It's hard for me to decide a topic for my closing post. So, I will ramble about a few things I feel that I've picked up through the term in this class.
First and foremost, I've gained a better respect for other religions. Honestly, I used to critize Catholics more than any others. Even though I don't exactly agree with a good portion of what the Catholic Church stands for, I respect them, and I understand how and why it is the way it is.
Secondly, this class has awakened a religious inquisitiveness within me. For the remainder of my life I will be taking a much closer look at religions and my surroundings, and how they are affected by religion.
Third, I feel like I have a whole new angle to take history from. Granted, I knew of the obvious religious movements and some of the denominations before this class, but now I can look at every aspect of history and ask myself how religion played a part in it.
Well, I think I could go on listing things for awhile. I'm going go eat breakfast before class, though. It's been real, it's been fun, just not real fun. Hah.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Post 20
With little previous knowledge of Wallace Stevens, I decided to search for some background information on wikipedia. The results I found were quite interesting.
In his poems that we read for class he discussed how happiness can be found without religion. He used examples in nature and so forth to prove his point that there doesn't need to be a "big guy" in the sky for it to provide happiness. However, 5 days before his death, Wallace Stevens was baptized by the chaplain of the St. Francis Hospital. I found this to be very strange because Mr. Stevens is not exactly living out his own creed.
However, it is possible that since he had time to cope with his cancer he grew scared of life after death and had nowhere else to turn but religion. He clearly knew that he was going to die. It is just a question of when. It's quite difficult to say whether or not he was religious before he discovered that he had a terminal illness. But, it does lead to some further thought about his poems. It is my conclusion that possibly writing those poems helped him realize how wrong he was, because happiness cannot be found in death with a comforting vision of the afterlife.
In his poems that we read for class he discussed how happiness can be found without religion. He used examples in nature and so forth to prove his point that there doesn't need to be a "big guy" in the sky for it to provide happiness. However, 5 days before his death, Wallace Stevens was baptized by the chaplain of the St. Francis Hospital. I found this to be very strange because Mr. Stevens is not exactly living out his own creed.
However, it is possible that since he had time to cope with his cancer he grew scared of life after death and had nowhere else to turn but religion. He clearly knew that he was going to die. It is just a question of when. It's quite difficult to say whether or not he was religious before he discovered that he had a terminal illness. But, it does lead to some further thought about his poems. It is my conclusion that possibly writing those poems helped him realize how wrong he was, because happiness cannot be found in death with a comforting vision of the afterlife.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Post 19
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.
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.
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)