Violence in the Psalms

As I have read through the Psalms, I have found the level of violence described in these religious poems both surprising and eye-opening. Most of the Psalms tend to take on a sort of "us vs. them" attitude, similar to those found in old Islamic texts that are so widely criticized today. Noticing this violence throughout the text has only further solidified the need to separate original from universal meaning concerning all religious texts. 

Violence and separation of "the just" and "the enemies" can be seen throughout the text. Psalm 97 is a particularly strong example of this attitude. Sections of the Psalm read "Fire goes before Him/ and all round burns His foes./ His lightnings lit up the world;/ the earth saw and quaked." This presents a very powerful and violent image of God as one who smites his enemies and has the capabilities for massive destruction. The Psalm further goes on to say "All idol-worshippers are shamed,/ who boast of ungods./ All gods bow down to him." Here, we see a separation of "us" and "them." The "idol-worshippers" are depicted here as lesser people that should submit to the one true God. 

Interestingly enough, these same types of attitudes are found in the Muslim holy texts. A quote from the Quran reads "Allah is the protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever)." This quote from the Quran also displays an "us vs. them" attitude where those who are opposed to their religion are lead to a fiery and horrific afterlife.

It is in this parallel between the content of these two holy texts that I have found a great amount of insight into both religion and modern bias. I see now that many religions have a violent past and should not be dismissed because of that. The Psalms and Quran alike both show attitudes of violence and separation, but both are still important and positive texts. They are important and positive because the universal meaning goes beyond the original violent content. I also see now how anyone could pick sections from these texts and use them as propaganda. It is easy for Muslim groups to point to the Psalms and say "Look how barbaric they are!" as it is easy for Western groups to point to the Quran and say "Look how barbaric they are!" We must keep this in mind when attempting to understand conflicts between religious groups because it is very easy to get caught up in the biases of one's own group. 

Ethical Stance in the Psalms

As I have read through the Psalms it has become evident that there are consitent view points on ethical conduct presented throughout the work. One particular focus of this ethical conduct deals with reverent and consistent worship of God. While the extreme nature of this ethic is not necesarilly practicable today, the core principles are still considered to be important and livable today. The less exreme versions of this ethic can be seen today in modern Christianity and Judaism, but in different ways.

Before we can see how modern Christianity and Judaism reflect the ethic prescribed by the Psalms, we must first look at the Psalms themselves to see the ethic reflected in the text. Psalm 18 in particular shows the way consistent worship is promoted as the proper way to conduct one's life. The Psalm reads "The Lord dealt with me by my merit,/ for my cleanness of hands He requited me./ For I kept the ways of the Lord/ and did no evil before my God./ For all His laws were before me./ From his statutes I did not swerve." This quote shows a person who has absolved to God's laws and kept consistent in his worship of God. Because he has done this, the man has been protected and rewarded by God.

In addition to Psalm 18, Psalm 26 shows a praise for worship. The Psalm reads, "Lord, I love the abode of Your house/ and the place where your glory dwells." In this particular quote, the man appears to be displaying his love for the temple. He is showing that he feels fulfilled by entering and worshiping in the house of God.

These two Psalms both show elements of reverence that can be seen today in modern Christianity and Judaism, although both religions have a different focus. Judaism tends to follow what these Psalms say more closely. Judaism still has a great emphasis on worhsip and tradition as core fundamentals of their religious practice. Although the people who wrote the songs were probably more dilligent than modern Jews, the attitudes are still quite similar. Christianity, however, has expanded upon this emphasis on worship. In addition to emphasizing church and prayer as a core part of their religion, Chirstians have expanded to include performing chartible works as part of their worship. This attitude is not really seen in the Psalms and shows a fundamental difference between the practices of those who wrote the Psalms and modern day Christians. Nevertheless, the attitudes and ethics promoted by the Psalms are still seen today, just in different ways.

Original vs. Universal Meaning of the Psalms

One of the main themes discussed recently in class has been the difference between the original and interpreted meaning of the psalms. I find this notion to be of particular interest because it really illustrates how a text can be manipulated in order to justify certain contemporary attitudes. The differences between the Alter and colonial translations of psalm 2 display this type of manipulation, showing how the colonists translated the psalms in order to justify their taking of foreign lands.

In the colonial translation of psalm 2, the language chosen is significant in justifying their intentions. The use of words like "heathens" serves to delegitimize the non-believers of their religion. As we have noted in class, "heathens" is not the exact original meaning of the text, but rather and interpretation of the original meaning. This shows how the colonists took an old text and changed it to serve their own purposes and motivate their audience.

It is this specific case of translation that raises some interesting questions about religious text. Religious texts are considered to be very sacred and absolute in the eyes of the church goers. They are meant to be read as older texts that can apply to universal situations. But these differences in translation show that sometimes these texts can be manipulated and changed to serve other purposes. It is with this in mind that religious texts should be read and studied in order to find the original meanings behind what is being read today. 

Differences in Translations of Psalm 2

While reading the two different translations of Psalm 2, I found it interesting to see how time period and intention can lead to very different interpretations of language. With the colonial translation, I see a greater emphasis on dominating other cultures and gaining new land. With the Alter translation I see less of an emphasis on cultural domination, but a stronger emphasis on the wrath of God. Both of these interpreations become obvious when looking at the word choice in each translation.

In these translations, we see a couple very distinct differences in language uesed. The first noticable difference is between the words "heathens" and "nations." The 1640 translation uses the word "heathens" in order to reference peoples of other lands. This is a word that carries many negative connotations and indicates an attitude of superiority towards other cultures. This is opposed to the use of the word "nations" in the modern translation. "Nations" is a much broader and more neutral term used to indicate members of other cultures and shows that Alter did not want to emphsize this point as much.

In addition to the use of the word "heathens," the colonial translation also emphasizes cultural domination with the line "thou shalt possess/ the utmost coasts abroad." This decree from God is highly indicative to these people's right to own the lands of other cultures. Alter's translation instead says "I shall give nations as your estate." While this does convey the same general idea, it does not carry such weighty words like "possess" to give a sense of entitlement.

While the colonial translation takes on a more dominating and superior tone, the Alter translation seems to emphasize the wrath of God more than the colonial. In Alter's translation, we see "Worship the lord in fear/ and exult in trembling." The words like "fear" and "trembling" are very submissive and indicate an attitude of fright towards God. The colonial translation instead says "Serve yee the lord with reverence/ rejoyce in him with fear." While this translation does include the word "fear," the concept of fright of God is not as greatly emphasized here. This is because in addition to rejoycing in fear, they are asked to serve with reverence.

After seeing these differences, some conclusions can be drawn as to how a colinal churchgoer in 1640 America would have interpreted this Psalm. It seems that a colonist reading this translation would be inclined to respect God. Their translation does display the power and might of God which would have commanded an attitude of fear and respect. More importantly, it seems that in the 1640 translation other cultures and lands are looked down upon. The colonists reading this Psalm are given a sense of entitlement and superiority by the use of the word "heathens." This may have been because the attitude of colonial expansion did take on a negative view of different cultures. They saw these cultures as inferior and may have used a Psalm like this to justify the taking of lands and exploitation of other cultures.

Religion and Death

Last night I was writing my blog for religious studies when I found out that Dave Golub died. Dave was a friend of mine and his unexpected passing has made me think about death as one of the fudemental pillars of religious ceremony and belief.

It has occured to me that a constant theme throughout religion is death and the afterlife. Every person wonders what happens after they die and hopes that there is something to look forward to. Religion offers an answer to these questions on the afterlife and provides people with a way to cope with the loss of a loved one. Religion has also helped people deal with death by providing rituals and ceremonies that offer solace to those affected by the a person's passing.

This basic need to understnd and deal with death makes me think of the Indian mounds of Wisconsin. The Native Americans also display this ritualistic and ceremonial way of comprehending death. These great mounds were their way of passing somebody on to the next life in hopes that their efforts have somehow made the journey complete.

It is just amazing to me that this attitude towards death has been so universal among people. From Asia, to Europe, to the Americas, people have all had this spiritual attitude towards death and the afterlife. It is with the death of Dave that I find myself wondering, hoping, and grieving. Death is so uncertain, and religion helps us make sense of it.

The Use of Animals As Symbols

The animal-like shape of some Indian mounds raises many interesting questions about the religious beliefs and ceremonies of the Native American culture. This use of animal forms is quite different from those found in both the Lascaux Cave and modern sports team mascots. It is different because the Native Americans used these symbols in combination with the spiritual act of burying the dead, making these symbols representitive of deseased ancestors.

This spiritual type of function is not found in the Lascaux Cave and modern sports teams. The drawings of the Lascaux Cave are mainly representations of the things that people encountered in their lives and do not serve as a way of honoring the dead. Although there is one painting of a man about to be killed by an animal, this serves as more of a scene of action rather than a symbol of the dead. On a different end of the spectrum, team mascots serve to represent the rugged characteristics of a sports club. Rather than being a symbol of the deseased, they are a symbol of intimidation that is used to represent a group of people.

Where the effigy mounds differ from these two examples is in their main function of burial. The act of burial has many religious connotations to it throughout most cultures. The Native American culture was no different. By burying their dead in large animal shaped mounds, an attitude of respect and admiration seems to be commanded. This links with Geertz concept of "a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervaisive, and long-lasting moods." In the case of the Indian mounds, the Native Americans used animal symbols in order to establish the moods of respect and admiration for the deceased. Because of the quantity of these types of mounds, it can be inferred that these symbols were highly recognizable to the Native Americans and may have had as much clout as cross does when it appears on a gravestone.

Selfishness, it's pretty regressive

I recently read a blog by Fanny Briceno that made the case for selfishness and arrogance as being the most enjoyable and progressive way to live one's life. Fanny further goes on to state that religion only hinders the progress of humanity because it discourages selfishness and arrogance as acceptable forms of behavior. This is an interesting notion that has been discussed throughout intellectual history. While I do think that Fanny is correct in saying that selfishness can sometimes be beneficial to society, I also think she is misguided in thinking that this kind of positive selfishness tranlates to all situations and justifies arrogance as an acceptable form of behavior.

While Fanny does take this notion to the extreme, she is correct in saying that selfishness can be beneficial to society. I think that this notion is best displayed in a person's overall goals to make money and live a comfortable life. When a person desires to make a lot of money for their own personal gain, society benefits. This is because when a person works hard, the economy improves. Also, the selfish desire for money can lead to work that benefits other peole, like in the medical or political fields. These practical examples show that a person can be selfish while benefitting society.

There does come a point though where selfishness can have a highly negative impact, an issue that Fanny so critically misses. A highly publicized example of selfishness huritng society is the Enron corporate scandal. In this scandal, Enron executives lied to their stockholders about the state of their collapsing company while selling off their own shares to make a large amount of money. These actions by the executives were objectively beneficial to them. But these actions also hurt society on a massive scale. Not only did the workers of Enron loose all of the money they had faithfully put into the company, but the rest of the American tax payers had to front the bill for the executives trial and imprisonment. These selfish actions were not helpful and could have been avoided had these executives thought about how their decisions affect other people.

Not only does Enron display the detrimental effects of selfishness, it also displays the attidude of arrogance that Fanny prescribes as an essential component to a fulfilled life. The dictionary definition of arrogance is: an offensive display of superiority or self-importance. The executives of Enron felt that they were superior to their workers, and were therefore justified in their selfish actions to sink the company for a high profit. This reveals ways that unhinged arrogance can cloud a person's judgement and hurt society. As a matter of fact, their arrogance hurt themselves as well because they had to face trial and punishment over their actions. This is why arrogance is not the best attitude about life because it ultimately leads to a distorted perspective of reality where one seems justified in hurting others for self-benefit.

Now that we understand the negative effects of selfishness and arrogance, we can more importantly move on to the reason that religion is not an impediment to societal improvement, but rather an aid. Most religions generally promote the idea of self-sacrifice in order to achieve self-fulfillment. This basically means that by helping and caring for others you are helping and caring for yourself. In a sense, this is a way of focusing selfishness in a positive way. Most religions do not say that you can't adore yourself, as Fanny asserts, but in fact encourage you to adore yourself so that you may enjoy the benefits of self-sacrifice. This is something that is good for both society and the self, and not a hinderance to progress.

At first the notion of selfishness helping society does seem enticing, but upon further examination we see that selfishness and arrogance can infact be very negative if taken to the extreme. It is with this notion in mind that religion should be seen as one way that people can focus selfish behaviors in a positive way that benefit many people.

Link to Fanny's blog: http://bricenof.blogspot.com/2008/04/selfishness-its-pretty-great.html

Clifford Geertz's Definition of Religion

When I first read Clifford Geertz's definition, I found it to be belittling and dismissive of religion as a legitimate institution. While I do still find his definition to be rather condescending, it does work within the context of "Religion as a Cultural System."

Although his definition is acceptable, his bias against religion is evident in both his tone and diction. Geertz's use of words like "clothing," "aura of factuality," and "seem uniquely realistic," are all ways of injecting his own negative opinion of religion into the definition. Each of these terms make it seem as though all religions are never right, but only seemingly right. While I may or may not disagree with this stance, I do not think that this is an appropriate thing to imply when attempting to define religion

Regardless of this, I think that Geertz is on to something when thinking about religion as a cultural system. What he is really trying to say with this definition is that Religion's main funtion in a culture is to establish certain attitudes and inspire action through the use of sacred objects and traditions. This I do agree with, and I dont think that this assertion is demeaning to religion. If one truly thinks about the impact of religion on a culture, it is undeniably the establishment of certain moral standards and attitudes and inspiration to adhere to them. This is just what Max Weber proves in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism where he displays how religion has injected certain attitudes and practices into a culture as whole.

Of course there is more to religion than just its cultural role. Nevertheless, understanding this role is still vital to understanding religion as an institution and should not be considered demeaning.