Where does church end and state begin?

By Jacques Berlinerblau

10/05/2011
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?

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.

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.

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.

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.