Haitian Voodoo, Vodun, Vaudin, Voudoun, Vodou, Vaudoux

Note: This video was produced by National Geographic and while it does not show all the aspects of a typical ritual, (there is less dancing and lack of traditional garb) the footage and sound is much better than in many amateur videos that have been taken of other rituals and this video still includes many of the aspects of the system of symbols found in voodoo religion focusing on smaller rituals rather than larger community rituals. Some other rituals are exclusive and secretive and do not allow outsiders to view.




Thanks mostly to the exaggeration and twisting of stories of Hollywood, there are many misconceptions about Voodoo religion. When Americans think of Voodoo they often picture voodoo dolls, dark magic,  and zombies but in reality dark magic is a relatively minuscule part of voodoo religion. Most of the religion of voodoo (also spelled Vodun, Vaudin, Voudoun, Vodou, and Vaudoux)  that is practiced is not dark at all and is called Rada and focuses on kind and benevolent spirits rather than spirits that seek to harm people. While voodoo may appear to an outsider to be a polytheistic religion, most sects of voodoo are actually monotheistic and believe in one supreme being named Bondye and a whole host of spirits which are called Iwa or Loa who act as mediators between Bondye and man. Voodoo is a very ritualistic religion and rituals are performed to ask specific spirits to help the followers of voodoo to gain a greater abundance of food, a higher standard of living or greater health. Voodoo is a decentralized religion with beliefs that vary from place to place. Many communities have their own set of spirits that they call upon that are often different from the spirits of another community. Despite high levels of decentralization, much of the voodoo religion, regardless of where it is practiced, focuses on healing illnesses, many of which are believed to be caused by restless dead ancestors whose souls were not properly recalled at the right time. 

Depiction of ti-bon-ange

Voodoo believes in a two part soul that consists of a gros-bon-ange (big good angel) which is equivalent to the concept of a soul in western traditions except that this soul is much more separate from the body than the western concept of a soul and a ti-bon-ange which means little good angel and is similar to the western conception of the conscience. After death in order for the ti-bon-ange to have a peaceful rest the gros-bon-ange must be returned to the cosmos. In order for this to occur, a particularly expensive ritual must take place in which a large animal such as an ox must be sacrificed in order to appease the ti-bon-ange and release the gros-bon-ange so that it is no longer earthbound. If the gros-bon-ange is not released, it will become restless and cause illness and wreak disaster on the community. Uncontent ancestors are usually found to be the cause of illness and strange behavior. In the video, it is Berto's father that is found as the source of his illness. Berto's father had neglected the spirits of the ancestors and the ancestors were taking it out on his son, Berto. In voodoo, connections are made between ancestors and their families that are still living. While these connections may be arbitrary to many, it gives voodoo practicers a solution to an otherwise puzzling problem, at least a problem that would be puzzling without modern medicine. However even with modern medicine people everywhere are always searching for justification for why bad things happen to people even when they have the scientific answers.

It was the Iwa, Baron Samedi, that led the priest to the root of the problem  The belief that deceased ancestors, if not properly cared for, can wreak havoc on society instills respect and a system that serves to honor the deceased out of necessity for the good of the community. It also sets up a system of reasoning for previously unexplainable phenomena such as how diseases are spread and why people become ill. Explaining the unexplainable by means of the supernatural is a common thread in many religions and serves as one of the fundamental purposes that humans make and follow religions. Such attributions seem particularly common in religions that originated in ancient times.




This voodoo priest is possessed by an Iwa

 There is no religious text or scripture in voodoo but there are many complex rituals that are done for various occasions. Rituals are a central part of the religion and make up a majority of the worship of voodoo and serve as major symbol in and of themselves. Rituals are led by priests or priestesses called houngans or mambos respectively. In the rituals participants dance and call upon the spirits to possess one of the members in attendance to ask that spirit for help in a particular task and to ask for its blessing. The spirits or "Iwa" can posses or "mount" almost any member participating in the ritual. In this case, the spirit Baron Samedi mounts the priest and takes over his body for a short time.While Bondye is seen as a far away god, the spirits are much closer and interact directly with people.  The spirits are often called upon to heal a member of the community. Calling upon spirits to heal people reflects a time when people did not have modern medicine so the causes and cures for illnesses were often a mystery, especially in this West African based religion that was brought over to the new world by slaves to places like Haiti. Instead of looking for cures through medicine, they sought divine help. Group performed rituals worked to unite slaves who did not necessarily all come from the same place but nevertheless had a similar religion. Being a member of a group that holds common beliefs serves to bolster camaraderie and strengthen people who share the hardships of slavery.


Animal sacrifice during a voodoo ritual

 Animal sacrifices are common in voodoo rituals and serve to rejuvenate the Iwa because the Iwa spend a lot of energy in possessing a person. Voodoo followers believe that the release of life created by killing an animal in turn gives the Iwa more life. When the iwa or loa has possessed an individual, that individual may have to drink the blood of the animal in order to satisfy the iwa possessing them. More intense voodoo rituals may require larger animal sacrifices such as oxen or other cattle. Essentially, voodoo followers are feeding the spirits and keeping them content so that the spirits will be more likely to help them. Voodoo followers are very concerned with pleasing the Iwas because the spirits are very picky and require things to be done just right in order for them to agree to help people who ask. Much of voodoo seems highly superstitious but in reality, it is not that different from beliefs in other religions. Sacrifices have played a role in many religions in the past including Christianity and many pagan religions including the Aztec and Mayan religions.

A voodoo priestess (mambo) creates a veve in cornmeal

Veves were not shown in the video but they are drawings usually made in cornmeal on the ground before the start of a ceremony or ritual. Different veves signify different spirits that the group is trying to get in contact with through the ceremony. The drawings invite the spirits to the ceremony.The drawings are then destroyed during the ritual. This art along with rum and fruit and candies are often seen as part of the ceremony or on voodoo altars to make the space more inviting for spirits. Rum and other spirits has long been a part of West and Central African religions as part of a way to create a bridge between our world and the spiritual world, to get into contact with spirits. In the video, the priest poors rum over his own head when he is searching for a spirit to guide the community in the next year. Rum has connections to Africa and the Carribean is well known for its rum as well.  A lot of work goes into attracting spirits because people want spirits to help them and show them favor.


Priest pours rum over his head as part of an attempt to contact the spirits



Drumming is another essential part of the ceremony and provides music and rhythm to dance to while attempting to contact the spirits. It also connects voodoo followers with African roots of the tradition and also roots to the slaves in the Americas, especially the West Indies, who carried on the tradition of drumming, one of the few ways in which slaves were allowed to preserve their culture in the new world. So beyond being a part of the ceremony, drumming is deeply connected to the culture that voodoo sprung from (similar to the roots of drumming seen in the Rastafarian religion). This could be a source of ethnic pride for those who practice voodoo.

Dancing goes hand-in-hand with the drumming and is a necessary part of the ritual. In most rituals all the participants dance, sing and chant to attract spirits to mount one of the participant, but as seen in the video in some smaller rituals, only a few people dance. The dancing may also stem from the west African roots of this religion.

Voodoo religion also borrows from the Catholic faith that was forced upon slaves by missionaries but never really stuck because of lack of Christian infrastructure to maintain the faith. During the time when the practice of voodoo was banned under French rule in Haiti, underground practicing still went on and carried voodoo to where it is now, when it can be openly practiced. However, the Haitians did not leave Catholicism empty-handed. Because of its interaction with Catholicism some iwas are also alternatively called by names of saints found in Catholicism. For example the Iwa called Dumballah is strongly associated with St. Patrick and the Iwa Erzulie (an earth mother spirit) is synonymous with the Virgin Mary according to voodoo. Because of the relationship between voodoo and Catholicism, pictures of Catholic saints are also found on voodoo altars during various rituals.  Many followers of voodoo even nomially call themselves Catholics and some attend masses regularly in addition to practicing voodoo. While Catholicism and Voodoo look incompatible on the surface, people who practice voodoo found a way to fit elements of Catholicism into their own religion. It is surprising that practicers of voodoo did not rebel against Catholicism or completely reject it but rather incorporated it into their existing belief system. Catholic saints afterall, serve a function somewhat similar to the iwas or loas of voodoo, so adding or renaming some spirits must have been a seamless transition. The few similarities in belief systems may also be why some followers of voodoo have no problem following Catholicism in addition to voodoo.

Finally, followers of voodoo are strong believers in fate. They believe that Iwa or Loa determine their lives. Everything that happens, happens because the Iwa have decided it and caused it to happen. This belief results in an unwillingness to struggle for liberation and causes people to be happy with their plot in life. Fatalism may have resulted from the history of the people who practice voodoo in the Caribbean or it may have come out of their belief system, it is hard to tell. It is logical, however to assume that this belief came from slavery, that rather than trying to fight slavery, abuse and discrimination, they just accepted it and perhaps fought it in more underground ways, through the continued practice of voodoo even when it was banned or by calling on spirits to help improve their lives or perhaps even use of the dark magic of voodoo.

Voodoo religion participates in many of the patterns already seen in this class including the use of various art forms in religion, borrowing from other religions, reflections on the culture from which the religion originated, and explanations for the unknown. Haitian Voodoo seems to be the amalgamation of West African pagan traditions translated into the environment of Haiti with incorporation of symbols from the very prevalent Catholic church. Like the Rastafari, voodoo followers show pride in their ethnic origins, however, their pride is manifested in different ways, voodoo followers do not have as many flagrantly counter-culture tendencies as the Rastas do. Where as much of the original purpose of Rastafari was to rebel against white culture and Babylon, Voodoo is more focused on itself, on healing illness and surviving hardship than on rebelling.


For more information on voodoo, visit: http://www.eaec.org/cults/voodoo.htm,
http://webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/voodoo/overview.htm, http://www.allabouttheoccult.org/voodoo-religion.htm,

The Book of Abraham

There are many reasons beyond simply looking at the text that makes the historical accuracy and the validity of Abraham having written the book with his own hand of the Book of Abraham questionable to say the least. For example, the facsimiles that Joseph Smith includes in the book were incomplete to begin with and he filled them in with his own imagination. Furthermore, the hieroglyphics that he claims to have translated never mention Abraham's name and the story that the hieroglyphics actually tell are not even close to what Joseph Smith came up with.

Many Biblical scholars believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible which contains the Genesis story of creation that is recounted in this translation of the supposed works of Abraham. It seems that every translation by Joseph Smith contains a large amount of text that is the exact same as it appears in the Bible perhaps with very subtle changes to fit Joseph Smith's fancy, which seems suspicious to me. Sure stories could have been passed down through the ages but, once again, that they were written in exactly the same phrasing is unlikely. Moses lived 500 years after Abraham. Now it is plausible that Abraham could have written about the creation if it was revealed to him and then passed the story on to Moses who compiled it with other stories to be written in Genesis. So this alone does not suggest that this story was not written in 2000BC.

With a little research it is clear that Joseph Smith used a few anachronisms that would not have been around at the time of Abraham (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/pearl/abraham/sci_list.html). Such anachronisms include Potiphar's Hill, Chaldeans and calling the King of Egypt Pharaoh. But perhaps Joseph Smith just used the modern day translation, or what Abraham would have been referring to but using the now-common terms for it. Although these anachronisms do weaken the Book of Abraham's argument for validity. It also seems a little bit of a stretch that the Urim and the Thummim that Joseph Smith uses is also used by Abraham nearly 4000 years earlier in a land far away. It is by looking at the text in it's context, or the context that it was allegedly written in and finding anachronisms or things that are known to not have been known or talked about or discovered at the time of the alleged original writing that one can find evidence of the falsehood of authorship in a writing such as this.

Deja Vu?



Jesus' Sermon in the Land Bountiful



Jesus' Sermon on the Mount



One thing that really struck me about The Book of Mormon was the implausibility that on plates hidden in the hills of upstate New York could be written, verbatim, many of the same verses found in the King James Version of the Bible (even if the original script on the plates was written in reformed Egyptian). How likely does that seem? The same ideas written the same way, oceans away from where the original words were written. I suppose the authors of The Book of Mormon could have copied the verses from other writers at the time and then the plates been transferred to the new world. But what about when Jesus gives his sermon on the mount in America, did Jesus really just repeat the same exact thing he said the first time he gave his sermon? This instance may have made more sense in our modern world where the sermon may have been televised or if Jesus had flown to America on a speaking tour. It seems unlikely, although not impossible, to me that the same things would be told to different people and written verbatim thousands of miles away from where it was originally written. 

While I was reading The Book of Mormon, it seemed like a condensed version of the important events and passages of the King James Version of the Bible mashed together with the story of a family line that was previously unheard of in the Bible. The fact that The Book of Mormon directly addresses controversies and problems of 19th century Americans may have made the book seem more legitimate at the time it was written because it was so relevant to the people it was written for, but today it is the source of it's flaws. While Joseph Smith may have been trying to clear up the controversies of the 19th century American, he may have actually been writing himself into a hole, that is, if you believe the Bible to be accurate. Translating plates that almost no one has seen except Joseph Smith himself from a language that no one else in the world has heard of or knows looks suspicious to say the least.

Despite the suspicious nature of its conception, Mormonism serves its purpose, bringing pride to Americans and solving controversies that stood between different church denominations, giving clear cut instructions on debated topics. While I can understand how this religion could make sense to 19th century Americans, I also see it as a dated religion that is not necessarily applicable to people outside that century.

Jesus in America

"American Jesus"

Q: Within this book is narrated the visit of Jesus Christ to the people of Nephi. Consider the way this event is presented and write about how it might be received by Americans living in the 19th and 20th centuries. What in their world might be challenged or better understood after reading this. Make sure you cite and comment on at least one passage.



Jesus visits Native Americans



The people of Nephi must be something special for Jesus to make a special trip to America before his ascension in order to bring them his message. Claiming that Jesus made a special trip to America bolsters pride in 19th and 20th century Americans but also creates challenges of proving his presence and the presence of Mormonism after his coming, before the introduction of European settlers. If Jesus came to the Nephites and taught them to baptize one another and gave them the message of Christianity or Mormonism as stated in the Third Book of Nephi

And it came to pass that he [Jesus] spake unto Nephi, (for Nephi was among the multitude) and he commanded him that he should come forth...And the Lord said unto him, I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people, when I am again ascended into heaven. And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize.

  why were the Native peoples of America not Christian or Mormon to begin with when settlers from Europe came over to America? If Jesus had appeared to the Nephites in the promised land there should be some way to prove that ancient Native Americans had at least known Christ even if the Nephite tribe had ultimately died out before the coming of European settlers. If Jesus has been to America this creates a challenge for 19th and 20th century Americans because they have to find an excuse for why Mormonism did not persist in America until the settlers arrived and why there is no evidence of the practice of Mormonism in early American cultures and tribes. It seems as though, if Mormonism or Christianity had been prevalent at some point in America's history before Europeans came, even if the Mormons or Christians had died out, there should have been some evidence in the culture or traditions of the then current Native Americans due to cultural sharing and exchange.

While claiming that Jesus appeared to those living in America allows Mormons to take comfort in the idea that Native Americans had the opportunity to know and believe in God; it also allows them to take pride in the idea that God loved America so much that he sent Jesus to visit America and preach his message to the Nephites after his crucifixion. America can then be viewed by 19th and 20th century Americans as having an intimate connection with Christ, perhaps even seeing them as a chosen people in a "promised land." We have seen this multiple times before, people finding some way to make themselves more connected to their God and apply their religion to their own social context and make themselves into a chosen and elite race in the context of their religion. Having pride as a group that one's God tends especially to the needs of those living in a particular place can bolster up the group because afterall, who wants to believe in a God that likes another group better than them?

Religion: Bearer of Social Refom

Remember back at the beginning of the term when we read that article called "Why Do We Believe?" about why people create religions and the article gave evolutionary explanations for why people create and follow religions? One of the explanations was that people use religion to make up answers for phenomena and things about our world that they cannot explain. Humans, by nature are curious about the world and they exhibit an inherent need to understand their world, even if that means making up stories to compensate for things that they cannot know. Humans also use religion to unite people and form groups, which is very adaptive since humans are social animals and depend on one another for survival. After having read about at least four different religions, is this still an accurate hypothesis? Can we see these religions in terms of using them to explain the unexplained and as groups that form to promote cooperation and a feeling of unity?



It seems that the last two religions we have studied, beyond answering questions about the unknown, have sought to solve social problems that are prevalent in their social contexts. They serve as vehicles by which people set out to improve society and the followers' position in society. The Rastafari religion began as a way to elevate the status of Afro-Jamaicans if not in the eyes of their white oppressors, at least in their own eyes. Afro-Jamaicans had been oppressed and their culture told them that everything about them was bad and inferior to the whites and white culture. However, they did what they could to turn the stereotypes upside down, fight oppression and find beauty, power and pride in their ethnicity and origins. In a way, the Rastafari could be seen as searching for answers to the unknown, they still have a god-figure and stories to explain phenomena in their world but beyond that they are also searching for social reform. This fight for social reform unites the Rastas under a common goal, forming a group of likeminded people, which can be very adaptive for survival.



Two of Baha'u'llah followers before their martyrdom in 1896 (4 years after Baha'u'llah's death but many of his other followers were killed, tortured, and persecuted during his lifetime)

Two of Baha'u'llah followers before their martyrdom in 1896 (4 years after Baha'u'llah's death but many of his other followers were killed, tortured, and persecuted during his lifetime)

 The Baha'i faith as well, is a vehicle for social reform. Baha'u'llah promotes peace and world unity, gender equality and education for all.  Baha'u'llah even wrote up structures for how to carry out his plans for peace in the world. Baha'u'llah's plans for peace and unity and equality, unlike the Rastafari which had a long tradition of oppression, may have stemmed from discrimination, persecution, torture and oppression seen in his own life, acts committed against him and those near and dear to him. Nonetheless, he saw a need for social change and he used religion as a catalyst to promote the change. While the Baha'i faith does also answer questions of the unknown and has a god-figure, it also prescribes directions for how to act in the world and ideas about how the world should be structured socially. While social interactions wouldn't necessarily be categorized as part of the "unexplainable" or the "unknown" it is adaptive to cooperate and find effective ways of interacting with other humans since we are social animals by nature and must be social in order to survive.

The Baha’i and the Rastafari, more than the other religions we have studied so far, have been used to enact social change. Social reform seems to be higher on the agendas and more central to the belief systems of these two religions rather than just a side note as it seems to be in other religions.

Compassion Unites

While Karen Armstrong envisions compassion as a theme that unites religious traditions, in the faith developed by Baha’u’llah, although he does not specifically talk about compassion, he does promote religious tolerance and nonviolent ways of acting against those in opposition to their religion.

One of the most prevalent themes in Karen Armstrong’s vision is eliminating the intolerance and violence that results from the strict monotheism and intolerance of other religions that is not one's own religion seen in various religions. The Baha'is, at least in the early stages were seen to have religious tolerance at least to some degree. One outsider commented that Baha'u'llah's son and successor spoke tolerantly and intelligently of Christ and Christianity. Baha’u’llah seems to adhere to the idea of religious tolerance and does not promote violence against even those who are enemies of the Baha’is. In one instance some followers of Baha’u’llah acted in violence against Azalís behind Baha’u’llah’s back because they knew that if they would have asked for Baha’u’llah’s counsel on the matter, he would have forbidden the violent behavior.  They acted in violence “despite all that Baha’u’llah had said” (Momen 110). Baha’u’llah obviously does not promote violence but does that mean that he does indeed promote a way of compassion instead?

It can be conjectured from the text that the faith developed by Baha’u’llah does reflect Karen Armstrong’s vision of compassion even though the text does not explicitly say that one should act with compassion toward one another. Baha’u’llah, when he started to make his mission public and began a “series of letters to the kings and leaders of the world announcing his claim to be the one promised in the scriptures of all the religions of the world,” at that time he began “laying down the conditions for peace in the world” (80). While “peace” is not synonymous with compassion, these two concepts often go hand-in-hand, which would lead to the assumption that Baha’u’llah does endorse compassion to some extent.  Baha’u’llah also showed a proclivity for compassion in the development of his faith by being concerned and proactive about the education of children and the equal rights of women. Here we see that Baha’u’llah also teaches the importance of equality and knowledge which may also be seen as elements of compassion.

Ultimately the evidence points to elements of compassion taught by Baha'u'llah in the development of the Baha'i faith.

Where are all the Women?

After reading Rastafari and watching the various video clips in class, I couldn't help but start to notice that something was missing in all the reading and nearly all the video clips. Nearly all the people talked about in the Rastafari religion were men. Women were never mentioned when talking about discussion groups or get togethers. There was only one woman seen in the clip from the boboshanti village. Where were all the women? What is their role and why don't we see them as prominent members in this religious group? Are women just not Rastas or can they be Rastas too but kept hidden?

As it turns out, there are women involved in the Rastafari movement; however, in the early days of the movement especially, women were expected to take on a submissive role to their husbands and stick to domestic roles. Women were seen as childbearers and housekeepers who should look after their "King" (their husband). Women in the movement are not allowed to be leaders and the role of spiritual head of the family is maintained by the father in the family. Women must dress modestly, they are not allowed to wear makeup or fragrances and they must cover their heads when they pray. (For more detailed information see: http://www.jamaicans.com/culture/rasta/race_women.shtml or
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/rastafari/beliefs/women.shtml ).  One site even claims that women cannot be called to Rastafari except through their husbands. This restriction makes it much more difficult for women to become Rastafarian.

While women are a part of this movement they are expected to behave in a seemingly contradictory manner to the purpose of the movement. While the Rastafari strive for liberation, their women have been stuck in a submissive role. While they still participate in many of the practices of the Rastas, they are more restricted than the men in what they can and cannot do. While the movement is contrary to society in many ways, they still keep their women in traditional gender roles. Keeping women in traditional gender roles reflects Rastafarian adherence to some of the Bible's teachings, in this case teachings in which the male is the head of the household and women are expected to be submissive to him and be childbearers and play the traditional mother role and keep to the domestic sphere (http://jamaica-guide.info/past.and.present/religion/rastafarian/). While today it looks as though women Rastas are gaining ground toward a more equal role in the religion, they still have a ways to go.

Boboshanti's Turbans

One of the most salient features of the Boboshanti is their emphasis on the symbol of Ethiopia. The boboshanti are particularly connected to the Ethiopian symbolism seen throughout the Rastafari religon. They have an emphasis on repatriation to Ethiopia and they are set on preparing themselves for a return to the homeland by first, ressurection, then, redemption and finally, repatriation. The boboshanti try to accomplish this goal by organizing, purifying and centralizing the Rastafarian movement so that they may return one day to their African roots and the land of Haile Selassie. The emphasis on the importance of Ethiopia to Rastas is also seen in our text book, especially early in the movement when there was a strong push to return to Africa, to the homeland as soon as possible in order to escape the oppression of "Babylon" and return to the Rastas proud supposed roots and the land of the alleged Solomonic emporer Haile Selassie.

However, the boboshanti take the symbolism of Ethiopia even further than many Rasta groups by wearing turbans over their dreadlocks. The Rastas in the video claim to wear the turbans to emphasize their connection with Ethiopia. They try their best to dress like Ethiopians. It is one of this particular groups "requirements." The symbol of the turban, although it bears a strong connection to the symbol of Ethiopia, it has not been mentioned as a common symbol in our text which makes the appearance of turbans in this video surprising. Although it is not a ubiquitous symbol in the Rastafari, it is logical that followers would try to mimick Ethiopians in their looks and dress since the symbol of Ethiopia is one of the founding symbols of the movement. 

Because the boboshanti choose to wear turbans, while they do not omit the wearing of their hair in dreadlocks, the turbans still hide their dreadlocks which downplays the locks that are often seen as an important part of the Rastafarian image. The text mentions uses and symbolism of the dreadlocks, dreads emphasize naturalness while promoting an image of beauty contrary to the European conception of what beauty should be. Rastas may also shake their dreadlocks in order to unleash spiritual energy to bring destruction of Babylon. If Rastas are wearing turbans, however, they are not displaying that image of naturalness to the outside world and they are inhibited from shaking their locks and releasing said spiritual energy. It seems that the use of turbans and Ethiopian dress shifts the focus of these Rastafari from being contrary to rich, white Jamaican culture toward attaining the promised land of Ethiopia. Since, at least in the video, their community was secluded from wider society they did not have to encounter many white, non-Rastafarians and therefore could focus on attaining their ultimate goals rather than on rebelling against the white culture and Babylon. 

Queen of Sheba (and her son?)

      The story of "The Queen of Sheba and her only Son Menyelek" is an Ethiopian spin on the story that appears in the Christian Bible in which the Queen of Sheba visits Solomon to learn from his wisdom (the New International Version of the story can be found here). Once again we see religions morphing as they are adapted in different cultures and fit to that culture. The Ethiopians took the Biblical information and expanded on it from their own perspective.The Ethiopian version of the story is from the perspective of the Queen of Sheba (Ethiopians claim that Sheba is in Ethiopia)  rather than from the Solomon perspective as it appears in the Bible. In this way, the Ethiopians made the bible story their own and incorporated their own ideas and traditions into the story. They turned a thirteen verse blip into a twenty page adventure. In essence, they used the Queen of Sheba's visit to King Solomon as an explanation of how Ethiopians abandoned worship of the sun and how Christianity and Judiasm and heirs of Solomon found their way to Ethiopia. It also gives an explanation of how the Ethiopians would have obtained the ark of the covenant. This sort of sharing and molding of existing stories is very prevalent in religions especially when different cultures are geographically close together. The Ethiopians made the story of the Queen of Sheba into a story that explains something that may not have had a very good explanation in their historical records.

       In the Biblical version of the story, there is no mention of Solomon sleeping with the Queen of Sheba or of her having Solomon's son but in the Kebra Negast, the Queen of Sheba having a son by Solomon is vital to the plot of this version. The Queen of Sheba having King Solomon's son explains the "Solomonic line of Kings" in Ethiopia following this queen's rule. The Ethiopians also use the story as a vehicle for explaining how the ark of the covenant supposedly got transported to Ethiopia where the Ethiopians believe the ark of the covenant still resides today. The Kebra Negast version is an elaboration on the version found in the Bible which sought to provide answers to how Christianity found its way to Ethiopia. While it may or may not be accurate historically, it certainly provides answers to some of the basic questions that may puzzle Ethiopians. As we have seen before, people try to explain phenomena in their world through stories in religion. Also, since these two regions are close geographically, they tend to exchange information and engage in some cultural sharing whether purposefully or just as a result of mutual contact.

     Ultimately the Kebra Negast story explains phenomena found in Ethiopian culture through expanding on an already existing religious scripture of a neighboring religion.

Liberty in Interpretation: How much is too much?

     To make a religion run smoothly and not disintegrate or die out everyone must believe the same things right? They must have the same convictions, the same symbols that establish the same long lasting, powerful and pervasive moods and motivations that create a shared idea for a general order of existence. If people of a single religion do not believe the same things they actually cannot have the same religion. To what extent is this true though? How much leeway can be given in a religion without it turning into fifty different little spinoff religions? While Saint Augustine gives instruction in his book On Christian Teaching on how to effectively and properly approach the Bible and gives his readers the theological tools and guidance that they need to approach it in a Christian light he also does say that there is a certain amount of liberty that can be taken in the interpretations that one can come up with while reading the scriptures as long as they are not contrary to the faith. This is one of the things that makes Augustine such a cool guy. Although in some sense he is strict by giving people a framework in which to read the Bible, and he spends a lot of time warning people to be careful not to interpret figurative language literally and literal language figuratively; but at the same time he says, concerning passages that are not vital to understanding the Bible or God, that if the meaning is ambiguous and there are multiple possible meanings that could work it is acceptable to take the passage to mean something different from what other people might think it means. In this way Augustine keeps his readers happy by giving them some leash, not a lot of leash, but enough that people feel that they can use their own minds to come up with a solution and are not chained to a single way of thinking. Afterall, people like to have at least some freedom to think for themselves and make their own choices even if it is in little, inconsequential matters. Maybe, in an indirect way, this little bit of leash actually helps keep people on the same track of a religion rather than creating differences and discrepancies that might lead to splits in religions. I'm not saying that giving people a freedom to interpret a few phrases as they desire is what holds a religion together. But it may play a small role in keeping people happy and intellectually stimulated in a religious environment.

On Christian Teaching...yesterday and today

     After reading "How to Read the Bible" and the first two books of On Christian Teaching I found that both take a very similar approach to how the Bible should be read, used and interpreted by Christians in the faith. In the article J. Todd Billings even makes many references to Augustine's book On Christian Teaching to support his position on the topic. The sub-heading of the article itself seems to say it all, "

[n]ew strategies for interpreting Scripture turn out to be not so new..." It appears as though Billings is calling for a return to the same strategies proposed by Augustine over 1,500 years ago.

     For starters, both authors argue that some prior knowledge is required for properly understanding and using the scriptures, readers need a sort of "theological map" of assumptions about the Bible that guide them in their reading. Augustine states in the first lines of his book that "there are two things on which all interpretations of scripture depends: the process of discovering what we need to learn, and the process of presenting what we have learnt" (8). Saint Augustine develops a way to look at the scriptures, his entire aim is to teach people how to properly read and interpret the Bible. As part of that theological map both authors stress that we don't just see the Bible as a historical document but as God speaking through the authors of the Bible. There is also an emphasis on loving God and our neighbor in both texts.

     Both the article and the book stresses the fact that ordinary people, given the proper tools can properly interpret and enjoy the Bible in the way that it is meant to be read and enjoyed. However it is also important to have someone with a knowledge of biblical languages to help properly interpret what is meant in some cases where the language is confusing or the meaning of the imagery is unclear.This idea is shared by Augustine and Billings. For me there didn't seem to be many differences in the positions held by Billings and Augustine other than the historical context in which they were written; the challenges to Billings convictions on the proper way to read the Bible are fairly different from the ones faced by Augustine. Billings saw that today people use the Bible as a how-to guide for diets, relationships and more and these particular fads were  probably not quite as common in Augustine's time. 

     In the context of the religion of Christianity I can see this philosophy of reading the Bible to be positive in that it is beneficial to the followers of the religion. It creates a structure and instructions on how to properly use the text of the religion. It is quite beneficial for unity of the followers if everyone interprets the text in the same way. By giving the followers of a religion tools, or a guide for interpreting what they read, they can insure that every one is on the same page (figuratively) and getting what they should out of the scripture. If everyone in the religion is interpreting the text of their religion without any guidance they may come to various conclusion about the meaning of the text and how it should be utilized which could lead to different factions within the religion or could ultimately lead to the collapse of the religion because of the lack of unity of belief. 

      

What Makes the Psalms Stick?

     After perusing the Psalms for two weeks I have begun to wonder what makes some religions or at least pieces of religions such as the psalms persist and other religions or aspects of other religions disappear or fall out of use entirely. As far as I know no one still follows the religion connected with the Indian mounds and hardly anyone still worships the Egyptian sun god (as far as I know). In contrast, the psalms are still recited in churches across the world and the serve as the basis for songs and hymns in many contexts. So what is it about these psalms that gives them such staying power that they are still in use 2000-3000 years after they were written and still play a part of multiple religions?
    I would argue that the relatability is where at least some of the sticking power comes from. All people go through struggles in their lives and have to defend themselves from enemies. Of course not everyone is fighting wars against other nations necessarily but warfare against internal demons exists as well as smaller scale enemies. When dealing with our own enemies, the pleas in the psalms might be just what we need to help get us through a tough time, to help us believe that "The LORD gaurds you from all harm,/He gaurds your life" against your enemies (Psalm 121:7). Among other things, the psalms give its readers reassurance that the Lord will help them out in times of trouble as long as they are not a wicked person. (For a list of some of the purposes of specific psalms see http://anigeena.com/cms/?p=348 ) Perhaps some of the psalms that talk about specific places may be a little harder to relate to unless we talk about the places as being more abstract than they are presented in the original psalms, places like Jerusalem become more of a concept than a real place to those who read the psalms for themselves in our day and age. Christians in particular encourage use of the psalms for prayer and praise as noted at this and many other websites: http://www.psalmspower.com/.
    Although we have concentrated on the origins and original meanings of the psalms and specific historical context in which these psalms might have taken place, it is also important to realize why these psalms have persisted through all these years. There must be something about them that speaks to the basic human condition that anyone, not just ancient Israelites can relate to.

Talk like an Egyptian

     Although the Egyptian hymn and the psalm touch on many similar themes, express some similar ideas and even have similar wording in some places the psalm has obviously been modified to fit the Israelite religion. The psalm does not mention Egypt at all like it does in the Egyptian hymn, which would make sense since the Israelite religion did tend to modify songs from other traditions and religions (Canaanite religion for example where Ba'al was replaced by God in psalms taken from Canaanite tradition) to fit its own views and beliefs. The Egyptian song is more than transposed in this case because there are parts in the Egyptian version that do not exist in the psalm such as when the hymn talks about "he who brings to life the son in the womb of his mother." The psalm, although it talks about God as a creator in many places, it does not mention humans being begotten. The hymn also talks about the different races  how "their skins are different" which is never mentioned in the psalm.
      The psalmist however did take many elements from the ancient hymn because the section about lions roaring for prey and heading home when the sun comes up and then man waking up and going to work when the sun comes up is eerily similar in the psalm and the hymn.
     I'm not sure whether or not the psalm has a distinct message from the hymn although it seems to me that at the end of the psalm the message strays from the one presented by the hymn. The psalm resorts to it's typical talk of punishing the wicked. It says, "Let offenders vanish from the earth/and the wicked be no more." which is unlike the views expressed in the Egyptian hymn. The psalm seems to be very similar to the hymn in many aspects apart from these last lines which makes me think that perhaps the psalmist is transposing the Egyptian hymn to fit the names and places of Israelite religion rather than expressing it's own distinct viewpoint.

The Art in Religion


 


Cave art in the cave of Lascaux. An important part of Paleolithic religion.









     Art and Religion have been intertwined since religion began. What is it about art that makes it so often paired with religion and vice versa? Not every piece of art is tied to religion but in many ways religion is often tied to some form of art. Often, art is not the main focus of a religion but it is present and even vital in many religions in some form.

     Art has played a surprisingly important role in all the religions we have studied so far. Visual art can be seen in the paintings on cave walls that appeared to be part of the rituals of paleolithic period people. The artistry of the Indian mounds was vital to the community rituals and beliefs of early Native Americans.  In the psalms, however, we don't see visual art represented, instead we are introduced to literary art as a tool in religion. The psalms are full of metaphors, similes and graphic descriptions. Literary devices may serve many purposes in the psalms. They make the psalms more interesting to read. They help one imagine the actions described in the psalms such as when the psalmist says that the Lord "will make them [your enemies] like a fiery kiln (Psalm 21 v. 10). They also emphasize important points that the psalmists are making with with graphic and perhaps some exaggerated statements as in Psalm 2 when the psalmist writes "You will smash them with a rod of iron,/ like a potter's jar you will dash them" (v. 9). They also make the psalms more understandable by evoking a mental image of the actions or scenery in the psalm.



An artist's depiction of Psalm 23



      Psalm 23 is particularly famous for it's imagery and metaphor. In this psalm, the LORD is depicted as a shepherd who brings his sheep to grassy meadows and quiet waters and protects his sheep when death looms all around. This imagery is particularly effective in communicating that followers of the Lord can trust in the Him to protect them and provide for them. In Psalm 17 also, the psalmist talks about being protected by the Lord by being concealed "in the shadow of your wings" (v. 8).

     Why do religion and art often go hand in hand? What causes this coexistence? Does it have to do with pleasing the gods of religion with the talents of the followers of the religions? Perhaps this is true to some extent. The art of the Indian mounds and the cave art may act as symbols to "establish powerful, pervasive...moods and motivations" that fit neatly with Geertz's definition of religion. They are created by men through rituals that reaffirm their beliefs. The literary art of the psalms may serve this purpose as well but I think that it serves it in a different way too. Many of the psalms were originally written to be sung or chanted by groups of people. Through the music and words, the psalms may have helped to create "powerful, pervasive and long lasting moods and motivations in men" as stated in Geertz's defintion. The art of the psalms, more so than serving the god of the religion, serves the followers of the religion by giving them something interesting and powerful to read and also something memorable to sing that incorporates their beliefs and stories. Overall, art enhances religion and makes it more meaningful to those who practice the religion.
(If you are interested in reading more about the relationship between art and religion check out this site: http://www.italianfuturism.org/manifestos/art-and-religion/ )

Translating the Psalms

As a text that was printed soon after the puritans settled in New England, the Bay Psalm Book text contains words and phrases more appropriate and consistent with it's time. In some instances the Bay Psalm book may even reflect the Puritans' move to America and their views of other people.  In Psalm 2 the Bay Psalm Book uses  

instead of as it appears in Alter's translation as "and your holdings, the ends of the earth" (vs 8). By using "coasts abroad" rather than ends of the earth, the puritan translation of the psalm is consistent in reflecting the puritan desire to find a land abroad (which could in this case be interpreted as America) in which to practice their religion. "Ends of the earth" is more vague than "coasts abroad" in that the ends of the earth is far away places where as coasts abroad may, in a way, represent where the puritans are when this translation was written in 1640, namely, America. Besides using the vernacular of the time, the Bay Psalm book uses the word "heathen" rather than "nations" as it appears in Alter's translation.

This may be a reflection of  the Puritan's particular views as well seen in their word choice. "Heathen" stresses that the people of these other nations are not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, those that need to be converted to Christianity. The Puritans felt were very strict and felt strongly about non-believers.

       Beyond these two specific examples of word choice used by the puritans, the language itself reflects the time in which the psalms were translated. Although I am not sure if the people of that time actually spoke in the same vernacular seen in the psalms, the psalms reflect the spelling conventions of the time and the speech matches that which has been used for many years and to some extent can be seen in the King James version of the Bible which has been used in many churches until recent years.

     In Psalm 15, the Bay Psalm book often flips the order of words in phrases, instead of saying "The debased in his eyes is repugnant" (vs. 4) as it appears in Aster's translation, it is stated as in the Bay Psalm Book. The Puritans sought to translate the psalms as purely as possible at the risk of awkward sounding phrases with words out of order, another reflection of their particular beliefs. Although Robert Alter seeks to translate the psalms as accurately as possible he sometimes uses words that fit better and make more sense than the literal translation would.

      Through language we see that the social context for these two versions of the psalms is very different from one another.

A note about interpreting the past:

How accurately can humans of the present age interpret the past? The question of how people a thousand years from now would interpret our current society based on objects found in our lives has, believe it or not, crossed my mind before this week's class. How accurate could they be? Given that we have written language and record many aspects of our lives it might be easier for people of the future to interpret things in our society, provided that people are still speaking English or at least able to interpret English. But if they no longer spoke English or had access to any of our written language, would they be accurate in assessing the purpose of something like a toilet seat or a cellphone? You can look at the past and say that we have accurately assessed equivalent objects in the past, but how do you know that people have assigned the appropriate task to an artifact? In some cases, especially when dealing with prehistory and cultures that had no written language, it is sometimes impossible to ever know for certain. People of the future might mistake completely secular symbols as being religious in nature, perhaps monuments and statues may be seen as all being images of idols or gods that are to be worshiped, a plausible explanation but a flawed one nonetheless. Similarly, in considering paleolithic art that we talked about last week, I couldn't help but wonder: how do we know for certain that cave paintings were an element of prehistoric people's religion and not someone simply practicing drawing forms of cattle and bison in a secluded spot for fun or perhaps an ancient form of graffiti? How do we know that Indian mounds are tied to the religious views of the people who built them and not just a place to dispose of  their dead and then heap a whole bunch of dirt on top of it? Maybe when people got sick of the monotony of conical shaped mounds they started making cool designs and pictures of animals out of the mounds instead, for pleasure  rather than out of necessity.
Now, I realize that some of these ideas seem far-fetched or exaggerated and I'm not trying to discredit the evidence that archaeologists have found that support their claims about the purpose of the mounds or the cave art. In the case of the mounds it seems very plausible that the world views held by those who built the mounds and the belief system of the time is very closely tied to the mounds especially since they have found symbolism similar to that of the mounds pertaining to the upperworld and lowerworld depicted elsewhere on other Native American artifacts. Our current perceptions of the ways that people lived in prehistoric times may shape our own beliefs about the purposes of their artifacts. We may discredit them as being less intelligent and more primal than current humans, striving only for survival, but can we know for sure? The explanations that modern humans come up with to explain the past can never be completely accurate because there are many missing pieces. Perhaps we can't conceive of the original purpose of some artifacts because we no longer hold the same ideas and beliefs and conceptions of the world or because some elements have decayed and cannot be retrieved. I know it is impossible to have the whole story about how people of the ancient past really lived but it is all the more reason to take the conclusions of experts with a grain of salt.
Nevertheless, our tendency to try to explain the past and give meaning to things we don't know or don't immediately understand further proves our proclivity to making religions, to make up stories to explain the unknown.

Effigy Mounds: Religious Symbols

A man-mound found in Sauk county, Wisconsin.



Effigy mounds reflect the ideas and ideology of ancient Native Americans about the nature of the natural world and how to live in it. Effigy mounds act as important symbols in Native American religion and spiritual views. These symbols, like other symbols in other religions fit into Geertz’s definition of religion. These symbols “establish powerful, pervasive moods and motivations in men.”  These mounds act as symbols that seek to promote balance and harmony in the world in the ancient Native American belief system. The mounds dually act as a motivation for the people to maintain balance and harmony with the earth and also by making the mounds Native Americans may have believed that they were participating in restoring harmony to the world. In a time when social and economic changes were taking place Native Americans sought to keep in balance and harmony with the earth.  They believed they could do this through use of symbols such as effigy mounds. When building groups of effigy mounds they almost always have mounds representing both the upper and lower worlds, to maintain balance.

 The effigy mounds formulate conceptions of a general order of existence by emphasizing the importance of the natural world in their daily lives and also dividing their world into two main divisions. For the Native Americans who built these mounds, living off the land was how they survived. The placement of the mounds and rituals that took place around the mounds emphasize renewal and rebirth which would be important for these particular groups since they seem to have survived off of agriculture and hunting, both of which depend on the availability and abundance of animals and crops. Through the images depicted by the mounds, the world (both natural and supernatural) is divided into three categories which include elements of the air (or upperworld), elements of the earth and elements of the water (or lowerworld), distinctly represented in effigy mound construction through use of animal forms and other shapes that pertain to each division. Air is often represented by mounds in the shape of birds and raptors, earth is often signified by land animals such as bears and bison, water is often represented by water spirits, often depicted as long-tailed creatures.  The mounds were the symbols that were a big part of unknown rituals and ceremonies that were important in the religious views of early Native Americans. Where the different types of effigy mounds are located are often related to the division the mound belongs to. Bird effigies might be found on a hillside whereas water spirit effigy mounds may be found near a spring of water. The placement and content of the mounds are directly related to the conception of the order of existence  formulated by this group of people, with things of the upperworld seen as being more important and higher up in social status whereas the things of the lower world were sometimes seen as being bad or lower on the social scale.

Free Blog Week One

Whether because you believe that religion is evolutionarily advantageous or simply a byproduct of other advantageous human characteristics, the fact of the matter is that humans are predisposed to being religious.  To attempt to completely eliminate religion from human society would be pointless because we would have to first eliminate all the traits that make humans likely to turn to religion. Athiests may turn people toward science to feed their insatiable hunger for answers to why things happen but in order for their attempts to fully catch on in society, science would, in a sense, have to become a religion itself and perhaps, in a way, it already is a religion to many athiests. Science can provide answers to many questions about the way things are and perhaps the reason that religion has been around since the beginnings of human history is that it tried to answer the many of the same questions that science now tries to answer.
Nonetheless, science and scientific facts can never provide what religions require, and that is faith in something unseen. Faith requires that something be unproven. Belief in something also unites people under a common belief.
On a different note: reading the article about why people believe in a god was enlightening from a scientific biological, evolutionary and psychological standpoint and I really enjoyed reading it because it was neither particularly for or against religion, it just attempted to explain why it exists. It didn't promote a strong opinion one way or the other which I found to be refreshing. I felt like by the end of the article it was up to the reader to decide whether religion is something that should be paid attention to and taken seriously or taken as a flaw of the human mind or a mechanism that promotes survival in humans.

Religion: Ditch it or Keep it?

Although religion allegedly turns people's attention away from the most serious real world problems such as proliferation of nukes, genocide, poverty and the education crisis and turns people's attention toward less important topics such as the debate over gay marriage because religion is concerned with "what god wants" and on the afterlife, nevertheless, religion is beneficial to human cooperation and helps individuals come to terms and deal with difficulties in their lives and with the scary prospect of death. Since cooperation and social living is essential for human survival, one might argue that something that enhances cooperation is evolutionarily adaptive and therefore should be kept around.
Sam Harris points out that religion causes people to be more concerned with unimportant topics such as gay marriage rather than concerning themselves with problems that cause human suffering because of what god says. However, it is not religion itself that causes people to be concerned with trivial matters but rather the focus of those in the religion who choose to concentrate their energies on small bits of doctrine rather than the larger issues of the religion. In Christianity, which Sam Harris is refering to when he comments on the emphasis on gay marriage by religious people, God also tells people to love one another and to help one another. If people are loving one another and helping each other, they should be focusing on larger issues of the world such as human suffering, the education crisis, genocide and poverty.
In the article "Why Do We Believe?" Robin Marantz Henig describes how religion can be advantageous to human survival by promoting cooperative behaviors, thus enhancing group fitness. Although at first, it does not appear that Henig has a positive outlook on religion, she is actually merely explaining the evolutionary significance or insignificance of how religion came to be and why it is so natural for people to believe in a supernatural power and follow a religion. She explains how some scientists see religion as being adaptive either in the past or currently adaptive while others see it as a byproduct of other adaptive traits and as not being adaptive themselves. Henig is not "hating on religion" although some of the scientific explanations for why people have a tendency to follow religion do make religion look illogical. We are not told to ditch religion in this article, rather we are told how the phenomenon of religion came about. Take from it what you will.