Treehouse of Horror, etc.

Ok, so we all know that Halloween is really based on Pagan rituals, and kids are actually worshipping Satan by partaking in the festivities of All Hallow's Eve, etc., etc. This has been a widely known source of controversy in religious communities for as long as I can remember. A lot of religious groups condemn the celebration of Halloween simply for its Pagan roots. When I was growing up I always had two or three friends who were not allowed to go trick-or-treating because it would promote "devil worship." (Of course, these were the same kids who weren't allowed to read Harry Potter books or play "The Sims' Making Magic.") This religious controversy has even been mocked on television, featured in the plots of shows such as Fox's "King of the Hill."

But when we get right down to it, kids just want candy. Plain and simple. The religious critics of Halloween would be hard pressed to find a nine-year-old walking around in his Spiderman costume, thinking, "I hope this pleases you, Lord of Darkness." Even though Halloween is originally grounded in religious tradition, its celebration has become commercialized. Moreover, its meaning for many Americans lies solely in this commercialization. And this is not such a strange idea. Think about children's ideas of Christmas and Easter, for example. For many kids today, these holidays (literally, Holy Days) mean Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. This is simply the trend in our society. We take religious aspects and give them an American twist, i.e. commericialization because it is a staple of our culture. Our experience of Halloween may no longer be an exhibition of Pagan rituals, but it has certainly become a manifestation of American ones.

For me, Halloween is about cartoons than the door-to-door solicitation of candy. Granted I did usually go trick-or-treating with my brothers or friends, I usually had more fun waiting for the debut of The Simpsons' "Treehouse of Horror" Halloween special. As much as I liked getting ready for the holiday by picking out a costume or helping carve a pumpkin, nothing signaled to me that it was time for Halloween more than the anticipation of this episode of "The Simpsons." Since new episodes of the cartoon always aired on Sunday nights (except for the two or three years during which the night was switched to Thursday), it was a rare occasion when the show premiered within a couple days of the actual holiday. When the night of Halloween and the debut of Treehouse of Horror did coincide, it was always a time for intensified celebration in my house. It gave our regular Halloween activities an extra importance, and it made everything seem more special about the night.

The normal post-trick-or-treat-ritual for my brothers and me was to dump out all of our candy onto the floor in three separate piles, one for each of us. We had collected our loot in pillowcases rather than cute little pumpkin-shaped tins- in case we somehow hit the Hershey jackpot during the night. We would then proceed to barter with each other for our favorite confections. The trading was not always fair, though. I can't even count how many times I received my oldest brother's assurance of, "Jo, I won't hit you for a week" in return for a Twix bar. This economic exchange of candy is what I remember most about my childhood Halloweens, not worshipping the devil. In our society we have appropriated the originally Pagan holiday into an occasion to draw people together.

A Godless Facebook

An overwhelming majority of Penn freshmen are on the Facebook. It is a fabulous way to form new relationships with college friends and a simple method for keeping in touch with students from your high school.

But besides networking, the Facebook has many dimensions. It is often used for political purposes, with students given the option to choose their views and create Facebook groups surrounding key political issues, parties, and elections. The Facebook is academic with students listing their majors and courses, and definitely social, with an entire section dedicated to “my parties.” The Facebook is even commercial because it has advertising and sponsored groups.

Yet the Facebook is not religious. Members are not given the option to list their religious beliefs the way that they are allowed to describe their political views. There are no groups that emerge from a search for “religion.” When I searched “Jesus,” seven groups resulted, but almost all of them were joke groups like “Ho’s for Jesus” and “Nuke Foreign Gay Whales for Jesus!” A search for “Jew” yielded similar results: 38 matching groups but only one or two legitimate religious-themed groups. The rest of them were for parody or networking purposes, such as “Only Ugly Jewish Girls Wear Huge Sunglasses” and “Penn Jews for Kerry.” Even the genuine groups like “Hillel” and “The Newman Center” did not use the site for religious purposes, but merely as networking within each spiritual community.

I am surprised that the Facebook is not used for spreading religious beliefs or preaching. Although it might be a difficult media to work with, it is certainly essential to many college students’ livelihoods. In my opinion, religious groups have not taken full advantage of the opportunities that this exciting media offers.

Blessed are the Cheesemakers

When you watch Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” you probably only remember the jokes, characters, and maybe the closing song. However, the movie does present insightful, albeit unintentional, interpretations of religious scenes, such as the Sermon on the Mount. During this opening event, Jesus is preaching the eight beatitudes to a crowd outside of a large city. These important messages are the foundation of Christian theology, yet the way they are represented by Monty Python spins a new light on the time-old sayings. Although it might be just a joke, the opening scene provides analysis and criticism of the two methods of interpreting the bible: literally and contextually.

The beatitudes would eventually come to be of utmost importance in the Christian church, placed right up there with the Ten Commandments and the crucifixion. Yet in this scene in “Life of Brian,” the characters are not paying attention to Jesus. They do not know who he is (“Did anyone catch his name?”), they cannot hear him clearly, and most would rather be at a stoning. In their distraction, the characters confuse Jesus, quoting him as saying “Blessed are the Greek” and “Blessed are the Cheesemakers.” These misinterpretations are not only hilarious, but also question the reliability of the original evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) to recount Jesus’ direct words. Perhaps Matthew was also at the back of a crowd and misheard Jesus. Then those believers who translate the bible verbatim – literalist – might be worshipping a half-cocked, made-up saying. Obviously, this exchange satires that method of biblical interpretation.

The scene progresses, this time to spoof contextualists, the opposite of literalists, those who interpret the bible figuratively. After a woman counters, “What’s so special about the cheesemakers?” a man explains, visibly frustrated, “Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.” His humorous reasoning is curiously comparable to other generalizations often made about the bible, for example that each “day” in the creation story symbolizes a longer period of time or that true believers must give up all earthly possessions to enter heaven. Clearly, Monty Python is satirizing those Christian advocates who ignore direct words and phrases of the bible in an attempt to mold the passage to some preferred meaning. For perhaps Jesus really did mean exactly what he told the crowd. Perhaps what he really said was “Blessed are the Cheesemakers.”

What? My Sources are Fake?

While writing my first position paper for this class, I was having trouble finding specific evidence to support my claim. I was trying to argue that some Evangelists behaved irrationally and dangerously in response to the Harry Potter books. Then I tumbled onto an amazing website: the Landover Baptist Church. Perhaps their subtitle – “the largest, most powerful assembly of worthwhile people to ever exist, unsaved are NOT welcome” – should have made me question the reliability of the website. But the content was too perfect for my essay:

“The Ladies of Landover are holding a midnight prayer vigil on July 15th outside the Freehold, Iowa Barnes and Noble…If you see anyone with this book in hand [Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince], shout, ‘Fire on you! In the name of Jesus!’ Snatch the book from them, toss it to another Christian brother or sister and put flame to it as quicly as possible. Make sure you hand the person a bible to replace it.”

“Churches to hold all night prayer vigils to counter thousands of Harry Potter Black Masses being held across America! National bookstores to release the Devil’s latest manuscript at midnight! Pray for our children!”

Yet do not assume that I simply copied the quotes into my paper without checking the site at all. Rather, I wandered extensively through the forums and ministries sections. Instead of questioning the credibility of the source, I was questioning the stability of humankind. Sadly, it seemed more likely to me that a group of determined, technology-savvy Evangelists had created a vast, hateful website than that someone with a sense of humor had fabricated an elaborate parody. Maybe you have figured out by now that the website is just a big joke, but I had no idea until I received an enlightening "comment" on my essay.

Looking back at the website now, I laugh. Some of the titles are so ridiculous, like:

“Women Probably Don’t Have Souls”
“Pastor Expelled for Praying to Moses!”
“Tampons: Satan’s Little Cotton Fingers”

Yet I still could not find anywhere that acted as disclaimer for the site, or that explained the true motive of parody. Thus, I do not consider myself crazy for considering the site valid. In all honesty, I am relieved to find that the beliefs expressed at www.landoverbaptistchurch.org are only make-believe. Now I just have to revise my Harry Potter essay.

Performances at funerals

It was my misfortune to be at a funeral of a close friend recently. Early on in the ceremony, I recognized a woman there who was a relative newcomer to the community and had already earned a reputation for being eccentric and a little rude. Midway through the Rabbi's quasi-eulogy (technically Jews are not allowed to eulogize during festival periods), I noticed the woman bawling very consicuously. Indeed, the Rabbi spoke very beautifully and perhaps she was moved by the sadness of this family's story or the prospect of our mortality. Or perhaps she putting on a performance. I know that this is a strong urge because I felt it myself. For the first twenty of the funeral (which was grave-side), I stood there listening to the speeches and watching the orphaned children (both parents now dead of cancer), hoping I would be moved to tears. Eventually, I started crying. Then I felt guilty for crying when both my parents are, thank G-d, healthy. I'm not sure if my desire to cry had any effect in producing the tears. The real interesting issue is why I wanted to cry. To be honest, I'm not sure. Did I want to seem like a sexily sensitive male? Was I proving something to others? To myself? Who knows. I can't really blame the odd woman who was sobbing at the funeral, because I can understand her motives if indeed she had similar motives to me. Still, this woman had no relationship with the deceased or the deceased's family. Her crying seemed absurd...unjust even. Surely, it wasn't her intention to be viewed this way, but it seems so obvious that this would be the inevitable result. In fact, I heard people in the community talking about her "performance" ever since. I haven't stopped thinking about it since the funeral.

Megachurches, Coming to a Town Near You

An Anatomy of Megachurches, written by Witold Rybczynski, offers an interesting look into the design and impact of megachurches across America.

Megachurches are enormous, amphitheater-like places of worship. Many sear more than 20,000 people and rival the atmosphere of a sporting event. Almost all have huge video monitors around the room and people sit in "padded theater seats, instead of wooden pews" (Rybczynski). These huge buildings do not resemble normal churches in any way--many do not have any religious symbols on the outside walls. By putting these megachurches in the middle of cities and towns across America, congregations are turning "their [places] of worship [into] a part of everyday life" (Rybczynski). Instead of keeping churches sacred and set apart from the mundane routine of an average weekday, megachurches offer people an opportunity to make prayer a quick stop on the way home from work.

However, not all agree that megachurches are an acceptable form of a place of worship. The huge structures complete disregard the traditional church setting. The Lakewood Church, in Houston, Texas, is actually "a converted sports arena [and was] once home to the Houston Rockets" (Rybczynski). The building is large and imposing and "putting up a sign and a fountain is not enough" to turn the monstrosity into a holy place (Rybczynski).

These naysayers seem to forget the goal of many of these megachurches. They aim to offer a sense of comfort and ease. Many have activity centers, book stores and cafes all in the same building as the main auditorium. The megachurches are also often non-denominational, allowing an entire community to pray together. People have increasingly complex and busy lives and megachurches offer an easy way to bring families and communities together.

Sticks and Stones

As I strolled down Locust Walk toward my afternoon class, I came across a woman handing out pamphlets. I was immediately skeptical as to what she was distributing. She was too young to be dispersing fliers for a campus party, so I knew her intention was something religiously or politically affiliated. I took my time and followed my usual stranger evasion measures: I avoided eye contact by looking down and pretending to fiddle with my cell phone, and I picked up my pace and kept to the opposite side of the walk to ensure that our paths could in no way cross.

I succeeded in saving myself the trouble of being “bothered” by some crazy lady and her misguided beliefs, but my ivy league mind forced me to consider what had just occurred. She was part of that mysterious group, Jews for Jesus. Before, I had assumed that they were simply another weird cult hoping to build a large base of followers and make a profit. However, as I had just said, my knowledge of them was based merely on assumptions. To correct this problem, I thought it worthwhile to do some research on this unfamiliar denomination. In their own words, the Jews for Jesus describe themselves in this way:

Our mission statement is to make the Messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue to our Jewish people worldwide. (Naturally in speaking to our Jewish people, lots of other people are listening in.) We call that evangelism, which is an active way to tell others the good news about God’s desire to reconcile people to himself through the Jewish Messiah Jesus. We do evangelism through the things we write, the conversations we have, the music we play and the drama we enact. Pretty much all our programs are about evangelism because that is the whole reason Jews for Jesus exists. But when you look to the right, you’ll see different aspects of what we do . . . from our street evangelism, to various kinds of youth outreach/mentoring (we do not evangelize people under the age of 18 without their parents’ permission) to programs we offer in churches. (Our church programs are designed to speak to believers and unbelievers alike.)

All of this information leads to my hopefully compelling point: what makes my initial thoughts about this woman logical? In other words, what defines something or someone as weird? I call Jews for Jesus strange because it is different from my own faith, from what I was brought up to believe. However, this fact shouldn’t make those people any more bizarre than the computer I’m typing on right now. I see something foreign, such as an orthodox Jew or a Hare Krishna, and I unconsciously define it as peculiar based on my own personal biases (I know that I am not alone in this either). Moreover, extending this idea beyond religion, how can anyone possibly label anything as being peculiar? Many would consider Joe Coleman, for example, to be a twisted and abnormal man because he acts and thinks differently than many others, and “Goths” and nerds would be looked at sideways because of their deviation from familiarity. Yet those people considered “normal” have no real substantiation other than their own partiality. We see others as strange because they are not like us, but those “others” most likely see us in the same way, as “those weirdoes.” Unless some ultimate power can settle this for us, there is no supreme ordinariness against which to say that one thing is or is not normal. The next time you come across something or someone new, think before you judge; maybe you’re the unusual one.

Monday Awesome Monday

A few weeks ago I was handed a stack of U2 albums and told to “know the classics”. I had just volunteered to go see a show at the Wachovia Center with a friend, and already I was being given homework. Over the past few weeks, I’d doubled my work time as designated U2 study time. After all, there were classics to be memorized. How could I even think about showing up to a concert and not knowing every line to “Sunday Bloody Sunday”? I assume it would be thought of as blasphemy.

After completing hours of “U2 study time”, the time to apply my knowledge had finally come. As we stepped off the subway, we merged into the throng of anxious concert goers. The closer we came to the stadium, the more infectious the atmosphere became. After wandering around the upper level for a while, we finally found our seats. Nestled into the crowd of about twenty thousand, I felt as though I was really part of a community. We held similar beliefs (U2 is an amazing band), and we practiced similar rituals such as waving Irish flags around and singing along at the top of our lungs.

The stage was set, and now all we had to do was wait through Damien Marley’s opening set. Finally after some stage adjustments, the lights went out, and U2 stepped out. But in between the hit singles and crowd favorites, I found myself thinking about the global issue of poverty. Now I’m sure this isn’t the type of thing a normal concert goer would ponder, but it seemed perfectly normal at a U2 concert. After all, ending world poverty, hunger, and disease seems to permeate even the most secular of U2 songs. That message seems to pour through the music with every note. Through Bono’s minute-long sermons, a deeper understanding of the people around me seemed to enter into my mind. I was worried.

I’d been told my whole life that being a good person is the key to my religion. Catholics are really big on the idea of good deeds. Now, it doesn’t seem to just be a matter of fulfilling my religious duty to my parish, but a matter of fulfilling my duty to the human race. If I had doubted myself before, after this concert I feel even more assured of the fact that I must do something meaningful with my life. Not for myself, but for someone else, anyone else.

I left that concert feeling exhilarated because I had just seen one of the greatest shows of my life, and excited because I was now more sure about my plans for my future. I may not know exactly what I want to do, but somehow I know I’ll figure it out. And it will be great, for someone in need.

Where do sacred places go when they die?

I just found out that my childhood home is going to be destroyed.

It’s not a physical home, it’s not the house where I grew up, it’s not my hometown. The buildings where my adolescence took place will remain standing and will surely be renovated with time. The trees will remain standing, though those next to the road will probably be trimmed back, and the site will continued to be populated by many, mostly by people of around my current age.

But the community will die.

Flash back to the summer after my sixteenth birthday. I had just moved to Virginia, away from a high school where I was a champion of the out-crowd, and was soon to be entering a high school where I would retain the status of “foreigner” (a Yankee) until graduation. My parents suggested that to make new friends locally, I ought to go to a nearby summer camp. I was appalled by the idea of “camp,” which reminded me of a particularly bad incident with the scouts in the fourth grade. Too-cool-for-school kids such as myself were far beyond camp counselors, dining halls, and constant supervision. Nevertheless, I applied to the Young Writers Workshop at the University of Virginia, was accepted, and went to camp determined to be miserable.

Far from being the sulking, non-participatory camper I had set out to be, I was fully engaged in the workshop experience within the hour of my arrival. While I had expected to be surrounded by a troop of socially maladjusted teenagers who wrote masturbatory poetry in twenty-dollar Barnes and Noble journals, my new friends and classmates were, for the most part, bright, creative, and sensitive teenagers with a talent for writing. I instantly liked them and I grew to love them, and they felt the same way for me. I didn’t just fit in with my peers. I was one of the popular people.

This was a sense of belonging that had previously eluded me. School was brutal and unwelcoming. Organized religious groups frightened me, and middle school counselors insisted that I must surrender my freedom of thought to them in order to join the ranks of the faithful. Adults assumed I didn’t mesh with the crowd because I was a spiteful and rebellious child, but when I finally found some like-minded peers, I developed in ways that no one could have expected, least of all myself.

As many people find their spiritual identities when within a community of worshippers, I began to examine my previously nonexistent spiritual beliefs while at camp. My new experiences filled me with awe at the world and at my own capacity to experience such joy. I expressed such spiritual ponderings in a quiet way in some of my poetry at first. By my third and final summer as a “Y-dubs” camper, I was directly questioning my own vague beliefs during my many discussions with my roommate, a very dedicated Christian. Unlike the very religious people I had met in the past, she never pushed me towards her own beliefs and always listened to my thoughts on the matter. I would never have met her or many other wonderful people had we not been brought together by our common interest in creative writing and the Young Writers program.

The program, however, is ending. After twenty-five years of YWW, the UVA professor who heads the program, Margo Figgins, isn't doing the program anymore, and (we think) UVA’s funding for the program was tied directly to Margo. At any rate, without her, there can be no more summer camp. The community of students, counselors, and dedicated adults will fall apart, and lost kids like my sixteen-year-old self will not have that opportunity to find themselves. Just as YWW was becoming available to more students through the addition of some scholarships and increased name-recognition, it is dissolving.

Before camp, I would have been decently satisfied with a future spending my life designing video games or characters of animated films. Nowadays, I want to dedicate my life to awakening young people in the manner that summer camp awoke me to myself. The experience redeemed my soul in a way that school couldn't, cliques couldn't, gay pride couldn't, religion couldn’t.

Sometimes my current girlfriend, who met me at this summer's camp, and I will sit on the phone and just reminisce about the times we had (apart, as she was too shy to approach me). Who else can understand, but another y-dubber? I'm trying to impress upon you the profound impact this place had on me, but I secretly suspect that there is an understanding that only fellow initiates can share.

When I found out that next summer would be the last summer of the program, the second person I told was my dad, who has always seen eye-to-eye with me on matters of philosophy. He told me not to be sad, to think of all the good that the program had done for so many kids. I did not find in him the empathy I had been seeking, and in retrospect I realized that our minor schism in philosophy marked a much deeper divide: I was becoming more of an individual.

“I know that, Dad,” I said, “but I just need time to be upset.” Like the Mayans that have recently fascinated me, and like Eve Ensler admitted after her performance at Penn last Tuesday, I believe in the power of grief.

Excuse me, but I need some time to grieve over this.

Tom & Katie’s Scientologist Birth

I know what you’re all thinking: “Can’t we get something a little more engaging than the lives of celebrities?” Please do read on, as you might actually find some of this intriguing. As we all by now know, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are dating and are even expecting a child together in the near future. Holmes has apparently converted to the Church of Scientology, but she may have done so without reading into the finer points of its practices. Scientologists have a very particular way of giving birth, and it is not one that is very considerate to the mothers-to-be. They must deliver their birth in complete silence: no music, no conversing between the doctor and patient, and of course no screaming. Additionally, they may not take any sort of drugs to alleviate the pains associated with child birth. After the birth, the newborn cannot be touched or spoken to for the first week of its life. Those who practice this believe that the silence is necessary to preserve the sanity of the mother and child. They believe that the baby goes through so much pain in its entrance into the world that any more sensory experience may scar them for life. Does all this really make sense?

Asking a woman to give birth in this manner is a hefty request, and some think there may be health risks involved for both the mother and the child. Child psychologist Robert Butterworth claims that there are no health benefits in delivering a child this way, and it may lead to problems later in life: “We are social animals… We need nurturing and holding when we enter the world.” He believes there is a special bond made between mother and baby in the first few weeks of its life, and this sensory depravation may lead to developmental problems later in life.

I personally do not see the point of these practices. What is the point of keeping it quiet for the baby? When he or she is born, they will undoubtedly be screaming themselves, and most likely would not hear or notice other sounds. When they are in the womb, they hear their mother’s heart beating, and the sounds going on outside. Why shock them with silence when they enter the real world? With no physical contact or interaction in the first week, no medical tests can be given to the baby to check their health. Should the baby have some sort of infection that needs to be dealt with, it will only worsen in that time. Hopefully they are fortunate enough to have a healthy baby, despite all these unusual practices. Cruise defends his stance: “I'm living my life. And I'm doing the best that I can, and doing it in a way that I feel is right.” Easy for you to say Tom, you’re not the one giving birth.

Christian Rock

As it approached midnight this past Saturday, my friend and I joined the rest of Madison Square Garden in ending a tremendous concert with parts of Psalm 40. We were not, however, at a “Christian rock” show, but at a mainstream rock and roll concert. Just as they have done for over twenty years, U2 closed their performance with “40”, a song comprised of direct quotations from Psalm 40. These Biblical references mix with U2’s own lyrics about waiting (“How long to sing this song?”). The title itself relates back to the Bible, which constantly uses the number forty as a symbol for a period of testing and waiting.

I am a huge U2 fan, and long before singing them live I had recognized that much of their music has religious themes, albeit not always exclusively Christian. However it only hit me last night that religion has clearly permeated the mainstream music industry. Over the past decade or so, more and more Christian rock groups have successfully entered the mainstream media, such as P.O.D. and Switchfoot. Perhaps even more so than television, music has a profound impact on its listeners by tapping directly into their souls. Undoubtedly the rise of Christian rock and its emergence onto the mainstream music scene has played a part in the religious revival taking place in our country right now. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I felt compelled to go to church the day after the concert.

Surfing for Torah

You don’t need to look any further than my synagogue‘s website to understand how the web has redefined religion. The website has corporate sponsors (Travel Dynamic Group), links to an ad journal, and a business directory. The web has clearly revolutionized the way religious communities function as businesses or at least how they get the money to sustain themselves. It has also drastically facilitated what observant Jews know as kiruv (the term loosely used to describe reaching out to unaffiliated Jews in an effort to show them what observant jews perceive to be the correct path).
My synagogue’s website sports links to recording of the Rabbi’s lectures as well as his weekly writings. Keep in mind that this is a synagogue which has incredibly stringent restrictions regarding eletricity and work on the Sabbath. As described in a previous post, we don't use electricity period. Most people walk to synagogue (some a few miles) and most of the Sabbath day in my community is spent eating, reading, and relaxing. Because of this, it seems almost sacreligious to listen to a sermon online, which is such a fundamentally technological activity, about breaking the sabbath...but of course there's nothing wrong it.
There are whole sites like torah.com which store hundreds of lectures and classes given by Rabbis around the world. Orthers like aish.com specifically target Jews who have less of a background. Askmoses.com has a Rabbi on call 24/7 to answer questions in a live chat format. I logged onto it the other night at 2 a.m. to give it a trial run and I ended up talking to a Rabbi in Australia about the Messiah. The internet allows Jews to connect to their religion in a way they simply couldn’t have 15 years ago.

Penn conference on the future of media

This past Thursday, the Fox Speakers Forum hosted a conference on the future of media. Michael Delli Carpini, Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication, moderated the discussion on topics such as media conglomeration and its affect on the future of news, television print and film. The panelists included Mark Coblitz, Senior Vice President of strategic planning for Comcast Corporation, Eli Noam, the director of Columbia University’s Institute for Tele-Information, Tom Wolzien, Senior media analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., and Alan Wurtzel, President of Research and Media Development for NBC.

The panelists openly addressed the changing structure of media. For example, while only 6% of people in the United States have TiVo, the number of people starting to use it or other forms of digital video recording is rising at an incredible rate. While this statistic is particularly attractive to Mark Coblitz, it is discouraging for Alan Wurtzel, who expressed concerns about what TiVO and digital video recording will do for the introduction of new programs. Because people can program what they want to watch and view shows at different times, prime time television no longer has to be viewed at the “prime time”, and new shows have difficulty taking off. In addition, TiVo allows viewers to fast-forward through the commercials, which is bad for the advertisers being in turn also bad for the network.

Control is being transferred from the network to the viewer. Mark Coblitz suggested that the financial structure of the networks is shifting from advertising to paying for the actual mediums of media. Eli Noam disagreed, looking at the market over time at people’s unwillingness to pay for media. He proved this with the case of when The New York Times tried to make viewers pay online for articles. Instead of paying, Internet users turned to free news sources on the Internet or relied on blogs and wikipedia for their news. The New York Times realized this and changed their policy so that viewers only had to pay to read the editorials. Thus this question is posed: Are we supposed to prosecute someone for piracy for trying to read an article by Maureen Dowd without paying fifty cents to do so? This doesn’t seem to make much sense either, which leads to a perplexed and anxious media that will not be sufficiently funded. Eli Noam suggested that perhaps alternative free news sources such as blogs and wikis is the media of future. People might even get better news from these sources than television, where networks are trying to entertain first, and reporting the news is secondary.

Certain aspects of the media are outdated, specifically its structure and slowness to respond to new technology. Media conglomeration makes some sense with the economies of scale increasing every day. Furthermore, some corporations are starting to break down again after unsuccessful self-policing of these hugely mismanaged conglomerations. New technology presents many new challenges as well as opportunities for media corporations but I am hopeful, as were the panelists that it is for the better instead of the worse.

Secularization and Vocabulary Today

I came accross this article while browsing for definitions of different religious terms.

Though biased and quite conservative, Audrey English makes some valuable claims about the secularization of religion. It is true that historically religious terms have been slowly, but not so subtly, been making their way into mainstream vocabulary.

For example: Instead of the Virgin Mary, the image of someone like Sarah Jessica Parker now comes to mind when considering an icon. People use the expression "holy crap", though crap is usually far from holy. Children and adults alike often exclaim "Oh my God!" or "swear to God", when God could be something that they do not even believe in. Sports announcers often use religious language to describe the fierce competition that has little to do with the love and peace that religion should convey.

English claims that "these illustrate a need, the desire for God which is in the heart of every human being", yet she also believes that "this revolution has succeeded in transforming a society predominantly Christian into a secular society where Christian values are continually being destroyed."

Although I agree that using those meaningful, sacred words in everyday life devalues them, I don't think anyone can claim that it is the reason that society has been demoralized over the past few decades. One of English's ideas for reviving the Catholic Language is that "words like Our Lord, blessings, grace, offering up, prayer, sacrifice ought to be in current daily use." I personally do not see the benefit of this on the re-sacredization of the language, nor can I picture any of my friends saying "offering up" daily.

The real relevance here is that everyday, through the media in society, religion is becoming more secular and less sacred.

Movies Glamoize Religion

After reading Schneider's article about making religion more accessible to all people I realized that movies do the same thing today--many people that would not step foot in church or even begin to read a bible flock to theatres to see religious movies.
Similar to the effects of the printing press, the movie industry has glamorized religion and made it more accessible to people of all ages. However, movies, opposed to printed material or live speakers, reach a much broader audience and can easily make religion a popular issue. Over the past few decades, a plethora of movies relating to the Holocaust have been released. One of the most highly acclamined, Schindler's List, brought the horrors of concentration camps to the big screen and educated a huge audience, not only about the atrocities during World War II but about the people who went above and beyond the call of duty to help save the Jews. Even humorous movies which portray the life of Jesus, like Life of Brian and Jesus Christ Superstar achieve their goal, because any movie that "promotes thinking and discussing His life [is] worthwhile" (epinions.com). Most recently, Passion of the Christ drew much attention and brought evangelical Christianity to the forefront of the media, sending millions running to movie theatres around the world.
Until movies were a popular form of media, religion only reached people though churches/synagogues/mosques, printed material and family tradition. In this manner, religion seldom appealed to teenagers. However, by popularizing prayer, more and more we see young adults actively participating in faith-based organizations and events. This helps religions because if people become actively involved at a young age they will most likely become leading members in the community when they are older. By getting teens hooked on religion, through movies, music and the internet, religious communities can grow in strength and numbers, and diversify their following.

Modernization vs. Tradition

As a Jew, I am not supposed to do any kind of work or "create" anything on Shabbat or other holy days. This law prohibits a broad range of activities, from writing to using the computer to turning on lights. But in our modern society, we have become socially dependent on such forms of communication and entertainment, and this comes into direct conflict with the traditional ideas of Judaism. I often find myself torn between adhering to the rules of my religion and indulging in my usual technological habits. As a non-Orthodox Jew, the pressure to strictly follow these rules is lessened. But that does not mean that I don't feel guilty for breaking them anyway.

Technology and Judaism are not mutually exclusive, but the values and ideals associated with each are radically different. The Jewish religion places a strong emphasis on the idea of a "core." This core is deeply rooted in family and tradition. In the eyes of Judaism, life is essentially about coming together as one people and uniting in the traditions of the religion. But, as we have clearly seen in the Peter Steven book/"guide", modern technologies and media are all about diversification, spreading out. Rather than centering on core values, media are concerned with reaching out and embracing as many different values as possible. There is nothing traditional about technology or the media; everything is newer, better, smaller, faster, cooler.

Our fast-paced society is not optimal for the traditional Jewish way of life. It won't change for the Jews, so the Jews have had to adapt to it. For example, I do not generally refrain from using electricity on Shabbat, but I always make a point to do so during the High Holidays. But this past Rosh Hashanah was an exception. For the first time in my life, I simply did not have enough time to get my homework done without doing some of it on Erev Rosh Hashanah. As a result of a society which is becoming more and more work-oriented, I made the regrettable decision to break my own rules and succumb to the academic pressures of school. Since academics are a social construct, I was giving into modern society.

Katie Holmes is Having Tom Cruise's baby???

Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise have been raising eyebrows ever since April, when the couple began making appearances together, holding hands and showing signs of affection for each other. Tom continues to publicly, and over-enthusiastically declare his love for the 26-year old beauty--he's 43--which started as earky as a month after their courtship began, making people wonder, "Are they serious???" The media couldn't help but highlight their differences: age, romantic history, and of course, religion. Tom, as society has already learned, is a Scientologist; Katie is Christian. However, despite religious differences, the two have continued to confirm their mutual love for each other. It appeared to be only a matter of time according to this fast-track that the unlikely pair would get married (they are engaged) and have a child (which also looks to be in the works).

The point, here, isn't that Katie Holmes is pregnant, or even that the two are getting married, although both stories feed our need for gossip. The point is, similar to Manfred Schneider's argument that the printing press helped popularize Protestantism, the media has been highlighting and giving more and more press to new, emerging religions like Scientology.

Founded in 1951 by famous non-fiction novelist and screen writer L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology is a religion that emphasizes the human being as a spritual being--a soul. Ever since it's outset, celebrities have been the most important force in promoting the religion. Hubbard, himself, believed that they were a necessity in expanding the faith, and thus made them "first class" individuals in the Church's unusual hierarchy. In the recent media, celebs have been coming out of the woodwark, confessing their adherence to the Scientological beliefs. Tom Cruise has made recent headlines for criticizing the use of anti-depressants, offending Brooke Shields, who had her own battle with post-natal depression. In another controversial appearance, Cruise lashed out at Matt Lauer, who promoted psychiatric therapy as a beneficial practice for some who need it.

Clearly, the media has done it's job in headlining these religious movements, even in discrete ways. An article focused on Katie Holme's pregnancy wouldn't be complete without mentioning the controversial religion that Tom contributes. Although many of us never knew much about Scientology, even if it's religious practices remain uncertain, at least we can link it to famous celebrities. Society never fails to want to be a part of the Hollywood lifestyle--Scientology helps create that link. Congrats TomKat.

Glorifying the Eagle

This past Sunday many people were dressing up to prepare themselves for many different rituals. Mothers dressed their children in matching outfits for church, brides dressed in white to get married, and an old woman puts on her best dress to attend the same services she has been attending for 60 years.

This past Sunday, I prepared myself for a different kind of ritual. I slipped on my green jersey, combed my hair into two pigtails with green ribbons, and carefully smeared black war paint on my cheeks. I was going to the Eagles Game!
As we approached the stadium, the crowd was frantically searching for parking spots, paying as much as $30 to get in to the spectacle. As we approached Lincoln Financial, people were dressed to the nines, showing support for the team. You could hear profane chants at the rival fans from across the stadium. People painted their faces in silver and green, wore jerseys, and hats with the official Philly cheese steak on them.
People displayed modern art as you approached the stadium. There were many painted cars and trucks, each one was more magnificent that the next. Each fan was trying to out-do the other; but also, they were all people joined together for one cause.

So does an Eagles game count as a ritual as Goethals tried to suggest? I think so. A “ritual organizes, confirms, and conserves; it operates as a kind of adhesive, binding people to each other and to modes of living that have stood the test of time”(Ritual: Ceremony and Super Sunday, 258). The Eagle’s game definitely brought people together. I saw people from all different backgrounds chiming together to sing the Eagles’ fight song or booing whenever Raiders fans were put on the big screen. People enjoyed spending time with one another.
It’s upsetting that people have started to look at leisurely rituals as more of a bonding experience than religion. Religion is based on love, support, and acceptance of one another. If religious peers are supposed to have an unwavering love for one another, why is it so awkward in church when you touch the person next to you? Some people come to church not wanting to be there; parents force their kids and some spouses only go to support their partner. People try to be quiet, polite, and to themselves instead interacting with the people around you. So if a ritual is supposed to confirm our morals, I find it disappointing that an Eagles game binds me with my fellow man better than a service based on love and helping one another.

Wealthy Christians

I grew up going to church, and almost every single Sunday when I’m home, I always go to church with my family. Santa Barbara is a wealthy area, and the majority of the members of my church drive up on Sunday mornings in their Mercedes or BMWs. The women wear designer outfits, and the men wear their Armani suits. And every now and then, Kathy Ireland will show up with her kids to attend the service. Bottom line is that this is not a normal community, but the church community is very strong.

A few years ago in one of sermons, one of the guest speakers brought up the question “Are wealthy people really Christian?” He is actually a respected professor at the Christian college in our town, and in his belief, being a wealthy Christian is a sin. He believes that if you have extra money, you should be giving money away to people who are less fortunate, all in the name of the Lord. From what I remember, he made it seem that you could not be a Christian and make over a certain amount of money because it was contradictory to everything Christians believe.

Why should someone’s level of income determine their religious standing? As we’ve discussed in my sociology class, someone’s education level is a great prediction as to how successful they will be later on in their life. If someone has put in the work required to receive a higher degree and is successful (money wise) from having received that degree, why would it make them less “Holy” compared to someone who works at K-Mart?

Religion as a Business, Part Two

Caramanket’s post “Religion as a Business” does an excellent job at pointing out the ironic relationship between money and theology. Yet it brought up an interesting question: why are people always so shocked to discover that religion is run like a capitalistic business? Why does this relationship always seem full of “irony or hypocrisy” to us, as Caramanket said.

After all, this is not a new concept. Think about few hundred years ago. The Church in Europe had the power to tax the faithful, and it exercised this power often. Cardinals, bishops, and other positions within the Church could be bought with a little extra money. One could even purchase indulgences to lessen the time spent in purgatory.

Nowadays, money is no less connected, as Caramanket illustrated. Every weekly service, you are expected to place a small donation in the circulating collection basket. Church-goers are assaulted with pleas to fund improvement projects, social celebrations, or charities. You think you are a religious person? How much money have you contributed to your local church?

Since the beginning, religion, and not just Christianity as Caramanket demonstrates, has paid close attention to wealth and material goods. Yet despite all of this, people still fail to make any mental association between money and religion. It still strikes us as odd, ironic, or wrong. When, if ever, will people accept that money is a core part of keeping God alive?