He brought the document back with him when he returned to the Vatican and from there it disappeared for over a decade until it was mysteriously located by an unknown person and sent to the Pope, only a month after Galileo published the Dialogue. Despite the legal validity of Bellarmine’s letter, the Inquisition chose not to believe Galileo, and so he was condemned for heresy and forced to publicly recant his belief that the Earth moves around the sun.

Having given this light speed tour of the “what” of the Galileo affair, I would now like to take a look at the “why” of the cause of these events, in particular the 1633 trial. Although there were numerous contributing factors, the key component was Pope Urban VIII. Why did Urban VIII send Galileo to the Inquisition? During the trial, the Tuscan ambassador to Rome asked the very same question and he tells us that the Pope, “answered with the same outburst of rage, that he had been deceived by Galileo” (Biagioli 338).

To be more specific, Urban VIII claimed that Galileo had betrayed him by secretly having the Dialogue printed without first sending it to the Vatican for approval. The problem with this claim is that Galileo sent his incomplete manuscript to Rome several times in order to get feedback on it before proceeding to the next stage and, he received frequent updates from his Vatican contacts appraising him of the status of things. For example, on June 16, 1630 he received a letter that read,

The Father Master…says that he likes your work and that tomorrow morning he will talk to the pope about the frontpiece [preface] and that as the rest goes, after fixing a few little things like those we fixed together, he will give you the book back.” (Biagioli 338).

In contrast to this statement, the Pope claimed that he had never read the Dialogue. Did the Pope receive the book and simply neglect to read it? This would not be in keeping with his previous friendship with Galileo.

Did the Master of the Sacred Palace lie to Galileo by telling him that the Pope had approved the book? This is even more unlikely since everyone who handled the book at the Vatican was also a friend of Galileo. In fact, the Pope would later accuse these same people of having been in league with Galileo (Biagioli 337).

So, if the book was sent to the Vatican (which it certainly was) and if it was given to the Pope (which it certainly was), what explains the Pope’s claim that he had never read the book and that it never actually reached him?

Since it seems absurd to think that Galileo’s own comrades would have turned against him by not giving his manuscript to the Pope, other culprits must be found. For example, there was Cardinal Scheiner, a philosophical enemy of Galileo. Stillman Drake, a historian of astronomy, suggests that Scheiner may have been the one who showed Urban VIII the note from Galileo’s meeting with Cardinal Bellarmine in 1616. This is the note that the Inquisition used to establish the “fact” that Galileo had been forbidden from teaching heliocentrism (Drake 76). The note mysteriously appeared in the Vatican shortly after the Dialogue had been published and might explain Urban VIII’s sudden change of heart.

One wonders however, why Urban VIII would claim that he had never seen the book at all if his real reason for sending Galileo to trial was this note. If he had read the note but not the book, where would he have gotten the idea that Galileo was teaching heliocentrism in the Dialogue? There are many other discrepancies in the Pope’s version of these events and this suggests that his true motive had nothing to do with Galileo himself or his book. So once again, we return to the question of why Urban VIII would destroy the career of a beloved friend. What was there to be gained from such an act?

The key that unlocks this mystery is the knowledge of the mechanics of the medieval patronage system, in which both Galileo and Urban participated. Alvise Contarini, a Venetian ambassador to Rome, expressed the chief danger of patronage when he said, “Nobody is well enough supported and connected to be sure of not falling under any circumstances” (Biagoli 315). The fall that he speaks of is the sudden and irreversible removal of favor and financial support from a particular client. Such falls from grace were not unheard of in this period. In fact, they were so common that several books were written for courtiers to aid them in avoiding such a terrible fate.

One such text was Matteo Pellegrini’s The Qualities of the Scholar which are Inconvenient to the Courtier. Of the many topics covered in Pellegrini’s courtier’s manual is one which he called the “Fall of the Favorite” (Biagioli 325). The Fall was a ritual in which a patron presented himself as having been forced to drop a client as the result of some form of betrayal. The effect on the client, however, was more than simply being fired from a job. Being dropped in this manner was akin to being blacklisted. When a patron dropped a client, all of the patron’s other clients were expected to withdraw contact and support from the fallen one as well or suffer a similar fate (Biagioli 328).

The Fall served a twofold purpose; first, it allowed a patron to avoid the consequences of a grievous mistake by transferring all of the blame to their favorite client. No one would suspect a patron of framing his own favorite, so surely this meant that the client was actually guilty of the alleged crimes. Second, not only did the patron avoid any damage to his own reputation, but he actually gained status in the eyes of others, since, by punishing his well known favorite, he would appear to be absolutely dedicated to justice. This effect was accentuated by outward shows of sorrow at having to sacrifice the client to justice. It is clear from the numerous works devoted to the subject, that the fall was a political strategy commonly used during this period.

But did Urban VIII actually use said technique on Galileo? To answer this question we should look for two things, an inciting incident which would create a need for such an extreme tactic and examples of feigned sorrow at the fate of Galileo.

Urban VIII developed a need to drop Galileo as a client after the “scandal of the consistory” when Cardinal Borgia, the ambassador from Spain, read an inflammatory letter that insulted the Pope’s ability to rule (by accusing him of protecting heretics) and suggested that the king of Spain wanted him removed as Pope (Biagoli 335).

Borgia had insulted Urban VIII to his face, which was a serious blow to the Pope because it suggested to others that they could get away with such behavior as well. But Borgia’s actions effected more than just the Pope’s ego. As the ambassador from Spain, Borgia was conveying a threat from the king of Spain (Phillip IV) which could have resulted in Urban VIII being removed from office. This was not an instance of saber rattling. A secular ruler (Otto I of Germany) had succeeded in getting a Pope (John XII) removed from office in 963.

The second sign of the Pope’s use of the Fall tactic can be seen in the letters of the Tuscan ambassador to the Grand Duke, in which Urban VIII expresses, several times, his great heartfelt regret of having to send Galileo to trial. Urban VIII was quoted as saying that “Mr. Galileo was still his friend” and that “he was sorry to have to displease him but one was dealing with the interests of the faith and religion” (Finnoch 236, 247).

Despite his professed anger at Galileo for the alleged offense of having published the Dialogue without his permission, Urban VIII wanted to give the impression that this was not the true reason that Galileo had to be sent to the Inquisition. After all, Galileo was his “friend” and surely a real friend would overlook such a slight infraction. The actual problem, according to the Pope, was that Galileo was endangering the Church.

A higher cause was at stake here, the souls of Christians who would potentially be led astray by the false and “perverse” doctrine that Galileo taught. In this way, Urban VIII would avoid any semblance of pettiness and was able to present himself as a noble defender of Christianity, rather than as a patron dropping a client for a politically expedient purpose. This, I believe, is the true cause of the Galileo affair. Urban VIII, when cornered by the threat of being forcefully removed from the Papacy, chose to strike back, not by attacking his accuser, but by improving his reputation through sacrificing his friend, Galileo.

***************************

After serving for four years in the United States Marine Corps, including a tour in Japan, Alexander Johnson returned to his hometown of Atlanta, Georgia, to continue his education. He has completed the requirements for a BA in Religious Studies with a minor in Film at Georgia State University and expects to graduate in December 2011. His research interests include geek culture, the history of American sexuality and the relationship between science and religion. In 2010, he presented a paper on misogyny in geek culture at the annual meeting of Pop Culture Association-South. He recently completed an honors thesis entitled, “It Wasn’t Supposed to Be This Way: Science, Religion and Politics in the Galileo Affair.

The Pope’s Astronomer: In Conversation With Brother Guy Consolmagno By Heather Abraham Religion Nerd's In Conversation with Series continues with a feature interview with the Pope's astronomer, Brother Guy Consolmagno. A native of Detroit, Michigan, Consolmagno received a master's degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1975 and his ...
Religion Lately: Meet the Gods by Wearing Levis, The Church of Harry Potter, and Galileo Proved Wrong! By Kenny Smith Looking for a complex symbol to decode, demystify, and historicize? The new and improved Statue of Liberty should keep you busy for some time. The emergence of explicitly religious traditions from popular Hollywood images continues apace, this time with ...

Fish out of Water: On Being an Atheist in a Religious Culture

religionnerd — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:00:30 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Dale McGowan

I’m an atheist, though I don’t usually call myself that. It’s not that I’m embarrassed about it or worried about the reactions of others. I don’t usually call myself an atheist for the same reason I don’t call myself a Pisces or a member of the phylum Chordata. They all say too little about me.

I have hundreds of religious friends, but none of them puts “theist” on a survey, and for the same reason. “I think there’s a god” just says too little.

Among the things that “I don’t think there’s a god” fails to say about me is what I do think is true. So I call myself a secular humanist, which means, “I don’t think there’s a god, and here are a hundred things I think are true and valuable and good, and isn’t it interesting that most of those are shared by most of the people I know, even if they do think there’s a god.”

Now we’re talking.

An early fascination

It’s sometimes assumed that I’m just not interested in religious questions, when in fact the opposite is true. I’m fascinated by those big questions and have been for as long as I can remember. If I had ended up a believer, I think I might have been a theologian. If it’s all true, how could you not be?

As a kid, I attended Sunday School in the United Church of Christ and swam in Greek, Roman, and Norse myths the rest of the week. My dad died when I was thirteen, and my explorations took on a new intensity. For the next 20 years I was wide awake, listening, thinking, reading, questioning, spending time in the churches of nine denominations (Catholic, UCC, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, Unitarian, Mormon, Presbyterian, and Lutheran). I asked believers why they believed, why they weren’t Hindus or Druids, what they thought was literal and what was figurative in their scriptures. And I read their scriptures – not only the Old and New Testaments, but large parts of the Koran, the Vedas, the Gnostic texts, the Apochrypha, and commentaries on them all.

O'Hair

As my first serious doubts began to form, I entered a period I call “Madalyn and Me,” since I was certain Madalyn Murray O’Hair and I were the only two nonbelievers on the face of the Earth. How could I think otherwise? The greatest minds of every generation had apparently accepted Christianity. I was sure I’d made a serious error of some sort. I had begun to doubt the Christian story, but I’d yet to discover any system of thought to replace it, nor any ancestral lineage for my doubts.

In college my investigation was formalized. I studied anthropology, biology, astronomy, geology, philosophy and more. I learned about evolution, in depth and detail. I learned that it withstood three generations of scientific onslaught before being accepted as an awe-inspiring and humbling reality that establishes a deep kinship of all life on earth – far more beautiful than special creation in my eyes. And I realized, very gradually, that a full understanding of all the implications of evolution leaves an essential element of Christianity – human specialness among the creatures of the Earth – dismantled.

But it was still just Madalyn and me, as far as I knew. Even in college I had not discovered any significant presence of articulate disbelief in our cultural history. How could I disbelieve when all of my greatest intellectual heroes believed? I’d heard it said the Founding Fathers were traditional Christians – when in fact very few were. I had heard that Darwin found no contradiction between evolutionary theory and Christian belief, when in fact he did. He made that clear in his autobiography – though those pages were removed from the first edition by his wife, with the best of misguided motives. I assumed that Einstein’s references to God were literal reflections of a personal faith, only later discovering his several irritated denials of that claim.

Dale McGowan

I was in my thirties before I learned, through the works of A.N. Wilson, how many of the greatest intellectual and moral minds of every generation have been nonbelievers of one degree or another – Seneca, Diderot, Voltaire, Jefferson, Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Freud, Twain, Hume, H.L. Mencken, Simone de Beauvoir, Bertrand Russell. They had all written eloquently of their doubts and their reasons, often giving voice to their honest convictions at a far greater risk than any I will ever encounter. In the span of a single summer, I went from isolation to the company of giants.

So I wasn’t to be a theologian after all. In fact, if there is such a thing as an atheologian, I am it.

Coming out

It’s not always easy to be an atheist in a predominantly religious culture, but most of the challenges are manageable and getting easier with time. Some of my fellow non-believers would kill me for saying that, but it’s silly to suggest that it’s as difficult to be openly nonreligious now as it was in 1954. Not to mention 1454.

It’s true that we occasionally see a single religious viewpoint injected into public school classrooms. But where this was once the norm, it is now the exception. Most school districts and school administrators are so eager to avoid the unhelpful distraction of a church-state smackdown that they sometimes err on the side of overcaution, banning any and all reference to religion. This is neither necessary nor good. Far better to do it right than to excise such a large and important part of human culture from our children’s education.

It’s also the case that six states have laws on the books banning atheists from holding public office (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas). Imagine the justified outrage if state statutes banned Jews or blacks from holding office. But the fact that these antiquated statutes are unenforced, unenforceable, and a general embarrassment to cooler heads in said states certainly helps to disqualify this as quite the outrage it would otherwise be.

Most of the difficulty and genuine pain of being nonreligious takes place on a smaller scale—the level of family, friends, and community. A recent Pew study confirmed that most atheists were raised in religious families, which means there was an act of departure at some point. In some families this is met with a shrug, but in many others it is seen as a rejection not just of belief but of family identity and even of the basic values associated with the faith.

In reality, the atheist is most often walking away from theistic belief while retaining 90 percent of his or her values—values that can and do thrive with or without the frame of religion. Growing up, my family attended the United Church of Christ, and I did my best to behave decently and to treat others as I would like to be treated. More often than not, I succeeded. Now I don’t attend church or believe in God, and I do my best to behave decently and to treat others as I would like to be treated. More often than not, I succeed. The picture is the same; only the frame has changed.

I’m often asked for advice about “coming out” as an atheist in a religious family. The best approach is to aim not to change minds on the subject of belief itself, but to work toward a reduction in tension around differences in belief. The best way to do that is to simply be “out and normal”—to confound the stereotype by being the lovely person you always were.

Though there will be bumps, I tell my friends that most of the time the process of “coming out” goes much better than they think it will. And the opportunity to contribute your part to the net reduction of fear and misunderstanding in the world is a nice reward for showing a little courage.

This courage is self-perpetuating. The American Religious Identification Survey of 1990 put nonbelievers at 8 percent of the U.S. population. By 2008, that number had risen to 15 percent. I think that had much less to do with changes of belief than with an increased willingness to answer the question honestly. And nothing contributes more to that honesty than the knowledge that a nonbeliever isn’t remotely alone.

Indoctrination vs. influence

Most important to me now is protecting the rights of my children to come to their own conclusions about the big questions. And I’ve spent more time wondering how to avoid indoctrinating them myself than worrying about indoctrination from the outside. I’m the parent, after all, and my influence is bound to be huge.

Influence becomes indoctrination only when you forbid them to question what they receive from you. For extra insurance, we should explicitly invite them to. Teach kids to think independently and well, then trust them to do so. And part of that education is encouraging them to resist indoctrination of all kinds — even if it’s coming from Mom and Dad.

I go to great lengths to counter my undue influence so my children won’t be ossified before they can make up their adult minds. “Dad?” my daughter asked when she was eight. “Did Jesus really come alive after he was dead?”

“I don’t think so,” I said. “I think that’s a story people created so we feel better about death. But talk to Grandma Barbara. I know she thinks it really happened. And then you can make up your own mind and even change your mind back and forth a thousand times if you want.”

That’s influence without indoctrination. The one thing I value most in my own worldview is that I came to it myself. Why should I deprive my kids of that authenticity?

And that’s all I would ever ask of a religious parent as well—not that they forego sharing the experience of their faith, but that they say, “Here’s what I believe with all my heart, it’s very important to me and I think it’s true, but these are things each person has to decide for herself, and I want you to talk to people who have different beliefs so you can make up your own mind. You can change your mind a thousand times. There’s no penalty for getting it wrong, and I will love you no less if you end up believing differently from me”—just imagine if that was the norm.

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god,” said Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew, “because if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blindfolded fear.” Even if God exists, I picture him smacking his forehead in exasperation at the lines we draw, the questions we think he can’t withstand. And I’ve encouraged my kids to picture that same possibility—that one of the many things they might end up believing is that there’s a God about whom we’ve gotten every last detail completely wrong.

PARENTING in the Words of Freethinker Dale McGowan If you ever wonder what’s the future of freethinking and who’s leading the charge; if you are curious to know what Freethinkers of today are doing to ensure that tomorrow’s secular world is on the right path; if you want ...
In response to Deepak Chopra’s Atheists’ Mistake: Liberal Spirituality By Michel-Camille Bordeau In his most recent article, famed spiritual author Deepak Chopra expresses his concern that “By making belief in God their enemy... atheists deprive themselves of what spirituality is really about: a process of inner growth.” Chopra's short article is a ...

Firewalking as Spiritual Transformation

religionnerd — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 02:13:20 +0000

Get Shareaholic

In addition to our regular academic explorations, commentaries, and news articles, Religion Nerd also offers a forum for the “Religious Insider.” Insider accounts offer RN readers an intimate opportunity to “hear” the voice of those within a particular tradition or practice.

In this account, Dan Beckett reflects on his introduction to and continued practice of Firewalking– presenting us with a snapshot of his personal spiritual/religious journey utilizing an Americanized version of this unique and ancient practice.

By Dan Beckett

When people first hear about firewalking they often think of strange, ancient rituals performed by people with weird costumes and painted faces who talk funny and lived a long time ago.

While it’s true that firewalking has been practiced for centuries, even millennia, in many cultures around the world, what people often don’t realize is that firewalking is alive and well today in the United States, with more people practicing it each year than at possibly any other time in history! Many have found it, as I have, to be a profoundly moving spiritual experience. I am a firewalker who first encountered the practice in a spiritual growth workshop hosted by Edwene Gaines in Valley Head, Alabama. To date I’ve attended five firewalks, and want to share my experience and understanding of the practice to those who may be interested in learning more about it.

What Exactly Is Firewalking?

Firewalking, simply put, is the practice of walking barefoot across a bed of hot coals. The bed is commonly between eight and 20 feet in length, depending on who is conducting the walk. The process starts with what could be described as a small bonfire of hardwood. The wood burns down for about three hours before the coals are raked into a bed and tamped down to make a solid walking surface. Participants walk across the bed, stepping finally into a pan of water or the spray of a hose to put out any embers that may be along for the ride beyond the end of the walk. Not all walks include water at the end, but the ones I have participated in, did. There is significant ritual associated with preparing the site, building the fire, preparing the participants and doing the actual walking, but I want to focus here on the experience, not the ritual or the mechanics. The rest you can see/experience for yourself if you ever choose to observe or participate in a firewalk.

Firewalking has roots in many ancient cultures and most probably dates back to before recorded history. There is evidence of firewalking, during various historical eras, in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, China, Egypt, Fiji, Greece, Haiti, Hawaii, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tibet, Trinidad, and South Africa.

The modern firewalking movement in the United States began to take hold in 1979 when a man named Tolly Burkan added the practice to the public seminars on human potential he had been presenting for several years. After firewalking himself, and finding no definitive published research on how it was possible or how it worked, Mr. Burkan began a lifelong journey to experience, teach and promote the practice in the US. Presently, over three million people have walked on fire unharmed, and the practice is now found in some unlikely places: from spiritual growth seminars to corporate power retreats.

What’s the Point?

The experience of firewalking is as individual as the person doing the walking. But, there are some common threads that run through people’s experience, and they are often rooted in a decidedly spiritual experience. If you imagine people walking on hot coals repeating the phrase, “Oh, God, please help me!” you may not be far off the mark, as the experience can be intimidating for beginners.

It takes courage to take that first step because you are doing something that most people will tell you is impossible — that is if they didn’t politely excuse themselves and run after you first broached the topic. Although the experience varies greatly from person to person, I have found that a firm belief, that one can indeed walk on the hot coals and not be burned, is the core requirement for doing so. In fact, firewalking instructors will tell you that if you don’t believe that you can do it, DON’T DO IT. You may well get what you believe you will get which could be burned feet, if that’s your focus.

Stepping Through Fear

Taking that first step onto red hot coals is an exercise in facing fear if there ever was one, and this is, in fact, one of the primary goals of the practice. Imagine what your world would be like if you approached challenges not as others told you they would be, but as you yourself decided and then discovered they would be.

Now, properly run firewalking workshops are not casual affairs. The instructors have been through rigorous training in, among other things, building a proper fire, carefully preparing the surface prior to anyone walking, and thoroughly educating the walkers for the event. You definitely don’t want to simply toss down some coals and have at it. There are right ways and wrong ways to build what many instructors refer to as a “sacred fire.”

Doing the Impossible

For many who have walked, there is immense satisfaction in having done something that the world tells you is impossible. In fact, many firewalking instructors have the walkers write out on a card, “I walk on fire. I can do anything I choose,” along with the date and your signature. This acts as a powerful reminder of what has been accomplished, which is especially important in a world where some seem to want to discount their accomplishments. Almost as if to say, “Well, if I did it, it can’t be that big a deal.” It IS a big deal, and it’s important not to diminish the fact that you have done what others consider impossible. Imagine what your life could be like if you regularly accomplished the impossible. Redefining your sense of “impossible” is an incredibly powerful tool in the lifetime bag of tricks for any person.

Belief is the Key

It has been my experience, and it is taught at many seminars, that belief is the key to a safe and successful firewalk. One of the main points of the exercise is to find, communicate with, and trust whatever higher power makes sense to you. When you ask God if you can walk on the hot coals and not be burned, and you receive an affirmative answer, in whatever form that takes for you (and it varies wildly from person to person), you have tapped in to an immense power that can guide you in any and every way. And it really doesn’t matter if you ask God, Allah, Yoda, your dead ancestors, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What absolutely does matter is that you believe. This concept is, of course, not specific to firewalking. But, walking on hot coals will tend to focus your attention, I can guarantee that. And the focus on this “higher communication, ” if you will, is what many believe the practice is all about.

My Personal Experience: Lessons of Walks One to Five

I myself have walked on fire five times in the last 18 months, and each time has been a radically different experience. After walking once, I would have told you, “I get it, I got it, I did it, done,” but that would have been far from the truth, as I discovered in subsequent walks.

The first time I walked, it was such a wild idea that I had trouble concentrating on anything or sitting still. Upon later reflection, I felt like I experienced the whole thing, as if my perception was limited to looking through a paper towel tube or some such. I went through the pre-walk workshop, chanted the chant along with everyone, walked in a circle with the group around the coals as they were being raked into a bed, and pretty much inwardly freaked out the whole time. I didn’t know how to get guidance from my higher power, as I had been instructed to do. I had been told, however, that I would know what it felt like once I approached the fire. Well, it didn’t seem to be working, and I was getting annoyed. I realized I had been staring at the heels of the person walking in front of me for several minutes, chanting the chant, and wondering when the telegram was going to arrive informing me that my request had been granted: that I could indeed walk and not be burned. A burning bush would have been nice, but all I saw was a burning bed of red-hot coals. Finally, almost in disgust I took a deep breath, and for a change of scene, looked up at the surrounding trees. At that moment, a strong breeze blew through a tall birch and I felt an overriding sense of joy in the simple beauty of it. I realized that this was my sign, I stepped up, took the first step and walked across the coals. At least I think my feet were touching the ground! The coals felt pretty hot, but I was not burned. I had done it!

The second time I was fairly cavalier about the whole thing. I remember feeling that, because I had done this successfully before, I had it down. I was ready to teach the class, in fact. I was apparently that much of an expert after one experience! I didn’t earnestly communicate with my higher power this time, though I may have made some token effort, I don’t recall. When I walked out onto the coals, I distinctly felt a burn on the arch of my left foot. As I stepped off and continued circling the coals with the group, I remember thinking, “Oh crap, I’ve done it now. I burned my foot. What the hell? I thought I had this! What’s going on here?!?” As I walked, and felt my foot hurt with each step, I had an insight: I would decide that I had not burned my foot. At each step, as my foot told me I had burned it, I told it right back that it was fine; that it was not burned. The feeling of being burned subsided pretty quickly over time, and the next morning there was no sign of any damage to my foot.

I realized that my lesson for this walk was two-fold: first, don’t skip the asking-for-guidance part, and, second, that I could create my own reality no matter what my initial perceptions were. It reminds me of that t-shirt from the Discovery Channel show, Mythbusters: “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” That’s what I did, and it worked.

The third time I attended a walk, I did not “forget” to consult my higher power, but found I was not guided to walk. I was disappointed. I asked myself what the meaning of it could be, though I respected what I had received and I did not walk. I was annoyed because didn’t want to be “one of those people” who didn’t walk. (Maybe there was some pride involved? Hmm.) But, there was a powerful lesson in this as well, one that I did not grasp immediately. What became clear later that night was that it was an exercise in listening to and respecting what I received from my higher power. The lesson for me that night had nothing to do with walking on hot coals. It was about asking, listening and respecting my guidance. I thought then that the universe does indeed work in mysterious ways.

My fourth walk was typical and successful, if there is such a thing. Having gone off the rails in a couple different ways on previous walks, I did it right this time. Not much to report, just your typical walk across red hot coals without burning my feet. I had finally learned to ask, receive and then proceed to do the impossible. I could get used to this, I thought!

My fifth and most recent walk was epic. There was a major thunderstorm headed our way, and we hoped that it would hold off long enough for us to complete the walk. I decided not to participate if the rain were more than a drizzle—not because I minded getting wet—but because I didn’t have a change of clothing and the thought of having dinner with my new friends, dripping wet made me pause. When it came time to go out, it looked like the sky was about to let loose in a big way. The wind was blowing furiously, lightning lit up the sky, and we could hear loud cracks of thunder in the near distance. The weather event made the familiar environment seem otherworldly.

As we began our walk to the fire, I was surprised to find that it was not yet raining, the storm held off until all who desired to participate, finished their walk. The rain softly began to fall just as our walk was complete, the lightning and thunder began to close in as we walked back to the meeting room. Once inside, the heavens let loose with an honest to God—Alabama throw down like I hadn’t experienced in a long time. The rain came down in buckets. I don’t know what the lesson was for me that night. Maybe that things would work out OK if I just stepped out in faith. Maybe that disaster can be averted with right thinking. Maybe that walking on hot coals is never better than minutes before an epic deluge. I don’t know. I do know that I will never forget it.

And, anyway, who cares! After all, I walk on fire. I can do anything I choose.

Further Reading

http://www.firewalking.com/

*****************************

Dan Beckett is a successful business owner, a firewalker, and teaches practical, spirit-centered abundance principles to everyday people from all walks of life. He holds a Bachelor of General Studies from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and currently lives with his wife and three children outside Asheville, NC.

Slot Machines as Spiritual Teachers and Supernatural Investment Strategies: When Religion Waxes Magical By: Kenny Smith Not far from our house is a Baptist church known for its entertaining roadside marquee, offering such spiritual chestnuts as, “THIS YEAR, WE WILL NOT BE UNDER-SOULED!,” weekend workshops in “HOW TO SURVIVE THE END TIMES,” and, during ...
Slot Machines as Spiritual Teachers and Supernatural Investment Strategies: When Religion Waxes Magical By: Kenny Smith Not far from our house is a Baptist church known for its entertaining roadside marquee, offering such spiritual chestnuts as, “THIS YEAR, WE WILL NOT BE UNDER-SOULED!,” weekend workshops in “HOW TO SURVIVE THE END TIMES,” and, during ...

Starving for God: Foodless Dieting For the Soul

religionnerd — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:19:55 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Joseph Rosenthal, Georgia State University

“Man shall not live by bread alone,” responds Jesus defiantly in the Gospel of Matthew (4:4) to Satan’s entreaty to break his forty-day fast. This phrase has been used variously by Christians throughout history as a tribute to the virtues of moderation and as a justification for some of the most extreme forms of asceticism. Dietary practice is the second most popular domain of religiously motivated self-denial, surpassed only by matters of sex and human intimacy. The diversity of rituals, laws, and red tape surrounding the consumption of food ranges from prohibitions of basic food types (e.g. shellfish, pork, alcohol, etc.) to extended periods of fasting. The religious preoccupation with what goes into the body goes well beyond hatred of gluttony, sometimes verging on total caloric restriction. Although usually nothing more than a quirky inconvenience, at its extremes, religious dietary practice is virtually indistinguishable from an eating disorder, and at least as deadly.

The history of religion abounds with stories of holy men and women claiming to have gone months or even years with little to no food or water. The theological explanation for such dietary feats is always the same: spiritual nourishment meets all the metabolic needs of the non-eater. In medieval Europe, voluntary starvation for god went by the name of anorexia mirabilis, or “miraculous loss of appetite,” an affliction—or charism, according to most pre-Renaissance clergy—that almost exclusively affected women.

Women were particularly drawn to the fast-based lifestyle known as inedia, which often accompanied lifelong virginity, self-flagellation, and a host of other ascetic practices. Angela of Foligno spurned almost everything but Holy Communion and the puss of the sick, which she described as rivaling the sweetness of the Eucharist. When force-fed by clergy despairing for her health, Catherine of Siena would induce vomiting by pushing a branch or twig down her throat, in perhaps the earliest recorded case of bulimia. In actuality, many of these “miraculous maids,” as they were sometimes known, starved themselves to death.

Today, the Catholic practice of inedia is dead, but the spiritual pursuit of a calorie-free lifestyle persists in many parts of the world. Claims made by religious people to the effect that they can survive without food are hardly unique to Christianity. In fact, the majority of such claims come out of Eastern traditions. In his 1946 book Autobiography of a Yogi, the Indian guru Paramahansa Yogananda describes a yogini by the name of Giri Bala who has allegedly lived without food or drink for over fifty years. As the yogini explains, her prayers as a youth to tame an uncontrollable appetite were answered in the form of a guru, who taught her the “kria technique which frees the body from dependence on the gross food of mortals.”

For years, highly publicized accounts of Indian monks and sadhus claiming to have survived without food and water for impossible stretches of time have regaled Western audiences. In the last decade, images of bearded mystics in dusty robes, who starve yet are not consumed, have appeared frequently in newspapers. In fact, fantastical stories of what Yogananda called “God’s hungerless touch” appear to be so commonplace in India that it would seem long-term foodless survival is something of a banality.

Shri Hira Ratan Manek is a mechanical engineer from Calicut who claims not to have taken any food since June 18, 1995, save for the occasional glass of tea, coffee or buttermilk (for social purposes only, he insists). Since 2002, the mutton-chopped yogi has been the subject of international headlines. According to Manek, all humans can learn to live without food by deriving their energy directly from the sun through the act of solar gazing, a supposedly ancient Jainist practice he claims to have rediscovered, citing Lord Mahavir as his main inspiration. HRM, as he is known to his followers, lectures around the world to worshipful audiences on the miracles of solar healing and the follies of Western medicine. But HRM’s inediate (person who lives without food or water) feats pale in comparison to those attributed to Prahlad Jani, an 82-year-old Indian sadhu who denies having had any food or water since 1940. As Jani explains, a religious experience at the age of 11 acquainted him with the Hindu goddess Amba, who sustains him by pouring heavenly nectar through a hole in his palate.

Enchanted stories of hunger-less yogis streaming from the East have spawned a number of copycat cases abroad. In Western countries, most but not all of the religiously-motivated individuals claiming to subsist on, or working towards the fulfillment of, a foodless diet call themselves Breatharians. While there is no official Breatharian doctrine, most practitioners believe that humans, while equipped to digest food, can be sustained entirely by prana, which is harvested from the air by the act of breathing and from the sun by the act of sungazing (according to the Aryuveda, the main sources of prana are air and sunlight). In Vedantic philosophy, prana refers to the life-sustaining, vital energy that suffuses all reality. If anyone could be said to qualify as a figurehead or spokesperson of the Breatharian movement, it is either Wiley Brooks, founder of the Breatharian Institute of America, or Jasmuheen (formerly Ellen Greve), a self-styled Breatharian guru who has authored books such as Pranic Nourishment – Living on Light.

Breatharianism is not explicitly a Hindu practice (most Hindus would probably prefer to distance themselves from the Breatharian community, if they are even aware that such a thing exists), nor is it associated with any particular religion. Rather, it is an amalgam of Hindu philosophy, Yogic and Aryuvedic practice, and various New Age currents. It has also caught the attention of certain quasi-religious dietary movements, most notably Raw Foodism. A popular practice among many raw foodists is “juice fasting,” wherein the only thing consumed for weeks or months is freshly pressed vegetable or fruit juice. Some of the more diehard practitioners have tried to transition into a full-fledged Breatharian lifestyle, while others are content to join fellow dieters on periodic “fasting retreats.” Even further along the spectrum of dietary extremism, Breatharianism holds an obvious appeal to the pro-Ana community, an online support network for individuals with eating disorders, where “support” means egging on and mutual encouragement. Accounts of solar-powered yogis and the teachings of Jasmuheen serve as regular “thinspiration” on pro-Ana forums and other thinspo-themed websites.

Not surprisingly, Breatharianism in America has had a number of muddy run-ins with the law. Three deaths have been definitively linked to the starvation cult and to Jasmuheen’s publications in particular, but many more are suspected. These cases have forced legal experts to grapple with the familiar question of where religious freedom trespasses onto public safety.

In 1998, after reading Jasmuheen’s book, Lani Morris, a 53-year-old mother of nine, recruited Jim and Eugenia Pesnak to guide her through a 21-day Breatharian initiation program. During the course of the program, her health deteriorated to the point that she lost the use of her limbs and began to cough black liquid, which the Pesnaks attributed to the effects of spiritual detoxification. Morris died on July 1 of severe dehydration, kidney failure, and the effects of a stroke. On November 19 1999, the Brisbane Supreme Court found the Pesnaks guilty of manslaughter. Earlier that year, the semi-naked body of Breatharian enthusiast Verity Linn was found dead at a remote camp site in the Scottish Highlands. Her only belongings consisted of a sleeping bag, a copy of Jasmuheen’s book Living With Light, and a diary detailing her descent into starvation. Jasmuheen has denied all responsibility for the deaths in connection with her writings, and expresses doubt that these victims indeed died of hunger. As of this writing, she has not been officially charged with the deaths of any of her followers, though authorities have seized control of her website.

While no less fervent in their claims, Western Breatharians have not achieved the same level of “popular legitimacy” enjoyed by Eastern inediate yogis. And unlike Dr. Sudhir Shah and his team of investigators at Sterling Hospital in Ahmedabad, India, who have devoted thousands of government-funded man-hours attempting to validate such claims (for which they have incurred the censure of organizations like the James Randi Foundation and the Indian Rationalist Association), most American scientists won’t even give Breatharians the satisfaction of their time. The fact that so many Indian physicians and scientists, including the Indian Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS), consider inediate claims a worthy subject of medical investigation constitutes a profound failure of their basic scientific and medical educations, and should be a point of national embarrassment. As it turns out, there is such thing as starvation without hunger. Breatharian mania at home and abroad is yet another bitter reminder that in the 21^st century, large swaths of the human population are positively starving for rationality, a kind of hunger that can’t be felt, that consumes without always killing its victims, and for which the only known treatment is a sound scientific education.

*********************************

Joseph Rosenthal is very near the completion of a B.A. in Religious Studies at Georgia State University, with a minor in Chemistry. His main areas of interest in Religious Studies are the historical and contemporary relationship between science and religion, the cognitive science and evolutionary psychology of religion, memetics, and the so-called New Atheism. He intends to pursue a Masters degree in Chemistry at Georgia State University, where he currently works in a research lab as a synthetic chemist.

Beer Blogger Tests Monk Tale By Tom Perry, Des Moines Register An Adams County blogger is planning to abstain from solid food for 46 days as he investigates an old tale about doppelbock beer, aka "liquid bread," first developed for the Christian season of Lent ...
More Americans Tailoring Religion to Fit Their Needs By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY If World War II-era warbler Kate Smith sang today, her anthem could be GodsBless America. That's one of the key findings in newly released research that reveals America's drift from clearly defined religious denominations to faiths cut to fit ...

Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell

religionnerd — Sun, 29 May 2011 17:59:38 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Tito Ferguson, Georgia State University

When considering the theorists Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell, it is not difficult to recognize similarities in their theories of religious thought. Comparisons can be made between them in regards to their methods of analyzing separate traditions as well as their attempts to draw universal conclusions from them. Not only do these two theorists demonstrate the ability to take unrelated traditions and create a new way of viewing them as part of a larger picture, but they also resemble each other in how later theorists consider their work. Both men inspired a change in the way religion was thought about by the public, and both have earned the criticism of modern and feminist scholars.

Mircea Eliade has long been considered an influential figure in the field of Religious Studies, and while some modern theorists tend to minimize the relevance of his ideas in light of recent developments in the subject, Eliade undoubtedly revolutionized the way religion was studied and taught for many years. He wrote works of both fiction and non-fiction, and is known for developing original terms and concepts unique to his personal theory. Expressions such as hierophany, axis mundi, and hierogamy are used to illustrate his ideas on what he refers to as “sacred time,” “sacred space,” and “archaic man.”

Eliade’s concept of sacred time refers to the mythical time when chaos converted into the beginning of creation. This notion of time is a cyclical one in which humans live according to a model of endless regeneration reflected by the seasons symbolizing birth, mid-age, old-age, death, and birth again.

The idea of sacred space describes Eliade’s concept of hierophany, or the manifestation of the sacred into the profane world. Instances of hierophany can be seen in various traditions and include the burning bush of the Old Testament, Ayer’s Rock in Australia, and the linga stones of India. Eliade’s primary example of sacred space is the axis mundi, a world center which connects the higher and lower realms. To Eliade, each axis mundi serves as the center of the world: “Every temple or palace-and, by extension, every sacred city or royal residence-is a Sacred Mountain, thus becoming a Center…the meeting point of heaven, earth, and hell.” (Eliade 12)

According to Eliade, there is an immense difference between how archaic and modern man view the world in connection to sacred time and sacred space. Archaic man exists in a primitive world, in which he conceives of time in a cyclical fashion and derives meaning through repetition of the acts of the gods. By reenacting the original events, archaic man is able to stay connected through ritual to the sacred time of creation as well as to the gods. In Eliade’s words, ”every creation repeats the preeminent cosmogonic act, the creation of the world.” (18) One example of this type of reenactment is something that Eliade calls the hierogamy, or sacred marriage. In his words, “by consummating ritual union with the goddess…the divine union assures terrestrial fecundity…(and) the world is regenerated each time the hierogamy is imitated”. (26)

In contrast to the archaic model, modern man exists within a historical timeline in which time moves in only one direction, from beginning to end, and the central object of meaning is the individual. In this reality, God is a distant figure who intervenes in the lives of a select few in order to create significant events which cannot be repeated. Eliade speculates that this way of thinking started with the onset of the Abrahamic traditions, and as a result, modern man has lost the relationship to the cosmos that kept his archaic counterpart centered and connected to the sacred time of creation. It is this disconnect which creates what modern man experiences as the “terror of history”(139), in which man no longer achieves meaning by being part of the cosmic process, but is forced to tolerate his own powerlessness and the dreadful events and suffering which befall humanity.

Although Eliade’s theories earned him respect and attention during his early career, his work has drawn critical response in more recent years. In his paper The Wobbling Pivot, J.Z. Smith takes issue with several of Eliade’s positions. Referring to Eliade’s concept of the “eternal repetition of the cosmogonic act” (Eliade 62), Smith debates whether all creation acts are something that archaic man would have wanted to reenact. He explains:

Many of the first times described in myth-particularly those dealing with the origin of death, sickness, illness, sin, and evil may well be existentially repeated in the human condition itself; but they are neither celebrated nor ritually repeated. (Smith 145)

Furthermore, he points out that Eliade sometimes takes a less than objective position when it comes to his own terms and theories. For example:

This focus on the explicit presence of the term ‘Center’ leads Eliade at times to employ questionable interpretations of his material…[and] at other times leads him to ignore texts which do contain important elements of the ‘Center’ pattern but never explicitly use the term. (144-145)

Next, he examines Eliade’s categories of “archaic” and “modern” and the “related distinction between cyclical-mythic time and linear-historical time.” (148) He draws the conclusion that “[t]his dichotomy does not seem to do justice to the rich patterns of temporal significance which have been discovered in various cultures”. (148) It appears that despite retaining an appreciation for the immense contributions Eliade has made to the historical study of religion, Smith remains unconvinced that his theories are fully applicable to the present state of the field of Religious Studies today.

Like Smith, Carol P. Christ also takes a critical approach to what she considers Eliade’s outdated ideas in her article Mircea Eliade and the Feminist Paradigm Shift, this time paying special attention to the male-centered bias, which informs his writings. She posits:

Careful analysis of Mircea Eliade’s a history of religious ideas will show that androcentric assumptions are deeply structured into Eliade’s conceptions of the nature and origin of religion. These biases make it virtually impossible for him to recognize the importance of women and Goddesses in the history of religion. (Christ 79)

Throughout the article Christ expresses her resentment at Eliade’s preference for the male-oriented aspects of history, as well as to his assumption that the roles of males have more successfully promoted the survival of the species. She states, “By focusing on meat-eating as decisive to human survival, Eliade values the contributions of ‘man the hunter’ while devaluing the contributions of ‘woman the gatherer.’” (83) Throughout her writing, Christ meticulously dissects Eliade’s words, analyzing dismissive phrases and pointing out his inability to acknowledge the feminist perspective. More so than Smith, she seems fed up with his theories and urges the reader to move beyond the paradigm he presents. She concludes: “The history of religion which Eliade tells is distorted by dualism, idealism, and false universalization of male experience…Once this bias is unmasked, we can never again read his work…as a “true” or “objective” telling of the history of religion.” (94)

Like Eliade, Joseph Campbell provided a new interpretation of the study of religion that tended to draw universal conclusions across multiple traditions and garnered him vast public attention. In The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Campbell explores his theory regarding the monomyth, an idea that has influenced a multitude of popular works such as George Lucas’ Star Wars, The Matrix, and Harry Potter and can be recognized in the stories of the lives of both the Buddha and Jesus Christ.

According to Campbell, the monomyth, or hero’s journey, provides a motif which recurs throughout countless mythologies. The structure of this universal myth contains three primary stages referred to as Separation, Initiation, and Return through which we are able to trace the hero regardless of his culture of origin. Campbell explains, “The archetypes to be discovered and assimilated are precisely those that have inspired, throughout the annals of human culture, the basic images of ritual, mythology, and vision.” (Campbell 18)

In her article The Myth of Joseph Campbell, Mary Lefkowitz expresses her dissatisfaction with the attention Campbell has received as a result of the popular televised interview with Bill Moyers, “The Power of Myth.” She seems concerned that, beyond advocating a “selfish materialism when he recommended to his viewers that the each ‘follow their own bliss,’” (429) he is sometimes inaccurate in his analysis of specific myths; and, like Eliade, he is guilty of minimizing the role of women in his hero theme. She makes it clear from the beginning that she “doesn’t [think] Campbell should be considered as an objective authority on the subject he professes,” (429) first and foremost, because he is not a professor, never having finished his doctorate, a fact often cited by critics of Campbellian theory. In her opinion, Campbell’s particular view was easily accepted because, she declares “Campbell could tell a good story…[and] he was knowledgeable about what we didn’t have time (or inclination) to discover for ourselves.” (429)

In addition to her concern over Campbell’s credentials, Lefkowitz places emphasis on the fact that Campbell’s universal hero premise may not be all it’s cracked up to be. Like Jonathan Z. Smith’s critique of Eliade, Lefkowitz is concerned that “Campbell tends to make the details of ancient narratives conform to his own interpretations”. (431) She cites several specific examples of Greek myths that expose Campbell’s tendency to “overlook details or occasionally get…a mythological fact wrong” (431) in order to portray these myths in a more universal light. Indeed, Lefkowitz states, “[I]t suits Campbell’s purpose best to show that all heroes, whatever their background, are more or less alike at least in the pattern of their lives and the nature of their aspirations”. (431)

In regard to the feminist perspective, Lefkowitz hones in on what she considers his lack of attention to the female in his breakdown of the predominantly male hero in mythology. She seems especially troubled by his portrayal of women as passive. She explains: “they are not so much actors in the story as ideals or goals, entities from whom knowledge or life may be taken, or who will produce and nourish the hero’s progeny”. (Campbell, The Power of Myth 125), Lefkowitz counters with the idea that it is “the female body that Campbell wishes to celebrate, and not the force of the female will or determination of mind” (Lefkowitz 433). Even as heroes, women lack the self-sufficiency of the male: “Often women seem to learn only sometime after their first confrontation with men, whether physical or political” (433). Furthermore, Lefkowitz adds, even the choice for a woman to become a hero does not seem to be her own, unlike the active choice for boys who “need to intend to be men…the decisive moments in a woman’s life are…, in a sense, inflicted on her” (433).

Finally, as she closes her argument, Lefkowitz reminds the reader that, due to particular trends in the study of religion, namely a move towards universalism, Campbell’s message is especially easy to swallow. She warns that while Joseph Campbell has succeeded in expanding the types of religious subject matter the common person is exposed to, “no one should hope to find in [his theory] an authoritative guide to any religion other than Campbell’s own” (434).

Both Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell have made significant contributions to the field of religious studies; Eliade, as a visionary who taught us to look at religion in a new way, and Campbell, who made world religions and mythology attainable for the public. However, while both of these men deserve our respect for breaking new ground and forming new paradigms, they also have their limitations in regards to how they should be applied today.

****************************

About Tito Ferguson

Although I am originally from Texas, I have called Georgia my home for twelve years. In 2007, I returned to school (Georgia State University) and earned a BA in Religious Studies with a minor in Psychology in December of 2010. I graduated with honors and received the Robert Arrington award in Religious studies for the 2010-2011 school year. My interests include New Religious Movements, Psychology and Religion, and Mythology. I live in West Georgia with my son and am thinking about returning to school for a graduate degree in the near future.

A Tough Season for Believers By Ross Douthat, New York Times Christmas is hard for everyone. But it’s particularly hard for people who actually believe in it. In a sense, of course, there’s no better time to be a Christian than the first 25 days of December. But ...
Weathering Religion: Weather Channel Theodicies? Kate Daley-Bailey, Religion Nerd “TUSCALOOSA, Ala. -- The death toll from severe storms that punished five Southern U.S. states has jumped to 269.” This is the opening statement from Weather.com's article, “Tornadoes Cut Path of Destruction,” which documented the devastating tornadoes that hit ...

Ding Dong bin Laden’s Dead!

religionnerd — Mon, 09 May 2011 22:40:22 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Lady Arsinoe

Well, Enemy No. 1 of the World is dead. Osama bin Laden was killed by a Navy Seal team just over a week ago. Goodie for us. Yay!

Don’t get me wrong. The guy deserved it. He was the mastermind behind the murder of thousands of innocents around the world, not just here in the US.

America has lost the moral high ground, though. Beginning on September 11, 2001, collectively as a nation, we condemned the celebrations in the streets throughout the Muslim world. We denounced the carnival atmosphere in the Middle East as the World Trade Center collapsed. We cried for the murder of over 3000 innocent people. We said, how barbaric it was to celebrate death and destruction in that manner. Those people aren’t human, we declared.

Yet what did we do? Celebrate in the streets that Osama bin Laden was dead. We had a party. He was assassinated in his home in a raid that also killed several other men, possibly even one of bin Laden’s sons, and a woman used as a human shield. And we cheer. We dance in the streets. Who is barbaric now?

Life is precious. As far as we know, this planet is it in the Universe. All life should be cherished and protected. That is not to say that bin Laden shouldn’t have been killed, though I would have preferred to see him face international justice. If the death of one will save the lives of many, only after careful consideration, and with great solemnity, should that life be taken. The nuclear plant workers at Fukushima understand this point very clearly. They gave their lives, in a slow and painful death that will probably take years, for the greater good of the people of Japan and the world. The Navy Seal team risked their lives to bring bin Laden to justice. They wanted him alive, but they had to make split second decisions on the ground. In the end, bin Laden was dead, and so were several others.

Yet the Barcalounger Warriors, who haven’t been off their fat asses in years, cheered. We did it! USA! USA! USA!” like this was a sporting event and their team won, not a surgical strike that killed people. People that had families who loved them and they loved back. Have you looked at pictures of Osama bin Laden? He actually looks like a nice guy. And apparently he was very generous with his friends and family, a loving father, who built roads and schools and hospitals in areas that were poorly served. For some he was a humanitarian or freedom fighter. It’s a shame his twisted views on religion got in the way of his goodness.

So, should we celebrate his death, or lament the fact that the deed was necessary? Should we cheer revenge and call it justice, or mark with solemnity that he has received the fruits of his labors? Mourn those who have died because of this man’s actions? Celebrate the lives that have been saved because of his death, but do not rejoice at his demise.

Osama bin Laden will not be mourned by those of us who find his actions reprehensible. He will not be mourned by those people living with the results of his crimes. He will be mourned by those who hold similar views, that their version of God and religion is better than everyone else’s version. He will also be mourned, at least privately, by those who cherish and celebrate war, destruction, murder, retribution, and vengence. Osama bin Laden became the Boogeyman for many, he became the face of Evil against which, the Good were fighting. With him removed, who or what will take his place?

**************************************************

In addition to our regular academic and news articles, Religion Nerd also offers a forum for the religious “insider.” Lady Arsinoe’s thought provoking articles and commentaries allow RN readers an intimate opportunity to “hear” the voice and perspective of a Wiccan High Priestess.

Lady Arsinoe’s Bio:

The Lusty Month of May “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; I wish you a happy day; I'm come to show my garland, because it's the First of May. A bunch of May I have brought you, and at your door it stands; it is but a ...
Magical Thinking Is Crazy! Lady Arsinoe A lot of people think magic and witchcraft is for hippies, crazies, or those who have been kidnapped by aliens. I would say to them, a lot of “normal” people are running around with some pretty cognitive dissonant ideas ...

Memories of A Moderate Muslim Woman

religionnerd — Sun, 08 May 2011 13:30:13 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Teo Sagisman

I lost both my parents at what I consider a young age. My religious background is that of a secular Turkish Muslim but I now consider myself a spiritual seeker more than religious. I lost my father when I was only five years of age. My paternal grandfather, originally from Eastern Turkey, had migrated to Istanbul in the early 1900’s. His last name, Sagisman, I later discover belonged to a list of Jewish converts to Islam (Dönmeh) who followed Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676) a 17th-century Jewish Kabbalist who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah but was eventually forced by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed IV to convert to Islam. After Sabbatai’s conversion, a number of Jews followed him into Islam and became the Dönmeh. Since the 20th century, many Dönmeh have intermarried with other groups and most have assimilated into Turkish society. Although a few still consider themselves Jews, the Dönmeh are not officially recognized as such by Jewish authorities.

My father was a secularist who dedicated his life to service in the Turkish army, which upheld the ideals of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, who recognized the danger of Islamic fundamentalism. Dad was a young colonel at the time of his passing. My mother, Nezahat Candas, came from an Anatolian family in Ankara (Ancient Angora), which practiced a form of Islam not yet spoiled or corrupted by 20^th century politics. Their version of Islam was innocent and lacked political agendas of today’s divisive environment. I was thirty-four when she passed at the young age of sixty-nine, even though I miss her immensely, I consider myself lucky to have spent the amount of time I had with her.

My maternal grandparents were devout Muslims who wanted their daughters to have an education in basic Islamic principles. To that end, they hired a Quran tutor for my mother and her sister so that they could learn the tenets of the Islamic religion. These lessons with the local imam began, I believe, when my mother was about fifteen and her sister, my Aunt Aysel, was eleven. My mother immediately rejected the idea of covering her head, a choice that she was free to make. She received no argument or pressure from her tutor and imam who understood and accepted her decision. He explained that modesty lies within the one’s heart and actions, not how one dresses. My grandfather was also supportive of both his daughters’ resistance to wearing the hijab and he never insisted. The current societal pressures of donning a headscarf did not exist in the Turkey of my mother’s time; women were given the option without worry of pressure from neighbors or society in general.

Growing up in a Muslim country with a single mother was strange at times. When my father passed in 1970, my mother was a beautiful and vibrant forty-year old living in a Muslim society that monitored the behavior of attractive young widows. My mother was always vigilant about her encounters with men even those she allowed into our home to make repairs.

Our apartment keeper, Sehriban, was a tough-ass rural Anatolian migrant woman who chewed tobacco and wore traditional Anatolian clothing. Sehriban worked hard to chase away predatory married Muslim men who sometimes stalked my mother. From the moment Sehriban met our family and learned that my mother was a widow raising two young sons, she determined to ensure our protection. Aunt Sehriban would spread the rumor that our father was with the (MIT) Turkish Special Services, a governmental agency that was the Turkish equivalent to the Soviet KGB. The Turkish Special Service members enjoyed notorious reputations at the time, working to quell the communists and Kurdish separatism that threatened the very existence of Ataturk’s Republic.

I remember the time when my mother and Aunt Sehriban laughed joyfully about a certain married merchant who approached Sehriban about the single woman who lived in her apartment with her young boys. Sehriban told him not to fuck with my mother, as her husband was a colonel who went underground to fight the communists and separatists on behalf of the government. She told him that there was a chance he would go missing if he messed with my mother. Sehriban gleefully relayed how the fearful merchant ran for his life.

A few weeks after my father’s passing my mom decided to get a driver’s license so that she could drive the family car. My father had signed up to purchase a primitive Turkish made car through the army’s loan program, paying on it in advance for years before the car was finally delivered. Unfortunately, a few weeks after the car arrived, he died never able to enjoy his clunker Soviet style car named “Anadol”. Pissed off at one guy’s remarks about women not capable of driving, my mom wanted to make a special point of learning how to drive so that we could all enjoy the car in his honor.

During the 1970’s in Turkey, there were only a handful of women drivers as most women were seen as incapable of such a task by the macho-minded men mostly guided by the Islamic principles. I remember the time after she received her license, how people used to stare at us while she was driving. Curious kids would run behind us screaming, “look at the woman driving, look at the woman driving!” They may as well have screamed “space aliens.” I realize that in mother’s determination to drive, she was making a point; she was capable of caring for herself and her children, and the macho-minded Islamic society was going to have to accept her independence.

The present religious climate in Turkey is very different from the one my mother encountered and challenged. There is a sense of resentment between the religious and secular groups. Forget about the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim strife that dominates so much of our news. In present-day Turkey, the secularists resent the Islamic rise of power and the Islamic government is slowly eroding the rights of a secular republic. A secular Muslim can be hateful towards conservative Muslim women who may chose to cover, and conservative Muslims often belittle and demean those who choose not to wear a headscarf. When taking all these in consideration, I have realized the importance of moderation and the need for moderate women everywhere—women like my mother. Instead of following religion and culture blindly, sometimes the rules need to be bent and customs tweaked.

Even though my mother read the Quran daily and performed her daily prayers, she never pressured her sons to do the same. She never forced us to go to a Mosque or told us we were going to hell for Islamic theological reasons. She raised us with basic moral values that did not include a passage from Quran with every other sentence. She bent the rules occasionally to adapt the realities of life and yet still kept her faith, which was a very important part of her life.

On one occasion, when she came to United States for a visit, I remember her meeting my girl friend Heather and her dog Zen. In Islam, dogs are frowned upon. Many devout Muslims somehow consider the dog dirty creatures. This may be due to the Prophet Muhammad’s personal dislike towards the dogs. After meeting Zen, my mother told me that in order for her to perform her prayers in my house, the dog had to go. She said, “the angels won’t come to the house!” I think it was superstition speaking on her behalf. I agreed to her wishes without difficulty as Heather and Zen had their own apartment. A few weeks later, Heather and I had to go out of town on an overnight trip and I asked my mother if she could watch over Zen. She reluctantly took him as she was always eager to help me, especially if she knew I was in a bind.

We returned to find Zen lounging in bed with my mother, and she reacted as if we had caught her in bed with a strange man! She said that she bathed had him, made him a floor bed surrounded with stuffed animals in her room, talked to Zen about not disturbing her while she prayed, and pronounced him good company. My mother no longer understood dogs as unclean nor could they keep her from creating a pure space to perform her prayers. Afterward, Zen was a part of her life along with her prayers. She took him for walks everyday and insisted he stayed with her during her visits. She saw him as an angel on earth contrary to most Muslim’s belief.

On another occasion, I took her to a café to have lunch. We ordered her first American style pizza covered in sausage, pepperoni and cheese. She loved it and helped me devour every little piece. For those of you who may not be familiar with Islamic tenets, it is a huge sin for a Muslim to eat pork or pork products. By some accounts, you are condemned to hell! As you guessed, the pepperoni and sausage was made of pork. After enjoying her pizza, she asked about the unidentified meat she had just eaten. I paused and tried to weigh my response, fearing how she would respond to knowing she had consumed pork. Not wanting to lie, I blurted out that the delicious meats were indeed pork! She was silent for a moment and I still remember the big smile on her face as she waved her hand in the air, like she always did when she wanted to say screw it, and said, “That was very tasty. My God won’t count this as a sin!”

My mother was a great example for me and later in life, I would appreciate her strength and her need to question the rules. My mother believed that God endowed us with a mind and will of our own and that mind was meant to question the rules society, tradition, culture, and religion force upon us. This, my friends is moderation in religion and in life, and any one of us could learn from her open, curious, and practical approach to life.

“Allah’s Tailors” gaining profile in Turkey By Alexandra Hudson, Reuters Faith World (Reuters Life!) - Along Istanbul's busy Eminonu waterfront women swathed in dark coats and scarves knotted once under the chin jostle past others clad in vivid colors and head coverings carefully sculpted around the face. Two ...
Family waits to see if mother, accused of blasphemy, will be hanged By Reza Sayah, CNN // Itan Wali, Pakistan (CNN) -- In this village in Pakistan's Punjab province a tearful 12-year-old girl ponders if the Pakistani government will soon hang her mother. "Whenever I see her picture I cry," Isham Masih ...

The Lusty Month of May

religionnerd — Sun, 01 May 2011 11:32:57 +0000

Get Shareaholic

“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen;
I wish you a happy day;
I’m come to show my garland,
because it’s the First of May.

A bunch of May I have brought you,
and at your door it stands;
it is but a spray, but it’s well spread about,
‘Tis the work of the Fays’ hands.

And now I’ve sung my little short song,
no longer can I stay;
Faeries bless you all, both great and small,
and grant you a very happy May.” (1)

By Lady Arsinoe

As they sing in Camelot, “Ah, that lusty month of May!”

Beltane is the time of year when Wiccans celebrate the union of the God and the Goddess within the metaphor of a wedding. We celebrate the Masculine Activating Principle coming together with the Feminine Generating Principle, bonded together to bring forth life. Plus, we are a fun-loving bunch, and what can be more fun than frolicking in the woods all night a’ conjuring summer in?

When boiled down to its basic components, Beltane is all about fertility and the blessings fertility brings. The obvious fact is fertility is all about sex. It’s difficult to bring about the next generation without it! Plant sex drifts on the breeze and fills the gutters and clogs our noses. Plant sex becomes the fruits and vegetables we eat as the summer progresses. The birds and bunnies are at it, too. Babies are being made everywhere, from baby grasses and leaves, to baby birds, bunnies, squirrels, and…you get the idea. Lots of fun being had in the Plant and Animal Kingdoms!

We have a pair of crows who built their nest in a tree in our yard. They have been busy preparing the way for their next generation. Their nest is lovely, by crow standards. Once they are finished building, they will fill the nest with a great treasure.The crows in our yard truly care for each other and their nestlings. Otherwise, they would not spend so much time preparing the way, and expending all the energy to provide for them and each other. I’ve watched them travel back and forth from the nest carrying twigs during construction, and when that task was complete, gather food for each other as they take turns sitting on their eggs.

As much as some spiritual traditions would like to deny it, life depends on sex. And not just sex, but intimacy. Sure, we can go out and bonk and have babies, but without intimacy, there is no caring. It’s the intimacy and caring that creates the bonds that hold us together. Richard Dawkins says that humans have the Selfish Gene. I would politely disagree with him. I think all life has an Altruistic Gene.

Beltane Maypole

As soon as a mother looks into the eyes of her baby, she is hooked. Fathers, too, will kill or die to protect their offspring. This is true for animals of all stripes, humans included. Just as the crows care for each other and their young, humans care for each other and their offspring. A lot of time, energy, and resources are necessary to bring the next generation up to self-sufficiency, as well as maintain a cohesive bond between communities. Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just take care of ourselves, and live a selfish life? No saving for college educations, use that money for your own selfish enjoyment! But that’s not the way most of us are, because that’s the Altruistic Gene at work.

Life wouldn’t be quite so wonderful, or spiritual, if we were selfish. With joy, we watch our children grow and become their own beings. And we, as parents, revel in their accomplishments, and partake in our own bit of immortality with the next generation.

There is something to be said for rugged individualism, but without caring and intimacy, it’s worthless. So, this Beltane season, revel in the joys of pleasure and intimacy and the bonds they create. For without that bond, life just isn’t as fulfilling. As the Goddess says, “All acts of love and joy are My rituals.” This Beltane season, may we all be bound with the Lord and Lady and revel in joy.

(1) English Carol sung door to door on May Day

********************************************

Lady Arsinoe’s Bio:

Of Eggs and Bunnies… By Lady Arsinoe Can you feel the change? There is a fresh sparkle in the air. The world is being reborn! Life is returning! Flowers are popping up everywhere. Animals are nesting and preparing for the next generation. You may even ...
Ding Dong bin Laden’s Dead! By Lady Arsinoe Well, Enemy No. 1 of the World is dead. Osama bin Laden was killed by a Navy Seal team just over a week ago. Goodie for us. Yay! Don’t get me wrong. The guy deserved it. He was the ...

The Most Important Discovery in the History of Archaeology

religionnerd — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:08:08 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Joe Fernander, Religion Nerd

Have you ever walked around a group of people and caught wind of their conversation? If you’re like most people, you have. Walking through a crowd of students at Georgia State University makes this activity all the more interesting. In one walk around campus you might hear stories of sex, betrayal, money and interestingly enough – Jesus. Today alone I was able to catch seven conversations that were clearly about Jesus and the Bible (not including the street evangelist or Gideon’s). It seems that no matter what religious tradition or worldview you follow, Jesus proves to be of some importance to your life; after all you do live in the year 2010 A.D.

Many practitioners of Christianity long for archaeologist and historians to find extra-biblical artifacts that would prove the resurrection of Jesus. Theories surrounding the resurrection are wide ranging—from the stolen body theory to the physical resurrection theory.

The 1940′s witnessed the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which many believed would illuminate the discussions surrounding the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus; but alas, they merely caused more confusion. Although the Dead Sea Scrolls still are under critical debate, in recent history Jordanian archaeologists have discovered what has been called “the most important discovery in the history of archaeology.”

Between 2005 and 2007 a group of 70 books, each containing five to fifteen bound lead leaves, were discovered in a remote valley in Northern Jordan. Archaeologists are speculating that these books could provide evidence of the earliest Christian writing and may change our understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. This evidence may allow historians and theologians to better piece together how exactly Christianity was born.

The Director of Jordan’s Department of Antiquities, Ziad al-Saad, told BBC that the books (codices) were possibly made by followers of Jesus in the immediate years after the crucifixion. The books are still subject to authenticity checks (as many fraudulent materials have shown up over the past 50+ years), but the evidence gathered in the initial inspection is quite astonishing.

David Elkington, a British scholar of ancient religious archaeology let BBC in on some of the clues that may prove the documents authenticity. These clues include:

The images decorating the cover provide the most telling evidence of an early Christian origin. The upper square of one of the book covers shows the seven-branch menorah, which under Judaism representation would have been forbidden because it resided in the Temple, in the presence of God. The imagery portrayed is that of the Messiah approaching the Holy of Holies gaining legitimacy to God and possibly showing signs of divinity; being one with God.
It is also interesting to point out that early Christians seemed to be more interested in keeping records in books, not scrolls. Most of the early documents we find from the Christian church are in the form of a letter or book. Phillip Davies, Professor Emeritus of Sheffield University states “[Another] one of the things that is most likely pointing towards a Christian provenance, is that these are not scrolls but books. The Christians were particularly associated with writing in a book form rather than scroll form, and sealed books in particular as part of the secret tradition of early Christianity.”
On the front cover of one of the books is an inscription representing a capitol “T” which might represent the Roman cross, used in the crucifixion. If these documents truly are about Jesus, they may provide historians with evidence needed to prove Jesus’ crucifixion.
Some theologians and scholars have gone so far as to speculate that these early codices might be the “Seventh Seal” described in Revelation 5:1-4, 5:12, and 8:1 or Daniel 12:1. Evidence surrounding this theory comes from a Hebrew inscription located at the top of one of the codices stating, “I shall walk uprightly” a phrase found in the books of Isaiah and Revelation.

Currently the Codices are in the hands of an Israeli Bedouin who has denied smuggling them out of Jordan, claiming that they are, in fact, family heirlooms having been in the possession of his family for more than one hundred years. The Jordanian Department of Antiquities told BBC it will “exert all efforts and entry level” to get the relics repatriated.

Archaeologists, scholars, and theologians seem to be on the same page in regards to understanding the meaning behind these documents. With many speculations circling the cyber world, experts in this field of study agree that any serious theories surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus should be taken with a grain of salt until these documents are safe in the hands of those who have the ability to decipher their art and language.

Larry Hurtado, a leading scholar of early Christianity urges those in academia to offer “No comment until the items are placed into the hands of competent experts.” It seems that when important artifacts are discovered it does not take long for speculation to drown out what scholars have to say about the issue, a tragedy Hurtado is trying to avoid.

Since it is clear that Jesus of Nazareth has some bearing on most people’s lives, an archaeological discovery of this nature proves to be very exciting, thought provoking and controversial. Depending on the authenticity, dating, and history of these codices, they may very well be “the most important discovery in the history of archaeology”.

The Day I was Called a “Sand Nigger” by a Tea Party Follower!

religionnerd — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:21:26 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Teo Sagisman, Religion Nerd

The “N” word, one of the vilest and most disgusting words in English language! Every American knows not to use it to address anyone unless they mean to denigrate their target. It has been over a year since my encounter with the man who called me a “sand nigger,” and yet, it seems like yesterday. I was reminded of the incident the other day when I read about the story of an e-mail which included a photo-shopped image of President Obama’s face superimposed on the body of a baby chimpanzee.

This email was created and distributed by Marilyn Davenport, a 74-year-old Tea Party activist and a GOP official from Orange County California. After receiving strong condemnation for her inappropriate depiction of our President, she issued an apology insisting that she was “an imperfect Christian” who tried to “live a Christ-like honoring life.” Religion, bigotry, and politics—all tangled in to one nice political movement that has managed to add yet another venomous layer to American Politics!

The Davenport story revived memories of a personal and painful experience with a Georgia Tea Party follower and made me wonder if a racist mindset is part of the Tea Party’s allure.

The memory of the incident is still fresh. It all started when my wife, Heather, and I decided to go to a popular Atlanta thrift shop in search of some used books. As usual, the parking lot was full and Heather exited the car while I searched for a parking spot. Finding the lot full, I attempted to exit the parking lot and chanced upon an elderly man sitting idle in the middle of the exit lane—holding traffic at a standstill. Engaged in conversation with another patron, the man seemed oblivious to the waiting cars. I assumed he would soon wrap up his conversation and sat in wait for him to clear the roadway. After a minute or two, the cars behind me began to honk their horns in frustration. The man glanced at me and the waiting cars, turned, and continued his conversation.

As the horns behind me became more persistent, I rolled my window down and kindly addressed the elderly man. “Excuse me sir. You are blocking the traffic, could you please move aside?”

His response was unexpectedly hostile. In an angry southern drawl, his face contorted in rage, he turned on me and responded: “You cannot ask anything of me. I do not answer to your kind!”

His response hit me as if he had slapped my face. Stunned, I retraced my actions and decided that I had not done anything to incur his venom. My request was legitimate and his actions were obviously determined by his dislike of my “kind.” But, what exactly was my “kind?” Curious, I inquired, rather naively, “Why can’t I ask you to move? What do you think my kind is?”

This time his response made me regret my attempt to further engage him. “You are not entitled to speak to me. You are nothing but a Sand Nigger—that is what you are!”

This time I felt like I had been punched in the stomach! I regretted my inquiry, but my mind was going a mile minute. How could anyone talk to another person in such demeaning way?—and for no apparent reason except for his own twisted hatred of those he perceived to be “unlike” him. Encountering his unwarranted acrimony, I wondered if he might have been an inspiration for a character in the movie Deliverance. I was as furious as I was indignant! What made him think he was superior to anybody? I sat stunned and visibly upset, but before I could react to what had just occurred, he rolled up his window and pulled out of the parking lot.

The traffic jam now freed of its instigator; I pulled into a vacated parking spot. As I exited my vehicle, I looked at the numerous patrons who had witnessed, and heard, the verbally vicious encounter. They tried not to meet my eyes and I wondered if they were embarrassed at his words, agreed with his assessment, or if they were ashamed that they remained silent. It was then that I noticed the racist asshole hadn’t left the area but had pulled across the street and parked in front of the Post Office.

Without thinking, I determined to confront him and his disgusting attitude. I would not take his insults and let him have the last word. This guy did not know me; he demeaned me purely based on my looks and my accent. My olive complexion, dark hair, beard, and accent had obviously initiated his racist anti-immigrant rant. I am aware that in the eyes of some Americans, “not white means not right” but I was determined not to allow his loutish slurs to go unchallenged. I wanted an explanation for his tirade, a look, if you will, into a mindset that is totally beyond me.

He noticed my approach and assumed a defiant posture. As I got closer to his new model burgundy van, I could not help but notice that his license plate was from a rural Georgia county or the sacred (religious and political) symbols on his bumper and back window. I wondered at how he perceived these symbols. As I approached the vehicle, I made note of the McCain/Palin bumper sticker displayed prominently on the rear window. The bumper itself was adorned with a Tea Party bumper sticker sandwiched between a Jesus Fish and a What Would Jesus Do sticker. At that moment, I realized I was dealing with a genuine politically-conservative religiously-Christian bigot.

As he saw me coming, he yelled: “Don’t get near me!” I snapped back: “Who do you think you are to call me such vile names. I did absolutely nothing to warrant such disrespect.” Sadly, he blurted a slightly expanded version of the same crap again.

“Don’t you dare speak to me? You are not entitled to speak to me. Why don’t you get on the damned boat you came in and go back to your fucking country?” I yelled back “I live here. I am an American and it is my right to live here!” To which he responded, “All of you sand niggers and foreigners need to leave us alone and go back to where you came from!”

At that moment, I found myself wanting to offend him as much as he offended me and my response surprised me as much as it infuriated him. I looked into his hate filled eyes and said, “I’d rather be a sand nigger than an ignorant half baked inbred racist like you!” I could not believe what came out of my mouth! I saw his color change from pale white to a purplish red; his face contorted in rage. I thought he probably wished the federal laws that protected the rights of ALL citizens, especially the minorities, did not exist so he could openly arrange a lynching for me!

At that moment, I realized that I would not get an explanation for his offensive rhetoric and any further attempt to do so would probably end with the police being called to the scene. I didn’t like his ideology but also didn’t like how angry it made me. Staring at his contorted purple face, I shrugged and said, “You’re not worth it.” And with that assessment, I turned and a walked away.

Furious at my dismissal of him, he began screaming after me. “Don’t you turn your back on me you sand nigger, you are a sand nigger! Go back to your fucking country!”

Walking away was not easy as my fury compelled me to do more than throw words, but I knew from past encounters with other bigots that there is no way to argue with them; their judgment clouded by years of unsubstantiated hatred. With propaganda machines like Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and a plethora of websites dedicated to dividing our diverse nation, paranoia and hatred is rife.

That was the end of my encounter with the Tea Party enthusiast who found the idea of a McCain/Palin presidency comforting as the Jesus stickers provided cover for his intolerant ideology toward those he considers not “real” Americans.

I consider myself an American, part of this fantastically diverse society. Although, born in Istanbul, Turkey, I have been living in the U.S. for more than half my life, a naturalized citizen for many years. This was not my first encounter with discrimination or racism but over the last few years, I have noticed an increase—an almost frenzied need—by some Americans to find a target, someone to blame for society’s woes. Yet this xenophobic lout managed to set my teeth on edge. His predetermined categories created only one place for me in his worldview—the enemy—an intruder on his land, and one not deserving of respect.

It has been a little over a year since this incident but I find that it has changed my psyche in profound ways. Although I know this “Deliverance” type mentality is something embraced by a minority of Americans and that the majority are, like my wife, welcoming, compassionate, and tolerant of other cultures and races, I am fearful of the media hype and political power accorded to those who push their paranoid, hate filled agenda. I am distrustful of Tea Party statements of inclusivity because of my experiences with the thug at the thrift store as well as other Tea Party enthusiasts I encountered over the last few years. The blatant racism displayed by Marilyn Davenport and my Georgian Tea Party bigot makes me wonder at the layers of societal issues that bind this movement together.

This shocking encounter, so sharp in my memory, was also a valuable learning experience. Whenever I find myself slipping toward a negative generalization and categorization of all Tea Party followers, McCain/Palin supporters, and Christians as insufferable racists, I am reminded of the hatred I experienced and, I remember what I do not want to become. Denigrating ALL for the actions of a FEW is futile and only adds to an already saturated divisive atmosphere. I can’t change the angry old white man I encountered but I can be aware of the slippery slope he chose to go down. I choose not to go there.

The Mainstreaming of Islamaphobia By J.F. Sullivan While the 9/11 attacks are likely the dominant catalyst, it may be more appropriate to mark the mainstreaming of Islamaphobia with the emergence of Pamela Geller and the Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA) group in 2010.[1] Their ...
Psalm 109 Imprecatory Prayer Case to Go Forward in Texas By Chris Rodda, Talk To Action For the past year and a half or so, droves of right wing Christian websites have been selling a variety of "Pray for Obama" items -- t-shirts, bumper stickers, hats, and even teddy bears -- ...

While ‘His Purtiness’ Bleeds on the Wall, Humanity Watches Your Back

religionnerd — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 02:24:59 +0000

Get Shareaholic

By Michel-Camille Bordeau

I’ve never been entirely satisfied with radical views that reject the possibility that a higher entity ‘exists’ (stick with me, this is still a freethinking argument, I haven’t lost it… yet). Complete denial of such an important cultural creation as God is no less problematic than blind devotion to it. ‘How about God as a fig Newton of our imagination?’ My kid would ask. I couldn’t blame him: how about God as a re-presented, fictionalized entity?

It would be dishonest, shameful, and delusional to deny centuries of anthropological ‘evidence’ of the divine. If we respect Humanity and we work toward its steady survival, can we really ignore Goddesses and Gods, this incredibly rich, anthropo-cultural collage of paintings, writings, sculptures, songs, stories, impulses, etc.? Hardly.

This über-representation of the Divine is undeniably evident, tangible, visible, appreciable, even when it cannot provide existential proof of a breathing and living entity. The idea of god is as thick as a bible, as sturdy as a cathedral, as mind-soothing as a choir, as convoluted as a theological argument, as tragically gruesome as a Jesus nailed to a cross, again and again and again. Goodness that’s not purty and that’s got to hurt!

What’s the point of denying the rhetorical, symbolic, poetic, philosophical, architectural, proto-scientific, linguistic, in short, exoteric re-presentations of the Divine? We are surrounded by this über-depiction, we can’t pretend to be freethinkers and be blind to it.

To put it another way, I refuse to deny the artistic evidence of Tom Sawyer, Madame Bovary, Liz Bennet, Seshata, and Socrates; that would constitute too great a loss for our/my cultural understanding of Humanity. As a scriptotheist, I don’t see why I should ignore evidence of this über-represented Divine: ‘Theo’s ‘scripted’ representation.*

The more I know about how and why we have ‘fictionalize’ deities, the better I understand why God is a fiction that will never work for me.

Created gods and goddesses have stimulated and still stimulate our minds because they are music, words, images, shapes, and ideas clever humans have created to do just that: to tease our minds, or more precisely, to stimulate both spiritual impulse and religious impulse. These ’purty’ (aesthetically stimulating) creations can make us feel ‘purty’ inside (physiologically stimulated).

And that’s how the Buddhist will be in awe in front of Notre Dame, the Christian will admire the craftsmanship of a Mandala, and I, a scriptotheist, will admire the collective genius of the men and women who have work tirelessly to erect thousands of temples and other churches throughout the world.

But, I can be in a state of anthropological beatitude in front of a perfectly preserved, three thousand years old clay tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh, without ever having to know or care to know about the cultural motivations, the inspired theology, behind its creation. And what goes for ancient Mesopotamian culture goes also for the cultures of the Axial Age, Confucianism, Greek philosophy, Egyptian, Judaic, Christian and Muslim theologies.

His purtiness (the re-presented Divine) can stimulate our hearts by purtiness alone. Can I be so obvious as to say that Beauty (in our eyes) can only be Beauty (in our hearts).

Again, it would be shameful to ignore the creative effects, the fulfillment of basic impulses resulting from fictional creations like Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, Ann Rice’s vampires and her Jesus, and my kid’s Ninjatag (his clever creation). Why should I ignore the creative effects of the Great Seshata, Egyptian Goddess of Scribes, Siddharta, the Christian trinity, or even the more recent Joseph Smith?

As a scriptotheist, I will never ignore the creative effects of these fictionalized deities, but I’m not foolish or delusional enough as to set my existential clock solely on aesthetic ‘purtiness.’ When it comes to the welfare of Humanity (and my own welfare since, as a species, we are all intricately connected) I like to draw a clear line between fictionalize world and life’s reality. That is why I do not waste my time with what I call make-believers, clergymen (and women strangely enough) quoting scriptures from times so ancient that (1) they are culturally irrelevant to our daily survival (2) no matter how hard organized religions try to make them work. How irrelevant?

Many of you know how much I value Health, Education, Love, and Lucidity for all, how I like to tease by saying that Humanity should be on a HELL4ALL regimen—bad pun intended. But you also know how dedicated and passionate I am about these four basic human needs. How dedicated? As humanly as possible.

In matters of Health, I will trust a licensed Nurse, Therapist, and Doctor over a clergyman… no matter how well he can talk about healing miracles.

In matters of Education, I will trust a University educated Teacher, Counselor, and professor over a clergyman… no matter how big and ancient-looking his book is, no matter how well he speaks behind his lectern.

In matters of Love, I will trust those who understand why I long to reciprocate Love with them over a clergyman… no matter how well he pretends to know me like he knows the rest of Humanity, his prophet and his gang of saints included.

In matters of Lucidity, I will trust those who contribute daily to my good Health, Education, and are deserving of reciprocated Love over a clergyman… no matter how ‘purty’ his book, his speech, or his undivided attention might be.

In matters of Health, Education, Love, and Lucidity, I simply trust Humanity, my next of kin. And that’s what makes me a proud scriptotheist, it’s as simple as that.

Do you trust Humanity in matters of Health, Education, Love, and Lucidity? HELL you should!

*Here you have it: the ‘script’ in ‘scriptotheist’ is for the undeniable ’evidence’ of the über-fictionalized/represented of the divine.

*********************************************

Michel-Camille Bordeau is the founder and author of The School of Seshata (www.scriptotheism.net), a blog about secular spirituality and the home of the Scriptopedia Project. Michel earned an M.A. in French Studies from The Ohio State University (1998). Mid-life crisis oblige, he is returning to college in August 2011, to pursue an M.S.W. with a specialization in Mental Health & Drugs of Abuse. Before relocating to Atlanta, Michel was an Academic Advisor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus, for nearly ten years. He has advised many students (and parents) on academic and life matters. He taught English, Public Speaking, Humanities, and French at various colleges and universities. In 2002, Michel published Poire Sucrée, Salée, Epicée, a short novel about a dance teacher forced to face the demons of her past. He is currently seeking representation for Seeing Purple, a dystopian novel set in Anaïs Abelard’s hometown, the New Orleans of tomorrow, also home to the power-hungry mega church known as the Calvinistry. Michel considers himself an amateur ‘atheologist’ and he often writes under the nom de plume Anais Abelard.

In response to Deepak Chopra’s Atheists’ Mistake: Liberal Spirituality By Michel-Camille Bordeau In his most recent article, famed spiritual author Deepak Chopra expresses his concern that “By making belief in God their enemy... atheists deprive themselves of what spirituality is really about: a process of inner growth.” Chopra's short article is a ...
Mercy Rule Rules: When Catechism Loses the Religious and Spiritual Battle to Soccer By Michel Camille Bordeau There is an ever-increasing body of research in psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and religious studies that question the often assumed connection between theistic religiosity and spirituality. What's gravely missing from traditional theistic assumptions is that spirituality as ...

Magical Thinking Is Crazy!

religionnerd — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:32:45 +0000

Get Shareaholic

Lady Arsinoe

A lot of people think magic and witchcraft is for hippies, crazies, or those who have been kidnapped by aliens. I would say to them, a lot of “normal” people are running around with some pretty cognitive dissonant ideas of their own (Birthers, for example. Or any politician. And Fundamentalists of every stripe). The problem for these people is I have facts and science to back up my beliefs, not just wishful thinking. Beliefs I am more than willing to change if contrary evidence and fact is provided.

I also realize that no matter how many facts, backed up by well-crafted studies, with irrefutable evidence presented, some people just will not let go of their preconceived notions. A lot of the time, I get “Come on, how can you take that stuff seriously? Magic is something out of trashy fantasy stories! Nobody’s dumb enough to think it really works!”

Let’s break these statements into parts:

1) Come on, how can you take that stuff seriously? Easily. I am a scientist, in hard science disciplines (Geology, Physics, Mathematics). I firmly believe that if it can’t be stated in mathematics, it’s not science. Just because a study seems ‘out there’, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Plate Tectonics was once considered fringe nuttiness because it didn’t conform to the paradigm of the time. Now, however, the science has proved true and the once dubious hypothesis is now the working norm.

After Sir Isaac Newton developed his Mechanical Universe theories, the scientists of the day thought there was nothing else worth discovering. They had the idea that they understood everything and all the good science had been done. Then radiation was discovered. And that darned Einstein came along and threw a monkey-wrench in the whole understanding of the universe! The point is—preconceived notions get in the way of new discovery. Entrenched science is continually challenged by those upstarts willing to think outside the box.

2) Magic is something out of trashy fantasy stories! Sure it is. So what? Jules Verne wrote science fiction fantasy stories. He predicted in the 1800s that man would travel to the moon. Arthur C. Clarke wrote profusely on science fiction and fantasy. He also came up with the idea that geostationary satellites would be ideal telecommunications relays. At the time, people thought he was nuts. Who would have thought 50, or even 20, years ago, that we would be able to be able to carry miniature computers in our hands and communicate via video with the other side of the planet? Dick Tracy did. And now we have smartphones.

One person’s “magic” is another’s “science”. In the middle of the last century (wow, does that sound weird to you, too?), the US Government sponsored research at the Stanford Research Institute and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) into the applicability of psychic functioning. Did you see the moving “Men Who Stare at Goats”? Yep, that really happened. But, unlike the movie (which was pretty awful, by the way), SRI and SAIC proved there really is something to psi power, but the government couldn’t figure a way to use it to spy on the Russians. Ten different experiments were conducted, six of those methods had p-values of <0.5 (range 9.1×10^-8 to 0.046) and effect sizes of 0.123 to 0.550 (if you aren’t a math geek, go look up p-value and effect size for yourself). What this means is that results these experiments were statistically significant and there was a measurable effect. The same experiments were then conducted in different labs, but with very similar results. That kind of consistence cannot be explained away by shoddy techniques or fraud.

3) Nobody’s dumb enough to think it really works! The Society for Scientific Exploration is a professional organization of over 800 scientists and scholars who study unusual and unexplained phenomena. Many of these individuals are involved in ”hard science” disciplines. Many of their studies have shown that magical thinking isn’t crazy. Many have also debunked magical theories. That’s the point of science. Testing hypotheses, learning what works and what doesn’t, and forming new hypotheses to test.

J. B. S. Haldane once stated, ‘The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it’s stranger than we can imagine.” Just because something is strange or outlandish doesn’t mean it can’t be true.

***********************************************

Lady Arsinoe’s Bio:

Ding Dong bin Laden’s Dead! By Lady Arsinoe Well, Enemy No. 1 of the World is dead. Osama bin Laden was killed by a Navy Seal team just over a week ago. Goodie for us. Yay! Don’t get me wrong. The guy deserved it. He was the ...
The Lusty Month of May “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; I wish you a happy day; I'm come to show my garland, because it's the First of May. A bunch of May I have brought you, and at your door it stands; it is but a ...

ReligionNerd.com » Guest Contributor

NASA, the Mayan Apocalypse, and the Study of Non-Events

By Matt Sheedy, Religion Bulletin

Related Posts:

Pop Culture & the Universalization of Religion through Disney: An Emic Perspective

By Lizabeth Lyon-Brown, Georgia State University

From the top please!

I’ve got some swampland for sale, cheap!

Where to now?

A new religion?

Related Posts:

The Dogs of God

Related Posts:

Trans-Vaginal Politics

Maureen Dempsey, RNC-OB

Related Posts:

The Final Harvest

By Lady Arsinoe

Related Posts:

An Atheist with Atheists United

Related Posts:

Stonewalling Social Justice: Sex, Sin and Family Values in Sodom and Gomorrah

By Sherry Morton

About the Author

Related Posts:

Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1879) – The Question of Polygamy

By: Christa Lasher

Related Posts:

Religion, Politics & Patronage: The Galileo Affair

Related Posts:

Fish out of Water: On Being an Atheist in a Religious Culture

By Dale McGowan

An early fascination

Coming out

Indoctrination vs. influence

Related Posts:

Firewalking as Spiritual Transformation

By Dan Beckett

Related Posts:

Starving for God: Foodless Dieting For the Soul

By Joseph Rosenthal, Georgia State University

Related Posts:

Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell

By Tito Ferguson, Georgia State University

About Tito Ferguson

Related Posts:

Ding Dong bin Laden’s Dead!

By Lady Arsinoe

Related Posts:

Memories of A Moderate Muslim Woman

By Teo Sagisman

Related Posts:

The Lusty Month of May

By Lady Arsinoe

Related Posts:

The Most Important Discovery in the History of Archaeology

By Joe Fernander, Religion Nerd

Related Posts:

The Day I was Called a “Sand Nigger” by a Tea Party Follower!

By Teo Sagisman, Religion Nerd

Related Posts:

While ‘His Purtiness’ Bleeds on the Wall, Humanity Watches Your Back

By Michel-Camille Bordeau

Related Posts:

Magical Thinking Is Crazy!

Lady Arsinoe

Related Posts: