Ann and I looked at the opinions Gustavus students had on Islam, 9/11, and Park51, and focused on the associations between the the terms. We were pleasantly surprised when the answers from Gustavus students supported our hypothesis that education seems to be a great way to overcome the negative views the media portrays of Islam.
However, when asked about Park51, students without any personal encounters with Muslims claimed they did not believe building a Mosque in that location was an appropriate thing to do.
I strongly feel that this view of thinking has a lot to do with the fact that the media (of course) belabored the fact that Al-Qaeda is an extreme group of Muslims, and this Mosque will be seen as a 'victory Mosque' for the terrorist acts of 9/11. I believe that if the media had pointed out that: 1) there are already Mosques in that area that no one seems to have a problem with, and 2) family members of the victims of 9/11 were on the planning committee for this Mosque, then students would have had a much more accepting opinion of the prayer center.
Anyway, here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDAsmZABR20
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
A tangled web of race and religion
Article by: Chun Han Wong
Nov. 29 2011
Wall Street Journal
Wong describes the problems in Singapore consisting of facebook harassment toward the population of Muslims residing there. Singapore has laws forbidding hostility toward any ethnic group, and also outlaws fostering discontent among citizens.
Clearly, posting a picture of Muslim school children with the caption "Bus Filled with young terrorist trainees" goes against that law (yes, that actually happened).
The statement made by the Ministry of Home Affairs quoted in the article basically sums up my thoughts on this as well. The gist of that statement was: just because you have the right to freedom of speech, that does not allow you to insult other races, religions or ethnicities. This ideology also applies to a lot of other scenarios all over the world...think about all the politicians who are constantly insulting the perspectives and beliefs of people that are opposite their own (mormons, homosexuals, and of course American Muslims). Are they proving anything besides their ignorance, rudeness and inability to tolerate differences? People should consider the rule we all learn in kindergarten before speaking/posting/blogging: If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Oh boy... Al-Qaeda on bin Laden.
I really have been trying to separate Al-Qaeda from Islam/Muslims in my head ever since this class started. It hasn't been so hard to do, because as I've mentioned before, I'm pretty ignorant about world politics and world issues and basically anything outside of this Gustavus bubble.
Anyway, this story, seen on the website USA Today as a blog post (written by 'The Associated Press') was a brief description of the Video that Al-Qaeda's new leader made, reflecting on what kind of a person bin Laden was. I can't help but get so fired up that he refers to bin Laden being so proud of the 19 men who died in the 9/11 attack all in the name of Allah (jihad=holy war). Did we not just learn that the Muslim faith is accepting of other religious beliefs? (read our assignment for tomorrow, 'Those who reject the faith' on the last page)
This is the main problem and the main reason why Muslims and Islam in general have such a negative connotation in America. I'm stating the obvious, I know. But if there was something POSITIVE in the news about Muslims or if people would attend ONE lecture that talked about how Al-Qaeda is not solely awful because they happen to be Muslims...I think that could do a lot of good for open-minded people. When only negative things are said, it's hard to think any other way.
Anyway, this story, seen on the website USA Today as a blog post (written by 'The Associated Press') was a brief description of the Video that Al-Qaeda's new leader made, reflecting on what kind of a person bin Laden was. I can't help but get so fired up that he refers to bin Laden being so proud of the 19 men who died in the 9/11 attack all in the name of Allah (jihad=holy war). Did we not just learn that the Muslim faith is accepting of other religious beliefs? (read our assignment for tomorrow, 'Those who reject the faith' on the last page)
This is the main problem and the main reason why Muslims and Islam in general have such a negative connotation in America. I'm stating the obvious, I know. But if there was something POSITIVE in the news about Muslims or if people would attend ONE lecture that talked about how Al-Qaeda is not solely awful because they happen to be Muslims...I think that could do a lot of good for open-minded people. When only negative things are said, it's hard to think any other way.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The 'Amma' version of bank loans
Washing Post, Social Entrepreneurship and the next generation of giving
By Melissa Steffan, November 8th 2011
All around the world (including the USA), governments are struggling to find means to support small business owners and others who might need a loan. Kiva.org, developed by Premal Shah, was created to allow people with a little extra money (as low as $25) lend it to someone in a 3rd world country, similar to how a bank would do, so he/she could start a business. It runs on an internet system similar to paypals, and just as a bank would, the loaner receives a small amount of interest once the business is successful.
I love this! I think it is such a great way to give and support other people, in a much more productive way than simply just giving a one time donation of money or food. Although those gifts are extremely helpful in most cases, this system allows another member of society to become productive and be able to support himself/herself eventually! It reminds me of Amma and her thoughts on giving to charity is the problem solver of the world. This is an example of a philanthropic act, but also a social revolution...people no longer need to solely rely on their government to start a new endeavor.
By Melissa Steffan, November 8th 2011
All around the world (including the USA), governments are struggling to find means to support small business owners and others who might need a loan. Kiva.org, developed by Premal Shah, was created to allow people with a little extra money (as low as $25) lend it to someone in a 3rd world country, similar to how a bank would do, so he/she could start a business. It runs on an internet system similar to paypals, and just as a bank would, the loaner receives a small amount of interest once the business is successful.
I love this! I think it is such a great way to give and support other people, in a much more productive way than simply just giving a one time donation of money or food. Although those gifts are extremely helpful in most cases, this system allows another member of society to become productive and be able to support himself/herself eventually! It reminds me of Amma and her thoughts on giving to charity is the problem solver of the world. This is an example of a philanthropic act, but also a social revolution...people no longer need to solely rely on their government to start a new endeavor.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Definitely not Confucius.
By Marie Jego, October 31, 2011
This article is talking about how life in Chechyna is getting 'better' after decades of blood wars. Ramzon Kadyrov is now in charge, and following in his 'father-like' Putin's footsteps. While the city LOOKS like it would be a great place to live (newly built skyscrapers, sushi restaurants, etc..), the latter half of the article is filled with citizens personal stories about the fear that they constantly live with that at any time, their leader could end their lives.
Jego, the author, didn't have to compare this style of leadership to any other style to see how violent Kadyrov is, but since we just read a lot of Confuvius' texts that state the exact OPPOSITE type of leadership, I couldn't help but compare them. The citizens of Chechyna openly admit to living in fear of their ruler. Kadyrov purposely has his 'thugs' (seriously, his men are referred to as thugs.) leak videos of them violently punishing and torturing citizens who dared to admit they didn't support Kadyrov in power. If you think about the qualities that make a 'superior man' and a superior ruler, it is being such a good person that people don't even realize you are directing them to live a certain way because they don't have anything to complain about.
Obviously it would be impossible to suddenly implement this type of Confucious leadership into a community but Kadyrov is on the completely opposite side of this spectrum. I know there are plenty of countries with awful and mean leaders, but I just came across this article and it really seems so idiotic to me that people like this still exist.
This article is talking about how life in Chechyna is getting 'better' after decades of blood wars. Ramzon Kadyrov is now in charge, and following in his 'father-like' Putin's footsteps. While the city LOOKS like it would be a great place to live (newly built skyscrapers, sushi restaurants, etc..), the latter half of the article is filled with citizens personal stories about the fear that they constantly live with that at any time, their leader could end their lives.
Jego, the author, didn't have to compare this style of leadership to any other style to see how violent Kadyrov is, but since we just read a lot of Confuvius' texts that state the exact OPPOSITE type of leadership, I couldn't help but compare them. The citizens of Chechyna openly admit to living in fear of their ruler. Kadyrov purposely has his 'thugs' (seriously, his men are referred to as thugs.) leak videos of them violently punishing and torturing citizens who dared to admit they didn't support Kadyrov in power. If you think about the qualities that make a 'superior man' and a superior ruler, it is being such a good person that people don't even realize you are directing them to live a certain way because they don't have anything to complain about.
Obviously it would be impossible to suddenly implement this type of Confucious leadership into a community but Kadyrov is on the completely opposite side of this spectrum. I know there are plenty of countries with awful and mean leaders, but I just came across this article and it really seems so idiotic to me that people like this still exist.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Camping announces again: the world is going to end Oct. 21
NPR Media Player (this podcast)
Reporter: Barbara Hagerty
October 18th 2011
Well, prepare for destruction AGAIN everyone. Harold Camping, a prophet of the doomsday and head of Family Radio has recrunched the numbers and it turns out he was about 5 months off in his last prediction. He also might have been wrong about the world ending in destruction, stating his new conviction with a few 'probably...''s thrown in there.
"Probably there will be no pain suffered by anyone because of their rebellion against God. Unbelievers might just fall asleep and never wake up." -Camping
Hagerty, the reporter, had the same attitude I do: skepticism. To me this seems like a desperate, embarrassing ploy to convert more people to Christianity. Totally legal, yes, but are we really reverting to the SCARE factor to have people follow a religion? Isn't the belief in a God supposed to rely on faith, not fear?
I'm not sure why but this podcast made me consider that although I find Hinduism and Buddhism to be a little different than my daily life and quite repressing toward females, I also can't think of a single instance when anyone has tried to shove either of those religions down someone else's throat. It's a nice 'take it or leave it' approach, with no threatening consequences other than you might be reborn again as a goat or something, but have another opportunity to create better karma for yourself.
Reporter: Barbara Hagerty
October 18th 2011
Well, prepare for destruction AGAIN everyone. Harold Camping, a prophet of the doomsday and head of Family Radio has recrunched the numbers and it turns out he was about 5 months off in his last prediction. He also might have been wrong about the world ending in destruction, stating his new conviction with a few 'probably...''s thrown in there.
"Probably there will be no pain suffered by anyone because of their rebellion against God. Unbelievers might just fall asleep and never wake up." -Camping
Hagerty, the reporter, had the same attitude I do: skepticism. To me this seems like a desperate, embarrassing ploy to convert more people to Christianity. Totally legal, yes, but are we really reverting to the SCARE factor to have people follow a religion? Isn't the belief in a God supposed to rely on faith, not fear?
I'm not sure why but this podcast made me consider that although I find Hinduism and Buddhism to be a little different than my daily life and quite repressing toward females, I also can't think of a single instance when anyone has tried to shove either of those religions down someone else's throat. It's a nice 'take it or leave it' approach, with no threatening consequences other than you might be reborn again as a goat or something, but have another opportunity to create better karma for yourself.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Mormons not Christians?
How do Mormons not answer Christian claims? (Article)
By Michael Otterson
October 12th 2011
The author wrote this article from his own perspective as a Latter -Day Saint church member. He was told by a very close friend 'you're not a Christian because of X,Y,andZ beliefs, or lack of those beliefs'. According to him, Mormons follow Christian ideas but of course have their own additional beliefs as well. The author writes with a very open-minded voice, not insulting other religions but simply stating the fact that 'yes, it's different than what some people know to be Christianity but come talk to us if you would like to know the similarities as well'.
This article made me think of how both Hinduism and Buddhism have so many different branches, and yet I consider them all to be properly grouped together under the same 'umbrella' naming of those main religions. For example, do people that follow the Mahayana school of though claim that the Theravada followers are 'not Buddhists!'? That is an honest question because I have never had the opportunity to ask someone, but I am going to assume not. I would think that generally people would qualify someone as a Hindu/Buddhist if they were following the same basic principles. This too SHOULD be the case for Christianity, in my opinion. I think people need to chill out, keep religion bashing OUT of their political speeches (look at this article for a good example of what I mean) and just let people be!
By Michael Otterson
October 12th 2011
The author wrote this article from his own perspective as a Latter -Day Saint church member. He was told by a very close friend 'you're not a Christian because of X,Y,andZ beliefs, or lack of those beliefs'. According to him, Mormons follow Christian ideas but of course have their own additional beliefs as well. The author writes with a very open-minded voice, not insulting other religions but simply stating the fact that 'yes, it's different than what some people know to be Christianity but come talk to us if you would like to know the similarities as well'.
This article made me think of how both Hinduism and Buddhism have so many different branches, and yet I consider them all to be properly grouped together under the same 'umbrella' naming of those main religions. For example, do people that follow the Mahayana school of though claim that the Theravada followers are 'not Buddhists!'? That is an honest question because I have never had the opportunity to ask someone, but I am going to assume not. I would think that generally people would qualify someone as a Hindu/Buddhist if they were following the same basic principles. This too SHOULD be the case for Christianity, in my opinion. I think people need to chill out, keep religion bashing OUT of their political speeches (look at this article for a good example of what I mean) and just let people be!
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Where does church end and state begin?
By Jacques Berlinerblau
The Washington Post On Faith
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/georgetown-on-faith/post/where-does-church-end-and-state-begin/2011/10/04/gIQAzy2RNL_blog.html
This article is written with a big serving of sarcasm, mostly directed toward US political figures who have tried to use their religion as a reason for doing something some find unconstitutional. It is very entertaining, and also intriguing if you look at it with an open mind.
The US is supposed to have (and I would say a majority of the time, does) a separation of Church and State. So I can see how some people get quite frustrated when political figure heads, voted into power by the American public, are making decisions based off their religious values and NOT based off the constitution. People are not voted into power because of their religion. Therefore, when someone takes power, they should not get to pick and choose which laws to pass/duties to follow based off their own beliefs. Berlinerblau does a good job giving a few examples of past experiences when people have tried to do something because of their faith, and normally these people have been told "no, no, I don't care that your faith says otherwise..your job says do this" so it's nice to know the separation is being upheld.
This just made me think of how Hinduism and Buddhism are so much more than religions, they are lifestyles, that there is no way church and state could ever be separated. I think this might make laws/rules/regulations/etc a lot easier to decide on but I can't decide if it's 'fair' or if I would like it. Probably not since I don't really have any certain religion I adhere to.
It's also interesting to think about how the first amendment protects against freedom of speech, but by requiring political figures to not base any decisions off their religion, is that somehow going against that amendment too? I think it's fair to say that religion influences a lot of people's morals and values and opinions...so are we saying that political figures need to base their morals, values, etc off of somewhere else? How could a person even control for that since those things are typically ingrained in a person by the time they are college-aged?
The Washington Post On Faith
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/georgetown-on-faith/post/where-does-church-end-and-state-begin/2011/10/04/gIQAzy2RNL_blog.html
This article is written with a big serving of sarcasm, mostly directed toward US political figures who have tried to use their religion as a reason for doing something some find unconstitutional. It is very entertaining, and also intriguing if you look at it with an open mind.
The US is supposed to have (and I would say a majority of the time, does) a separation of Church and State. So I can see how some people get quite frustrated when political figure heads, voted into power by the American public, are making decisions based off their religious values and NOT based off the constitution. People are not voted into power because of their religion. Therefore, when someone takes power, they should not get to pick and choose which laws to pass/duties to follow based off their own beliefs. Berlinerblau does a good job giving a few examples of past experiences when people have tried to do something because of their faith, and normally these people have been told "no, no, I don't care that your faith says otherwise..your job says do this" so it's nice to know the separation is being upheld.
This just made me think of how Hinduism and Buddhism are so much more than religions, they are lifestyles, that there is no way church and state could ever be separated. I think this might make laws/rules/regulations/etc a lot easier to decide on but I can't decide if it's 'fair' or if I would like it. Probably not since I don't really have any certain religion I adhere to.
It's also interesting to think about how the first amendment protects against freedom of speech, but by requiring political figures to not base any decisions off their religion, is that somehow going against that amendment too? I think it's fair to say that religion influences a lot of people's morals and values and opinions...so are we saying that political figures need to base their morals, values, etc off of somewhere else? How could a person even control for that since those things are typically ingrained in a person by the time they are college-aged?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Thailand's female monks (cautiously) lobby for legal recognition
By Amy Lieberman, September 8th 2011, The Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0908/Thailand-s-female-monks-cautiously-lobby-for-legal-recognition
The vibe throughout this article is that the female monks (Bhikkunhi) don't want to be legally recognized for popularity or fame, they want to be recognized only so they can help more people and increase the impact they are having in Thailand.
In 1928 the Sangha Act was passed which banned ordains of women--aka it's a law saying a group of female Monks will not be recognized. However, in 1932 there was a new constitution written that made the Sangha Act void. So by current law, Bhikkunhi should be legally recognized because there is nothing saying they can't be. But conservatives keep referring back the the Sangha Act and pretending that it's current and ignoring the newer constitution of 1932.
The author Amy Lieberman, clearly a female, gives the article a positive but not pushy tone. I think if this same story had been covered in Thailand by a conservative male Buddhist, it would have portrayed the Bhikkunhi as rebels or public nuisances and tried to persuade readers to think they were 'ridiculous' or 'out of line' for trying to become legally recognized. I think it's ridiculous that people still refer to the Sangha Act which was only legal for 4 years before the new constitution made it void. The people campaigning for Bhikkunhi recognition are even creating a petition to change the Sangha Act--EVEN THOUGH IT WAS VOIDED MORE THAN 70 YEARS AGO! Since when could citizens pick and choose which laws to follow? Sadly, I don't think the changes to the Act will have much of an impact. I do hope that the Bhikkunhi can stay under the radar (which is their current plan) enough to not draw much negative public attention, but still continue to slowly grow in size and power until the Buddhist religion fully accepts them.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0908/Thailand-s-female-monks-cautiously-lobby-for-legal-recognition
The vibe throughout this article is that the female monks (Bhikkunhi) don't want to be legally recognized for popularity or fame, they want to be recognized only so they can help more people and increase the impact they are having in Thailand.
In 1928 the Sangha Act was passed which banned ordains of women--aka it's a law saying a group of female Monks will not be recognized. However, in 1932 there was a new constitution written that made the Sangha Act void. So by current law, Bhikkunhi should be legally recognized because there is nothing saying they can't be. But conservatives keep referring back the the Sangha Act and pretending that it's current and ignoring the newer constitution of 1932.
The author Amy Lieberman, clearly a female, gives the article a positive but not pushy tone. I think if this same story had been covered in Thailand by a conservative male Buddhist, it would have portrayed the Bhikkunhi as rebels or public nuisances and tried to persuade readers to think they were 'ridiculous' or 'out of line' for trying to become legally recognized. I think it's ridiculous that people still refer to the Sangha Act which was only legal for 4 years before the new constitution made it void. The people campaigning for Bhikkunhi recognition are even creating a petition to change the Sangha Act--EVEN THOUGH IT WAS VOIDED MORE THAN 70 YEARS AGO! Since when could citizens pick and choose which laws to follow? Sadly, I don't think the changes to the Act will have much of an impact. I do hope that the Bhikkunhi can stay under the radar (which is their current plan) enough to not draw much negative public attention, but still continue to slowly grow in size and power until the Buddhist religion fully accepts them.
Monday, September 19, 2011
What's in an "om"? How Women are transforming yoga
By Meera Subramanian, Religion Dispatches, Sept. 19th 2011. http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/5094/what%E2%80%99s_in_an_%E2%80%9Com%E2%80%9D%3A_how_women_are_transforming_yoga/
Today for class we briefly read about how yoga is a way for Hindu's to find liberation from their 'self' (which is a whole different discussion as 'what really is the 'self' has endless discussion points.) and try and get to the higher power of spirituality. This article discusses how yoga was originally a female practice but the male Brahmins took over that practice so that the Goddesses were the only females with any type of spiritual power. I'm not sure how much of that is legitimate since I have about 5 days of Hindu knowledge under my belt, but assuming that is true, I'll continue on...
It's hard for me to accept that any religion or culture still holds men to a higher power than women. And especially since Hinduism is a way of life and not only a religion, then females are basically destined to be contained and submissive in all aspects of their lives.
So in that regard, I love the fact that females are embracing yoga not for the health benefits as it's modern claim to fame is, but for the actual spiritual part. (Notice I said spiritual, and not necessarily religious. I hope you are able to notice the difference I am inferring!) The experience that seasoned 'yogists' have while practicing yoga is in a lot of ways a practice of "Vendanta" ideology to connect your self with other parts of this universe. Which of the 3 main sects of this..I guess that is up to each yogi. Whether that 'connecting' is trying to connect yourself with the god Shiva, or Jesus...or even if its only trying to UNconnect yourself from the thought that your homework is the only thing that defines your 'self'...what a nice outlet for people of all different religions.
If the extreme Hindus are mad that yoga has gotten to be so mainstream, I guess I can understand. But I don't think the mainstream followers are claiming to be seasoned Hindus or knowing all the religious context behind yoga. The thing I like best, and deem most important, is that this is one very popular way that people are recognizing this material world, this day, this drama, are not 'us'. I think that is probably a very liberating (a-ha!) and reassuring feeling for females and males, Hindus and non-Hindus alike.
Today for class we briefly read about how yoga is a way for Hindu's to find liberation from their 'self' (which is a whole different discussion as 'what really is the 'self' has endless discussion points.) and try and get to the higher power of spirituality. This article discusses how yoga was originally a female practice but the male Brahmins took over that practice so that the Goddesses were the only females with any type of spiritual power. I'm not sure how much of that is legitimate since I have about 5 days of Hindu knowledge under my belt, but assuming that is true, I'll continue on...
It's hard for me to accept that any religion or culture still holds men to a higher power than women. And especially since Hinduism is a way of life and not only a religion, then females are basically destined to be contained and submissive in all aspects of their lives.
So in that regard, I love the fact that females are embracing yoga not for the health benefits as it's modern claim to fame is, but for the actual spiritual part. (Notice I said spiritual, and not necessarily religious. I hope you are able to notice the difference I am inferring!) The experience that seasoned 'yogists' have while practicing yoga is in a lot of ways a practice of "Vendanta" ideology to connect your self with other parts of this universe. Which of the 3 main sects of this..I guess that is up to each yogi. Whether that 'connecting' is trying to connect yourself with the god Shiva, or Jesus...or even if its only trying to UNconnect yourself from the thought that your homework is the only thing that defines your 'self'...what a nice outlet for people of all different religions.
If the extreme Hindus are mad that yoga has gotten to be so mainstream, I guess I can understand. But I don't think the mainstream followers are claiming to be seasoned Hindus or knowing all the religious context behind yoga. The thing I like best, and deem most important, is that this is one very popular way that people are recognizing this material world, this day, this drama, are not 'us'. I think that is probably a very liberating (a-ha!) and reassuring feeling for females and males, Hindus and non-Hindus alike.
Friday, September 16, 2011
week 1: post 2
Researches and Editors of the New York Times, "M.F. Husain News", New York Post, July 1st 2011. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/mf_husain/index.html?scp=3&sq=hindu&st=cse
This information was compiled by various editors and researchers for the New York Times, which I believe happened in this manner because Maqbool Fida Husain (M.F. Husain) just recently passed away, and as with other famous people, the New York Times makes a page full of information about each person.
The main thing discussed in Husain's biography is how his art affected so many people and caused quite the uproar. A few of these accusations seemed so bizzare to me. First off, he went to court 3 times over the fact that he drew a goddess representing India naked. I only have my background in Christian churches to draw comparisons from, but when I think of pictures of Jesus drawn, he is without much clothing either. I agree with Husain in his statement that this makes the goddess/painting [pure]. The fact that this went to court was what surprised me the most. I never realized, or noticed, that other countries might not follow the idea of separation of church and state like America does. Or that the 1st amendment (freedom of speech, or in this case artistry) wouldn't apply in other countries (duh to me, I know.). As an ending statement, the article talked about how Husain's pieces were not shown at a recent art show due to the fact the organizers didn't want to spark any religious attacks. Again, cue my "but what about the first amen...ohhhh yeahhhh" thought.
Basically, just based on the fact that this article did surprise me so much is a good indication of how our countries laws and ideas are so deeply ingrained in me, that I don't automatically figure out that of course other countries aren't going to follow these same principles. Feel free to call me ignorant, I willingly admit that already, but I will defend myself as being culturally sensitive which I think is more important considering I can always gain knowledge, and I'd have less ignorance, but cultural sensitivity can't be taught in my opinion.
This information was compiled by various editors and researchers for the New York Times, which I believe happened in this manner because Maqbool Fida Husain (M.F. Husain) just recently passed away, and as with other famous people, the New York Times makes a page full of information about each person.
The main thing discussed in Husain's biography is how his art affected so many people and caused quite the uproar. A few of these accusations seemed so bizzare to me. First off, he went to court 3 times over the fact that he drew a goddess representing India naked. I only have my background in Christian churches to draw comparisons from, but when I think of pictures of Jesus drawn, he is without much clothing either. I agree with Husain in his statement that this makes the goddess/painting [pure]. The fact that this went to court was what surprised me the most. I never realized, or noticed, that other countries might not follow the idea of separation of church and state like America does. Or that the 1st amendment (freedom of speech, or in this case artistry) wouldn't apply in other countries (duh to me, I know.). As an ending statement, the article talked about how Husain's pieces were not shown at a recent art show due to the fact the organizers didn't want to spark any religious attacks. Again, cue my "but what about the first amen...ohhhh yeahhhh" thought.
Basically, just based on the fact that this article did surprise me so much is a good indication of how our countries laws and ideas are so deeply ingrained in me, that I don't automatically figure out that of course other countries aren't going to follow these same principles. Feel free to call me ignorant, I willingly admit that already, but I will defend myself as being culturally sensitive which I think is more important considering I can always gain knowledge, and I'd have less ignorance, but cultural sensitivity can't be taught in my opinion.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Week 1: 1
9/11 Prayer Events: Where were the evangelicals? By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA Today, (9/11/2011). http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/index/
Grossman begins this article by describing the ceremony that took place at the 9/11 memorial event in NYC, or rather, the parts of the ceremony that DIDN'T take place. A referenced article by Mollie Hemingway listed that "...Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims but no Southern Baptists or pastors from the Lutheran Missouri Synod or the more traditionalist wing of Presbyterians were on the Cathedral program." Some speculated that this was simply because other clergy were there to represent all Christian branches of religion, as was also the case with one Jewish synagogue representing all other Jewish branches (notice the lack of angry articles against this limited representation?). Another speculation was that these specific denominations were left off the guest list because they do not share in worship with other religions that don't strictly agree with their core values, such as Jesus Christ being the only 'true savior'.
To be honest, I don't see what the big fuss is. It's like (forgive the poor analogy) telling a person you don't care for them or those they associate with, and then getting upset because you weren't invited to his/her wedding. Well, DUH. For an event that is meant to be civilized, respectful and peaceful (such as the 9/11 memorial service) I think it was fine to draw the line on invitations at the point where everyone is represented, but those that might cause annoying petty issues with which clergy of which denomination they are standing next to can be left off the list.
I think this article ties into Monday's discussion because it goes to show how strictly some people adhere to their own rules of 'their' religion, and how any other way of spiritual life or worship is considered wrong and intolerable. You'd think that there would be at least some leeway on this strict adherence to those rules for the 9/11 memorial service, especially when considering that this idea of 'intolerance' has been a strong theme in the problems surrounding the original 9/11 events.
Grossman begins this article by describing the ceremony that took place at the 9/11 memorial event in NYC, or rather, the parts of the ceremony that DIDN'T take place. A referenced article by Mollie Hemingway listed that "...Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims but no Southern Baptists or pastors from the Lutheran Missouri Synod or the more traditionalist wing of Presbyterians were on the Cathedral program." Some speculated that this was simply because other clergy were there to represent all Christian branches of religion, as was also the case with one Jewish synagogue representing all other Jewish branches (notice the lack of angry articles against this limited representation?). Another speculation was that these specific denominations were left off the guest list because they do not share in worship with other religions that don't strictly agree with their core values, such as Jesus Christ being the only 'true savior'.
To be honest, I don't see what the big fuss is. It's like (forgive the poor analogy) telling a person you don't care for them or those they associate with, and then getting upset because you weren't invited to his/her wedding. Well, DUH. For an event that is meant to be civilized, respectful and peaceful (such as the 9/11 memorial service) I think it was fine to draw the line on invitations at the point where everyone is represented, but those that might cause annoying petty issues with which clergy of which denomination they are standing next to can be left off the list.
I think this article ties into Monday's discussion because it goes to show how strictly some people adhere to their own rules of 'their' religion, and how any other way of spiritual life or worship is considered wrong and intolerable. You'd think that there would be at least some leeway on this strict adherence to those rules for the 9/11 memorial service, especially when considering that this idea of 'intolerance' has been a strong theme in the problems surrounding the original 9/11 events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)