Final Project: The Lion of Judah

Here is the link to my final video project about the Lion of Judah.

Due to an issue with uploading this, Please play the song as close to the start of the video as possible.

Baha'i Temple in Chicago

Having explored the Chicago Temple on the Official Website of the Baha'i's of the United States (http://www.bahai.us/bahai-temple), I have to say, I was very much impressed. Browsing through the numerous photos, reading several articles, and viewing videos about the temple and its history, I was surprised by the immense scope of it all. An impressive piece of architecture, the temple is a complicated, intricate, and beautiful building with gorgeous surrounding gardens to boot!

One of seven Baha'i Houses of Worship in the world, the Chicago temple stays true to representing the Baha'i faith well. There are several symbols in the architecture and the gardens that link directly with the faith. One of those symbols is the number nine. The nine-pointed star is prominent in the videos and pictures, and the temple itself has nine sides because of the nine holy days in the Baha'i calendar. The garden is another amazing addition surrounding the temple. Representing the garden of Ridvan, it is painstakingly symmetrical and circles around the temple...showing the unity and closeness of the Baha'i faith.

The inside of the temple is just as significant and important as the outside. In one article I read, it states that, "The lace designed inside the dome represents the orbiting patterns of the celestial skies. The dome itself is in the shape of a bell - a metaphor calling humanity together in meditation and prayer. The Baha'i faith is based on unity, equality, harmony and world peace. These themes are woven throughout the lace designs, as well as the religious symbols on the outside columns. " (For the rest of the article, click here: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=resources&id=5258955).

I found the site very interesting and discovered many new things about the temple and the Baha'i faith and its people (for example, the temple was funded only by Baha'is themselves, and there were only about 2000 followers when they began construction on it). I really want to visit the temple one day after seeing learning so much about it!

What happened, NY Times?

So I woke up bright and early this morning and grabbed the NY Times like I normally do. I thought I would read through it a bit and find an article about religion to blog about today, but to my surprise there wasn't anything! At first I found that rather strange, but then I realized that the only time I read about religious news is when it has to do with political unrest (most often in the Middle East, but not always).

In one of my earlier posts I talk about a NY Times article I read--it dealt with the dwindling Christian community in the Middle East and the rise of radical Islam. Looking back at that article (as well as countless others), I see that depressing and negative religious news dominates. That's no surprise, of course, because bad news sells, but that doesn't make it any less awful. Why can't religion be viewed in a positive light?

Scanning through the Times again, I see that anything religious-related is mixed in with politics. Most prominently, the article about Obama's new Supreme court justice pick-Sonia Sotomayor. The issue is that she is pro-choice and many conservatives (especially religious ones), are protesting her nomination. But that's about it for religion...

Now, it might seem strange to expect an article about religion. I mean, besides holy wars and religious oppression, what else is there to talk about? But look at any religious group and there's always something new going on. Unfortunately, we never get to see it (or at least in the nation's most popular newspaper). Now, I know I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, and normally I would just blow this off as nothing more than a newspaper trying to get the 'best' story out there...so I guess I shouldn't expect the Times to always have an article about religion, and if it does, I shouldn't be surprised if it is nothing short of scandalous.

I guess I shouldn't complain, though. I can always look online and search for articles about religion, and I know there's plenty of smaller papers that carry important stories about religious topics. I don't know, I just expected more from the paper that claims it has "All the News that's Fit to Print."

Founding a New Religion

What does it take for a movement to evolve into a full-blown religion? For the Bahais, it was a combination of old religious beliefs added to a new message with a charismatic leader. Let's examine this below:

The first thing to know about the Bahi faith is that it isn't entirely original. Although it breaks away from traditional Islam, it still contains many of the religious elements of that faith. In a sense, it's a tweaking of the Islamic faith to fit a new order. And what is this new order? Well, starting off with Baba and moving onto Baha'u'llah himself, the new order was the announcement that Baha'u'llah was the chosen one.


Which brings me to the second part of founding a new religion: Change. Once the basics of a new movement/religion are set in place, the next step is to start changing things and creating a new message that people want to believe in. But in order for this message to be heard, you have to have a leader that can draw people in. Which brings me to the third element of any successful religion: a charismatic leader. Choose any religion you like, and you'll find some type of leader leading the way...Jesus, Marcus Garvey, Baha'u'llah, etc. Whether they are the founder of a religion or one of its advocates, the importance of a leader cannot be overlooked...for they are the voice that speaks to the people. Remember what happened when Baha'u'llah went away for 10 years and wasn't leading the people? The number of his followers dwindled drastically and his faith was almost extinct!


So mix it all together and what do you have? A new religion that needs but one more element: time. In the case of the Bahi faith, it took a long time for it to blossom and get a large following. This is partially because Baha'u'llah took his time and didn't force a movement on his followers right away, and also because of political walls blocking his path. Like any strong religion, however, it prevailed and today we can see it flourishing.

My Mennonite Experience

So yesterday in class I talked a little bit about the Mennonite population near my hometown of Iowa City. Growing up surrounded by Amish and Mennonite communities, I've been exposed to a very different type of religion and world that I always took for granted. Therefore, I thought I'd share a little of what I know about Mennonites and their lifestyles from what I've personally experienced.

First of all, here's some information (provided by the ever-helpful wikipedia) about Mennonites:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonites Mennonites are described as Christian Anabaptists, and their religion (along with Amish and Hutterites) evolved in the 16th century during the Radical Reformation--a response to the belief that the Roman Catholic church was corrupt.

Anyway, I could write all day about my many experiences with Mennonites and Amish people and go into great detail, but for now I'll just hit on some of the more interesting tidbits. One thing to know is that there are varying degrees of Mennonite followers...just like the Rastas living in the mountains vs. Bob Marley, some Mennonites are much more orthodox than others. One of my brothers best friends growing up was Mennnonite, but he dressed and did all things that a non-Mennonite kid would do (the only major difference was that his family didn't have a tv in their house). A few miles from my house though, in a small town called Kalona, is where the really orthodox Mennonites live. They live just like the Amish (be aware that I am putting some cross over between the orthodox Mennonite and the Old Order Amish communities in Kalona...it's hard to tell the difference between the two)...they travel by horse and buggy, farm their fields with horse-drawn plows, and don't use electricity. As I talked about in class, some of them do interact with the 21st century world more than others...I've seen 'old-fashioned' looking Mennonites shopping in Wal-Mart and taking the bus.

One totally awesome thing about the Mennonites is this store in Kalona called Stringtown Grocery. Every Wednesday and Saturday they open up the store at 8am to all people, and it's like a madhouse! The Mennonites get damaged and/or outdated merchandise from surrounding stores in Iowa City and then they sell them a discounted price. A very discounted price. I remember going when I was a kid and having to get to the store at 6am to wait in line with about 40 other people--2 hours before it opened! Nowadays, it gotten to the point where they've set up a system where you get a ticket number so you can leave and come back in a couple of hours instead of having to wait outside for a long time. Then they call out your number to let you in the store...otherwise people storm in and crash carts. It's really competive! But that's because the prices are so cheap...where else can you get a jar of peanut butter for 50 cents or a box of Frosted Flakes for a dollar? And it's first come first serve, so once it's off the shelf, it's gone.

Alright, I'm done with my tangent now. The point of my telling about Stringtown Grocery is that it's similar to what the Rastas in the video from my last post do...even though they follow a strict way of life and try to separate themselves from the outside world, they still have to support themselves by selling hand-made brooms to the towns below. The Mennonites do the same thing with their store, and the general public is more than happy to help them.

So if you ever find your way to Iowa, stop on down to Kalona and check out their awesome store. Or right down the road is the Cheese Factory...which has just as good of cheese as Wisconsin. But make sure to bring lots of cash, because they don't take credit or debit :)

Rastafari in Jamaica

Above is the video about the most "spiritually committed Rastafarians" in the mountains of Jamaica. Not surprisingly, many of the symbols and practices we read and talked about in class can be found in these people. One of the most obvious of these symbols are the colors that the people dress themselves in and paint their houses with. Reds, yellows, greens, and blacks play important roles in their lives because those are the colors of the Ethiopian flag (which the Rastafarians adopted as their own symbol). Almost all the houses on the hillside are painted in these colors, and the Rastas wear clothing and turbans of these colors as well (most noticeably the color red...that appears to be the most popular color to wear, especially for turbans).

Other symbols include the rebellious hairstyle of the dreadlocks and wearing turbans as crowns, the 'ital' way of living (little or no electricity, with the only water source coming from a small stream), and the music of the people (heard throughout the video).

I think this version of Rasta life--though at the extreme end of the spectrum--is similar to what Bob Marley and his music represents. There's something that seems to transcend all of the followers of Rastafari, and even though Marley himself isn't living on a mountain to be closer to heaven, he still dresses, speaks, and evokes the powerful feelings of the Rasta way of life through his music and presence. So even though Marley is separate from the more orthodox Rastas, his music and message are true to the Rastafarian religion.

I think it's interesting that this rather unorganized religion has the most united group of followers. Walking down a random street, I could easily point out anyone who was a Rastafarian based on the way they dressed or spoke. I think that's why it I'm not surprised by the more religious Jamaicans in the video...I expected to see something like this because that's how Marley portrayed it.

NY Times Article

Yesterday I briefly mentioned in class an article I read in the NY Times about the decline in Christians living in the Middle East. Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/world/middleeast/13christians.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast

The title of the article basically says it all: Mideast's Christians Losing Numbers and Sway. The middle east used to have about a 20% Christian population and now it's down to about 5%. The article mentions several things that I personally find quite frightening. First, the lower Christian population makes the area less diverse and more prone to orthodox religions coming in and smothering the less-strict religions. Second, radical Muslim groups are taking up the slack of the leaving Christians, and these groups are part of "a region where tolerance is not an outstanding virtue." So basically, the 5% that's left are in an area where they aren't wanted and where they're outnumbered. No wonder so many are fleeing...what a scary place to live!

Another thing the article mentioned was the fear that Christian churches and places of religious significance would soon become museums and tourist attractions due to the declining numbers. Pope Benedict XVI obviously doesn't want that to happen, and encouraged Christians to return, saying, "In the Holy Land there is room for everyone!"

I don't know if that's exactly realistic. Sure there's room, but I'm certainly not volunteering to step into a religious hot-spot where political violence and radical Islam are rampant. Why do you think everyone is leaving? But it's sad, I think, that the Middle East is taking a step backward...part of the reason why the area was doing better than it otherwise would've (not to say that they're perfectly happy, of course), is because there was enough diversity to keep one religious group from trampling out the others. That's not the case anymore, though, and it's scary because the 'replacement' religion is not the tolerant sort.

Kebra Negast

Knowing hardly anything about Ethiopia or its history, I found the story of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba a real eye-opener. The story from the Kebra Negast divulges a rich religious history I never knew existed in Ethiopia, and I think this story provides special significance to the people of the country. There are several reasons why I think so, including the fact that the Queen of Sheba learns of God directly from Solomon and chooses to no longer worship the sun, and also because she had a child with Solomon. It would be a great source of strength and belief for Ethiopia to have the son of the Queen of Sheba also be the son of King Solomon...and having such a ruler with a significant religious background would be all the more justification to follow a new God (or continue following this religion later on).

Whether or not this story is true is another issue, but I think the Ethiopian twist on the story to have the Queen of Sheba play such a huge role adds a positive change to the way they would view their religious history. For Ethiopians, it's more then just a new religion making its way into their country...rather, their Queen made an impression on the great King Solomon and had a son (Bayna Lekhem) with him. And then she introduced the new God to her people. I know that this story changed my own perspective about Ethiopia simply by reading this account, so I'm sure such a narrative would affect the people who are more directly related to this story (aka, the Ethiopians).

Here's a link to some more information about Ethiopian Christianity and its history:http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/EthiopiaHomepage.html

Noah and the Ark--Metaphorically Speaking

So I just finished reading Conceptual Blending and Analogy by Gilles Fauconnier, and I first want to say that I found it rather fascinating. How strange it seems that I am constantly taking abstract ideas/sayings and blending them to make sense...but I suppose that's the point, isn't it? I automatically blend different ideas and circumstances to create a coherent world of understanding for myself. If I didn't blend two ideas together, how difficult it would be to get anything complex done! I think it's amazing that my brain does that without any help from me, it just adapts on its own.

Now to the question: How can conceptual blending be applied to the study of religion? In terms of metaphorical prose, I think it's quite easy to see how religion fits into this idea. Take the bible, for example...it is chock-full of metaphors that Christians blend with their own lives to make sense. Many stories in the bible do not relate directly to twenty-first century life, but through conceptual blending and the use of metaphors to apply to the world nowadays, they can apply the old stories to themselves. The story of Noah and the Ark, for example, is a tale that is hard to relate to in terms of the real world. But by reading it metaphorically and thinking about the message of the story, there's deeper meaning that wouldn't be found otherwise. I mean, it's weird to think of God telling you to build a huge ark and put a pair of every type of animal on a boat because a huge flood will be coming that will cover the land for 40 days and 40 nights. But it's not weird to think that the point of the story is to believe in God and follow his word, even if it seems crazy at the time, because in the end you will be saved. It's just taking one idea and blending it with another in order to apply it to life now. Nobody reading the story of Noah would think it their duty to build an ark (hopefully they wouldn't), but they would think it prudent to follow the word of God.

Goethe and Religion

Earlier today I finished reading Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's famous book, Die Leiden des jungen Werther (The Sorrows of Young Werther). The book, first published in 1774, tells the story of a young man, Werther, who falls deeply in love with a young woman, Charlotte. Charlotte, however, marries another man, Albert, and the sorrows of Werther are told through letters he writes to his friend, Wilhelm. The ending of the book is no surprise, for we learn right off the bat that Werther commits suicide because of his impossibly deep love for Charlotte.

So why do I want to talk about this book today? Well, I found a very interesting link between Werther and his religiousness. At the beginning of the book, Werther's outlook on life is rosy and sweet, and although he compares nature and heaven to each other, that's about as far as he goes with religion. Later on in the novel, however, Werther's christian upbringing begins to play a larger role as he nears his death. He's more concerned with going to heaven, and even talks about how his suicide will not prevent his going to heaven because it was more like a sacrifice (he had to kill himself so that he wouldn't sin and try to take Charlotte away from Albert). He even goes as far to say that his suicide is more like a murder, for Charlotte sends him the pistol with which he shoots himself. Nevertheless, Werther's suicide is viewed as a sin and no priest was present at his burial.

Anyway, I just found it interesting that Werther (a non-religious character) turned toward religion in the last few months of his life. It makes sense, though, for when one nears their own death, one inevitably thinks about the afterlife. I think this is a common theme among other written works, and even in everyday life. Goethe did an excellent job in making Werther a realistic character, and even though this book is by no means a religious one, its main character fits with the religious times.

It reminds me of a quote by Carl Jung (a Swiss psychiatrist), who said: "Among all my patients in the second half of life ... there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life." Like Werther, people turn to religion (or a type of outlook on life) when they near death...it's inevitable, I think, because we humans need that type of security.

Here's some more information about Carl Jung and The Sorrows of Young Werther:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_jung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_sorrows_of_young_werther

And here's a link to an English translation of Die Leiden des jungen Werther:

http://www.bartleby.com/315/1/11.html

Where there's Smoke, there's Signified Fire

After reading book 2 of Saint Augustine's On Christian Teaching, I realized that the psalms could be interpreted in a very different light. I'm not sure if it was Augustine's intent, but after reading the philosophy section beginning on pg. 59 (premises, conclusions, etc.), one could read the psalms from a philosophical point of view--that is, consider the work from a non-Christian standpoint that focuses on the validity of the psalms, their history, and the overall effectiveness of their prose. I don't think that was his intent, though, but it was something I noticed after having taking a philosophy course that focused on the existence of a God.

One thing St. Augustine brought up that I found very interesting, was his defense of different translations of religious works (including the psalms). He states that the accuracy of translating from Latin to Hebrew/Greek is not so important as the full effect of the work. The wording can be varied as long as the intent stays true to the original. Keeping that in mind, my interpretation of the psalms is a bit more open because I know that something had to be lost in translation or that the translator chose to use a certain word instead of another. If I read the psalms in that way, I don't take the prose as literally and can focus more on the message. I think that approach is much more helpful in understanding the psalms as a whole and I can take away more relevant information instead of getting stuck on a certain passage because its wording was questionable.

Here's some more information about Saint Augustine:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/augustin.htm

Disney, Christianity, and Meme Theory

So I was scanning youtube for videos about religion, and somehow I stumbled upon the following video below. Now, although I think it may be stretching it just a bit, the vid makes some interesting links between mainstream Christianity, the Disney Franchise, and the Meme Theory. Meme, by the way, was a termed coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene) which states that meme is "a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes."



Essentially, this vid is making the point that Disney (which includes the theme parks, merchandise, movies, etc.) shares similarities with the Christian religion by way of the meme theory. We are bombarded with Disney everywhere and it is just as much a cultural phenomenon as Christianity. Here's a link to Wikipedia about meme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme_theory

And now, my own thoughts. Hmm....well, first I just want to say that I was drawn to this video because I spent 5 months living in Orlando when I took a year off of high school. I actually went to Disney World almost everyday (yes, I had a season pass), but I wasn't just going to Disney for the rides and Mickey Mouse. They have this great thing called the "Food and Wine Festival" that brings chefs and food connoisseurs from around the world to talk about their trade. I went to seminars, tastings, and cooking classes every day from 8am to 2pm, and then I had the rest of the day free to run around the parks with my twin. I got to experience Disney in a different way...first and foremost, it was a theme park, but I also saw it as a business and workplace for employees. Thinking about it as a meme, though, is something I've never considered. I cautiously agree with the cultural impact of Disney (how could I not after meeting hard-core groups who were making their yearly pilgrimage to the parks?), but I think there's more to it than that. Comparing Disney to Christianity may be fun and somewhat revealing of our culture, but it's not the same thing. Plus, meme theory isn't blindly accepted as fact by the scientific community, so I have doubts there as well.

I'm not denying the connections between Disney culture and Christian culture, but I'm still not convinced that this vid is addressing the right issue. Disney is first and foremost a franchise, and its cult following is a secondary reaction. Religion, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs that has led to secondary effects (such as merchandise...remember WWJD bracelets?). So meme theory has its points, but no solid proof.

By the way, my favorite Disney movie is The Lion King :)

Bring on the Brimstone

After reading psalm 18, I immediately thought of the "Fire and Brimstone God" that is often spoken of by certain religious groups. Reading this psalm (as well as many others), it's no surprise that some see God as a much more severe deity. He fights, judges, rages, and his followers will kill in his name. Line 9 really stuck out at me, because the image of God is anything but an all-good, forgiving God: ...for smoke rose from His nostrils/and fire from His mouth consumed/coals blazed up around Him.

It's no wonder that this image of God would be used, though. I mean, who would want their war leader to be soft and quiet? That would hardly instill bravery and confidence into the troops, so it only makes sense (especially in this time period) to have God be this omnipotent being. If you believe that God, this amazing, strong, scary, all-powerful deity, was on your side, wouldn't you feel just a little bit better?

Addressing the question about it being a problem that elements of this God have been borrowed from other religions, I would say I don't find it problematic at all. In fact, I think it's more helpful than anything else! God is capable of everything, right? Well, than why can't he be like other Gods from other religions? I think defining God is a tricky business, so his definition can always change and be used to suit different situations. So God is sometimes terrible and powerful...just like other Gods from different religions. But He is also good and all-knowing, caring for his followers and protecting them from harm. It all depends on what type of God the people need...whether it be a war God or a forgiving one.

Here's some fire and brimstone preaching I found interesting. Reverend John Killian is at a Ron Paul rally, and he's talking both about God and how Ron Paul is the right man for president. I thought it was a great example of using God to fit a certain situation (in this case, a political rally):

Praying

So I'm going to talk about Mormons again. I know, I already did one blog where I ranted about Mormon missionaries, but this time I want to examine a specific aspect of the Mormon religion vs. my own Catholic upbringing.

I always thought that prayers (Our Father, Hail Mary, etc) where pretty standard in Christian religions. I mean, think of rosaries and little kids reciting their prayers at night. I know that I memorized all my prayers before I even knew what they meant! So when I went to Germany and hung out with my Mormon friends, imagine my surprise at dinner when the prayers were made up on the spot. Sometimes they'd even ask me to say a prayer for them, and I'll admit I was a bit nervous coming up with my own words. Why couldn't I just say the Our Father and be done with it?


So after one of the group prayers, I went over to my friend, Sister Driebergen, and asked her if she ever said the Hail Mary or Our Father. She laughed and said, "Don't you think God gets bored hearing the same prayers over and over again? Isn't it better to speak from the heart with your own words and be candid?" And you know, I found that a very good point. Reciting well-known prayers over and over again doesn't do much for the soul in my opinion. You just say them and then it's done. That's what the Mormons believe, and I never heard one utter the Our Father...of course, there is a flip-side to all of this, and that's the fact that in every prayer it's a given to mention Joseph Smith. Nevertheless, each prayer was different and everyone offers their own thanks and thoughts to the group.

In class today, as we were talking about the generic-flavor of the psalms, I couldn't help but compare it to my Mormon experience. Sure, the Mormons read from written works (The Book of Mormon and the Bible are both staples), but there's nothing generic about their prayers. You can't apply every prayer to every situation, because they vary from person to person, day to day. It's a significant difference that I really respect, even though I'm not Mormon (or very religious in general).

Also, I think I should mention that even though I use the word prayer to describe the Mormons giving thanks, it's not the same as how one normally thinks of praying (or at least how I grew up praying). They don't fold their hands into 'prayer hands', and often times they just cross their arms or put one hand over the other, heads bowed. I don't think that's any worse than anything else, though...it's just another difference.



Mormon/LDS prayer:

Psalm II: Justification

After reading Psalm II from the Bay Psalm Book, I decided to do a little research on the book because I was a tad confused. I had to reread the psalm several times and learn a little about its publication (printed in 1640 in Cambridge, Mass., so just a little after the arrival of the first Pilgrims) before I could make enough sense about it. Once I got some background, though, the horrific spelling and strange syntax made a lot more sense.

What would the early Pilgrims think about this psalm, and how did it relate to their life in the New World? Well, I'm no pilgrim, but I'll try my best to see how they would interpret this psalm and its meaning in early America.

First, I think the psalm has a strong sense of community within its text, a sort of 'us' versus 'them' theme. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but because it was a tough life for the first pilgrims, and because so many of them left to escape religious persecution, the psalm takes on a righteous quality. That is, they would interpret the psalm as a justification for leaving the Old World...breaking away from corrupt kings and evil governments to find truth through God's word. The pilgrims revere and fear God like the speaker of psalm, whereas the Kings and Princes in the psalm are similar to the wrongful leaders of the Old World. The pilgrims need not fear their new life, for they have escaped evil and can now follow the way of the Lord.

I also think the rhythm and rhyme scheme adds to the communal feel of the psalm. Because the psalm would be sung, it would draw people together and strengthen their justification for going to America. They would listen to the 'lesson' of the psalm and follow God's way, viewing it through eyes of pilgrimage and new hope.

Read the Bay Psalm Book here, without the 's's looking like f's!
http://www.cgmusic.com/workshop/baypsalm_frame.htm

Native American Storytelling

In class on Monday, we talked about the validity that Native American history has on its claim of how and why the mounds were built (especially the effigy mounds created in the Late Woodland Period). The conclusion we reached matched with the book, saying that although the stories and histories of the mound builders may have been passed down to current Native Americans, we can't take their stories as factual evidence. There are too many variables that can cloud the true reasons behind the formation of the mounds, and (as in the case with the Ho-Chunk tribe), their histories might have been influenced by researchers offering hypotheses about what the mounds stood for.

I think it's good to be tentative about accepting Native American storytelling as true fact, but I also think it shouldn't be dismissed. The book made a point of saying they did not use Native American stories in their research for this book, but that hopefully in future years such an endeavor would be made. Even if Native Americans don't know anything about the effigy mounds created by their ancestors, their culture and stories can still provide relevant information.

The more we learn about culture in current tribes, the more we can learn about the past. It's especially important to talk with Native Americans now to learn what we can because their stories live on in the oral tradition...and the more the years pass, the more the stories change and the less accurate they become. There are certain aspects of their history that have remained solid throughout generations, however, and I think they provide insight into the past that shouldn't be overlooked (such as bird symbols, dances, etc.).

Here are some links to videos of Native American storytellers as well as links to sites about Native American culture past and present:

http://www.pbs.org/circleofstories/

http://www.djmcadam.com/ojibwe.html

Panthers and Falcons and Bears, oh my!

Definition of Religion by Clifford Geertz:

A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

Effigy mounds in Wisconsin definitely reflect Geertz's definition of religion above. The mounds were a 'system of symbols' that represented the beliefs and rituals of early Native Americans. Tangible and observable, the mounds were a central symbol that brought the native Americans together through ceremony and religious practices.

Although the mounds were not identical to one another (there wasn't 'one type' of mound, such as is found in other religions...a cross for Christianity, David's star for Judaism, etc.), they still drew on basic beliefs that linked the varying mounds together. The bird may be quite different from the panther/water spirit, but without both, the harmony found between the upper and lower worlds would be disturbed. The different animals and spirits found in the mounds kept the balance and symbolized the harmony and unity the native Americans hoped for in their lives. In other words, the mounds were a projection of the 'conceptions of a general order of existence' that allowed the builders to organize their beliefs through the construction and rituals put into the mounds.

Like any other religion, the mounds were a way of uniting its followers through a symbol (or symbols) that could be recognized and incorporated into religious practices. The mounds were more than just a symbol for the native Americans, though, for they also served as ritual sites and burial grounds...even the construction of the mounds was probably a religious undertaking. In any case, the mounds played an important role in the native American religion through both its symbolism and physicality.

Here's the National Parks Service site for effigy mounds in my home state of Iowa:

http://www.nps.gov/efmo/

A Rant on Missions/Conversions

We touched on it briefly today in class, but I think the idea of missions and conversions as being an 'element of religion' needs to be further explored. I'm not saying it's not an element of religion (that would be a pointless argument), but doesn't it seem a bit strange that certain religions push their beliefs much more than others? It's as if it were a competition to win the most followers! I just find it interesting that some people feel the need to convert others to their beliefs. I'm all for freedom of expression and being able to believe in whatever you want, but the idea of 'spreading the word' to people who don't want it seems more like an oppressive cult than a religion. Of course, some would say they are just 'enlightening' others with the 'truth', but that's just an opinion. Who's to say that a certain religion is the right one? Honestly, I could care less what someone believes, as long as it doesn't hurt me or society.

Perhaps I sound a little bitter, but that's probably because I had a first-hand experience with missionaries while I lived in Germany. I befriended some Mormon missionaries (from the U.S.) living in Frankfurt. They were on a two year long mission to convert as many people as they could to the Mormon religion. They were very devout and I was quite impressed with their drive to spread the word of Joseph Smith...I've never met anyone with such strong beliefs! The problem was that the entire time I was with them, they were constantly trying to convert me. At first they were very upfront, but when I told them I wasn't interested, instead of accepting that and moving on, they just changed their tactics. Aside from this, they were some of the nicest and greatest people I've ever met. But I don't think they ever fully accepted me because I wasn't a Mormon. To this day it seems strange that they viewed me first as a challenge rather than a person.

Of course, that's the extreme end of the religion. They chose to be missionaries, so of course they had to be very strong in their convictions. But nevertheless, the idea that "my religion is the true one, therefore I must convert you to believe what I believe" still doesn't work for me. Even more interesting is that the missionaries were no older than 24 years old, and yet they felt they knew everything about the afterlife and what needed to be done now in order to go to heaven. Their beliefs gave them a false sense of certainty about the unknown.

But back to religions in general. Missions and conversions are prevalent everywhere, and this is not an isolated case. It makes you wonder who the first people were to decide that their beliefs were the right ones...and then to go off and start telling others that they were wrong all along. Is it so hard to just let people have the beliefs they have as long as they don't hurt others?

The rituals behind the art

After reading Palaeolithic art and religion, my initial impression was that animal figures were the primary element of the palaeolithic peoples' religion. Indeed, looking at the cave art, one would think that bison, horses, and wild cats dominated their every thought and that their culture revolved around these animals. In many ways, this is absolutely true. These animals provided food and clothing and played an important role in everyday life. However, it soon became clear that these animals were only a part of the greater element of religion in the society, because everything led back to the creation of the art, or rather, why the art was drawn in the first place. I think this is the primary element in any religion...because even if different religions are expressed differently (through art, customs, etc), they basically all have the same element of personal and communal involvement through rituals and practices.

Perhaps that doesn't make that much sense, but I think the primary element of their religion lies in their rituals and the processes that led to the art, the engravings on bone, or the creation of decorative jewelry. It's not about what they painted or created, but the energy and beliefs that went into the cave art or the bone necklace. I think this has to do with the whole 'magical' or 'mystical' flavor so often seen in their drawings. Although a lot of the drawings are accurate and representative of animals, there is no background or setting for them. They float, are rotated in unorthodox positions, or are incomplete unless light is thrown on them at a certain angle. This all seems to speak of the importance of human interaction, whether the drawings are made in a space so small only one person can fit or in a large cave chamber that was painted communally.

I really liked the passage about paint on pg. 39. It states that, "Paint was almost certainly much more than purely the technical substance that westerners consider it to be. It probably had its own power..." It goes on to say that there was most likely a ritual to painting animals or making handprints on cave walls, beginning with gathering ingredients for paint, mixing it, taking the paint to the cave, etc. This suggests that the act of painting and the work put into it was just as important (if not more so) than the artwork that came out of it. Again, it's all about the rituals and the power behind them, not just the resulting art.