Agent wanted

For the past week or two, I have walked by the make-shift worship house near the library and had very mixed feelings about its existence. On one hand, I understand the idea of making religion easily accessible by having a "church" right in front of VanPelt library. Yet I couldn't help but also feel like it was a little invasive. Religion is a personal preference for everyone; true, some are open enough about their beliefs to partake in a worship next to the button, but others are more private about their religious feelings and the whole worship tent in the middle of college green seems a bit "in your face." It seems that religion is a very hard idea to market, especially to college kids. It's such a diverse idea that trying to publicize it seems useless. Most religious banners or signs go unnoticed, because it's hard to make a big statement about such an uncertain idea. Yet other, more attention grabbing attempts, such as the worship tent, try to jam religion down your throat in a far too forward fashion. Because of it's anonymity, I feel that religion often gets a bad name, being seen as too serious and complicated, and eventually ends up driving those who are curious, but uncertain away. Yet it doesn't have to be so threatening, and people should be more willing to take an interest in worship and beliefs. The connotation of religion could definitily use a make-over to make it more user-friendly. I think religion could maybe just use some new agents.

"Jesus Week"

This week at Penn is “Jesus Week.” This I honestly have no problem with. The signs are pretty hard to miss and every time I look at them I feel a mix of confusion, frustration, and more worrisome, apathy. Waiting for the elevator, I always glimpse at the cork board in the elevator lounge for any new flyers or interesting bits of information. Today, I stumbled across a flyer for “Jesus Week” and read something that gets at the source of my frustration. In the corner of the flyer, a saying from John 3.30 stood out. It read, “He must become greater and I must become less.” This really ticked me off.

As part of growing up I was always taught to be my own person and to be a confident person at that. I have carried that sentiment with me and only now do I understand why religion has always bothered me. In religion someone is always above you and someone is always in charge, whether it is God or a priest, it is everyone but you. The fact that I must become less in order to have someone else become more offends my sense of self-confidence and control. I don’t care who it is, I will not put myself below anyone. However, this does not mean that I do not realize when someone can do something better than I can. When that is the case, I do not lie down and let him or her step all over me. We all have our strengths and if we let someone, anyone, even God, become greater than we are, how are we ever supposed to have anything to work toward? That does not mean there is no place for respect. I can respect God’s power, but that does not mean that I must work toward making him better. What I can do is work toward making myself better in His image.

Thus, the message from John 3.30, I think, sends the wrong message. Whether or not God exists, we are in control of our own lives. Sometimes it just sucks and other times it is great, not because God wanted us to live that way, but because we made the choices that got us to that point. I am deeply offended by the fact that people think that they must lower themselves to make Him great. I believe that is why people act like sheep—they are always looking for someone to tell them what to do instead of taking charge of their own lives.

So Close, Yet So Far Away

During Monday's class discussion, Miguel started to explain his view on the definition of religion. Defining such a word is a very difficult task, and I'm sure society will never agree on a universal definition. After all, our class has spent an entire semester reading and learning about this struggle, and still have not come any closer on reaching an agreement, so hearing different opinions about this issue really catches my attention. Miguel said to imagine a scale and on one side is the term being defined-religion-and another term that helps us understand the first. He proposed to contrast 'religion' with 'hobby' so people could better understand their differences. He proceeded to say that if a person participates in an activity on a consistent basis and it plays an important role in their life, then this activity is considered a religion. On the other hand, if an activity is done 'religiously' but only takes up some of one's life, then it is a hobby. I wanted to learn more about this idea, so I read his second revision, which just reinterated what he was saying in class on a deeper level. I think this is an interesting way to look at this issue, and in my opinion, it makes sense. Maybe I'm just saying this because I agree with these ideas, but I know others will disagree. That's the way our world works. Everyone has their own opinions and the right to express them, so I'm sure that the scrutiny this proposal will face will take us farther away from uncovering the truth behind the word.

Buffy's Not the Only One with Religious Themes, Cory Mathews Has Some Ideas Too

A half hour ago, I set for myself a fairly solid plan to waste the next thirty minutes of my life. I had an exam today and have been working a little too hard since early this morning. This wasted time was to be my one breather, a chance to veg out and drift away from thought. So, I popped in my roomie’s ancient Boy Meets World DVD’s (the episodes from back in middle school, of course). Who wouldn’t want to veg out to the antics of a pre-teen Cory Mathews?

Yet, this episode surprised me. One - because I hadn’t seen it before and I have come to believe that no Boy Meets World episode escaped my obsession for ABC family. But mostly, I was surprised by the subject matter.

In this episode, Mr. Pheeny assigns The Diary of Anne Frank to Cory’s class. In some conventionally ridiculous plot line, Cory bets Mr. Pheeny that he can be a better teacher. He risks his bike, saying that he can get more students to pass a test on the book than usually would. Throughout the episode, Cory whines, as pre-teen boys do, having trouble finding a way to get his classmates to listen. He thinks that "history is history". That all changes when he comes home to Eric’s girlfriend crying because someone in the mall hurled a slang term for Chinese at her. He now knows what he has to do.

Now, I am less surprised by a sitcom’s attempt to address a serious subject than by how actually accurate the writers were in portraying the idea that in white suburbia, kids grow up thinking that prejudice no longer exists. I used to think that no one could be that behind the times. I thought prejudice was a thing of the past, just like Cory did. But all that changed one trip to Sarasota, Florida last year.

My best friend, Iris, had moved down there a couple months before. The good friend I am, I came to visit right away, to make sure she was settled. The crazy, party girl she is, she had a hundred new friends already. One night of my visit, she invited a bunch of boys from her new high school over to swim. It was the Saturday night before Easter, and somehow it came up that I didn’t have to worry about getting up early – I, being Jewish, wouldn’t be attending church. I mentioned light-heartedly that I didn’t even remember what Easter was about.
The boys immediately dropped their jaws. One’s silly cowboy hat even fell off his head. They stood, staring at me like I were an alien, for almost a minute. I motioned to Iris and began to say, “Well she’s …”, but Iris cut me off before I could finish with, “half Jewish, too.” That’s when I knew prejudice still existed.

So, the point of this rambling - cheers to Boy Meets World. Hopefully it can teach some Sarasota boys that both country music and prejudice are a little out of style.

Forget Religion, Beauty is Another Pull on Society

The apple is sweet and pleasing to humans’ taste buds; it serves the purpose of nutrition and can satisfy us when we are hungry. The cannabis provides pleasure for the mind and can fulfill the desire to escape reality. The potato allows humans to exercise control and, like the apple has a practical nutritional application. As opposed to the apple, cannabis and potato, however, the tulip merely serves as eye candy. The tulip’s appeal stems mainly from the reason that it is pleasing to observe and does not actually serve a practical purpose. Not only is the tulip considered to be beautiful because of its colors and petals but it has such a symmetric and specific structure that its inherent and apparent perfection can captivate many humans who strive on their own to become flawless. In The Botany Of Desire, the author, Michael Pollan uses the tulip as a means of examining the power of beauty.
“The autumn of 1635 marked a turning point” (101) states Pollan, referring to the start of “tulupmania” (101) that transpired in Holland. At this time, the Dutch became fascinated with the “color breaks” (101) of the tulip and began a “year-round” (102) trade that resulted in a major price inflation of the flower. The obsession with the tulip was entirely disastrous to the lives and the economy of the Dutch. “Tulipmania” finally came to a sudden halt in 1637 when “fools” (103) realized that the value of the tulip had become too great and the advantages of buying tulips too small. Pollan describes that “in the aftermath [of “Tulipmania], many Dutch blamed the flower for their folly, as if the tulips themselves had…lured otherwise sensible men to their ruin” (104). The affect of the tulip in Holland in the 17th century is a microcosm of “the nature of beauty” (105).
Pollan has captured the power that beauty can exert on a society. Today, for example, in American society, humans have channeled so much of their energy on physical appearance as a result of their desires to be beautiful: plastic surgery, eating disorders and the production of cosmetics are rampant throughout the United States. While many speculate the source of this superficiality, the power of beauty that Pollan indirectly shows through the situation in Holland can apply to Americans today: people are attracted to the beauty in nature. Today however, people are not limited to simply enjoying the beauty they notice around them, whether in nature or in some other form. Americans are able to control beauty through technological means and so they can attempt to mirror the perfection that they perceive in their surrounding environment. What people fail to realize is that even the tulip is not perfect, it is just always pleasing to the eye which is sufficient criteria to be deemed attractive. Without acknowledging the imperfections in nature, people believe that their own flaws can be rectified.
Pollan first introduces the tulip as having an “orderly arrangement of petals and stamens.” (99) The petals of the tulip each form perfectly around the next so that one can’t help but admire this natural piece of artwork. At Pollan’s first inspection of the flower, there appear to be no superfluous traits: every part of the flower serves a specific purpose and contributes to its eye captivating beauty. Yet as Pollan continues to describe the characteristics of the tulip he acknowledges that not all tulips have the standard six petals or three lipped stigmas, which serve as the basis for the symmetrical structure and appeal of the flower. There were many tulips that Pollan observed that contained “subtle perversities” (99) such as having nine to ten petals or stigmas with six lips. These tulips however were equally (if not more) appealing to Pollan than the tulips without “such eruptions of biological irrationality” (99). Pollan alludes to the larger idea that flowers are rarely regarded as ugly. Humans, if anything, appear to find enjoyment viewing nature’s anomalies when considering plants. This acceptance of irrational beauty does not, however, extend to how humans view one another in American society. At its most basic, the human body possesses a remarkable amount of symmetry (more complex than the tulip): two feet, two legs, two arms etc. The structure of the body should be more aesthetically fascinating to humans than the tulip’s composition is. American society, however, has become so critical of the human form that any deviation from a normal outward appearance is not readily praised while a “chance mutation” (99) in a tulip is not regarded as a defect but rather often as a desirable quality.
Throughout The Botany of Desire, Pollan is able to illustrate human nature through the evolution of four very distinct plants. The apple, tulip, cannabis and potato do indeed represent desires common to most (if not all) humans. Pollan’s anecdotes on the tulip subtly chastise humans pull towards beauty yet at the same time shows the relevance of beauty in science. Without the desire to strive for perfection or to find beauty, science itself may not have progressed as fast as it has. People, not only try to find excellence within themselves, but for centuries have been propelled into science in an attempt to find symmetry, order and perfection in the universe. A balance, therefore, should be struck between the advantages of being motivated by beauty and the idea that beauty can be nothing less than the embodiment of perfection.

Buffy

As a frequent viewer of the critically acclaimed series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I have come to notice some definite religious themes and undertones. Sunnydale, the location of this highly entertaining drama, despite its name, contains a seedy underbelly. Creatures of the night roam and do their best to take over this town that is located on the Hellmouth. Meanwhile it is Buffy’s job to attempt to keep these evil forces in check while remaining hip, stylish and in school. The use of crosses and holy water as symbols to repel evil vampires shows the power of religious paraphernalia to repel fiendish beings.

At the end of the fifth season Buffy dies - for the second time. This happens when Buffy catapults herself into a dimensional portal that is releasing hell on earth. When she does this the portal closes saving the world for a sixth time from apocalypse. Her friends, fearing that she is living in a demon dimension, bring her back from the dead. In doing so, they end up ripping her out of heaven. After they bring her back, they expect to be thanked for “saving her”, but they find that she has great difficulty in adjusting. They violated the laws of nature when they brought her back and now she is forced to suffer the pain that comes with living on earth after knowing what it feels like to be in heaven. Heaven is a place, which she describes as free from pain - where one knows that everyone they care about is safe, and they are able to just be. Despite the use of religious paraphernalia and a place called heaven the show never reveals if there is a higher power. Maybe the creator of Buffy has yet to make up his mind.

A Monumental Statement

In the spirit of anti-abortion advocation, Daniel Edwards will be holding a reception to honor his “Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston.” Brooklyn, New York's Capla Kesting Fine Art will be dedicating a life-sized statue of Spears giving birth to her son on a bearskin rug. Many superstars at Britney's young age often choose career before family, but her choice rang out into the pro-life crowd as a very brave decision.

Who would have ever thought that Britney Spears would have been a role model to moral righteousness? According to www.alternet.org, “What's going on here? Who in holy hell created this montrosity, and why?” In case anyone wants to get a glimpse of it, the sculpture will be “on view April 7th thru 23rd with a reception for the dedication April 7^th...”

http://www.caplakesting.com/2006_catalog/de/index.htm

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/33966/

True Lies

I saw V for Vendetta last night and was inspired to write. I saw plenty of connections to our class, but I found one very relevant to writing in general.

“Writers use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to hide the truth.

That concept is a very powerful one for me. I remember talking in class about the Shaman from Authentic Fakes, who was basically a complete religious fake who still deserved some respect for what he did. He did a lot of acting, and probably employed tactics of lying to make people believe what he believed. This might seem unfair to those who listen to him and believe what he says, but we writers do the same thing in every composition. We basically make up events and prove points that seem logical to prove a larger point of view. This isn't wrong in any way, it's just the method art uses to get the job done. When Diego Rivera used his art to further his communistic ideas or Chuck Palahniuk wrote Fight Club to prove a point about society, they were lying with the intention of exposing of what they saw as the truth. Next time you think an artist is trying to lie to you, just realize it's part of a much larger truth. Of course we can also learn from the movie that this only works in art, not politics.

Bent but not Broken?

Every year around Easter, I find myself faced with the same predicament; what to give up for lent. Not being from an extremely religious family, we never took lent too seriously, therefore my sister and I would usually end up giving up something very small and specific, for example, Oreo cookies. This idea worked fine for a while, but every year we started to slack a little more until last year I actually found myself giving up not Oreo cookies, but specifically double stuffed Oreo cookies with milk, embarrassing, I know. That lame sacrifice was the last straw and it jump-started the first religious conversation I have had with my Mom in a long time. We talked about the meaning of lent and the idea that "giving something up" that required little sacrifice was not what lent was all about. So this year we made a change, instead of giving something up that meant nothing to me, I would try to do something extra to try and be a better person. Whether it's holding a door for someone or listening to my aunts horribly boring phone calls without rolling my eyes, I made a conscious effort to clean up my act. So I guess what it comes down to is this; are we allowed to bend the rules just a little bit when it comes to religion?

Re: Am I going to burn?

This is response to Anne's "Am I going to burn?" posting.

I guess it is safe and reasonable stance to take about God- not denying his existence, but not really acknowledging it either. But if there is really a God or gods out there, which I do believe there is one in my case, I know that acknowledging his existence is not enough for many religions, to accomplish whatever goals you have your religion. From my experience, I know that in each religion out, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other, there has it set of rules or performances that the practitioners follow. And if you don't measure up somewhat to those standards you could be considered in not as great terms with God or gods.
I think that there is always fire burning something and looking stuff to burn, in contrast to what Chidester said. You got to have something to deal with it, whether it be a fireproof coat or something else other than yourself to burn. I don't think that respect, being passive, is enough. I am not saying that this religious or that religion is the right one, but I believe that an insider of any religion would think of an outsider prone to burns anytime.

re: ipod nation

In response to Nickiw Whites Blogger on iPods

I for one am the victim of the iPod craze. I feel as though I embody everything that the marketers at Apple look for in a potential customer- stupid, naïve and willing to throw down 300 hundred bones at a drop of a dime simply because the new nano is “cool” and so small and “cute.” I am just that-- Yes I did purchase a nano and no, not because I needed one (I already had a perfectly working one), but solely because I thought it was the most adorable thing I had ever seen and I wanted it. The fact that I had to flesh out 300 hundred dollars (the 250 it cost for the nano plus the costs of the accessories that of course I had to buy) seemed not to phase me in the least (partly because I bursered it..) for the cool new toy I was getting in exchange. So what am I saying exactly? Well, I’m not a hundred perfect sure, but I think that I am disagreeing with Nicki on the fact that Apple should stop doing what they’re doing because what they’re doing is working beautifully and because of their brilliantly clever marketing tactics, causing them to roll in buckets of dough.

Am I going to burn?

“Always respect the fire…otherwise, you’re going to get burned.” – National Geographic science editor, Rick Gore. p. 79 Authentic Fakes by David Chidester.

The fire makes for a very interesting parallel to God and respecting his “power.” I don’t believe in God, but I don’t not believe in God. I figure it’s safest this way, especially just in case there really does come a day that I need to turn to God, then hopefully he won’t screw me over because I haven’t been a model Christian. I keep in mind to respect God, despite my enormous reservations in his mere existence. I try to keep my cynical, negative thoughts about holier-than-thou, preachy, hyper-religious people and their conduct to myself and keep the thoughts to a minimum because I hate to feel like I’m judging (but they do drive me CRAZY!). It’s hard not to second guess whether maybe I’m wrong and to look at the high number of devoted religious people and how it all makes sense and seems to work for them. There are countless sets of beliefs and nearly that many followers, but can it be that only one of those sets of beliefs is “correct” and the rest aren’t? I’m pretty black and white most of the time, but it seems like in this case, there is some serious gray matter and unanswered questions, which may not be such a terrible thing.

Just because one doesn’t believe in something doesn’t mean it can’t hurt them. Look at good ole Dubyah—he has chosen to deny the existence Global Warming and its potentially catastrophic effects on the planet, but that doesn’t stop it from occurring—simply because he doesn’t “believe” in it. Even though I have serious doubts about God and organized religion in general, I’m still cognizant of how he could be playing a role in my life without my approval, or awareness for that matter. I’m God-fearing, but I don’t really know if there is even a God to fear…

Drawing Connections between Naked Cartoons & Religion

So, my immediate reaction to my classmates after exiting our viewing of Ghost in the Shell was simple. “What the fuck just happened?” I’ve never even considered watching anime before. Cartoons, dubbed soundtracks, and foreign cultural ideas never seemed to appeal to me.

Honestly, naked drawings still don’t do it for me. But, I did get something out of the experience. And, in good reflection of the nature of our class, that something was a message about religion, popular culture, and media.

Ghost in the Shell is about the ghost, or soul, and technology developing its own soul - in Grant’s words, “the mystification of technology”. But what does that mean? And does it have any application to the actual, current world we live in, rather than some cyber future?

We spend hours a day in front of computers. We play with their programs. We scream at them to work. We cry when they crash. I relate more with my computer than with most people in my life, and I promise I do have a social life. This makes the computer, at the very least, a personality – at the very most, a being with a soul.

The people who believe the ‘being with a soul’ theory are those who don’t know any better, those who think of technology as a mystery. People worship mysteries. They spiritualize them, religion-ize them, make them understandable. This is exactly what people do to technology. They don’t understand how pieces of metal can allow them to talk on AIM across continents or attach documents to e-mail. So they “mystify”. The creators of Ghost in the Shell must just worship the mystery, or even broader, the possibility, of technology. And it comes out, in what some, not quite me, might consider beautiful, anime.

Politics and Religion - historically speaking

In my history class we read a lot about the religions of the past and how they have impacted political factions. In class our professor asked us, how does religion affect politics? I pondered this question extensively, mostly because I thought it might be a question on the test and after examining several civilizations of the past I concluded that it could affect it either by making a ruling entity stronger or weaker based on how it is used.

When religion is forced on an unwilling society naturally popular discontent occurs. In the case of the Assyrians and their invasion of ancient Sumeria, similar parallels could be drawn. Their oppression and outright removal and displacement of many of their subjects served as a hindrance in their overall ability to effectively govern their newly acquired subjects.

Unlike the Assyrians, the Romans would be an example of an effective use of religion as a tool to govern peoples and unite a kingdom. Initially with the establishment of a group of gods very similar to those of their neighboring Greeks they were able to allow for many voluntary conversions. Simply by erecting their statues and temples that paid tribute to their gods, though the pervasive nature of their worship they were able to get most of their conquered peoples to convert. Also because many of these polytheistic religions were so similar to the one the Romans were preaching it was very easy for the people to shift their beliefs by a little bit. Later the Romans massive conversion to Christianity after Constantine’s vision took a somewhat similar and equally effective approach. Conversion was not mandatory, but because of its moral appeal and the fact that it preached equality for all it grew to have much popular support. As a kind of grass-roots religion, Christianity worked its way up from the bottom rungs of society up the ladder to the top. Constantine’s very sudden ‘vision’ has been seen as a political ploy to keep the lower classes from rebelling and bring together his kingdom. He did this very effectively – it is even believed that Christianity may have served as a morally unifying element that bound the Roman Empire together for far longer than it would have otherwise been.

Essentially what works is tolerance. If a ruler employs the use of tolerance and effective governing his kingdom will most likely be prosperous and his subjects will be content.

Are Rules Really Meant to Be Broken?

Over Spring Break, I went to a place I haven't been to in a long time: Church. Right now, Catholics are actively participating in Lent and attempting to prepare themselves for Easter. During this time, they are supposed to give up something that they really enjoy, such as candy, or try to break a bad habit. Another requirement is to stop eating meat on Fridays. As I sat in Church on Sunday morning, I started to think more about these sacrifices. Coincidentally, the priest chose to elaborate a little more on this topic. He talked about the difficulty that lies within making such sacrifices and the positive feelings that you will feel upon reaching your goals. I left Church that day feeling confident about my knowledge of Lent and Easter, until I went over my friend's house. I was sitting in the living room with her family, and her dad said that since Friday was St. Patrick's Day, people were allowed to eat meat. Of course I didn't believe him; "he was probably just joking around," I thought to myself. How could people just change rules that have been around for thousands of years? After I left, I didn't really put a lot of thought into what he had said. I went into my room, turned on the TV, and one of the Cardinals was making a speech. I decided to listen for a couple minutes. He was basically just rambling on about the Easter season and its significance in the Catholic Church. Then, all of a sudden, he said something that I never would have dreamed of: "Since Friday, March 17th, is a special holiday, the Church is making an exception and are allowing people to eat meat." I couldn't believe it, but I was immediately reminded of "God as a Hand Puppet," which was an article we read in class. Originally I felt offended by it, but now that I have actually experienced what author Davidson Loehr was talking about, I believe that religions are sometimes corrupted. Are religious officials permitted to decide what rules they want to change because of a holiday? What's next, publicly announcing that people no longer have to give something up for Lent because most religious officials feel that it's just too difficult? Lent isn't supposed to be an easy time; it's supposed to be hard, so even if a holiday falls on a Friday, people should feel even more determined to resist temptation. Sometimes rules are meant to be broken, but in my opinion, religious rules should not fall under such a category.

iPod Nation

There is no doubt in my mind that you have all seen them, actually, you probably all have them. They're everywhere, on buses, at the gym, even just walking down the street; they're the Apple iPod, and they've become the "must-have" trinket of our time. In Peter Steven's book, "The No Nonsense Guide to Global Media," he discusses the importance of technology as our society becomes more advanced. Technology is supposed to help us solve problems and make our lives easier, says Stevens. Yet what happens when a company continues to "re-invent" the same product over and over? Is that really moving us forward, or just making an already booming company richer? Apple started with the iPod, which did make our lives easier by allowing us to take our music everywhere we went in a compact devise. Yet it seems that everytime we turn around, our version of the iPod is suddenly outdated because Apple made a new model that is has a color screen, is smaller, or is pink. These new versions still serve the same purpose as the old iPod: playing our music, so there is really no need to rush out and buy the nano, the shuffle or the mini, yet if you happen to visit the Apple store on a weekend you would never know. If technology is really meant to make our lives better, Apple should stop marketing the same product to trend happy Americans and start working at solving some real problems.

Religious Immunity

Religion is the ultimate loaded topic in American culture. We scrutinize and judge people’s dress, speech, who they associate with, personal appearance, and opinions on practically any topic—regularly, though often not in an outward fashion. Religion is immune to a war of words, even by some of the most brazen and unrestrained personalities who are at each other’s throats.

Kids on a playground can tease each other about innate qualities that are completely out of one’s control like a big nose, crooked teeth, or being a girl, but religious affiliation involves at least some element of choice yet it is a tacit taboo. How have we managed to instill a widespread respect for religiosity and still struggle with misogyny and racism?

We all have a sex and race(s), but not all of us identify with a religion. At first, I thought maybe people do not dare speak ill of things related to religion because they fear what is unfamiliar or what they do not understand, but those same feelings can also create a drive to criticize what may feel threatening.

Many religions are ancient and steeped in tradition; perhaps since they have existed for a long time they are harder to question. However, sex and race have presumably existed for just as long, if not longer, and we are still struggling with those differences.

Why is religion so sacred?

Tolerance

I’ve agonized long and hard about what to write in a religious blog, but I keep coming up short. Although I was raised in a religious home, went to a religious school, and religion plays a major role in my life, I couldn’t think of anything to write about.
When I arrived at college this fall, I was unsure how religion would factor into my new life, but I was confident that I would manage. I knew that I wanted to be accepted for who I was as a person, not because I was raised in a specific culture, went to a particular type of school, or had certain religious beliefs. I wanted to blend in, to be like everyone else, and move on from there while still retaining my religious identity.
My experience at college these past few months has been eye-opening. For the most part, except for my writing seminar in religion, media, and performance, I’ve managed to keep my religious beliefs pretty private. My new friends are extremely tolerant of my lifestyle, from both a religious and a social perspective. In fact, they worry more about what I can and cannot eat, and when I can’t do certain things, than I do.
In religious circles, people are very quick to preach the message of tolerance. For me, in the secular culture of a university, it has been a refreshing and inspiring experience to see tolerance in action. I truly admire my new friends, respect their various cultures, and feel privileged to be part of their world, which is often so much different from my own.

No Science, No Sex, Just Religion

The presence of religion in the media is tricky. Like most things there is a time and place for practicing religion. The Bush Administration does not acknowledge the distinction between church and state, thereby obscuring one of the crucial building blocks of America. The Pharmaceutical company, Merck & Company, recently applied for a license to distribute a vaccine that has proved effective against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Unlike many treatments out on the market now, this vaccine has proven consistently successful. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease and many teenage girls would benefit from receiving the vaccine before they become sexually active. While the vaccine is likely to receive approval from the F.D.A. by June, the Bush Administration could easily thwart the success of the drug. Bush and his entourage (the religious base of the Republican Party) are stuck in a past where religion was a panacea and no unnecessary drugs or procedures that acknowledged ‘sin’ (sex) existed. Bush is against implementing mandatory vaccinations for the HPV virus before a child can enter public school. Rather than recognize the advancement of science indicated by such a vaccine, Bush and his religious advocates want to depend on education programs that endorse abstinence as the primary (and sole) way of avoiding STD’s. This is absurd. In a country where 17 is the average age when girls lose their virginity it is clear that medicines proven to prevent STD’s should be accessible and administered properly. I doubt that the woman who lost her virginity to President Bush distorted the aforementioned statistic. Yes HPV is avoidable if safe sex is guaranteed, but why paint a picture of a perfect society when we have ways of dealing with the problems of reality? While it is too early to definitively say that Bush will not realize the importance of administering the vaccine to children before they enter school, it is clear that Bush and his fellow conservatives such as Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma need to reevaluate their priorities. Admitting that promiscuity exists in America should not be of grave concern to Bush’s already stained legacy. The vaccine for HPV is only one sexually related drug that Bush and other religious conservatives deem to be permits for deplorable sexual activity. Religion shrouded under the veil of politics and then injected into the media is unacceptable. In this case, intellectuals, journalists and other media gatekeepers must harp on the Bush Administration’s backwards mentality and alert the general public that access to drugs like the HPV vaccine and Plan B is essential.

What Are You Laughing At?

“Have you heard the one about Chuck Norris?”—goes a now familiar beginning of a conversation. Despite his waning acting career, the former roundhouse-kicking lead man behind Delta Force and Walker, Texas Ranger has been the subject of some 40,000 ridiculous jokes that cite him as the cause behind everything good and bad in this world. Whether he is depicted as the strongest arm of justice (“Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs”) or the ultimate dispenser of death (“The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain”), Norris has become the quintessential überman. Yet in some renditions, he is even more than that—superhuman, godlike, and omnipotent:

“Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.”

“Filming on location for Walker: Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris brought a stillborn baby lamb back to life by giving it a prolonged beard rub. Shortly after the farm animal sprang back to life and a crowd had gathered, Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked the animal, breaking its neck, to remind the crew once more that Chuck giveth, and the good Chuck, he taketh away.”

“Chuck Norris cannot swim. Every time he tries, he ends up walking on water.”

“On the 7th day, God rested.... Chuck Norris took over.”

Based on the religiously charged diction, it is no surprise that the Internet fad has spawned a fledgling parody religion: The Official Church of Chuck Norris (which is referenced by Wikipedia in “Parody Religions”). While the site is billed as “the culmination of Chuck Norris ‘fact’ lovers into a Church setting,” it is really just another source to locate Norris jokes. Loosely based around “worshipping” God Chuck, the Church is all in the name of good humor. No complaints here. The jokes are funny, and I say keep them coming (click here or here for more, though I caution the easily offended).

But I question the motivation behind some of the more serious parody religions listed—churches like the Church of the SubGenius and Discordianism. These parody religions have billed themselves as real religions, complete with real symbols, “real” histories, and real and passionate followers. While they acknowledge the illegitimacy of modern organized religion, they combat it by creating belief systems that are just as fake as popular alternatives. Perhaps someone else finds this hypocritical? It seems that these groups should be organizations of like-minded people—not religions—that either give up on all religious belief or try to discover the truth about reality. From David Chidister’s study of contemporary religion in Authentic Fakes, we find that some parodies come to this conclusion on their own. For example, the founder of the Holy Order of the Cheeseburger (HOC), who once described his religion as “an alternative to crazy religions with an even crazier religion,” closed his website upon realizing that he was no longer prepared to offer invented beliefs as reality (208).

The other parody religions on the internet would be wise to follow the HOC’s example and stop misleading people into believing that they are something when they are not. Or, if they prefer, they can continue as groups that look and act like religions so long as they don’t claim to be religions. Whatever the choice, the answer cannot be to further dilute the already tainted character of religion by aimlessly tossing in new and openly invented belief systems.

Limbo (and Legitimacy) Lost

There is a significant change unfolding right above our heads. It’s global. It’s unprecedented. But it’s not something an earth-bound human would notice—especially if they are a Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, or Jew.

That’s because this is a change originating from within the Catholic Church as the culmination of an investigation started by the late Pope John Paul II. Based on recommendations from the Church’s International Theological Commission, Pope Benedict XVI is expected to abolish Limbo, effectively wiping the dimension from the heavenly fabric forever.

According to tradition, Limbo is a region between Heaven and Hell that is distinct from Purgatory in that it offers no passage to other heavenly realms. Whereas Purgatory is essentially “God’s waiting room,” offering salvation to moderate sinners who have burned off their misdeeds, Limbo is a final destination. The concept dates back to the 1200s, where it arose as an answer to the problem of where the souls of unbaptised children go after death. Additionally, the realm was cited as the temporary residence of the souls of those who died before Christ’s resurrection. Though never officially part of Catholic doctrine, Limbo has seen firm support in the past. In addition to appearing in Dante’s Divine Comedy and the works of Renaissance artists like Giotto, Limbo has been decisively recognized by Pope Pius X as recently as 1905: “Children who die without being baptised go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either, because whilst carrying the original sin... they don't deserve paradise but neither do they deserve hell or purgatory.” Saint Thomas Aquinas had even gone so far as to describe Limbo, calling it an “eternal state of natural joy” similar to joys felt on earth but less profound than the supernatural joy of the beatific vision.

However pleasant or unpleasant Limbo actually is (or is supposed to be), the Church’s handling of children (who would now be entrusted to “the mercy of God”) is much harsher than rival religions. Under Islam, for example, all children are welcomed in Heaven without any additional requirements. The growing number of more popular alternatives may be one reason for the Church’s relatively sudden change of policy, as telegraph.co.uk implies: “More than six million children die of hunger every year in underdeveloped countries where the Church is keen to see its support continue to grow…It is concerned that the concept of limbo may not impress potential converts.”

If the Church’s motives include wooing new converts to augment its power, then I consider Benedict’s decision one of the most shameful acts in history. How can an organization maintain that it is good when resorting to deception and modern marketing practices to dupe individuals into accepting “Catholicism 2.0, the new and improved version?” And even if the Church’s motives are only to rectify an incorrect assumption, other serious questions arise. How many other concepts does the Church falsely endorse? From where does Church doctrine actually originate? Surely it cannot be God, because Benedict’s action would overrule God’s word. Surely it cannot be from another credible source, because this source has apparently been ruled erroneous. So where does the Church find its teachings?

Perhaps impoverished converts will not stumble upon these questions as they are blinded by Catholicism’s shiny new packaging. Perhaps they will be impressed by the omnibenevolent Catholic God who doesn’t penalize young children for sins they have not fully committed. This is all speculation. But what is definite about Limbo’s elimination is this: Whatever the Church gains in membership, it loses much more in legitimacy.

{J.C.}

Joe Coleman’s “Rest in Pieces” certainly allowed me to get a sense of his world growing up. The documentary had me convinced that Coleman had a legitimate reason and source for inspiration for creating his infamous color plates. However, the last scene of “Rest in Pieces” confused me completely, as Coleman ultimately revealed the causes behind his works.

The final scene depicts Coleman as if he is a priest holding a sermon in a Christian church. The scene occurs in a dark entry, with Coleman palming lit candles and placing them one by one next to each other. He then speaks and says that the current troubles in the world signify that now is a time of death, rather than birth. People have to learn to live with the idea that death is forthcoming. In a bizarre finale, Coleman mentions that his initials are “J.C.” which represents that he is not only Christ, but a representation of the anti-Christ as well.

I simply didn’t understand how Coleman could justify the fact that now was the time of death rather than previous time periods. The medieval empires are known as the “Dark Ages” for all the war and troubles that occurred. Diseases were more rampant, religious tolerance was not accepted, and equal rights were not allowed. If we are in a time of death now, where war is less prolific and diseases are more controllable, then what did the medieval days represent?

Coleman’s comparison of himself to Jesus Christ is quite flawed and the justification for his thoughts is illegitimate. I view Christ as a figure who was able to spread his word from the God through a minority of individuals. These people saw the power Christ had, and were thus able to believe his words. Coleman does not have the power to attract followers like Christ did, and his images induce more of an atrocious response than a religious analysis.

In my opinion, the only thing that J.C. could stand for is “Just Crazy.”