Post 11

My purpose in writing this post will merely be to discuss Ethiopian culture and how it differs from U.S. culture. This post will cover different topics than the previous response to Caro's post.

The colors and decor that the Ethiopians use is much different than the U.S. There is obviously a strong influence. If a Catholic church in the midwest was compared to a Protestant church in Ethiopia it can be seen that the colors and style alone are much different. There is obviously a strong African influence. I'm not sure where the bright colors and extensive art come from, but it is so much different than in the U.S.

Catholic and Protestant churches alike have a lot of art. However, the colors used are much more drab. The art work is more depressing, too. Again, I'm not sure what to accredit for the difference between these styles of art, but there is something there. It may just be based on happiness? I've often considered U.S. churches pessimistic, which makes me think Ethiopians would be much more optomistic. The colors alone offer very different emotions.

Post 10

This is a response to Caro Leach's post from April 26, 2007 titled "Ethiopia".

I would disagree with her statement that "In our culture, individuals go to great lengths to not be associated with their religious beliefs. In the United States, we are taught to keep our social life separated from our religious life."

Caro cites the tattoos on the womens' foreheads in Ethiopia as evidence that they wanted every one to know that they were Christians. I can agree with this statement. However, it's when she cited U.S. culture as the converse to Ethiopia's that I disagree.

Front doors of house across the country are littered with crosses, devout Christians where crosses on their necks, and the "WWJD" emblem is posted on countless car bumpers. It seems today that most Christians are trying to be evangelists, more or less, in converting non-believers into believers. There are orginizations like Young Life that bring in kids with games and sing-a-longs that are just there to serve the purpose of instilling Christian beliefs in today's youths.

I would also like to point out that God is often referred to in U.S. politics as well. President George Bush, a fervent Christian, uses prayer and God in many of his speeches regarding the war in Iraq. There are also songs like, "God Bless America" and the "Pledge of Allegiance" that references God. I just think America is different in that there is a broader range of religions, so it's harder to announce your religion without offending others.

Post 9

This post is a combination of thoughts from the film "Metropolis" and the class discussion that followed.

In watching the film I it felt obvious to me that the purpose was to bring an idea to the masses. The idea, or purpose, conveyed can be summarized as the need for a "mediator". This mediator most closely resembles Jesus. There were references to Babel, the underworld, and heaven throughout the film. It is hard for me to believe that the director sought nothing more than to create a film that would intrigue and please its audience.

In class JB brought up an interesting point. He said something along the lines of the film being made only profit and entertainment. Furthermore, he said that the director would have written an essay rather than made a film if he was trying to convey some sort of political, cultural, or religious change to the masses. He also said that art, in general, is only created for an asthetic purpose.

My opposing view is that not all people can write well. I mean, there are artists, musicians, film makers, and a variety of other people that use different mediums to show their feelings and more exclusively their feelings about the state of the world. JB cited Dylan as one of the few that was looking for societal change in his music. I think the only reason that was the only musician he could come up with that did that is because his lyrics are easy to relate to and are very upfront, not to mention he is one of the most popular musicians of our time. Let me refer to another artist that we all know. John Lennon obviously had songs that were meant to invoke thought in the listeners' minds. The song "imagine", for example, discusses the state of the world and is sort of a pro-communism song. One of Lennon's previous bandmates, George Harrison, wrote the song "Woman is the Nigger of the World". I mean, the title alone is evidence enough that he was talking about a problem with the way women were treated. I think it's possible that JB was only trying to play "devil's advocate", if you will. However, I wanted to unfold my ideas on the matter.

Post 8

This post is in response to Sarah Justinger's post on "Grizzly Man". This is what was written in her fourth point regarding Treadwell's religious affiliation with bears:

"While browsing the Wikipedia article on Timothy Treadwell, I found evidence that confirmed my stipulations that his passion for bears really was functioning as religion in his life. The article claims, 'Treadwell attributed his recovery from drug and alcohol addictions entirely to his relationship with bears.' This confirms notions of his grizzly religion because it really is a statement of a superhuman controlling power in his life. He actually felt that the bears had power in his life in this way as well as how he made himself vulnerable to the bears."

I strongly disagree with both the arguments that Wikipedia and Sarah make. Sarah's other points are sound, and I have few conflictin views with them. However, can we really say that his religion (Treadwell's relationship with bears) was what caused him to recover from drug and alcohol addictions? Many people are confronted with the harsh reality of an addiction, but I don't what saves them is their religious plight. Addicts often need someone to talk to and something to keep their mind off of what their doing. But, that sure doesn't make a case for religion. Maybe the bears were just animals that he was happy being around. Or an even more plausible theory is that he was constantly scared shitless, so their was no opportunity for him to think about wanting drugs.

I could agree with Treadwell's recovery being spiritual. Obviously there are varying definitions of "spiritual" and "religion", so let me clarify what mine are. Spirituality, to me, involves self discovery and an outlook that involves an attitude that is based off the mind and intellect. Religion, though it may incorporate spirituality, is a set of beliefs and rules that cause the religious to find harmony in every thing they do. I guess it's just hard for me to believe that Treadwell formed his own religion from his experience from the bears and rose out of his addictions. I mean, after all, Treadwell still seemed pretty messed up to me.

Post 7

Sam Harris does have a valid point. It seems to me that the basis of his argument is that the Koran, and moreso the hadiths control Muslims lives. I'm not sure if incorporating Obedience to Authority is allowed. Granted, I know it will be subject to criticism. However, I think Harris' view of Muslims and the Koran is indeed a similar view that Stanley Milgram would have held. Both the followers of the Koran and the subjects in Milgram's experiments are obedient to a higher power. Muslims serve God as the Koran tells them. And just so, the subjects in Milgrams experiments follow the orders of the experimenter.

Sam Harris wrote on page 123, "On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers." Of course, in the majority of cases they do so. Through similar quotes to this, other portions taken from the Koran, and the surveys held it is understood that most Muslims believe this. Some even go to the extent of destroying non-believers. The Koran is overpowering. What Sam Harris is saying, whether he is right or wrong, is that the Koran consumes the minds of Muslims, and therefore they are dangerous.

Milgram, too, believed people were subject to being obedient to authority figures. The men in labcoats that were paid actors made the subjects feel like there was something very serious and real going on and that they were powerless in the hands of the professionals. His experiments proved this theory. Of course, there was a smaller percentage of subjects that didn't participate to the fullest extent. However, the majority did go to extremes when shocking the the persons answering the questions.

These different levels of authority are definitely reflected by both Harris and Milgram. Harris shows in the survey that there is a percentage of people who believe suicide bombing in self defense is going to far. Milgram gives tables and charts of the numbers of people who did and didn't obey and to what extent they obeyed. He even interviewed some of them to see what their motives were. Obviously, both Harris and Milgram want people to perceive their conclusions as true so the studies are skewed to their viewpoint. But, there is definitely significant substantial data given by both authors.

Post 6

In reading The Zohar, I found many comparisons in every day life. It seems to me that the purpose of these interpretations was basically to show people that whether or not stories are true or factual, they have real moral and purposeful meaning behind them. The comparison that most closely resembles this, in my mind, is the way in which our class found meaning in the Paleolithic art and things that the Neanderthals did.

On page forty three of the Zohar it is written, "Woah to the human being who says that Torah presents mere stories and ordinary words!". Instantly, the reader is set back and considers the meaning behind each story and word that is present in the Torah. We, as readers, are more easily swayed to believe that the meanings are true and relevant because we can interpret them as we please. Thus, religion is there for us to analyze and take what we want. Humans like the ability to perceive thoughts in a way that gels well with their own opinions.

Just how the Zorah says to interpret the Torah, our class studied early human and neanderthal life as we pleased. There was obviously confliction between thoughts, and even more between the way objects, paintings, and symbols were looked at. Some saw religion, some saw artwork, and some nothing but day to day materials needed for survival. The Zorah exemplifies one type of person and the Torah another. I know that there are people that believe Adam and Eve were actually people that walked the earth. There are also others that believe the story is there just to give meaning. I think it is clear that no matter what, there will always be a distinction between the two types of people. Even those who read the Zorah may still believe that all the stories in the Torah are factual.

Post 5

Even though I was unable to attend class on Monday for the 'Grizzly Man' discussion I did rent it to compensate for my absence. I'm not sure what was discussed in class, but I found Tim's actions most closely related to those of Native Americans.

I spent two weeks out of the last three summers on Indian reservations in South Dakota. Each summer there were Pow Wows, which seemed to honor most exclusively animals as somewhat spiritual beings. In doing the Pow Wows, masks and outfits were created that transformed the Native Americans into animals. It seems to me that what Timothy Treadwell did was similar to what the Native Americans I spent time with still do.

Tim Treadwell seemed more concerned with the sensation of becoming a bear (swimming with them, feeling the bear's poop, making noises and gestures that were much like a bear's). Even the Alaskan tour guide that was interviewed said that he thought Tim was trying to achieve something spiritual by becoming more like a bear. This is what I thought of when I witnessed the Pow wows. The Native Americans sing and dance and transform the image of animals into something of a higher power.

Now, I'm not quite sure what they get out of this religiously. Maybe it is just a feeling of interconnectedness. I do remember a conversation I had while eating dinner with an elder named Amos at the Cherry Creek Reservation. I asked him his opinion on Christians trying to convert the Native Americans because of what the Mennonites there called, "a dark and deceived religion". His answer was something like this, "I don't think we are much different. So many people want to find differences in belief. We are all connected: the wolf, the deer, the fox, and the human. I think that that's what their problem with spirtuality is. They (the Mennonites) just have to realize that we are all connected right here (as he pounded his fist against his heart)."

Post 4

This post is inspired by Kelly Dirkman's April 5th post titled, "Effigy Mounds".

The main points contained within Kelly's post are sound, and do make an excellent argument in regard to the spirtuality of these indian tribes. It is not my intent to disagree with this or pick apart any aspect of her idea. This post awakened ideas that connected the ways in which the indian mounds were created to the way modern society and religion exist. In my mind Catholicism was the most exclusively connected.

Kelly wrote, "the symbols on their pottery is like the effigy mounds they created", which is also mentioned within the reading. This relates so well to modern day Christianity. We have crosses on necklaces, "WWJD" emblems on car bumpers, and even churches that are shaped like a dove from an ariel view. Like the indian mounds, the churches and day to day items revolve around symbols that come from the core of our spirituality (Not to say that every one is christian. It seems to be the same with all religions). We visualize the cross so much that it has been ingrained into soceity in every aspect. The indians that created these mounds seem to have had the same sort of thing happening.

Kelly also wrote, "The fact that mounds in different areas were aligned similarly gave way to a suggestion of a shaman going to different tribes to oversee construction". To me this is much like the Catholics. They have Bishops, Cardinals, and a Pope. There is a group of people that oversee each individual component of the Catholic Church.

I want to thank Kelly for bringing this together for me. Like the indians, today religion is still passed down. Maybe these ways were passed down to us from a pot?

Post 3

My goal in writing this post is to bring about an idea that is new, but based on a few of the previous discussed topics in class. I think there is a definite possibility that the various cave paintings were painted by all sorts of men after their first kill. Thus, each painting may be a symbol of an individual's passage to manhood.

If we consider ourselves, in the modern world, a good portion of us still withhold the desire to kill other animals. For some reason or another we want to show our dominance over all other creatures. Most hunters today go out and hunt not for food, but for sport. They hang the dead stuffed bodies on their walls, take pictures, and even right about magnificient hunts. Most notably, every hunter remembers their first kill.

In class, we considered the possibility that the animal paintings in the cave were created by only a select few "Shaman" individuals to honor the beasts. However, it seems equally possibly that these paintings were created by all men after their first hunt. In "The Nature Of Paleolithic Art" the paintings are compared and contrasted. It turns out they are all very different; they contain different styles, colors, sizes, etc. It would make sense that each painting is done by a different man, a man painting the first animal that he killed. As for the painting of the man laying down in front of the bull on the verge of charging with intestines dangling, I have an idea. I think that this man may have died on his first hunt, and his elders painted it to represent what happened to him. I think this is entirely believable. I mean, there are certain African hunters that force new hunters to take a bite out of the heart of the first animal they kill. I think there is something similar going on with these paintings.