Unitarian Universalism

Part I
A system of Symbols

It is not uncommon for a religion to base its beliefs around a central book of teachings. Christians have the Bible, Mormons have the Book of Mormon, and Muslims have the Koran. Unitarian Universalism is unique because it lacks a central book. The Bible is important but they believe in reading all religious books as if they were in a religious studies class instead of Theology class, Unitarian Universalists read with a critical eye, not simply accepting any religious text. The critical eye and lack of a central book allows Unitarian Universalists to search for spirituality in religious texts as well as transcendentalist and current authors. The Surmons of Ralph Waldo Emmerson play a vital role in Unitarian Universalists system of symbols to establish beliefs.

Emmerson was raised near the end of New England Puritanism; according to the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society Emerson is “the most recognized and revered figure in the Unitarian movement”. His sermons were said to encourage and uplift all the people who went to see him speak even if they didn’t really understand what he said. Emerson once said “the search after truth is always by approximation”. He advocated, “the kingdom of god is within you” (Mott 53). These two principles are central in Unitarian Universalism however it’s an idea that is not actively preached in other religions.

Most religions like Mormonism for example want people to accept that their book is the truth. Islam forces followers to think that there is no God but Allah and Muhammud is the profit. It’s strange to think that a person can still be a Unitarian even if they don’t accept a profit or a sacred text. If prophets are not essential in religion why have all religions before Unitarian Universalism had one? Before I started this class I considered a profit essential to the definition of religion.

When reading Emerson through Unitarian Universalist lenses it’s tempting to look for why Emerson could be considered a prophet. For Unitarian Universalists Emerson simply establishes key principles not sacred texts. I think the one of the most important ones is “the search for truth is an approximation” (Mott 53). This quote establishes the critical eye that Unitarians have when looking at all things. It’s not cynical it’s simply a way of preventing conflict, if someone is never sure of what is truly the correct religion they can never disagree with a person who holds different beliefs. The critical eye allows Unitarians to practice another key principle that Emerson illustrated which was equality for all. 

As far as establishing a system of symbols it is important to remember that Unitarian Universalists don’t rely on one person. Emerson is a key figure but he is not a prophet. He preached values that are consistent with what Unitarian Universalists believe, but he did not establish the system of symbols. This is important because there may be elements of Emerson’s beliefs that are not consistent with Unitarian values especially since the world has evolved to become more complex today than when Emerson lived. Unitarian Universalists beliefs can evolve with time because they learn their core values from many different sources.

             

Part II

How the Right Views Unitarian Universalism  

Unitarian Universalism has been struggling with the negative characterization by the religious right for a long time. It is important to note that Unitarian Universalism embraces people of all faiths whether they believe in heaven and hell, only heaven, or neither. In this video Mr. Ankerburg only addresses those Unitarian Universalists that believe in heaven and accept Jesus as their savior.

Mr. Ankerburg’s attack on universalism is very flawed. We can never know for sure if there is a heaven or hell it is only through speculation and religious text that we know of heaven and hell. Heaven and hell have existed in many different forms throughout history. For example the Indians of Wisconsin believed that there was an upper world and a lower world and they built Indian mounds honoring both worlds to maintain balance. Some Unitarians belief that heaven and hell might not exist or their might only be a heaven is very uncommon in religion. It is no surprise that Mr. Ankerburg takes offence to such a revolutionary concept, his religion has believed in heaven and hell since it was founded.

Believing only in heaven does have many advantages. It promotes the belief that goodness can be found in everyone. It equalizes all people so the beggar is not less spiritual than a person who is wealthy. If people believe that they are all equal it promotes valuing those that are less fortunate. In general I think that humanity can coexist much better if they aren’t separating those that are going to heaven from those that are going to hell.

The belief in heaven and hell is not the only division that deeply separates Unitarian Universalists from the religious right. Modern times have brought many social, beliefs, values, and perspectives that shape public and private life. For example the Religious right has been promoting the right to life and the ban on gay marriage for years. Universalists deeply oppose these ideas. It is very interesting that the bible can spark such sharp contrasts in ideas, but Unitarian Universalism couldn’t be farther from the religious right.

Universalism “is a promise to theologically hang in there with the complexities and cruelties of the human enterprise” (Alexander 37). In this way it appears similar to the Rastafarians rejecting the influence of Babylon. Universalists aim to reject the influence of injustice by promoting the “natural worth and preciousness of people”(Alexander 36). The inspiration provided by Unitarian Universalism allows people to continue in the face of adversity much like Rastafarianism gave the disadvantaged people of Jamaca hope. It uplifts the soul instead of guilt tripping people and providing reasons that humans are bad and God wants to damn humanity.

It is interesting to note that even 200 years ago around the creation of Unitarian Universalism the puritans were still preaching that “hell’s gaping mouth [is] wide open, and you have nothing to stand upon or take hold of” (Alexander 33). This statement sounds very similar to Mr. Ankerburg’s argument. Mr. Ankerburg is not looking for the best in humanity. Unitarian Universalists present a much more positive view of spirituality because they preach “the tenacious acceptance of every human person” (Alexander 37). As a bystander the Universalist approach religion seems to be just as effective and much less stressful, I find it hard to spend ones life conscious the inevitable damnation that humanity faces in the afterlife and still live a positive life. Why live a cynical life when one can live positively?

III

The Glue of Unitary Universalism

At first glance Unitary Universalism seems like it is not really held together that well. It appears to be many people who believe different things, but value love. This video certainly personifies the difference between many people who are Unitary Universalists.

It seems that these people have nothing in common, except the very obvious fact that they all go to the same church. However, Unitarian Universalists are deeply connected. The Covenant links Unitarian Universalists together; “In Universalism a covenant is a promise that members of a congregation make to one another, transforming them from a collection of individuals into a faith based community” (Fervert). In Unitarian Universalist churches the church service will open with the recitation of the covenant in unison.

It is interesting that in each church the covenant is different. At first I saw this as a weakness because how can a faith attempt to be unified if they recite different covenants. This could lead to drastic differences in beliefs. It is another aspect of Unitary Universalism that separates them from most religions. For example in Mormonism The Church of Latter Day Saints makes sure that each church follows the customs of the religion. I realized that Unitary Universalism promotes equality on a spiritual level by letting each community choose how they want to open their service. The way the Unitarian Universalist church works is very similar to the American political system. Allowing people to pick their opening prayer is reminiscent of Federalism. The system of belief is divided up into localities so it can better represent the people in the community. For example Unitary Universalists who live in a largely conservative community might side more towards including God in their covenant. A very liberal community might community might choose a covenant that speaks of love, knowledge, and freedom, and plays down the role of god.

The Covenant is a genius way to tie the community together. Speaking it aloud reaffirms that what one is saying is true. And speaking it together connects the community and unites people despite their differences. I think the tolerance that Unitary Universalists preach is reflected well in letting each community decide what to say for their covenant. With this type of tolerance it’s no wonder that Unitary Universalists feel a deep connection with each other even if their bond seems tenuous from the outside perspective.

             

Part IV
Membership Problem

With such collective freedom Unitarian Universalism does face a problem. Unitarian Universalism combines people of all faiths so how does someone know if they are a Unitarian Universalist? As is the general theme throughout Unitarian Universalism people define membership differently. The membership problem is breaking the bonds of traditional religions. For example Mormonism clearly illustrates what it means to be a Mormon and there is no question about how one becomes a Mormon.

I consider it a problem that Unitarian Universalism does not have a clearly defined route to membership. By letting each church decide how a person becomes a member it seems reminiscent of federalism again. Each locality determines how people become members much like the states choose how they will hold elections. In both Unitarian Universalism and American politics participation is a problem.

I read a story that illustrates the Unitarian’s membership problem. People who are looking for the right church attend a Unitarian Universalist church. They are interested and sign what they think is the guest book, but later they end up becoming a member of a different church.

Months later they get a call from a member of the Unitarian Universalist church asking for a member’s pledge. Upon explaining that they are not a member they only signed the guest book the person who signed the guestbook realizes that they signed the membership book instead of the guest book. This would mean that they have been a member of the Unitarian Universalist faith for months and didn’t know it.  In this sense membership is a real problem for Unitarians because there are no specific guidelines. The lack of guidelines can create a disconnected community in a sense because the people of the church don’t know fellow members.

            I think most Unitarians would agree that they would like specific guidelines for membership. Most faiths have the criteria that a person should attend church regularly, work on ones own spiritual development, involve themselves in service to the community, and connect themselves to the broader Unitarian Universalist movement. I think these criteria are essential to the success of Unitarian Universalism. Attending service regularly will connect the community and make sure that everyone is familiar with the people of their same faith. Spiritual development is crucial because it proves that people are getting something positive out of their faith. Involving ones self in service shows the commitment to the faith, through the central Unitarian Universalist theme of making the world a more positive place. Connecting to Unitarian Universalist movement shows commitment and pride in spreading the faith and making others aware of it. This criterion establishes conceptions of the world that can be defined through Unitary Universalism.

Part V

Unitarian Universalism Today

             Throughout the term I have been trying to put my finger on something that unites the religions we studied. I have been searching for the common element that explains not just what all the elements of a religion are but something that explains why people choose to be religious and why religions are worth studying. I found a quote that illustrates not only Unitarian Universalists view of why we believe but also pertains to all religions. Henry David Thoreau once said, “I wish to learn what life has to teach, and not, when I come to die discover that I have not lived” (Ferver).           

            Thoreau illustrated the essential point of religion. People trying to make sense of the world they live in so they have no regrets when they die. Religion is a way to justify ones actions. It seems like a simple concept but it is present in all the religions we have studied. The Indians built mounds to honor the gods they did not know for sure existed. Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon to become more spiritual by finding a truer, more pious way to live than the puritans. The Bahai likewise preach that their religion is the most up to date and allows people to live the best, most spiritual life. Rastafari created a religion in order to explain the confusing poverty stricken world around them. They attempted to find their niche and exist in a world that didn’t make sense.

            Like wise Unitarians believe they have found the best way to live for them. Religion varies so widely especially today because people have such different goals in life. The idea of a universal religion like the Bahai preach is somewhat strange because there is no one belief that will fulfill all of humanity except that we all want to die with no regrets in a world that makes sense.

            Unitarians attempt to explain their world in terms of the eternal good of humans. They look at things in a positive light and attempt to live life to the fullest and take in as much as possible so they can die with no regrets. Unitarians are different than many religions but they share the concept of explaining the world around them through a lens that fits their unique situation. 

How to Approach the Book of Abraham

When Reading the Book of Abraham we must approach it with a very critical eye. There is a significant difference between reading what is written and accepting it and reading and questioning what the book says. It is widely known that the Book of Abraham bears little resemblance to what the actual Papyrus said in Egyptian but I don’t think that devalues what is said in the Book of Abraham. We can still read it and examine the points that don’t appear to be from 2000 BC and understand Mormonism better.

           One thing I think is interesting is that it still uses “and it came to pass” as a popular phrase because it makes the Book of Abraham sound exactly like the book of Mormon. This could just be a coincidence of Joseph Smith translating it into king James English. However I think it more likely suggests that Joseph Smith simply created the Book of Abraham and was not translating anything.

            Also the story of creation is very similar to the story in the Bible. The bible was not written in 2000 BC so I think it’s unlikely that the Book of Abraham was written around then. The story even includes Adam and Eve. I found this resemblance strange also because this was not the actual story of creation that the Egyptians believed in so it doest make sense that it was written in Egyptian hieroglyphics. Also the story of Genesis is essentially recreated when Abraham goes into Egypt he lies to the Egyptians with God's permission. 

            The Book of Abraham also showed a fair amount of bias toward the people of Egypt. The narration said that the people of Egypt would kill Abraham because his wife was so beautiful. I don’t think this is really a fair characterization of the Egyptians. It makes them seem like savages when they were actually very advanced people. This is more of a 19^th century belief that native people were inferior. It is a similar characterization that is present in the Book of Mormon when Smith is talking about the Native Americans. I don’t think that people in 2000 BC would have looked at the Egyptian civilization as being uncultured ignorant savages.

            While the book of Abraham may not have been written in 2000 BC it provides interesting insight into how that culture was viewed by society in the time of Joseph Smith. It’s also interesting and somewhat fighting that someone could read that and accept his bias as truth and assume that’s what Egypt was like in 2000 BC. I think we need to treat all religious text with great care and not necessarily accept what we read as truth right off the bat because it can be misleading. The book of Abraham provides an excellent example of something that seems normal enough on the surface but if we read it with a critical eye there are many unusual fallacies and inconsistencies.

I was very interested to see that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is working so hard to include minorities in their ad campaign. The Mormons have begun to picture adds like the one below to emphasize their ethnic diversity.

However I still see Mormonism as a church dominated by white ideals. In the Mormon community I visited in Arizona the entire community was white. If we look at Brigham Young University a school that is 98.5 percent Mormon only 14 percent of students are minorities(source) . While Columbia University’s undergrad programs are composed of 45.4 percent minorities (source). While this may not seem like a big deal I believe it’s a sign that clearly says there are still deep roots of ethnic distrust in Mormonism.

            Furthermore we can see white supremacy deeply rooted in the book of Mormon. For example the book of Mormon states that the people of Lamen lose their way, their skin gets darker and they become uncivilized. The people of Lamen clearly represent the Native Americans. Jesus is also characterized as coming down from the clouds in an immaculate white robe. These images strike me as having a clear racial message. There message does not seem so offensive as to suggest that whites are better than others, just that whites are spiritually educated. There is a very fine line to these racial characterizations but I definitely think they exist. 

            I find it very troubling that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is making an effort to promote racial diversity, yet they are not addressing the roots of racial tension in the book of Mormon. It almost feels fake to hear this incredible story of someone who has persevered in the face of poverty and the Church of Latter Day Saints is taking all the credit even though their religious text doesn’t stand for minorities. It makes me wonder if it’s possible to change the belief about minorities without addressing the source of the belief in the Book of Mormon?

            To me the Book of Mormon is contradictory to what the LDS add campaign is preaching. This underlying theme of racial tension should be dealt with. I don’t think that these adds will serve to eliminate the racial tension, in fact they only draw more attention to the fact that minorities are not a significant proportion of Mormons in the United States. 

A Dangerous Jesus

In the 19^th and 20^th century people were looking to explain their surroundings, and justify their right to America. As we have seen throughout this course Americans have taken some wild steps to justify the phrase “manifest destiny”. I see some pieces in the book of Mormon that appear ridiculous to me now but might have been accepted in the 19^th century and possibly the early 20^th century.

The first thing I find troubling is Joseph Smith saying that Jesus came to America after his resurrection. This is obviously ridiculous Jesus would have never been able to travel that far to visit the people of Nephi. However, it might have been a popular belief in the 19^th century. After all people had already attributed the Indian Mounds of Wisconsin to one of the lost tribes of Israel, and Jesus visiting the “new world” doesn’t seem that impossible if an entire lost tribe can get here.

            I find this thought very troubling almost a little bit freighting. Using Jesus and the lost tribes of Israel as a possible story to explain ones surroundings distracts Americans from the truth. The truth that Indians were here first and we should respect their territory. These stories give credit where credit is not due and they distract us from what actually happened in a way that harms others. The Indians suffered because Americans thought they could reintroduce spirituality and civility through assimilation. Americans claimed land that really wasn’t theirs through stories similar to this. 

            Another troubling thing that may have appealed to 19^th or 20^th century people is Jesus descending from the clouds in a white robe. This is a very captivating image, which also explains why the Nephi are such a special people. Jesus descended from the heavens to help them. In a way this ordains Americans as having a special blessing from Jesus and Europeans are just reintroducing a lost culture to the natives. It serves as an excuse to explain why Americans should “manifest destiny”. After all Jesus doesn’t just come down from the clouds for anybody.

            I don’t like to think of Jesus coming down from the clouds because the image of Jesus descending from the clouds goes against the founding principles of Christianity. Jesus was supposed to be a simple carpenter, not a drama queen (or king). This image goes against all conservative images of Jesus and in a way ruins what he stands for. I don’t like this image because it is not how I picture Jesus. I picture him as a wise man that people listen to because of his words, not because he can descend from the clouds like a UFO. I think this image ruins the modesty that should embody Jesus.

            These were the two details of Jesus that I found troubling one, because both of them seemed very impossible. But two because, I don’t think Jesus should be a symbol of ordaining a religion, while he may be a savior people should not look at him as something he isn’t to justify a wrongdoing. For example Americans can’t believe that since they were the chosen people of Jesus they can do whatever they want to other cultures and just explain that they are people of Jesus to and Natives simply need to return to his ways. 

Confines of Bahá'í

The Bahá'í pride themselves on being a very accepting religion. They have many aspects that I really like such as their attempt to create unity and peace. However I think when it comes to equality there are some aspects that lack depth. In some places the Bahá'í don’t promote unity very well.

A very important aspect of Bahá'í religion is unity. The oneness of God is a multifaceted aspect that the Bahá'í simplify almost too much. I think it is strange that the Bahá'í compound some religions which are polytheistic like Buddhism and Hinduism. I don’t understand how the Bahá'í can compound these polytheistic religions into a monotheistic religion. It seems like they are taking away the importance of Hinduism’s gods by not giving them a place in the Bahá'í religion.

            Because there is only one God it puts religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam above Hinduism and Buddhism. The Bahá'í faith is biased because it acknowledges Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as having a figurehead who is more important than the Gods in Buddhism and Hinduism. In a sense I see a contradiction because while they preach unity the Bahá'í don’t cohesively unify all the religions.

            In class we also talked about how there is not unity among the profits. While the Bahá'í do acknowledge profits from many religion not all profits are equal. The Bahá'í think that each profit came with a refined message from God. Krishna was the first known profit from the Hindu faith and Muhammad was the last profit drawn from an ancient religion. This means that Muhammud has the most valuable and relevant message besides The Bab and the Baha’u’llah who came after Muhammud. Again we see a reoccurring theme, not of unity but division, Hinduism is at the bottom of the totem pole while Christianity and Islam are close to the top.

Another easily foreseeable division in the Bahá'í faith is what to do when it’s time for the next profit. The Bahá'í procrastinated on developing a solution for this problem by saying he will not come for one thousand years. But assuming the Bahá'í are still around there could be a division between people who accept the word of the profit and people who do not. There is not an immediate solution to this problem, but it will not be relevant for a long time, regardless it is still important to mention because the Bahá'í faith is not complete unity as it first appeared.

Given these misconceptions I think the Bahá'í are still founded on positive ideals however like any religion, it’s not perfect and in some ways it does confine members of its faith. 

Compassion and the Bahá'í

            Karen Armstorong put together a very powerful video I think she is correct in saying that religions stray to far from each other, sometimes they choose to look at what divides them instead of the themes that unite all religions. Karen’s last idea of building a global community so that “People of all persuasions can live together in peace and harmony” is an idea that the Bahá'í share (3:17).

            The Bahá'í advocate the same principle Karen illustrated. The Bahá'í believe that humanity evolves in stages. They started in tribes and have now evolved into nation states; the baha’u’lla himself believed that the next step is to unify the world. Without unity there is no way to treat the problems of the world.

            The Bahá'í would agree that the world is sick. Environmental pollution, desertification, global warming, and the gap between rich and poor nations plague us as people. The Bahá'í believe that there is no way to deal with these problems except at a global level. Abdul’i- Bahá emphasizes “the family of mankind”, believing that all people need to come together and treat the tragedies of the world with the compassion similar to if they were happening to a close relative.

            Abdul’i- Bahá'í advocated a global consciousness in that “humanity needs to realize that they are independent (64). The Bahá'í believe that if this happens people will wake up to all the problems that are now inconceivable. Karen’s video also advocated a similar philosophy at 1:04 a man said “it doesn’t matter if they are Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic. It’s that they’re a fellow human being and they are suffering”.

            The Bahá'í believe that if we wake up to the concept that we are all connected, we can then connect on a spiritual level to promote peace and harmony. I admire the Bahá'í faith because they have steps society must follow in order to attain spiritual connection. It seems like Karen simply thinks that society will wake up to this fact by hearing her say it. She gave no guidance to her viewers other than look for compassion in religion, and tell stories about compassion. I think that is how Karen’s video and the Bahá'í faith are very different. The Bahá'í explain in detail how to be compassionate and how these problems will be addressed. The Bahá'í address all facets of society including economically, socially, and religiously while Karen only addresses one aspect, which is social, unity by putting aside differences in religion. 

Before I started this class I simply assumed that the Rastafarian culture was flourishing. For example I see Bob Marley tee shirts all over Seattle, dreadlocks are a prominent hairstyle, I simply assumed that if Rasta culture can make it all the way to Seattle it must be popular in Jamaica. I realize that now that Rastafari has become more mainstream culture and people adopt it because it looks cool, not because they are aware of the actual values behind the culture. The fact that few people understand the culture yet many adopt its symbols seems very contradictory to Rasta culture, they are supposed to be opposed to mainstream oppression. This made me wonder if Rastafari will continue to exist, or will they merge into a new group like the Burru merged into Rastafarian culture?

I and I believe that the Rastafarian culture will remain intact for generations to come, because they are a well-documented culture. There is enough known about Rasta’s to preserve the culture through writings. The culture is in no danger of being lost because many of their teachings still exist in scripture and music. As long as this form of media exists the culture can be preserved and if a favorable social environment rises again it could reemerge. Barrington mentioned how religions ebb and flow, I agree with him and I think that Rastafarian culture is simply experiencing an ebb, but the preservation of culture through media will allow it to flow again when conducive social pressures arise.

Rastafarian’s as a culture still have things to fight for in Jamaica. Jamaica is clearly no Zion and there is plenty of poverty and hardship. Rastafarian culture offers a spiritual way to deal with this hardship; Rasta’s are still oppressed by poverty and laws of Babylon. Recently they fought the Jamaican government for the decriminalization of Marijuana. The battle over decriminalization signifies that there are still reasons for the Rasta culture. Rastafarian’s still face battles to fight and oppression to overcome, which is why they will not disappear.

The militancy in Rastafarian culture may be gone, or it may be ebbing but this does not mean they will disappear. The militancy, which Rastafarianism was founded on, was primarily due to colonialism that hasn’t existed in Jamaica in the new generations lifetime. Yet, there are still people in the younger generations who are Rasta’s. Militancy may have shifted, but this does not mean the culture is in danger.

Rasta people may be undergoing some social changes but this is no indication their culture will disappear. Rasta’s have a well-documented culture, they still have things to fight for, and although beliefs are shifting this does not mean that their culture is disappearing. I think that the rising educated class of Rasta’s has a chance of unifying the religion in a way that does not threaten their central belief of rejecting Babylon society. The rejection of Babylon is so ingrained in Rasta culture that it will not disappear. I think this video illustrates that the rejection of Babylon is still strong, as is Rasta culture. 

                                                For lyrics click here.

What's That sign?

The most obvious system of symbols I noticed was the physical signs that the villagers have placed around their village to remind people of the teachings of Rastafarianism. I noticed that the first sign preached equality and justice for all, while two others appeared to have different connotations.

 

The video said the sign above stood for “goodness over evil”. The sign clearly says black over white. I was at first unsure how to interpret this sign.

The next sign made it more clear where “the R of righteousness [is] over the X of wrong”.  I first noticed that the R was written in black paint over the X which was written in white paint.

 These signs made me wonder if they were a metaphor for an underlying symbol of racism in Rastafarianism. Two methods of interpreting these symbols came to mind. One could interpret them very literally and say that Rasta’s are in fact opposed to people with a white skin tone. This is supported in our text on page 76 when our book talks about a group who's motto was "death to white oppressors". But racism would contradict that everything the spiritual and happy tone that Rastafarian's are legendary for. I think that as babylon became less of a physical place, and Rasta's became less concerned with actually returning to africa hatred towards white people died out. Racism is preaching evil while these signs were said to be preaching “right over wrong”. I came to one conclusion, which was consistent with the book. Rasta’s reject white culture, but they don’t hate white people. “The Rasta is simply “creating a cultural identity that synchronizes with… their African past”. The signs illustrate how Rasta’s must reject white culture in order to return to their roots. Independence is the root symbol these signs are expressing, it is the overarching theme that connects these signs to Rastafarianism.

The symbol of independence can be seen also in how The Rasta sees him self as a spider who uses his wit to survive the traps that white culture has set. In the video they lived in the Jamaican mountains “the closest possible place to heaven”, symbolizing their independence from Babylon society. Intentionally or unintentionally they had no water in the village, which can also be seen as a way of rejecting modern culture and escaping Babylon.

These symbols such as the signs give Rasta’s the belief that they can control their surroundings, and Rasta’s are not merely imprisoned in Babylon. It give significance to their lives. While at first they appear to be racist it is merely a symbolic mode of interpreting what they see around them. Rasta’s were oppressed by white culture so they use the color white to symbolize oppression.

Sheba and Solomon Did it Happen?

One aspect of religion in the Kebra Negast:

One aspect of Religion according to Gertz is to create an order of existence; The Kebra Negast establishes beautifully how Judaism came to exist in Ethiopia. The full Kebra Negast is the story is “the departure of god and his ark of the covenant from Jerusulem to Ethiopia” but the section we read explained the Queen of Sheba’s relationship to King Solomon.

Earlier in the year we saw a video made by students about how people would use stories to establish a way of believing the unexplainable. The story behind the spread of Judaism to Ethiopia is an unexplainable concept. From a theological standpoint one could truly believe in the story we read as fact. For example the Rastafari interpret the Kebra Negast literally and believe that Haile Selassie a former emperor of Ethiopia was literally a descended of Sheba and Solomon.

The Rastafari use the Kebra Negast as a System of symbols in order to create an ordered existence that makes their life tolerable, from a religious studies standpoint one has to be cautious. I would be wary of interpreting Halie Selassie as a direct descendent of King Solomon because there has been so much turmoil in Ethopia since Sheba’s reign, also the Story of the Kebra Negast has been impossible to verify. Because, there are several people in the bible called Sheba, and different religions choose to interpret the symbols in their own way. It is evident that both Islamic and Ethopian traditions have a different explanation for who Sheba really was, the Kebra Negast claims that Sheba was from Ethiopia, while Islamic traditions suggests she was from Marib. Both versions of the story add to the order of existence in their respective cultures, and thus disserve to be included as a part of religion.

The Kebra Negast was very elegant in the way it presented the events according to the Ethiopian point of view, whether they are historically correct is beside the point. One can read and enjoy the stories and not accept them as truth or fiction. My goal was simply to examine the facets that appeared to me to me most religious, based on the fact that they could apply to multiple faiths.  

             

Signs

I think the way beliefs change is a very interesting subject. Religion seems similar to a collaborative idea that mutates as it spreads. For example people have a will to spread Christianity but Christianity does not look the same in Latin America as it does in Spain or France. I believe that ones surroundings will influence how they read the bible or any religious scriptures. For example two conventional methods of studying religion include Theology and Religious studies. Theology is studying religion from the inside. In essence studying the beliefs in their application. Religious studies aims to study the religion using comprehensive historical methods and not necessarily applying it to ones self. It is not always practical to read the Bible in the same terms in church as in a religious studies class. The contexts of ones surroundings are very important when working on matters of religion because; there are so many ambiguous signs.

            St. Augustine suggests that people do not correctly interpret the signs. Many people take expressions in the bible literally when they are just meant figuratively. Part of the reason for this as St. Augustine suggests is that reading in large groups can lead to misinterpretation, because much of the bible and the psalms can be confusing in it’s context. Sometimes things are meant literally and sometimes they are meant figuratively. There are also concepts that can’t be applied to religion today. It is interesting trying to find the balance between religion and actual interpretation, between reading in large groups and personally. Religion seems to be all about finding a balance between two extremes. People are quick to suggest that there is a right way and a wrong way to practice religion. I believe more in the middle ground.

            Having said this I think it is important to keep in mind that ambiguous signs in the Psalms are very controversial. People need to be very thoughtful about the messages they interpret and as Augustine suggests look for the good in religious text, instead of interpreting it in a way that will cause spite towards our neighbors. 

Teaching Christianity

The meaning of the article How to Read the Bible by Todd Billings and Saint Augustine on Christian Doctrine contain similar yet contrasting messages on how to read the bible regarding interpretation of signs.

Both book emphasize using discretion when looking at the bible. Many of the signs can be interpreted wrong which is dangerous and misconstrues the teachings of the Bible. For example the Westboro Baptist Church is famous for misconstruing scriptures for their advantage by taking part of the text out of context. As the article How to Read the Bible said, "any and all methods must be tamed in relation to the theological aims of Scripture and the ecclesial context within which the Bible is read as Scripture”. The articles differed in that St. Augustine wanted people to interpret the signs using history, while Billings was more in favor of not using history because it clouded the view of Gods glory. St. Augustine illustrated that the remedy for not knowing signs in the scriptures is knowledge of the language. I think that both authors would agree that if the scriptures are taken out of context we are not correctly interpreting the language.

St. Augustines words have a double meaning, because he could also be implying that one must know literally how to read and interpret different languages to understand the scriptures. Many people today find reading the Bible difficult because of the language. For example, Billings examines how most Christians “can’t truly understand god’s words because they aren’t scholars”. I think this is not necessarily true but it illustrates how the language can be difficult to understand, because of it’s historical references.

In Chapter 11 St. Augustine said that the “remedy for ignorance of signs is knowledge of language”. Billings suggests this same philosophy. He suggested that one couldn’t come to table with nothing and expect to understand the bible.

I think both Billings and Augustine characterized reading the scriptures as a difficult task that takes an immense amount of effort. It’s not something one can sit down and skim through. The scriptures require a great amount of focus and knowledge to interpret correctly. St. Augustine states that the bible signs require people not being careless otherwise they will be missed. I think this characterization places them in a positive light while at the same time maintaining their reverence.

free post

It is interesting to examine the purpose of the Psalms of Ascent. These Psalms were sung at large feasts and during pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The tone of these psalms seems to be meant to inspire. While other psalms talk about what will happen to sinners, these psalms focus on gods’ glory and use inspiring imagery. Psalm 126 mentions “ our mouth fill with laughter”. In Alters footnote he said that the tense was unclear. The laughter that is spoken of could be in present tense or it could be future tense. I find this really interesting, because it seems that the song is meant to inspire both in the present moment but also to give strength to carry on.            

Even in modern music we can see the motovation to inspire listeners. For example it’s a common practice to listen to music before sporting events, in order to increase performance. Songs such as hymns are also sung at the end of church services. I’ve always looked at this as a way to give one the strength to stay moral until next service. Using songs to inspire makes sense, but science can’t explain exactly why music triggers emotions. It is obvious that music can trigger emotions. I wish I could understand Hebrew, because I think hearing the Psalms sung would give me a totally different emotional response than reading them.

Hymn to the Aten Compared to Psalm 104

The Egyptian Hymn says, “In the underworld you make a Nile” (v.9). This shows a connection to Native American Indian mound culture. The Indians had a belief in the upper world and lower world. The lower world represented earth and water. This belief was expressed in the Indian mounds by the building of water spirits, which looked like panthers and lizards. It’s interesting that in this Hymn the Nile River represents the Egyptian underworld. Psalm 104 has a unified in verse 6 it seems to mention how God unified the earth. God also blocked movement between worlds in verse 9. Verse nine says “a boarder you fixed so they could not cross, so they could not come back to cover the earth”.  This shows a significant difference from the Egyptian hymn, which mentions nothing about a boarder.

The other striking difference between the hymns and Psalm 104 is the end. The Egyptian hymn ends with a tribute to “the Lord of the Two Lands” who is clearly Akhenaten. It seems as if the Egyptians are worshiping their king almost as much as they worship Aten. The Hymn says, “Who has come forth from your body”. They believe that Akhenaten is an incarnation of Aten. Worshiping the King stands in stark contrast to Psalm 104 where they have the lack of a king and are preying to God because they can’t believe in a king. In Psalm 104 it says, “may the lords glory be forever” where as in the Hymn to Aten it says “ Lord of the two lands… Living and young, forever and ever.” This is a very different message while Psalm 104 focuses on the Lord, the Hymn to Aten ends by focusing on their king. 

Music in Religion

I think another element that is intertwined with Culture and religion is Music. It’s curious that the first book that the Puritans would publish in the new world was a book of hymns. There must be a reason behind this. I think, given that the Puritans were in a new world surrounded by strange people they relied on song as a method of uniting the community. This is a custom that is found in many religions. For example many Native Americans had songs for tribal activities. In Washington native tribes still go on canoe trips for hundreds of miles and sing tribal songs.  

What could possibly be the practical purpose behind song in religion? I would argue song serves as a more interesting medium to tell stories. Song sounds better to the human brain than simply reading a story. It also requires greater attention to write a story in the form of a song. For a religious person they might feel that a song does more praise toward their cause because it is easier to memorize and recite.

On a deeper level having a group organized and singing in harmony is a powerful thing. The song may be sending a message with physical words but it is also sending a message by having everyone in harmony. The harmony it’s self is symbolic of religion. This harmony has a way of lifting the heart. It makes ones condition seem a little more bearable. It makes sense that the Protestants would find the value of this music because their condition was so difficult.

Psalms

Psalms get interpreted differently as they change social context. The largest difference between the Psalms in the Bay book and the Psalms in Alter’s book is the tone. The Bay Psalm book is much more rhythmic and forcing in some senses it seems like the authors pay more attention to tone than trying to replicate an accurate version of the Psalms. This makes sense because the puritans were attempting to apply the text to their circumstances. 

For example in passage 6 the Bay psalm book uses the word annoynted instead of Alter’s appointed. Biblically anointed has more of the connotation of bringing in God and making God personal. The ancient ritual of anointing involved rubbing oil on ones-self to bring god in. This line makes it seem like as an individual the Protestants wanted to welcome in the King who in their case is God instead of simply appointing a king as it states in Alter’s version. I think it is important that Alter didn’t capitalize the word king while the Bay book did. This makes me think that Alter is talking about a king while the Bay book is talking about God.

Psalm 31: I thought it was interesting that the Bay of Psalms book it said, “god give me the liberty to stand”. In Alter’s version it simply says, “you let me stand”. The Protestants added on the whole concept of liberty. I think this is due to the shift in social context. Protestants were in a situation where they now had liberties to worship. In Britain Protestants wanted the liberty to practice their beliefs. This is why they left and now in the Bay book this line serves to thank God for that liberty.

I think it is interesting to look at how the Protestants adapted the book of Psalms to fit their religion and culture. For the Protestants this book must have played a large role in society because they did not have many books and it was one of the first books they printed. It makes sense that the Bay book would be more strongly worded than Alter’s book because the bay book was used for worship, while Alter’s book is used for scholarly study.  

Can Religion Save a Life?

Anthropologists seem to be very concerned about where to find religion. For example in the text Indian Mounds of Wisconsin By Birmingham and Eisenberg anthropologists were looking to the Indian mounds to find how the natives worshiped. I think this is just a small part of religion. We may never know the depth of the Ancient Indians religion but we can assume that it went beyond effigy mounds and influenced other parts of their life. This is a pattern that we can see in modern religion. I would like to examine how religion goes beyond simply preying on Sundays and at meals. Religion plays a vital role in daily life even in modern times. Religion helps us recover from the unexpected tragedies that can occur at a moments notice.

I have never been a very religious person. Religion to me as always appeared as an abstraction of various thoughts pulled from different beliefs. For example I do believe in a higher power. I do believe we must go somewhere after we die but I attempt not to concern myself too much with where. I try to focus on the present moment. When I took World Religions last year in highschool I found that many of my beliefs were mixed between Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, and many other religions. This summer something happened that really pulled spirituality together for me. It made me discover that religion is not about individual beliefs it’s about the community. It’s about trust and hope, blindly believing in something and being certain about it.

August 8^th started out like any other day in Seattle. I was on my way to the gym, but something was wrong. I could feel an imbalance. As I got out of the car a high school classmate asked me if I had heard anything about the car accident last night on West Port Madison road. I told them I hadn’t and at that instant my phone rang and my mom explained to me that my best friend had been in a car accident and was in ICU unit at Harbor View hospital. The EMT’s thought he was dead at the scene of the crash but they life-flighted him anyways. I couldn’t believe it. I had seen him the night before perfectly healthy. He was supposed to leave for University Colorado Boulder in 3 days.

I was aghast. Word quickly spread around the community. Thousands of people came together and posted on his facebook wall telling him to “believe” or “stay strong”. Hundreds of people came out to the high school football field. We sang his favorite songs, told stories about him, and preyed he survive. The community despite varying beliefs was able to come together and believe as one. This is what religion is supposed to truly represent, people putting aside their differences and finding commonalties. We all wanted Jackson to survive, and heal. We preyed to a power above because it was out of control.

Jackson was in a coma for 21 days. I had to leave for college with the figure of him in a hospital bed superimposed in my head. I preyed for him ever day, as did tens of thousands of people in the community and friends at various other colleges. Jackson’s story is an ongoing a tale of recovery and believing. Although he is out of his coma he still needs to relearn how to walk, talk, and even eating is hard. But his humor and memory are still there, as is the community who supported and believed all along. I don’t want to say the community saved Jackson, but deep down I know the words I whispered to him at his bedside, and the prayers of the community helped in some way.  

Do We See Nature Like it Used to be Seen?

While there is no conclusive evidence for what the effigy mounds represent, or even that they represent anything. I would like to believe that the effigy mounds of Wisconsin are there to preserve the human connection to the natural world. Often in modern society humans believe they are out of the confines of nature. We are buried in caskets, travel in cars, and prey indoors. Most humans are very disconnected with nature. Effigy mounds represent a different time. They represent a time when humans wanted to live in harmony with nature instead of trying to control it.

Building effigy mounds could have been the peoples attempt to worship by working with nature. They created sacred mounds in a sacred way. Effegy mounds seem reminiscent of the way caves were painted by the Upper Paleolithic people. Not only was it a sacred object but the act of making them could have been considered sacred also.

             I admire the possibility that was suggested in the reading that “physical modeling of an orderly universe, the effigy mound people sought to call on the power of their spirit being to restore harmony to a quickly changing world” (Birmingham, 141). It represents how humans called on nature to help them instead of paving over nature. The effigy worked with nature. In there appearance from the ground they almost blend into the natural surroundings. But seen from above some effigy mounds come to life and take the shape of an animal. To me this reflects what most people can’t see in nature. If one looks quickly from one perspective it is easy to take nature for granted. But if one pauses and gains a new perspective they can take in their surroundings and truly appreciate the beauty of our natural world. I like to think that these effigy mounds were a tribute to nature and the beauty it contains.   


Image from: Ancient? Mysterious? Exploring the effigy mounds of Governor Nelson state park By Siegfried Spelter 

What Religion Should Be

People should learn to find the joy in religion. I think religion should be as Tom Cruise said “ a blast”. Emotions play a large role in religion and belief. “If your emotions are involved then that’s the time when you’re more likely to believe whatever the religion tells you.” Said Atran in the article Why Do We Believe?

It is easy to get confused emotions regarding religion, instead of fun one might be led by passion. This is dangerous because passion is a strong emotion and it is hard to control. Passion can easily ignite arguments. Religion is such a personal issue that intense passion can be taken as an attack on ones character.

Passion is the root emotion that drives people to force their religion on others. If people look for the enjoyment in religion it would be easier to control their emotions. Religion should be a personal quest. If people in a community focus on making themselves more upstanding the whole community will witness improvements. Religion should be about individuals improving themselves instead of trying to improve others through religion. When we passionately pursue forcing religion on others we lose sight of the sense of fun and calm that is supposed to come with religion.

It’s more helpful to let people figure out what God means to them than to force someone into a religious sect. If you teach a man the founding principles of religion he may discover god and religion on his own and be happy. However, if you give a man a religion it may not be a good fit for him he may object and it creates conflict and suffering.

Religion should be more than what someone was baptized. It should have personal meaning. Religion should enforce moral standards, be purposeful, and personal. Above all religion needs to be something that is fun and brings us comfort. 

Preach Tolerance

Why do we still believe in a higher power when such atrocities have been committed in His name?  I agree with Sam Harris who in his video Why We Should Ditch Religion said “We should be talking about real problems like nuclear proliferation, genocide, and poverty… and that’s not at the center of our moral concern” Watching these issues evolve over the years is frustrating. While people ignore human suffering they debate over issues of differing religion that have no answer. However, We don’t need to ditch religion.

Religion could be the glue that holds people together instead of tearing society apart. Robin Marantz Henig said in his article Why Do We Believe “92 percent of respondents believe in a personal god… with a distinct set of character traits” It would be unrealistic to ask people to ignore these feelings. I agree with the common sentiment that our brains are wired to believe. I disagree that we should try to force our beliefs onto others. People must respect different interpretations of spirituality.

People look to believe in a perfect world like heaven or an omniscient being such as God, simply because they want someone who can understand them. It may also be an evolutionary trait to bring humans together to survive. No matter what the personal reason “there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something”- (Robin Marantz Henig Why Do We Believe). Because one person believes in something does not mean they are right or wrong, it’s simply a belief. Religious beliefs can be widely different but all should be respected.

            If humans were able to find an alternative way of thinking about religion the world would be a much better place. People should understand that we need to deal with the answerable questions here on earth, for example poverty, genocide, and global warming all require immediate attention. Proving ones religious belief is unnecessary and impossible. Religions role is to keep people together in a community and hold people to high moral standards. Religion should teach people to show compassion, and resilience in the face of life threatening changes. People can exist coherently with different views as long as each one values tolerance. If tolerance were preached more frequently peoples reactions to other beliefs and values would be much less extreme. A world of tolerant humans would be able to tackle the tough problems of the 21^st centaury head on.