A Little Prayer from a Non-Prayer-Type-Person

Tonight, I consider Joshua 1.9:

Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, nor dismayed: for the Lord your G-d is with you wherever you go.

May we all be of good courage, and find the strength we need.

All the best for a smooth Friday, a good end of the week's hurry, and a fine weekend!

Pondering...

In Buddhist ethics, the Anguttaranikaya identifies four categories of people: (1) those who live neither for their own good nor for the good of others; (2) those who live for the good of others but not for their own good; (3) those who live for their own good but not for the good of others; and (4) those who live for both their own good and for the good of others.

Which am I, and which shall I be?

Here's a Chase. Perhaps You'd Like to Cut to It.

Why do people waste so much energy calling Scientology "evil" and a "cult"? I think "silly" and a "money pit" seem to be much more convincing and less open to personal perception issues.

Heck, the cost of it alone would keep me away from it, even if I were tempted. Thank heavens cocaine, booze and petrol are likewise.

See? There is a bright side to poverty, afterall!

Finally, a Reason to Like Canada's Border Gaurds

For those of who haven't heard, the Westboro (so-called) Baptist Church from Kansas is planning to disrupt the funeral of that young fellow killed on a Greyhound in Manitoba. They say the killing was an act of G-d that he deserved for being a "rebellious carny", and that Canada earned for our "rebellion" against G-d by being a "gay friendly" nation.

The government has alerted the border not to let these people in. Normally, I would say this just adds fuel to the fire of Americans who like to see Canada as a socialist tyranny. However, in balance to the idea of this kid's parents having to attend their son's funeral with screaming idiots outside explaining how he deserved it, I am all for the strong arm of the border lending their protection here.

This guy was a carny, yes, and perhaps he wasn't a saint. In fact, I am pretty perturbed by people tossing the label "hero" out on him - this is a term that has been practically destroyed by the Oprah crowd's desecration of it. He was neither a saint, nor a hero. He was a person. One who didn't deserve to be butchered in his sleep. Let's not forget that last part.

Whatever or whoever you worship, you can stick it up your ass when it's someone else's son being buried.

This is a horrible thing all around, and while I can't say I am uninterested in the story (especially when it comes to more news about the killer and what he was thinking/going through to make this situation arise), I do think it is time for people to move on. It was all the media coverage and rubber-necking that caused the victim to become a lightening rod for these freaks.

Let's let them mourn in peace, shall we?

Please, leave them alone.

Shhhh...

...it's Silence Day.

Keep it to Yourself, Gomer

US marine removed over coin claim
(From the BBC News.)

The coins were reportedly distributed at a checkpoint in Falluja

A US marine in Iraq has been removed from duty following claims that he handed out coins inscribed with biblical verses in Arabic.

Residents in Falluja had complained that the coins were being distributed at a checkpoint, the US military said.

US troops are forbidden from proselytising any religion.

The case comes a week after US President George Bush made a personal apology over a US soldier in Iraq shot holes into a version of the Koran.

In the Falluja incident, a military statement said a service member had been discharged "amid concerns from Falluja's citizens regarding reports of inappropriate conduct".

A report from McClatchy News Service carried a photo of a silver coin it said had been distributed in the Iraqi city.

Written in Arabic script on one side of the coin were the words: "Where will you spend eternity?"

On the other side, the news service said there was a Bible verse referring to Jesus: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16."

Koran shooting

Military spokesman Mike Isho told McClatchy that marines at the western gate in Falluja had been searched following a report about the coins.

One man found with the coins was reassigned and would no longer be working in the central Anbar province, he said.

The military said coalition forces were prohibited from "proselytising any religion, faith or practices, and our troops are trained on those guidelines before they deploy".

It is still investigating the incident and says "appropriate action will be taken" if claims about the coins are substantiated.

Earlier this month, a soldier was sent home from Iraq after a Koran was found riddled with bullets in a shooting range near Baghdad.

The incident triggered a violent protest by more than 1,000 people in Afghanistan in which three people died.

=shudder=

I found and watched the Tom Cruise video online today - the much-buzzed-about Scientology recruiting video that the Little Man made for the organization. The video is now under lock and key by the group (which is busy suing every YouTube user who dares to post it, hence my lack of links to the thing - sorry, but I don't need a law suit), but a few brave souls are still out there trying to show the thing.

I can see why they are hiding it, actually. Aside from Cruise being his usual, inarticulate, dink-self and a terrifyingly jumped up git, it's also kind of horrible.

Did you know Tom Cruise is the ONLY PERSON who can help at accident sites? That Tom Cruise is the only person who can assist you in any life crisis from drug abuse to hangnails, all because HE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO SEES LIFE AS IT REALLY IS?

Far from making me in the least interested in becoming a Scientologist, it really just makes me want to kick Tom in the nuts, hard and repeatedly, until he stops laughing like a mentally handicapped hyena over his domination on earth.

Remember, as the ominous narrator tells us at the end: "Tom Cruise, Scientologist, has ONLY JUST BEGUN!"

Scary words, indeed.

Two Very Different Movies (and a Quick Third)

I saw two very different, yet equally engrossing movies recently. The first was the cult classic Harold and Maude (1971) and the second was Jesus Camp (2006).


Harold and Maude is the unlikely romance between a 20-year-old man/child, Harold, and the 79-year-old Holocaust survivor, Maude. Drawn by their peculiar habit of frequenting local funerals (he out of his obsession with death, her out of her desire to re-affirm life in the face of death), they become unlikely friends, though rather unwillingly on the part of Harold, who until he met Maude, was living a life of isolation amidst the wealth and privilege of his family. Maude, a free-spirit radical, a spirit of youth and freedom, manages to open Harold's eyes to the fact that life has a few advantages over death. Meandering and dulcet, this movie is hardly a thrill-ride, but it is enchanting in its own way, and quite wickedly funny in its moments. It is not hard to see how it has, from its humble beginnings as a box-office disaster, become recognized as one of the funniest American movies and has been selected for preservation by the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress. Directed by Hal Ashby and starring Bud Cort and the delightful Ruth Gordon, this is one not to be missed.

The second film, Jesus Camp, is far less enjoyable, but, nevertheless, is in its way also not to be missed. A documentary that hides its filmmakers and attempts to appear as "neutral," it is hard to imagine there wasn't an alarmist agenda behind the production of this film, because, truly, it is alarming. Briefly following the lives of Evangelical home-schooled children and the pastors and parents who raise them, it explores the process of the summer bible camp phenomenon. Having worked in a summer daily bible camp in my early Baptist phase (long story), I never really had a bad feeling about these things. Kids come, they colour a bit, they sing a few songs, they give their folks a break, and then they go home. Sure, it was Christian, but in the guitar strumming, general ethics sort of way. The titular Jesus Camp, however, is not like that.


Frankly, this movie terrified me. The sight of teary-faced 6 years olds screaming about the war on the liberals, the war on abortion, the war on non-believers in the government, etc... It sent chills down my spine. Comparing the fundamentalist beliefs of such camps with the more moderate (compassion over authoritarian) Christian radio commentator Mike Papantonio, one really gets the picture of the true divisions facing progress in the United States today - not just between the Christians and the non-Christians, but also for the Christians who are baffled by how such conservative and politically militant forces have hijacked the meaning of Jesus in America.

This film also gives a look at more personal conflicts. A fascinating, if painful, vision; one which I would like to see a follow-up. One small blond boy, in particular, of no more than seven or so, is seen crying and praying with anguish over his sinful, cynical nature - him, I want to know more about. Jesus Camp also give a new understanding to why so many young Christians contemplate (or even attempt) suicide. The guilt and fear is too much for some children, and I desperately want to know how that little boy fared.

In order to take the taste out of my mouth, I forayed into the ridiculous next, with Hot Fuzz (2007). That one, on the other hand, while amusing, could be missed without much harm. However, it did distract for two hours. So that was appreciated. I leave it to you which one you'd prefer.

A Pre-Exam Flow of Consciousness

For my exam, I am expected to contemplate the most fearsome and loathsome subject any religion scholar has to face: The definition of religion. I think I could tell you, in general, what religion is, though I am better at deconstructing definitions than I am at constructing them. Definitions confine and stifle. As we cannot name G-d without being G-d, because to name something is to own and control it, so too can we not name (define) religion without that act having serious repercussions for our field and work.

Definitions of religion try to (a) give the essential nature of religion, (b) help categorize, describe and identify religion, and (c) make religions translatable for an audience. They often try to encompass all the traditions the author can think of in some way, and they also try to include some stand on why religion exists (i.e. religion is made for social control, or social cohesion, or for human comfort, etc.).

Sadly, definitions of religion are most often written by scholars who consider religion the humanities equivalent of cancer: study it, recognize its importance, but don’t catch it, and, for heaven’s sake, hope for a cure. As my friend A. has reminded me, though, they treat religion worse than cancer, because at least they recognize cancer is real.

Therefore, if any of us do try to define religion, we do it awkwardly and with heavily varied success rates. Most of the time, scholars give primacy to one side or the other of observable religion; Either religion is a set of rituals or organizations, or, which is more popular in post-Enlightenment western thought, religion is a belief system that creates actions and organizations. That is to say, scholars often base their definition of religion within the observable ethical codes expressed by religious traditions. They give priority to the internal, rather than the external.

Now this is far from saying that religionists discuss faith. Far from it. Faith for religionists is a bit like the theory that Martians built the pyramids: You can’t see evidence, so it doesn’t exist, and if you tried to argue based on it, you’d get laughed out of the academy.

To put it bluntly: Cat lovers love cats, but rarely do they like to handle their poop. This is how religionists seem to take faith. Faith is religion’s poop, and no one knows how to handle it except to pretend they don’t smell it.

So religionists stick to talking around religion: what religions do, what the say they believe, and how they function. Also, religionists love to talk about how religion will end, and stroke their apothecary’s beards and predict its demise now that the world is smarter.

And they love to ask their students to define it. Because, truth be told, no one really knows what religion is.

You may not know that. I think everyone thinks they know what religion is until you have to define it, right?

Is it belief in a deity? Then what of atheistic forms of Buddhism? Is it a set of theological beliefs? Then what of humanist Jews who practice the religious traditions of their ancestors but have not adopted their spiritual beliefs? Is it a set of rituals? Then where does belief come in? And what do we do with flag ceremonies? Is it designed by people, or revealed by a higher power?

Is it like this or that, and this or that only, or is it wider? What does it smell like, taste like, sound like? Can you pick it up?

Does it have a beginning and an end, or is eternal?

For religion to have a definition, or an end, for me, it has to have a form and a shape. It has to have an essential nature, and that is where I stumble. I understand the need to have, as Plato recommended, a vague idea of what a chair is so you know where to sit, but when you actually sit down to write an abstract and generalized definition of religion – that is where the proverbial poop hits the fan.

Religion is one of the most reified objects on the planet. If we are Catholic, than that becomes the abstract measuring stick by which we see religion. This limits one’s view a bit, and, no matter how liberal minded you are as a Catholic (or Jew, or Wiccan, etc) you will be tied to the assumptions you make about all religion based on what your own religion is like. Therein lies the pit-trap of defining religion. Once we give it a form, it is no longer accurate, and rarely do we fully understand the power and roots of our act of definition.

If you say something has four legs and a back, it may be a chair, alright, but you’ll never know what it really looks like, or how comfortable it is, or where it was purchased, will you? And don’t you, just a little bit, kill creativity in yourself if you were to design a whole new chair? Doesn’t that definition limit, just a bit?

And doesn’t it narrow your choices when looking for something to use as a chair?

“Religion,” like other large and (from my assumptions) universal concepts such as “medicine” or “terrorism” or “sexuality,” will always be with us. This is precisely because it has no distinct form, but, rather, it is something that bubbles beneath our surface. It is a part of humanity’s tool kit, and we can pull it out and use it whenever we have the need. You cannot just erase it from being. Only distinct forms of religion, such as the Church of England or Neanderthal mother worship, can fade away, but the actual impulse remains. Likewise, we can only describe the manifestation of religion, not necessarily the essence of religion, at least not in a paragraph, and certainly not completely detached from some context.

Religion is a non-thing. You can’t prepare a slide of it and look at it. It is intangible, and one thing I have learned from studying it for ten years is that the more you look at it, the harder it becomes to see.

If we took it in engineering terms, religion is an energy. Energy travels through conduits with concrete shape and specifications, and human kind has learned to use it. You can see the effects of it, you can almost see the thing itself, but you can’t destroy it, and you can’t pin it down. Energy (of which I have a wholly imperfect understanding, so be kind to my analogy), like religion, is unending and quicksilver. Once you have seen it, it has already long sense moved on.

Some people will use the water analogy, as in religion is like the flow of water from one point to another – it changes surface and speed, and cannot be harnessed fully. I can dig this, but religion, for me, is much more free than water. Water has a density to it – it is inherently earthbound. Religion, more accurately, is not water as a liquid, but as a vapor. Traditionalists want religion to come in ice form, frozen into a solid shape. Liberals want it to be water – partly because this is oh so deliciously hippy and gynocentric imagery, but mostly because they want to promote an idea of progression or evolution of religion. But religion is gaseous in its natural state

Remember, religion is so light that immigrants carry it over in a nap sack, so it has to be lighter than air. Also, it cannot spill, dent or shatter, can it? Otherwise, it would not have survived the unification of the brain hemispheres, or Luther, or Auschwitz, or television. The vapor, like faith, is ephemeral and without form, it can only be contained, not molded.

For example, we speak of "Judaism,” but that is false. There are millions of "Judaisms." There are over 13 million Jews in the world and each has his or her own Judaism, unique to the way that person constructs their identity and place. The best we can do is to group these people into kinds, such as Orthodox or Reform.

But, then, at each point in their life, the person's particular Judaism is also different, so we not only get linear variation, but also circular, temporal and circumstantial, like a spiritual fractal, as Murph the math whiz reminds me. My Judaism when I speak of it to you is different than the one I present to others. So with in just myself I have a dozen different Judaisms. That does not mean there isn't a core, that which is the tradition as I have inherited it. But, rather, like a pearl, the layers change it, and, like a pearl, it changes in the different lights

I can present Judaism with authority, not because I am a rabbi, but because I live the faith as I see fit. My Judaism is merely the one which I present. In reality, Judaism is one of those pointillist paintings, you know? From a distance, you see a picture, while up close, you see a million dots. Some would say these dots are unconnected, but they are still made of paint.

And before you come at me with an Asadian attack, I don't believe that my individualist understanding of religion is strictly post-Luther or post-Enlightenment. I think that religion has always been this way, Luther merely reflected what people were doing anyway. I don't believe even the basest of cave men was devoid of his own sense of his religion. That is why we have Socrates, Jesus, Abraham, Mohammad, the Buddha, Plato... Each one just had the charisma and rhetorical abilities to make his own faith a popular and public idea.

But where was I?

The danger of making concrete something that is inherently non-material is that you lose the variation. That is when people start to feel they have to right to burn the witches, never realizing that there is always the witch, the conservative and the iconoclast in each of us, depending on the moment. We all adapt – religion’s face is the negotiation between what we have been told is right and what we believe to be right. In a way, religion is that mediation between the transcendent and the material.

That is what is fascinating about studying religion – it is never the same river twice, to return to the water analogy and to steal an image from Wittgenstein. Religion is a composite of authority, tradition, texts, life, agency and subjectivity, and that is the basic point that makes defining it impossible for me. That grey zone and variation, for me, eludes capture and confinement into boxes.

It is true that, as scholars, we do need some functional definition of religion, at least enough so that we can know what to look for. Sort of akin to needing to know roughly what a wall is before you can find the light switch, eh? Mine happens to be “I know it when I see it,” but I have a feeling that that would not win me any points on this exam.

My other working definition in order to locate religion and religious behaviour to study is “that which someone presents as having religious value is religion.” Too simple? Very likely, but I feel that this also prevents us from missing phenomenon we might otherwise over look. The revolutionary idea here? Why not ask religious people what religion is, and stick to the particular forms?

The more mankind tries to bottle and contain and segregate religion, the more it bursts forth, because, in all honesty, man needs faith or some kind or sort. Faith in what is his own decision, but it must exist. Even atheism is a type of faith; you have faith that G-d doesn't exits. And it does take a lot of faith to say "hell doesn't exist and I am going to live this way, even if I am wrong about it."

Whenever you give primacy to one reified concept of religion, you lose a lot – you focus on a tree to the point of missing out on a wonderful forest, a precious forest that is ours to protect and enjoy as part of our human heritage and shared culture.

(Aside: So now religion is a forest?? Ok… fine.)

This forest has trees; the trees have branches; the branches have cells, and so forth. The Tree Itself is composed of the bark, the cork, the cells, the veins, the leaves, the fruit, etc. Each of these things represents an aspect of the tree, but each of these things is no more The Tree Itself than is any one part less a part of the tree than another. For what can we say is the essential part of the tree?

But the forest also has shrubs, grass, birds and rain. And also wonderful amounts of mulch – that which enriches the soil and feeds the trees, made from other trees that have long since died. Somewhere between the food of the tree, the parts of the tree, the product of the tree, The Tree Itself, the birds who live in the trees, and the animals that takes shelter in it… therein lies religion, along with the loggers who kill the trees, the wardens who protect it, and the entirety of the forest itself as a primordial network of flow (not to mention the literary or conceptual idea of the forest that doesn’t even depend on a single acorn to grow).

None of this ramble is a new concept, so don’t accuse me of patting myself on the back (all none of you who are still reading). But I do like to remind people of this issue when they ask me to define religion.

I know, you see, that if I could define religion, religion would be not worth studying.
*

Imagine a World Void of Worship

... You are now entering the Secularization Zone.

Today, and for the next week, comp books are all focusing on the once-popular Secularization Theory, now also known as the Secularization Myth by the Antis.

This Theory/Myth is based on the post-Enlightenment idea that religion will gradually just disappear as education, science, rationality, assimilation and consumerism all do their work. However reasonable this belief may have seemed in the 60s when it started, the political feel of the 80s, and certainly today's political climate, seems to blow it out of the water.


This week, I wade into the shoals of argument between some of the heavy hitters of the Secularization Debate (Berger, Casanova, Bruce, and Stark & Finke). Ultimately, my department wants me to come up with a well-structured argument for which side I come down on. Me, I'm not so good at taking sides really, but since my gut reaction to the Secularization Theory is "hogwash," I guess that gives me something to start with.

Today's reading: The Sacred Canopy, by Peter L. Berger, one of the canonical texts for the Pros.

I'll keep you posted.
*

Peace in the World (Religions)

Today in 1893, Chicago hosted the landmark first meeting of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. Despite the regrettable exclusion of Native spiritual leaders, this congress is often hailed as the official first step towards an era of interfaith dialogue in North America and beyond.

For 17 days, religious leaders, scholars and adepts from both Eastern and Western religious traditions met to share their experiences, educate each other, and to discuss common goals and challenges facing their professions and communities. Today, the congress is most especially remembered for the memorable appearance of the legendary Swami Vivekananda, who is often credited with introducing Hinduism to North America, and began the fascination with yogic wisdom that is still with us today.

The Parliament of the World’s Religions was a groundbreaking event in many ways, and was a major date in the development of the academic study of religion, as well as the increasing tolerance for diversity in the West. The Parliament expressed a desire amongst religious people to understand themselves and their counterparts in a broader global and multicultural world, and it aimed to highlight the commonalities amongst the world’s religious traditions, as well as to celebrate and study their differences.

With such a promising start, it is a shame to report that religious intolerance and misunderstandings still persist. Perhaps, today of all days, a memory of these delegates and what they were trying to do way back in 1893 is most especially needed.
*

For Heaven’s Sake – Don’t Pray!

Have you seen this little wonder? The story of a Hasidic (has this been confirmed, or was it just a guess that he was?) man removed from an Air Canada Jazz flight because he was praying? It seems his active, yet relatively sedate, Orthodox prayers so unnerved his fellow passengers that he was removed from the plane, even though several of the passengers did not recall being annoyed at all by his prayers.

They also remember, in specific, the steward noting that she realized it wasn’t a Muslim prayer, but it was still bothering people… My question: So what if it had been a Muslim prayer?

All I can say is, it is a good thing we don’t have armed air marshals, or who knows where this could have gone. Further, where else would one pray but when strapped on a tin can hurtling through the air with nothing but an air current between you and death? I don’t know about you, but that sort of thing would make me find G-d… Even if I were a Muslim.

Well, when I board that Greyhound bound for the US in a few weeks, I know what not to do. But then, the second most likely place for me to pray would be crossing the US border, so I may really be out of luck.

So, folks: You still don’t believe that secularism is a faith? Well, if it ain’t, it sure is competing like one.

***

(And, for those of you who have asked me: Do you still really contend that Jews are no longer “an exotic Other” in North America? That Jews have so assimilated that we can no longer speak of a Jewish ethnic identity on this continent? Get real folks. Jews are a fly in the ointment, still, for the main stream. We are the 8-million-strong Orientalist nightmare in the secular, liberal, post-Protestant imagination… and I, for one, hope we stay that way. Just for you.)
*

Religious Studies: The Making of a Discipline

I am currently immersed in this weighty tome (Fortress Press, 1995), and I am racing against time to finish all 350 pages by Monday to keep on my schedule. Written by old school American religionist Walter H. Capps, it is a standard text on the history, trends and prevailing original ideologies in the creation of what he identifies as the tradition of Religious Studies as an academic discipline. He narrows the field of scholarly inquiry into religion to the formative questions of “What is religion?”, “Where did it originate from?,” “How can it best be described?,” and “What is the function of religion?” From Capps’ perspective, all Religious Studies can be judged on how it approaches and deals with these questions, as well as in what order of importance the questions are placed.

Capps’ history is far from an exciting read… In fact, I was tempted to toss it more than once. Further, along with being dry, it is also bladder-bustingly self-conscious and defensive about our field. Perhaps I come from a different generation, but don’t have even a glimmer of doubt that the academic study of religion is a worthy field. I also take it as a given that the multi-disciplinary nature of Religious Studies (in that economics, comparative religion, history, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, political science, textual studies, arts, biology, etc., all play roles in the work we do) is a strength, rather than the hidden shame that Capps makes it seem like.

Therefore, in terms of the usefulness of this book, I would recommend it if you are looking for a good account of this discipline’s history. The fact that it is on my Religious Studies field doctoral exam should give you a sense of its importance. However, if you are looking for an interesting read, look elsewhere… And if you are looking for a read that will make you feel secure about the well-being of Religious Studies in the University, I’d also find different reading matter, one that doesn’t feel quite so much like an apology for our lives and work.

Overall, this one is a downer.
*