This is a response to Cate Frazier's post titled "Response to Tammi", in which she agrees with her. So, I guess that would mean that this is actually a response in opposition to Tammi's post.
Cate states that she thinks the Hull House website is "set up in a way that allows a person to interpret the website as religious but I don't think Jane Addams' mission was religious...Addams was raised a Quaker and more nondenominational".
This statement seems odd to me. After all the discussion in class about what qualifies as religious and what is strictly spiritual I disagree with what Cate is saying. Granted, Addams may have been extremely tolerant to other religions and faiths, she clearly had a solid religion. Her religion was not a pronounced Christian or Jew or Hindu, it was humanitarian. She set up beliefs, morals, and guidelines to live by that gelled together and founded her religion based on public servitude, especially to women. Hull House could easily be defended in a rational argument as her house of worship. It became the sanctuary in which women were welcome and could live comfortably. Religion, to Addams, was bringing together humans in peace, and helping them to strengthen their lives. I don't think it can be said that the Hull House was not founded because of her religion. Though, it may not have been a strikingly direct effect, it was obviously a reflection of her beliefs and an indirect result of them.
Cate also wrote that Addams "was giving support to women rather then showing them a religious path." I can agree with this statement to an extent. She was giving these women support because of her religious path. And though she wasn't trying to convert them to a specific religious path, her service to them came out of her humanitarian religious beliefs. I would make the argument that this statement is true, but has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Hull House was religious.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Post 18
I can't say that I was deeply moved by the Jackson Pollock paintings. However, I can see why he created the art that he did and where his inspiration came from. Obviously, interpretations vary, as we discovered in the class discussion. Albeit, I feel that his medium of expression is somewhat obvious no matter how unclear the exact details of his work are.
Even though most of Pollock's paintings could easily be mistaken for a child's finger painting, anyone who makes on honest attempt to interpet his work will come out of it with something. He was an educated man, and clearly didn't paint just for the sheer purpose of applying paint to canvas. No matter how you interpet his paintings, a new perspective, greater knowledge, or reenforcement of ideas will be the result. The titles of them provide a much greater depth to the viewer. With the title in mind, a mode of thought is provoked. Thus, it is of no concern to Pollock what is taken away after seeing a specific painting, he is successful in causing one to think about a topic in the context of what he has created. The viewer is immediately consumed by color choice, line variation, thickness and depth, and the balance and layout of the entire painting.
In class, some people saw soldiers in one painting, protecting "the secret". Others saw that same "secret" as a coffin where a man was lying, and some even saw two figures lying in a coffin. This proves my point perfectly. Every individual in class was caught by some facet of each painting. Whether they disagreed, agreed, or weren't sure if they had any opinion on what was being conveyed was irrelevant. The painting, in essence, produced a full pallet (no pun intended) of thought processes. Pollock's paintings were unlike any other artists of the time, and he knew that they would force people to think outside the box.
Even though most of Pollock's paintings could easily be mistaken for a child's finger painting, anyone who makes on honest attempt to interpet his work will come out of it with something. He was an educated man, and clearly didn't paint just for the sheer purpose of applying paint to canvas. No matter how you interpet his paintings, a new perspective, greater knowledge, or reenforcement of ideas will be the result. The titles of them provide a much greater depth to the viewer. With the title in mind, a mode of thought is provoked. Thus, it is of no concern to Pollock what is taken away after seeing a specific painting, he is successful in causing one to think about a topic in the context of what he has created. The viewer is immediately consumed by color choice, line variation, thickness and depth, and the balance and layout of the entire painting.
In class, some people saw soldiers in one painting, protecting "the secret". Others saw that same "secret" as a coffin where a man was lying, and some even saw two figures lying in a coffin. This proves my point perfectly. Every individual in class was caught by some facet of each painting. Whether they disagreed, agreed, or weren't sure if they had any opinion on what was being conveyed was irrelevant. The painting, in essence, produced a full pallet (no pun intended) of thought processes. Pollock's paintings were unlike any other artists of the time, and he knew that they would force people to think outside the box.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Post 17
Since I have yet to discuss the meditation in class I am going to formulate some idea of the purpose I think it serves. Previously to the meditation last Friday in class, I've meditated once. This meditation took place at a Theravada Buddhist Temple in Hinsdale, Illinois. I was roughly 14 or 15 on a "youth group" (protestant church group for youths) with a small number of kids my own age or slightly older. Sadly, I felt nothing during the meditation. However, as a result I did gain more respect for those who can honestly find spiritual contentment though it. Granted, I only seriously meditated once, so there is a chance I could learn.
The experience in class was similar. I felt nothing more than a severe lack of sleep and thankfulness for twenty minutes to freely close my eyes. It was odd. Like I'm sure every one else did once or twice, I looked around the room at my fellow peers to see what they were getting out of it. There were obviously some like me, some who were reading or listening to music, and some that actually felt something spiritual. I think that's how religion works. The Quakers feel that that's their most appropriate means for spirituality, and most Christians don't. But, I do think everyone can take something from meditation. At most church services I have been to, the minister or priest will call a time for "joys and concerns". Following the announcing of each joy or concern the church sits in silence to thank god or ask god for help. So I do think there is some universal acceptance of meditation, or silence, among most or all religions.
The experience in class was similar. I felt nothing more than a severe lack of sleep and thankfulness for twenty minutes to freely close my eyes. It was odd. Like I'm sure every one else did once or twice, I looked around the room at my fellow peers to see what they were getting out of it. There were obviously some like me, some who were reading or listening to music, and some that actually felt something spiritual. I think that's how religion works. The Quakers feel that that's their most appropriate means for spirituality, and most Christians don't. But, I do think everyone can take something from meditation. At most church services I have been to, the minister or priest will call a time for "joys and concerns". Following the announcing of each joy or concern the church sits in silence to thank god or ask god for help. So I do think there is some universal acceptance of meditation, or silence, among most or all religions.
Post 16
Towards the end of my "treasure hunt" on the Urban Experience in Chicago website, I finally found something substantial that clearly conveys Addams' religious views and how the Hull House is affected by religion. If you click on the "Historical Narrative" tab, then under "Beginnings of Settlement Life in Chicago" click "Henry Booth Settlement: An Ethical Culture Experiment", you can find the portion of the website I will be discussing.
I found it odd that discussion of religion and images involving religious practice or items are scarce to none. However, in this section of the website Jane Addams' apparently famous essay, titled "The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements", covers her reasons for starting Hull House, and why other settlement houses should be created. Her first two reasons are clearly out of good nature and philanthropy, but with her third reason she explains that she has the "conviction to implement the moral precepts that came from religious faith." However, according to the website she goes on to say in her essay that these moral precepts can be based on "humanitarian rather than traditional Christian dogmatic teachings." So it is somewhat clear that Addam's was concerned with the basics of religion. It looks like she maintained strong religious tolerance as long as a person's actions were based on widely accepted ethics. So I guess in effect her philanthropist actions were, at their root, based on Addam's own religious precepts. The Ethical Culture Society was obviously thus a result of these humanitarian ethical beliefs.
I found it odd that discussion of religion and images involving religious practice or items are scarce to none. However, in this section of the website Jane Addams' apparently famous essay, titled "The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements", covers her reasons for starting Hull House, and why other settlement houses should be created. Her first two reasons are clearly out of good nature and philanthropy, but with her third reason she explains that she has the "conviction to implement the moral precepts that came from religious faith." However, according to the website she goes on to say in her essay that these moral precepts can be based on "humanitarian rather than traditional Christian dogmatic teachings." So it is somewhat clear that Addam's was concerned with the basics of religion. It looks like she maintained strong religious tolerance as long as a person's actions were based on widely accepted ethics. So I guess in effect her philanthropist actions were, at their root, based on Addam's own religious precepts. The Ethical Culture Society was obviously thus a result of these humanitarian ethical beliefs.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Post 15
This post is in response to Oliver's post titled, "Religious Expression". I can understand where he is coming from and have felt the same sort of frustration. Though, I am not the son of a pastor, I have had very close relations with different pastors, churches, and the like. I have found that even today there is still little religious tolerance.
My family has never been overly religious. My parents are both well versed in religion, but don't profess any specific form of religion. Both of them were raised in very small towns with various Protestant beliefs. In recent years my dad has explored Buddhism. He has even spents weekends on retreats. My mom is less experimental and usually just sticks with taking what she wants from the Sunday church sermons. However, where my entire family found the most trouble with religion, and more exclusively Christianity, was in the tolerance of homosexuals.
In my opinion U.C.C. churchs and Unitarians are the most tolerant of Christian churches when it comes to progressive ideas. However, the lack of tolerance showed through when we were voting for a new minister. The most appropriate minister happened to be a gay female. Instantly, there was an uproar and people who claimed to accept those who are gay showed their weakness. Some church members even mentioned beastiality. Where does beastiality fit into homosexuality? Even so, a group of church members decided to start a new church, an "open and affirming" church. It was nice to see that some people are willing to break the religious norms and do things like that. I guess my purpose here was just to reassure Oliver and people like him that there are churches out there that don't believe they are "religiously superior".
My family has never been overly religious. My parents are both well versed in religion, but don't profess any specific form of religion. Both of them were raised in very small towns with various Protestant beliefs. In recent years my dad has explored Buddhism. He has even spents weekends on retreats. My mom is less experimental and usually just sticks with taking what she wants from the Sunday church sermons. However, where my entire family found the most trouble with religion, and more exclusively Christianity, was in the tolerance of homosexuals.
In my opinion U.C.C. churchs and Unitarians are the most tolerant of Christian churches when it comes to progressive ideas. However, the lack of tolerance showed through when we were voting for a new minister. The most appropriate minister happened to be a gay female. Instantly, there was an uproar and people who claimed to accept those who are gay showed their weakness. Some church members even mentioned beastiality. Where does beastiality fit into homosexuality? Even so, a group of church members decided to start a new church, an "open and affirming" church. It was nice to see that some people are willing to break the religious norms and do things like that. I guess my purpose here was just to reassure Oliver and people like him that there are churches out there that don't believe they are "religiously superior".
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Post 14
My own religious experiences with rituals vary. I have been a part of a "sweat" on an Indian Reservation in South Dakota on two occasions. Both experiences were amazing. However, I cannot say that I felt religiously affected by them. I think I was more interested in being a part of a completely different culture.
The experience was very peculiar to me. Traditionally you are supposed to fast all day, and any female who is mentruating cannot enter the sweat lodge. By only drinking water you are ridding yourself of impurities. The elders sit around a fire all day preparing these certain stones that have odd characteristics for rock and withhold heat amazingly well. Just before dusk everyone meets around the fire and passes the peace pipe while an old man hits a drum and mutters prayers. After the peace pipe activities conclude everyone enters a small dome-like shelter with a stone pit in the center that is covered with animal skins so that heat cannot escape. It is only about 4 or 5 feet at it's maximum height. Everyone sits "Indian style", no pun intended, and waits for the master of ceremonies to bring in the first 7 rocks. He then pours water on them, sings, says a prayer, everyone else is invited to sing, and opens the door for a few moments. He puts 7 more rocks on and continues in the same fashion for 3 more rounds. The idea is that as you sweat your sins are released and raised up to the gods. When you exit you have been cleansed. Now, I don't know any more details about it then that. I feel like some of the older traditions have been lost or changed over the years. All I can say is that everyone should experience it once. It was like a suana times 100!
The experience was very peculiar to me. Traditionally you are supposed to fast all day, and any female who is mentruating cannot enter the sweat lodge. By only drinking water you are ridding yourself of impurities. The elders sit around a fire all day preparing these certain stones that have odd characteristics for rock and withhold heat amazingly well. Just before dusk everyone meets around the fire and passes the peace pipe while an old man hits a drum and mutters prayers. After the peace pipe activities conclude everyone enters a small dome-like shelter with a stone pit in the center that is covered with animal skins so that heat cannot escape. It is only about 4 or 5 feet at it's maximum height. Everyone sits "Indian style", no pun intended, and waits for the master of ceremonies to bring in the first 7 rocks. He then pours water on them, sings, says a prayer, everyone else is invited to sing, and opens the door for a few moments. He puts 7 more rocks on and continues in the same fashion for 3 more rounds. The idea is that as you sweat your sins are released and raised up to the gods. When you exit you have been cleansed. Now, I don't know any more details about it then that. I feel like some of the older traditions have been lost or changed over the years. All I can say is that everyone should experience it once. It was like a suana times 100!
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Post 13
This post's purpose will basically just be to formulate my views on religion in regards to societal change. I think religion, and the realization of what it is and where it comes from, constantly reshapes societal norms and promotes change.
If we consider how life was in our parents' generation, we can see that life was much different. There were far more rules in school, there were few questions raised about God ingrained in school and government, and even the dress norms were far more limited. Granted, from the beginning of the U.S. "separation between church and state" was declared. However, "God" still appears in a lot of government officials speeches, government documents, and national songs. Fifty years ago people had few problems with it. Today, talking about the America in the sense that it is Christian is often times interpreted as offensive. So, in that sense the U.S. has been forced to steer away from the Christian citations. This could also be do in part to other growing relgions in the U.S. (Hebrews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.). Immigration may also play a part in it. As more and more religions become prevalent, the U.S. has to build more tolerance.
The way in which we interpet relgious writings such as the Bible, Koran, and Gita has changed as well. Religion propels societal change because people look at the relgious writings in a different light. Most people no longer faithfully believe that Adam and Eve were the beginning of human creation due to significant scientific evidence of evolution (however 5 of the 10 republican candidates for 08 don't believe in evolution). The religion is not lost, it's merely changed. Today, people see the morals that are inferred from the text and not the stories as historical happenings. So, as people interpret differently, society is then changed in the most beneficial intepretation. I'm not finding myself lost in my own discussion. I'm going to end this. I'm sure there will be some responses to this. Please, clear up what I'm trying to say!
If we consider how life was in our parents' generation, we can see that life was much different. There were far more rules in school, there were few questions raised about God ingrained in school and government, and even the dress norms were far more limited. Granted, from the beginning of the U.S. "separation between church and state" was declared. However, "God" still appears in a lot of government officials speeches, government documents, and national songs. Fifty years ago people had few problems with it. Today, talking about the America in the sense that it is Christian is often times interpreted as offensive. So, in that sense the U.S. has been forced to steer away from the Christian citations. This could also be do in part to other growing relgions in the U.S. (Hebrews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.). Immigration may also play a part in it. As more and more religions become prevalent, the U.S. has to build more tolerance.
The way in which we interpet relgious writings such as the Bible, Koran, and Gita has changed as well. Religion propels societal change because people look at the relgious writings in a different light. Most people no longer faithfully believe that Adam and Eve were the beginning of human creation due to significant scientific evidence of evolution (however 5 of the 10 republican candidates for 08 don't believe in evolution). The religion is not lost, it's merely changed. Today, people see the morals that are inferred from the text and not the stories as historical happenings. So, as people interpret differently, society is then changed in the most beneficial intepretation. I'm not finding myself lost in my own discussion. I'm going to end this. I'm sure there will be some responses to this. Please, clear up what I'm trying to say!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Post 12
Bob Marley's song, "Exodus", clearly rings a bell in relation to the video we watched in our last class of the Jews of South Africa being taken to Israel. What makes this interesting is that Bob Marley is referring to is when the Hebrews fled to Egypt due to the famine. However, Bob Marley isn't Jewish and seems to be using it as a metaphor for societal change. I did a little background on Marley and found that he was Rastafarian, which is a combination of Christian and Jewish religions. Marley's music has been known to be very rebellious. This leads me to believe that this song was meant to preach to everyone that the "captives" need to be set free and the every one must "rule equality".
Exodus, the biblical passage, talks about Hebrews that were enslaved in Egypt. I think Marley's main purpose in this song is to protest against human rights that have been lost. Thus, the people he is talking about are "enslaved" in a sense. Though he may be religious, Marley isn't really talking directly about religion. He is using the religious passage to discuss problems that are happening from and social and political standpoint.
Obviously this is only one interpretation. However, lyrics like "come to break downpression" and "wipe away transgression" are applicable to the way certain peoples are treated. I'm not sure what the time frame was or what was happening globaly at the time this song was written, but Marley definitely had some sort of cause for writing this song.
Exodus, the biblical passage, talks about Hebrews that were enslaved in Egypt. I think Marley's main purpose in this song is to protest against human rights that have been lost. Thus, the people he is talking about are "enslaved" in a sense. Though he may be religious, Marley isn't really talking directly about religion. He is using the religious passage to discuss problems that are happening from and social and political standpoint.
Obviously this is only one interpretation. However, lyrics like "come to break downpression" and "wipe away transgression" are applicable to the way certain peoples are treated. I'm not sure what the time frame was or what was happening globaly at the time this song was written, but Marley definitely had some sort of cause for writing this song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)