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?