Pay to Pray?

My Gram is a devout Roman Catholic and invests a huge amount of her time and money into her faith. She mails out checks to different convents to support them, and in return the nuns of the convents offer to take prayer requests. I learned of this when she showed me a form letter they mailed her telling her how her money was being put to use and how they had been praying for Anne (my name was written without the "e"” on a fill-in-the blank line) and communicating with my deceased grandfather through prayer. I thought this was really sweet of Gram to ask them to pray for me, but was this for real? Was she getting her money'’s worth? I suppose she thought so and that's what counts, but how would she know if they had actually prayed for me or not? I'm not suggesting that nuns are scamming her because it is a legitimate church, but they didn'’t even take the time to send her a personal letter or to spell my name (or hers for that matter!) correctly. I guess it'’s what you believe in and what makes you happy, but in this day and age, trusting anyone with your money is a risky prospect.

Another example Gram brought to my attention was her local priest. This 55-year old man was getting edgy with the church guild because people weren'’t giving enough money to the church to "“adequately support" it. As it turns out, the priest had two days earlier traveled almost 200 miles to be fitted for two custom suits to be made for him in Italy. This man who took a vow of poverty is bitching at elderly members of his parish with limited funding for not giving enough money to support his expensive taste in clothing. He recently started sending around the collection a second time.

At the very same church, Gram dedicates so much of her time to serving on her church guild and working on fundraising events-- —just to pay the church'’s bills. Bean suppers, used book sales, dances, bake sales, raffles, bingo, yard sales, and all sorts of other events are hosted on a nearly weekly basis. Surely it is common for other churches to struggle to stay afloat as well. It seems ironic that people of so much faith and trust in God have to scramble to keep the church together; even more ironic is that many members toil away at multiple jobs just to put dinner on the table and pay the bills. On the other hand, a priest, who took a vow of poverty, is provided with more than just the essentials by those very same church members.

That is why it is so infuriating to hear of instances of affinity fraud, in which a person tries to relate to others that are members of a specific demographic, often religious groups or the elderly, and get close to members in the group to gain their trust and then their money by scamming them. A local example is back in December when a woman embezzled money from her church's collection plate that was supposed to go toward church humanitarian efforts abroad. Instead, the woman purchased a shore home and a breast enlargement. There are many more instances of this type of dishonesty and greed within some churches related to money issues, even some of our "holiest" can turn out to be immoral. I wonder if they thought about how God might be watching...

A society of surveillance

We are constantly being watched. Everywhere that we go, be it on campus or throughout the world, surveillance is everywhere. From CCTV (the Penn security cameras that are constantly being monitored) to cameras at stoplights that photograph traffic violations, it is impossible to get away with anything these days. It is as if this surveillance by the government with its omnipresence has taken the place of God as the observer of our every move.
It used to be that when one would commit a misdeed that one believed no one bore witness to, he or she still had God to answer to. Now in this ever-increasing world of atheists, the government has stepped up to the plate. By letting us think that we may be constantly watched, they are able to control our movements and keep our behavior in check. We used to have God to answer to in the afterlife. Now we have the justice system to answer to in our current life. This departure from spiritual accountability and shift towards law enforcement accountability creates a society of mindless drones. We obey laws now, not because we think that they are morally right (after all who are we hurting by driving a few miles above the speed limit?) but because we know we are being watched and must act accordingly.
In addition to this superimposition of the moral structure, the idea of our every move being known is very frightening. The government not only sees us when we walk out in public, they have our financial records on file. They know what organizations we give money to and they could even find out what kind of toothpaste we use.
This new and terrifying governmental surveillance that has developed has taken over the role of God. No longer though is he a God of benevolence, but rather a judging, punishing Old Testament God.

Why do people continue to attend?

The following post is written by Kristen (kristenmh1217), but she was having troubles getting it uploaded, so I am posting it for her:

Over the course of the semester we have explored many different definitions of religion. But, we never really talked about exactly what lies beneath the doctrines of various religions. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about what I think those common threads are.

I would like to consider myself a moral person, but I guess the jury is still out on that one. I also never went to church on a consistent basis. Whenever I did go, I always felt that the parables were really just ways to guide moral action. Although I have not read any religious texts, form what I do know, it seems that morality is pretty high on the list of important things to discuss. If this is the case, then do you really need a religion or a church to tell you these things? Morality is reinforced at home, at school, and in many other non-(overtly) religious organizations. To this day I am a Girl Scout and have been taught to be moral, to respect others, to help in my community, and to become a leader. But, again, I never attended church long enough for it to become a large part of my life.

This leads me to my question: If people can teach morality, to the extent that morality can be taught, at places other than the church, then why do people continue to attend? One answer is for the community. But, I have found community through many of my activities that are not associated with church. My other thought is that church and God serve as security blankets for believers. Believing in fate and having faith that someone is looking out for you are panaceas for any worries you may have in life. When you believe you can always say, “It’ll work out, God’s watching."

As a non-believer, that actually sounds kind of nice—honestly believing that someone is looking out for you and planning your life is such a wonderful delusion. But, it is still a delusion. It also leaves the door wide open for a “hands-off” approach to life. If God has a plan, then you never really have to take responsibility for your actions. If you do take responsibility for your actions, the onus is all on you. You can’t blame anyone but yourself, which can be hard sometimes. No one likes to be wrong or to make a mistake, but worse yet is taking responsibility for that action.

Finally, one criticism is that religious people are not prone to thinking for themselves. But, to what extent is anyone truly thinking for themselves? Every day we are influenced by our professors, our parents, our friends, our peers, the shows we watch, the advertisements we are exposed to. The list literally never ends. Honestly, I don’t quite know where I stand on this topic. I know I am not religious, but how should I feel about religious people? One thing I do know is that I really hate the people who are only religious on Sunday’s. Religion is part of an identity, shaping how people view you and how you should behave. Please don’t claim to be religious if you are a slut or a murderer or a liar. I understand no one is perfect, but either do it all the way or don’t do it all. I also know that I feel as if religious people are a little naïve in the way they structure their belief systems about the world. But, then again, so am I and I am definitely not religious.

South Park, Social Commentary

Stan: Oh my God! They killed Kenny!

Kyle: You bastards!

From these now familiar lines, one can guess that the exploits of Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Cartman—four Colorado elementary schoolers—are crude, in-your-face, and highly controversial. It’s Comedy Central’s animated hit South Park, and I wouldn’t have it any other way! But hidden behind the gore, the fart jokes, and the offensive stereotypes, does South Park have a real and meaningful message about society and religion? Hell yes, and it kicks ass dude!

As a cartoon, South Park has a substantial creative and comedic license to function as a brutally honest (or terribly biased, depending on your perspective) media outlet. Only a poorly drawn animation can get away with spoofing sexual abuse in the Catholic church, lambasting the President for poor decisions, criticizing anti-Semitic emotions in The Passion of the Christ, or insulting Muslim terrorist groups as jihad-crazed savages. You definitely won’t find this kind of remorseless commentary on the nightly news. Yet all are topics that have been dealt with by South Park in a serious, and seriously hilarious fashion.

As a recent example, South Park aired an episode (“Trapped in the Closet”) that attacked Scientology as a cultish, false religion based on irrational (and very bizarre) beliefs about ancient alien spirits. In the episode, Stan, falling under Scientology’s spell, is quickly hailed as the prophetic reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard by brainwashed Scientologists and a highly satirized Tom Cruise and John Travolta. When Stan puts all of his heart into improving the religion, Scientology’s president chides him for reasoning that “to really be a church, [they] can't charge money to help [others].” Disillusioned, Stan proclaims bluntly that “Scientology is just a big fat global scam.”

This episode quickly became the center of a media battle and called attention to the limits of tolerance on television. Isaac Hayes, the sultry voice of Chef, one of South Park’s most beloved characters, refused to participate in the episode based on his belief in Scientology. Hayes later quit the show amidst rumors of pressure from super-Scientologist Tom Cruise, who also forced Comedy Central to pull the “Trapped in the Closet” episode after threatening to halt promotion of his upcoming Paramount blockbuster, Mission Impossible 3 (Both Comedy Central and Paramount are subsidiary companies of Viacom). South Park responded by having the Chef character killed as a result of his brainwashing by a pedophilia-loving Super Adventure Club that bore a deliberate resemblance to the Church of Scientology.

While these episodes may appear silly and religiously discriminating, the messages contained within each show are significant. Just how far can we push freedom of speech and freedom of worship? Can Tom Cruise insult antidepression pill users on television based on his religious beliefs but Trey Parker and Matt Stone, South Park’s creators, not spoof Tom Cruise and his religion based on their beliefs? What is out of bounds when it comes to religion? In resisting Scientology’s pressure, Parker and Stone have taken a stand: freedom of speech must be protected at all costs. Their view is most clear in a recent episode on the Mohammed cartoon controversy in which Kyle tries to convince a Fox executive to air an episode of Family Guy that contains a depiction of Mohammed. Speaking on free speech, Kyle proclaims, “Either it’s all OK, or none of it is…do the right thing.”

It’s lines like these, with real social implications, that are the justification for South Park’s recent Peabody Award. At the ceremony, director Horace Newcomb said that the shows offensiveness “reminds us of the need for being tolerant.” While some might be confused by the strategy to promote tolerance through intolerance, an educated, attentive, and open-minded viewer will likely get the joke—not to mention all of the other valuable social lessons available from four Colorado kids that are wise beyond their years.

An End to Discrimination

I’ve wanted to write this for a long, long time. I only wish more people would listen to and understand what I am saying:

The time to end intolerance toward homosexuals, particularly in their desires to get married—the time to cease this injustice is NOW.

Now I understand how some people can be adverse to the idea of homosexual marriage, running away from something they would rather ignore than understand. Like most, I have my own prejudices; as humans, we all do. But what makes us intelligent is our ability to learn from our mistakes and to strive to come together as a harmonious society that values each of its members. I can’t see anyone who follows these guidelines to civilization able to hold a real objection to homosexuals and homosexual marriage.

As for everyone else, can’t they see the painful discrimination that their outright condemnation or their silent inactivity inflicts on others? The state of affairs reminds me of the discrimination against black Americans in the 1960s. At the time, interracial couples were a mortal sin, just as homosexual couples seem to be now. I remember reading about famous racists in high school, remember the disgust I shared with my classmates at the barbaric side of human nature. I only wish more people would recognize that the condemnation of interracial couples—which was built on a backbone of hate—was soon ruled socially unacceptable. I only wish more people would recognize that the fight against homosexual marriage—built on the same backbone of hate—must now also fall out of social favor.

For starters, I don’t even understand the legitimacy of the opposition’s argument. Is there really a law that states that marriage is only intended between heterosexual couples? So far, all I have seen is legislation aimed at making this the case in a so-called righteous battle to protect the sanctity of marriage. And all I’ve heard is that the Bible traditionally justifies and defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Well, I was also under the impression that we practiced a separation of church and state in this country. The Bible has no place in the American legal scene, and certainly has no place inflicting pain and sorrow on the lives of good human beings.

I just can’t see any benevolent god hating homosexuality so much that he can’t allow love—greatest of the human emotions—to grow and flourish between gay couples. Gays and lesbians are not monsters, they’re human beings—human beings that deserve to be respected. Preventing gay marriage because it would degrade a particular tradition or because it would be “hazardous” to a child are not proper displays of respect. After all, we let children into this world under far more dangerous conditions than two homosexuals could ever pose. Thanks to the anti-abortion folks, children have children. And no one at all (including the same conservative anti-abortionists) seems to support using contraception. Am I really living in a world where poor, underage teens who are not encouraged to use protection breed freely without the option of abortion, but in which homosexuals are not allowed to marry because they are seen as a threat to a newborn child?

I think as a society we should’ve had about enough of this discrimination by now. The time to change America’s stance on gay marriage is NOW!

Stereotypes

When I was in school in England, I went on a school trip to a Buddhist monastery in South London. Following all the stereotypes I had been exposed to I was expecting to see a gathering of bald headed Asian meditating together, with a loud chorus of “ummmm”. I was shocked to find a black dreadlocked male answering the door. I asked him, if I was in the right place, he said yes in a strong Jamaican accent and led us to the temple. In the temple there were a few stereotype monks however majority of them were white middle-aged English men. I took the Rastafarian Buddhist to the side and asked why non Asians where allowed to be monks. He sedately responded, the monastery accepts people of all color, gender and age, and all people deserve to be enlightened.
I walked away that day, having learnt a valuable lesson. It is easy to stereotype especially when ignorant. From that day I decided to always do my research and never go anywhere blind as I would be exposed as being ignorant.