Jane Addams

Jane Addams, in her foundation of Hull House, had some definite religious ideas to put into practice, although they may not have been explicitly stated. One of the big motivating factors for her was the religious beliefs of her father, and the values he instilled in her carried over throughout her life. One of the most important or relevant of these values, I think, is the sense that everyone should be equal and have the same chances and so on. This could be seen as a secular belief, one very historically relevant, or it could be a feature of her Quaker upbringing.

Jane Addams' strong devotion and attachment to her project bespeak a commitment that may go beyond the bounds of normal secular attachment. One of the most powerful motivators is a sense of religious injustice, and I think there was a healthy dose of this in Addams' desire to help the disenfranchised in Chicago. Religion was not the only motivator for Addams, but it seems to have been a significant one at the very least, and perhaps the main factor involved in her decisions regarding Hull House.

"The building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world." This quote, with added emphasis, is from the movie "V for Vendetta," and it applies quite perfectly to the ideas about religions we have been discussing, although in the movie it was applied to politics rather than religion. Geertz, I feel, would appreciate this interpretation of symbols and their meanings, fitting as it does into his definition of religion. Each piece of meaning about the world or the symbols in it comes from the people concerned with it, not from the symbol itself. People become meaning constructors, instilling objects or events with symbolic meanings that help inform or perpetuate their ideas about the world. This is not merely a one-time occurrence; it happens continuously all over the globe in all sorts of situations.

This meaning construction can be seen in any group, religious or otherwise, in our world. Americans impart meaning to the colors red, white, and blue, and children make certain meanings and associations based on the tinny songs of the ice cream truck. Rastafarians create mountains of meaning associated with all their various symbols: the lion, the colors of Ethiopia, the dreadlocks, and Haile Selassie himself. The lion in and of itself means nothing; it is one animal, like so many others. When people decide that it means something else, like a representation of the chosen people, the lion becomes quite powerful, inspiring actions and reactions in hearts that otherwise would remain unmoved by the sight of this African predator. Similarly, the chosen hairstyle of Rastas, the dreadlocks, have no inherent meaning or power by their nature. They only attain power and meaning when compared with the tame, slick hair of those people seen to be oppressing the Rastafarians and when imbued with intentions and power by those who wear them.

Though symbols play a powerful part in any group of loyal followers, they are meaningless without those followers and without the great trust and power they place in symbols. Haile Selassie, for instance, could be a symbol of many things, such as his country, his race, or his gender. But he was not a symbol of God or of the divine nature of Africa/Ethiopia until some people in Jamaica made him so. Everything has the potential to become a symbol to someone; all that needs to happen is for someone to decide there is power in a certain place and proclaim it as being so. Each person could be a symbol of something, even without her own knowledge of the fact. It all depends on how people perceive the potential symbol, what meaning is given to it and derived from it.

The Rasta community in the video seems to be more stratified than I had believed them to be. The impression I had was of basically a commune setting, with one or a few individuals in charge. These different "orders" and ranks seem to contradict that set-up at least a little bit. The Boboshanti are highly reminiscent of Christian bishops or monks, in both practices and ritual attire, suggesting that this Rastafarian community may be similar to some early Christian monasteries or religious communities. The hierarchy that seems to be in place in the community in the video is somewhat contradictory to the ideas of community (in the sense of a commune-- cooperation and equality) that are present in the descriptions in the book.

The power of symbols mentioned in the video, such as the dreadlocks and turban, seems to fit more closely with what we have read about Rastafarians. They, especially in tight communities, seem to be quite concerned or interested in the accouterments and colors they associate with themselves. There is an emphasis on the power that certain colors and styles give to the wearers as "children of Africa," as one woman said in the video. They build houses in the colors of the Ethiopian flag and dress themselves in the same colors, identifying themselves with their brothers and sisters in Africa and expressing their desire and intention to join them there someday. This we do expect from our readings.

Aspects of Identity

From reading the Rastafari book and listening to Bob Marley's music, it seems to be the case that being Rastafarian and being Jamaican are two aspects of identity that are often associated with one another, if not conflated. Being Jamaican, at least for Bob Marley, has much to do with following Rastafari, and the two pieces are not easily separated. They both have quite an influence on his music, and in fact being Jamaican was quite important in the creation of Rastafari as a religion. Religion and nationality are closely knit together in this case.

This does not seem to be the case, however, for many Arabs, as was shown in the documentary shown in Wriston on Monday. There was a rather strong emphasis placed on the difference between being Arab and being Muslim. There were several non-Muslim Arabs mentioned, and the National Arab American Museum did not focus at all on the religious connotations many people have associated with being Arab. Their focus was far more secular, concentrating on a positive public image for Arabs. The large mosque on the highway, on the other hand, focused on the religion, paying little to no attention to the race or heritage of its members. The man talking about the mosque mentioned quite explicitly that he wished to draw a definite line between Islam and Arab aspects of identity.

There seems to be no one "right way" to go about defining oneself as part of a group, or of just one group. One can foucs on one main aspect of identity, making that one the most important, like the Arabs and Muslims in Michigan. One can also, a la Bob Marley and others, put an equal focus on two or more aspects of identity and how they relate to each other, such as, in this case, religion and nationality. Both methods allow the person to self-identify with a group of his or her preference, and neither one is a more "correct" approach than the other.

Kebra Negast

The story contained in the excerpt from the Ethiopian Kebra Negast places great importance both on Israel and on Ethiopia, personified in Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, respectively. There are several ways in which Ethiopia is given a high status by the story. For instance, Sheba herself is lauded as being extraordinarily wise almost every time the subject of wisdom comes up. She is also modest, beautiful, and virtuous in the extreme. Since she represents the country of Ethiopia, these descriptors paint quite a complimentary picture of the country and her queen. Everyone, including King Solomon himself, see the queen as equal to Solomon in every way, including wisdom, which is his specialty. This gives Ethiopia an even footing with Israel from a cultural point of view.

Ethiopia is also raised in status from a religious standpoint. For the most part, the story centers around the people and their wisdom, but there is a very important dream near the end of our excerpt. Solomon dreams that a light arises over Israel, but it shortly moves to hover over Ethiopia, where it remains for ever. The implications of this for Ethiopia are obvious and obviously prestigious, as far as religion goes. It implies that as much as Israel is important for religious reasons, Ethiopia will be a sort of "new Israel," taking the place in esteem and importance that Israel has held for some time. This esteem is personified to some extent in the child of Solomon and Sheba, the new King of Ethiopia, who will change the customary ruling system in Ethiopia and presumably bring wealth and prosperity, not to mention wisdom and virtue, to the country and thence the region as a whole.

The excerpt from the Kebra Negast is quite laudatory towards Ethiopia, and anyone who reads it gets a sense of Ethiopia's importance to the world and to the Judeo-Christian religion. There are reasons to give Ethiopia a high place in our esteem based on many aspects, both secular and religious, including Sheba's beauty, wisdom, and virtue, and her ability to deal with all the situations she encounters with aplomb and poise (for instance, the incident with the water in Solomon's bedchamber). The religious implications are also very positive, claiming that Ethiopia is the true seat of the Christian religion, usurping Israel's position.

Losing my Religion on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This photo depicts a man standing by the side of a lonesome road, laden down with suitcase after suitcase, while by his feet rests a cardboard sign reading "FINDING MY FAITH." The picture is part of a series the creator calls "Losing My Religion, Finding My Faith," and the caption talks about the unnecessary addenda we put upon ourselves that are not really part of religion. He (the photographer) addresses the idea that we use "unnecessary and often harmful 'beliefs' that really keep us from a true faith" to try to interpret religion, but all we accomplish is a distortion of what the religion "should" be. In his view, there is a distinct line between religion and faith, and one is good while the other has good roots but has been buried under what we seem to think it needs. The suitcases, representing these additions, are labeled "dogma," "detriment," "hindrance," "impedimenta," "trappings," and "encumbrance," and they are piled high, obscuring the bearer's face. For the photographer, religion is something that is built up and distorted from a common faith or starting point such as the Bible (which he mentions as such).

The man in the picture is almost completely hidden from view by what he has taken upon himself-- what he thinks he needs for his journey. He is so weighed down with these bags that he cannot even see the cars that drive past him, the cars that he seems to want to hitch a ride with. If he could only set down these self-imposed burdens, he would be free to roam wherever he wanted, free to flag down the passing cars and interact with new and different people. Instead, he stands uncomfortably on the side of the road, trying to master the precariously balanced bags and cases of his belongings, unable to see or be seen by those in a better position to travel on down the road. This works as a very good analogy, I think, to added-on interpretations of texts, stories, and other evidence, whereby the recipients of this super-edited version are at a loss to decipher what the text may originally have meant or how to interpret such things for themselves. The more interpretations are imposed on texts, the less clear they truly become, especially when interpretations are handed down through generation after generation, getting murkier with each hand-off. That is to say, each time someone tries to fit ancient texts to specific modern events, for example, the meaning of the text gets narrower and more difficult to apply in real, day-to-day situations.

What the creator of this photograph and I are getting at is that while some things do need to be interpreted, such as cryptic texts, there is most definitely such a thing as over-interpretation, which tends to sort of defeat the purpose on interpretation in the first place. I don't know that I would go so far as to say that "religion" is the trumped-up baggage that comes from "faith," as the photographer does, but he may be onto something-- "faith" is more spiritual and personal, while "religion" is, as we've discussed, a group phenomenon that may need to have more rigorous and intense interpretation and editing of texts in order to fulfill its function in society of satisfying the ritualistic and worshipful needs of a certain group of people.

The creator of this photo had religion in mind when he took it: the caption talks of discarding all the constructions and needless baggage that we have added to what religion really is or boils down to.

Religious Change

There are a lot of people who figure that there is only one thing or set of characteristics that can define a particular religion or belief system. This, however, is pretty much wrong. Each system of belief changes over time and across cultural boundaries, discarding old ideas and absorbing new ones based on each new context. In fact, religions have been so influenced by the societies, both local and global, in which they have existed that it is not far-fetched to say that each religion takes something from its fellows, giving something in return. I will discuss Christianity as an example, only because that is the tradition with which I am most familiar.

Christianity, it is important to remember, began as an offshoot of Judaism. The founders of the religion were all born and raised as Jews, including Jesus himself. Christianity also went on to become in turn a jumping-off point for Islam. In addition to that, Christianity has borrowed ideas from all over the world, not stopping short of "pagan" religions of Northern Europe and the British Isles. The dates of the two biggest holidays of the Christian year, Christmas and Easter, were chosen expressly to coincide with the festivals of solstices and equinoxes that were already being celebrated in many parts of the world. Through study of the text of the Christmas story in the Bible and the historical events it mentions, it becomes clear that the birth of Jesus probably actually occurred sometime in the spring, not in midwinter at all. There is also the question of the Spanish Inquisition, which most Christians would hesitate to put forward as representative of the belief system, not to mention the Crusades, the idea of Purgatory and the sale of indulgences, and the very concept of the Pope's infallibility. The Pope is, after all, a human, chosen by humans, and humans do make mistakes. The belief held by Roman Catholic Christians that he is necessarily infallible recalls religions in which the ruler of a society is also regarded as a god, a la Xerxes or the Egyptian Pharaohs.

Other religions, I am sure, have as much or more to tell of the diffusion of ideas across time and culture, showing that religions are neither fixed nor pure, no matter what their practitioners may think or want to think. There is no reason for upset at such a statement; every kind of institution, organization, or even loose group of people borrows ideas from society at large and gives some ideas back to society to be borrowed by other groups. This discussion of the constant ebb and flow of ideas, concepts, beliefs, and conventions makes one wonder if there is a time when all known religions may eventually merge, when all the ideas that have proven useful, acceptable, and reasonable will combine into one sort of world religion. If such a time is in the offing, it will surely be far in the future, but the idea of everyone living in accordance with the same "general order of existence" gives one hope that there will not always be that difference, at least, as an excuse for exclusion, exploitation, alienation, and even war.