I'm Gonna Smoke'a de Ganja Until I Go Blind

[free blog #6]


It seems like a lot of blogs this week are focusing on people's revelations relating to Rastafari, and how much they learned about it this week, and I would like to add.


It's not as though I'd never heard of Rastafari before this class, but I really didn't know what it was about. I grew up listening to Marley, and knew that he had been part of the Rasta movement, and that it was based in Jamaica. I knew that pot was connected with Rasta, as well as the Ethiopian colours, and knew that it was some sort of religion, but not much beyond that. It wasn't a hard collection of symbols to find when growing up, as many people wore the colours or sold t-shirts and hats emblazoned with Rasta symbols or Marley's face. I think that going back home after learning this much about Rastafari is going to be very interesting.

I was thinking about it earlier this week, actually, but in high school especially there was a lot of support for Rasta, and I used to think, "Well that's neat; that's a good message they're promoting." Of course at that point I was only thinking of "One Love," and the message of love and peace that most people get from Marley's music. While I've got nothing against people wearing these colours and symbols to promote that message (because I do think it is a message imbedded in the Rasta movement), I can't help but wonder how much they actually know about the religion. Thinking back, I believe that another major reason that people support Rasta where I live is because of the connection to pot. I'm from Berkeley, CA, and the weed culture there is huge. While I do believe that people like the peaceful message of Rasta, I think that it's often just used as a legitimation of pot smoking.


I guess what's hitting me the most is that I really enjoyed learning about the Rastafarian movement and religion, and think that there are some really wonderful aspects of it, and I just wish that more people really knew about Rasta. Instead of just thinking that it's a bunch of pot-smoking, anti-Capitalists whose image can be used to validate and support someone's own addiction and/or anarchy (especially since the Rastas don't seem to be Anarchists at all), I wish that they could understand the real meaning behind the Rastas' movement and struggles. I guess I just wish there was more education about it in schools so that people don't fall into the trap of thinking that it's all about smoking.

Remember the Sabbath Day by Keeping it Holy

Q: Watch the video on Moodle that gives a view of life in a small Rastafari village. Write in your blog about how this village participates in the system of symbols that we see reflected in our textbook. Don't give a laundry list of every kind of symbol, but pick out an element that you find striking. Interact also with what our textbook has to say about the symbol you have chosen. Is the symbol used in a surprising way or is it what you would expect from our book.


A: The symbol that I found most striking was not a symbol in the sense of something that can be physically seen, but rather something to be experienced; a ritual practice. What struck me was there observance of the sabbath, not that this is an uncommon practice in other Christian denominations, but that they likened it more to the Jewish tradition of resting on the shabbat is what interested me. They mentioned that the tradition was taken straight from the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (true) which reminded me greatly of the Ethiopian practices taken from the Old Testament.


What was so interesting to me is how similar the Rastas' mindsets seemed to be to those of the Ethiopian Christians that we looked at. The Ethiopians take the Bible very literally, and pay close attention to the Old Testament, treatments which seem somewhat lost in most modern Biblical traditions. Obviously, the Rastas tweak the meaning of the Bible a bit to fit their view (that they are the modern Babylon), but at the same time take it very seriously. The prism through which they view the world seems to be taken very literally, the way the Ethiopian's seem to see their life through the Bible.


The Rastas feel a strong religious connection to Ethiopia; it's an essential part of their faith. I think though that sometimes it's easy to overlook these sorts of deep links to Ethiopian beliefs in favour of looking simply what's on the surface and what's novel. The fact that the Rastas took on the Ethiopian national colours is a bold statement and their invention of new words and ways of language is undeniably facsinating (and wonderful, I feel), but these sorts of practices directly reflect the Ethiopian way of thinking, which I think is even more interesting. There's nothing (at least that I can remember) that specifically speaks about this sort of relationship between the Rastas and Ethiopian Christians, but it is an underlying current in any discussion of Rastafari.

As For A Kingdom, It Cannot Stand Without Wisdom

Q: Your blog assignment is to read the Kebra Nagast and then write about some aspect of religion that you see reflected in the text. You might ask yourself how this text relates to Religious Studies, or how you would define the use of the Bible that is reflected in the work. It will help to remember something of what we talked about in class on religion in Ethiopia.


A: I was thoroughly intrigued by our conversation at the start of the week about Ethiopia, and my interested was particularly peaked by learning that so many religions coexisted in such a small area. It's not uncommon to find people of a vast many religious beliefs in one country, but it's more common in highly populated, often urban areas, and in the places where the environment is different (more rural, less populated or the population is more widely spread), there is often only one or two religions in a small area. In Ethiopia, however, for many, many years now there have been at least four different religious communities within the borders of the country: Muslim, Christian, Tribal/Traditional, and Jewish. As far as I can tell, the sizes of the populations are generally in that order, from largest to smallest, I'm sure with some overlap. As we saw, there once was a larger population of Jews, until the transfer to Israel in the 1980s(?). It was made pretty clear from what Prof. Smith said in class that these groups do not live together in perfect harmony, and there was often unrest among them. 


While reading the Kebra Nagast, there were really two things that I found most interesting. Firstly, I was really impressed with the amount of pomp and circumstance that King Solomon was given. Not because I think he was undeserving of the respect, but mostly because even in the Bible (at least, the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible; I'm not sure if he's brought up in the NT) he's not given so much favour. True, he is depicted as the wisest king to ever live, but the way that he is painted in the Kebra Nagast makes him look almost saintly. I think what surprises me most is that despite there being a line about "condemning the Jewish people, the crucifiers" (p. 16) at the beginning of the excerpt, Solomon was and Israelite, and while not perhaps a modern Jew, would certainly have been clumped under "Jew" had such a religion existed during his time. It seems that this fact simply didn't matter because his wisdom was so admired and idolized.

And yes, I use the word "idolize" for a reason. It seems to me that Solomon became something of an idol. Not, perhaps, in the sense of a wood or stone-hewn image, but certainly a person to look up to. He almost seems to have become the symbol of wisdom, which brings me to my second point of interest. I was struck by some of the feelings that seemed to pervade the text brought on by the symbol of Solomon's wisdom; sound familiar? As seen through the story of the merchant, people observed him very closely, almost as if they thought that through watching him and being in his presence, they might absorb some of his wisdom. Looking at Solomon's wisdom as a symbol, we can see the pervasive emotions that it instills in people, such as the Queen of Sheba; "I am smitten with the love of wisdom, and I am constrained by the cords of understanding; for wisdom is far better than treasure of gold and silver, and wisdom is the best of everything that hath been created on the earth." It is through her long speech that the Queen not only reveals her desperate love (almost lust) of wisdom, but also her desire to visit Solomon, of who's wisdom she's been told of by the merchant, and thus drawn into rapture. I'm not suggesting that this is some sort of "Cult of Solomon," but simply that there are undeniable overlapping themes in both the text and Geertz's definition of religion.

It's Only Love (And That Is All)

[free blog #5]


I was struck today by something that Prof. Smith said today when we were discussing Saint Augustine's view of the Bible, and it wasn't anything that we hadn't spoken of before, it just hadn't really hit me before.
"The Bible only talks about Love." 
If you take Augustine's view, any passage that seems violent or sinful needs to be interpreted in a different way according to Love because these passages do not connect with the idea of loving God or your neighbour/yourself.


But isn't that a lovely thing?


Amongst all of the execution, adulterous behaviour, and graphic descriptions, there is only Love.
I think one thing that I found so great about this is that as someone with practically no experience with the Bible until this year, I was struggling when reading the Psalms with all of their violent images, and then reading the Hebrew Bible and seeing all the ways in which people were judged and punished (and how easily, too). I couldn't help but feel a certain amount of dislike for this God that they were describing, or at least the way they were portraying him (I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, though). After Prof. Smith's comment today, though, my view was completely flipped.


I think that far too often when studying religion, we try to approach it from a distance with kid gloves because we don't want to try and read too much into it, or lay our own opinions upon it and risk offending someone; obviously we're not studying religion so that we can build up even more prejudices within ourselves and the world (or, at least, I should hope not). But in the process of this, which is all very well and good, I think that we forget that religion is meant to be interpreted in a personal way. I know that I almost lost sight completely of the fact that people find true inspiration and spirituality from the religions of the Bible, and that's not at all a good mindset to have when studying any religion or religious text.


I think it's wonderful that Prof. Smith (with help from Augustine, of course) was able to inject that Love and personal touch into the course, especially when talking about the Bible which can be such a touchy subject. 


In my opinion, the importance and power of Love can never be overstated, wherever you find it. 

A Love of Scripture

Q: Read book 2 of Augustine's On Christian Teaching as well as the very recent article on "How to Read the Bible" linked to on Moodle. Are these two accounts saying the same thing, or can any real differences be found in the positions? And finally, is the philosophy of reading the Bible represented in these readings a positive thing in your opinion? 

A: While both pieces are very similar, and perhaps meant to get mostly the same things across, I don't think that they are necessarily saying the same things. They press some similar ideas, such as being knowledgeable in various languages to be able to better understand the text through different translations, as well as original texts. They also hold very similar views on the benefits of deep investigation of and meditation on the texts, and how it helps deepen your spiritual connection to have access to the scripture through memorization. That being said, they have very different ways of going about pushing their ideas.

Reading Augustine vs. Billings was a very interesting experience. I found Augustine to be much more encouraging, like a very traditional teacher who is absolutely fascinated by and in love with his subject, whereas Billings seemed a bit preachy, as was also mentioned by Peter in his blog. This kind of ties in with the manner in which each author seemed, in my interpretation, to be asking people to pursue this deeper knowledge. Augustine seemed to favour independent study in order to gain a better personal understanding of the text and connection to God, while Billings seemed to reaching for that same connection, but while pushing for a more scholarly investigation that would be better suited to a communal worship setting. Another area of note is that while Augustus put a lot of emphasis on seeing the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) as both separate and as one, Billings really only talks about them as three distinct sources, each with their own unique purpose.

Overall, I felt that both texts were positive in their approach to the scripture. It was obvious that both authors sincerely revered God and the Bible, and sought a more profound understanding of their holy text, and felt that others would benefit from doing so as well. Neither treat the text as superfluous, although Augustus did mention earlier in Book 1 that once the connection with God is made, scripture is not necessary. All-in-all, their appreciation and attention to the text is readily apparent.

iReligion

[free blog #4]


When we were talking in class today about the impact that Steve Jobs and Apple has made on American culture, it really hit me how identity-oriented we are. While I don't have very much experience outside of the U.S., it certainly seems (from what I've heard, including Benny's comments today) that we are incredibly caught up in the idea of individuality. Am I saying this is a bad thing? Not at all. But I can't help but wonder, does individuality clash with religion?


We've already established that religion is a group phenomenon. According to what we've observed and experienced in our own group experiences, for a group to work, there needs to be a sense of uniformity. Maybe a certain way of dress, specific political opinions, or a set of religious (spiritual and non-spiritual) practices. Any group is adhered by something that all members share. That being said, a certain edge to one's individuality seems lost when you become part of a group.


Again, none of this is a bad thing at all. There's something incredibly comforting and empowering about being with a group of like-minded people, but there is also a uniquely liberating feeling knowing that you are one-in-a-million. I guess what I'm really thinking about is religious identity in America. Many of the major religions encourage a group mentality, and aligning yourself specifically to one group; sometimes people shown disdain for those who convert religions, or celebrate holidays from two or more religions. Yet despite all this, America pushes for individuality, and listening to your own heart, following your own compass, marching to the beat of your own drum.

While I was not at this march, I did line on of the major streets
of my hometown with some friends on election day,
encouraging people to vote no on Prop 8.

I can't help but feel that these clash of messages cause for some pretty confusing and conflicting feelings for people very devoted to a rigid religion. It's as if in order to be unique, you have to align yourself with as many group labels as possible. I sometimes wonder if this gives way to a lot of the extremism in America; people protesting war with radical-liberal groups, or others lining the streets with their radical-conservative fellows to encourage a pro-life stance. 


I just think it's important to think about this friction, in America in particular, between the idea (and ideal) of distinction and the general feeling of a flock that is encouraged in many religions.

Of Creation and Lions

Q: Read Psalm 104 and the handout from class. The ancient Egyptian Hymn to the Aten and Psalm 104 are quite similar. Using examples from the text, make an argument as to whether Psalm 104 carries a message distinct from the more ancient Egyptian hymn. In other words, to what extent is Psalm 104 a result of direct borrowing, and to what extent does it reflect the world of the ancient Israelites.


A: It's been speculated many times that the Abrahamic god originated from this Egyptian god, and I believe that these two hymns only further my conviction that this is true. I would like to quickly disclaim that I am not suggesting that these are the same gods, merely that they started as the same. Further more, I think that Psalm 104 was definitely drawn from The Hymn to the Aten.


There are many other textual similarities between the two. One that I found particularly interesting was the line in the fourth stanza/verse of The Hymn to the Aten, which is talking about darkness and the night, and reads:
"Every lion comes out of his cave and all the serpents bite, for darkness is a blanket."


Firstly, this line uses a metaphorical blanket, very similar to the use of cloth as a metaphor inverse 2 in Psalm 104 ("Wrapped in light like a cloak, stretching out heavens like a tent-cloth.") and throughout the psalm. More specifically, the reference to a lion and beasts hunting at night can also be seen in verses 20-21, "You bring down darkness and it turns to night in which all beasts of the forest stir. The lions roar for prey, seeking from God their food."


Another major textual similarity is that both gods are presented as creator gods.
In the Hymn, "The earth comes forth into existence by your hand, and you make it."
In the Psalm, "He founded earth on its solid base, not to be shaken forevermore."