Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Modern Saints
Well this is timely, considering it fits perfectly in with the topic of my paper. It's about a boy who was dying of flesh-eating bacteria, the doctors had declared there was no cure, and then suddenly the infection stopped. The family said that it was due to a relic from a beatified Native American woman being placed on the boy's pillow. The Vatican has declared this a miracle.
Because the woman had already been beatified (and because under Pope John Paul II's reforms in the process of saint-making), this miracle qualifies her to become a saint, so her canonization process will start soon.
It's funny because the "controversial" elements or "ulterior motives" of canonization are present in this article. This woman would be the only Native American saint - the Vatican is essentially trying to diversify its saints: more women, more lay people, more minorities. Plus this would be a wise decision for the Vatican to make, considering that this miracle pretty much defies science - the boy's recovery was attributed to religion, not the doctors' medical work. So in the age of modern medicine, the Vatican would be especially keen on making this type of canonizations... and therefore sending a certain message.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/20/143981760/vatican-declares-boys-recovery-a-miracle?sc=fb&cc=fp
Because the woman had already been beatified (and because under Pope John Paul II's reforms in the process of saint-making), this miracle qualifies her to become a saint, so her canonization process will start soon.
It's funny because the "controversial" elements or "ulterior motives" of canonization are present in this article. This woman would be the only Native American saint - the Vatican is essentially trying to diversify its saints: more women, more lay people, more minorities. Plus this would be a wise decision for the Vatican to make, considering that this miracle pretty much defies science - the boy's recovery was attributed to religion, not the doctors' medical work. So in the age of modern medicine, the Vatican would be especially keen on making this type of canonizations... and therefore sending a certain message.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/20/143981760/vatican-declares-boys-recovery-a-miracle?sc=fb&cc=fp
Sunday, December 18, 2011
All-American Muslim - Episode 4
This was the next episode after #1 I could find to download. It dealt with the birth of one of the families' kid, and also with the experience of the football team during Ramadan. They continued to have practice and go to games despite fasting. Some of the practices were moved to after sunset so they could play after having eaten. I think this is a great example of jihad in the actual Quranic sense. The players have to discipline themselves to play well, even while disciplining themselves to be good Muslims. It seems like most of them came out of it stronger. If jihad is personal struggle for God, their personal struggle to excel in both aspects of life would embody this. It is also a fulfilling and constructive activity (well, maybe not playing football games without drinking water but...) rather than a destructive activity as in the erroneous, violent definition of jihad.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Spain prejudiced against Muslims
This article talks about negative views of Muslims in Spain. Much like in the United States, Spaniards tend to view Muslims as violent, intolerant, and oppressive of women. Anti-Muslim sentiment has provoked killings of Muslims by neo-Nazi groups and others. The article even said that anti-Islamic attitudes expressed by prominent public figures are seen as normal and representative of the attitudes of most of the population. When surveyed, 58% of Spaniards said there was a fundamental difficulty with being Muslim and living in a modern society. The article also mentions the concept of the clash of civilizations. The attitudes of those surveyed, in Spain and other European countries, do seem to reflect a belief that there is a split between "the West" and "Islam." The article shows how hard it is to break out of a way of thinking once it is ingrained in your society - if even the police are dismissive or hostile toward Muslims, how are they ever going to achieve equal status in these countries?
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/02/14/espana/1171468241.html
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/02/14/espana/1171468241.html
Monday, December 12, 2011
Westboro Baptist Church - How NOT to be religious
It is almost impossible to comment on the Westboro Baptist Church in an "empathetically objective" way. This is a church whose URL is godhatesfags.com, and is best known for its anti-gay protests, as well as demonstrations against many other things. I guess it just thinks it is taking the Bible literally, but the result is a bunch of deeply prejudiced cowards who travel around the country widening divisions and creating hatred (either toward them or toward the gays, depending on the prior opinions of the unfortunate bystander to one of their protests). They think they are doing right by God, by obeying the word of the Bible to the last letter. However, if they were to actually read the Bible, they would realize that they are just selecting passages to believe while ignoring others. For example, love thy neighbor as thyself. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Good Christians are supposed to love and tolerate, not hate. We saw in that one article that there are various interpretations of the verses where God is supposedly "against" homosexuality. We have also seen, in articles across the three traditions, that there are many people calling for a re-interpretation of holy scripture that can function in the modern world. The Westboro Baptist Church would do well to go shove its picket signs somewhere it would hurt, because they are not promoting a true message of Christianity, and are using certain Bible verses to "support" their own personal hatred.
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Dead Sea Disasters
This article talks about scientists extracting cores from the sediment in the Dead Sea to analyze natural disasters and other climate patterns from the past. Some of the evidence they have found shows that some of the accounts in the Bible actually could correspond to real climate phenomena. This could be important for religion because the Bible tends not to correspond too much to history, but the more scientific evidence is found for Bible stories, the more believable they are. This could provide strength for the arguments of religious people defending their religion, and might cause atheists to think twice about the "division" between science and religion.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111208-dead-sea-bible-biblical-salt-dry-science/?source=link_fb20111211news-deadseadisasterrecord
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/12/111208-dead-sea-bible-biblical-salt-dry-science/?source=link_fb20111211news-deadseadisasterrecord
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Thoughts on Orientalism
So we were talking about Edward Said's Orientalism in recitation, which I read and re-read for my theory class. The thesis of the text is about how the West projects its own ideas about the Orient onto the Orient for their own interests, and don't actually take into account what being in the Eastern world is like. It does not specifically address religion but I thought it was relevant.
Anyway, I was thinking about how we get our views of the East from Orientalist texts (for the most part) and wondering if it would be possible for us to see that part of the world from another point of view. It reminded me of what Maureen was saying in class about not only not passing your own judgment, but suspending your values. It seems like that would be incredibly hard to do. So even if you wanted to study Islam from an empathetically objective point of view, I think you would always be seeing it with your Western views, or always being conscious of trying to push aside your Western views.
I kind of noticed this when Professor Valeta was asking a question to Imam Kazerooni. He took forever to word the question, like he was searching for the politically correct way to say it so he wouldn't offend the guest.
It was useful of Said to write Orientalism because it makes us aware of our attitudes toward other parts of the world. But breaking out of these attitudes is much harder.
Anyway, I was thinking about how we get our views of the East from Orientalist texts (for the most part) and wondering if it would be possible for us to see that part of the world from another point of view. It reminded me of what Maureen was saying in class about not only not passing your own judgment, but suspending your values. It seems like that would be incredibly hard to do. So even if you wanted to study Islam from an empathetically objective point of view, I think you would always be seeing it with your Western views, or always being conscious of trying to push aside your Western views.
I kind of noticed this when Professor Valeta was asking a question to Imam Kazerooni. He took forever to word the question, like he was searching for the politically correct way to say it so he wouldn't offend the guest.
It was useful of Said to write Orientalism because it makes us aware of our attitudes toward other parts of the world. But breaking out of these attitudes is much harder.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
My Name is Khan
I just watched the movie My Name is Khan, which is about Rizvan Khan, an autistic Muslim man from India who comes to the United States. He meets a Hindu woman, they get married, her son from a previous arranged marriage accepts Khan as his father, bla bla bla. Everything changes after 9/11, a bunch of tragic things happen to this family, and Khan ends up deciding he needs to go meet the president of the US and tell him "My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist." I'm skipping the details because they aren't relevant in this blog, and in case anyone wants to watch the movie. It is overdone in some parts but overall has a great message and I would definitely recommend it.
Anyhoo, there were some religious elements in the movie that are worth pointing out. First of all, as a young boy, Khan sees tension in India between Hindus and Muslims, at which point his mother tells him that there are only two groups of people in the world: good people who do good things, and bad people who do bad things. Yes, this is incredibly simplistic, but it lets the viewer see religion, American attitudes, and the events of 9/11 through different eyes later on in the movie.
We find out that Khan is a devout Muslim. There is a scene (post 9/11) in which he meets a Muslim couple. When it is time to pray, the husband of the couple says, "You want to pray here? Prayer should depend on the place and the people around you." Khan responds, "Prayer does not depend on those things, it only depends on your faith." Because of his Asperger's, Khan is not able to process social situations like everyone else, and this allows him to carry out his Islamic beliefs in a pure way, without societal influence. We can see that the couple is affected by this.
Later on, Khan goes to pray in a mosque and hears a man incite his followers to take up arms and shed blood in the name of Islam. Khan tells this man that Ibrahim always knew Allah wasn't going to make him kill his son, and that Allah's message is a message of love, not killing. Khan then proceeds to throw rocks at this man, calling him Shaytan. This looks stupid at first, like a kid who is mad and starts throwing stones. But we realize that despite his disability, Khan is the person who has understood (after much study) the message of Islam, and the other "normal" people are the crazy ones. I would say that Khan, unlike SO many people, would not even understand the concept of "using" religion to meet some other end. He actually believes it, he knows it in its true form, and it is not a tool for him.
This movie also brings up the topic of typical Muslim dress after 9/11. A Sikh news reporter decides to stop wearing his turban to avoid being mistaken for a Muslim and becoming the target of violence. After being assaulted, the wife of Khan's brother decides to stop wearing hijab to protect herself. Much later in the movie, she begins wearing it again, explaining to her students that hijab is not only part of her religious identity, it is part of who she is.
In this movie we also see religious toleration in action: Khan's mother who insists on there being no inherent difference between Hindus and Muslims, the Christians in Georgia who welcome him into their church, the wife of Khan's brother who warmly welcomes Madira (Khan's Hindu wife) into the otherwise-Muslim family.
I could go on and analyze this film in its entirety, for religious elements and for cinematics. But alas, I have five million other blogs to do. In summary, this movie shows the viewer, through a unique perspective, the damaging effects that stereotypes and the violent actions of a few have on an entire society, and the restorative effects that good religion (free from prejudice, politics, and societal pressure) can bring.
On a side note, I was young when 9/11 happened and there were no Muslims in my community, but I am guessing the scenes depicting post-9/11 prejudice toward Muslims in everyday situations are not far from the truth. Especially considering the automatic prejudice Arab-looking people encounter at the airport, etc. How sad. I am also wondering about anti-Muslim attitudes pre-9/11. Need to look into this. Very depressing.
Anyhoo, there were some religious elements in the movie that are worth pointing out. First of all, as a young boy, Khan sees tension in India between Hindus and Muslims, at which point his mother tells him that there are only two groups of people in the world: good people who do good things, and bad people who do bad things. Yes, this is incredibly simplistic, but it lets the viewer see religion, American attitudes, and the events of 9/11 through different eyes later on in the movie.
We find out that Khan is a devout Muslim. There is a scene (post 9/11) in which he meets a Muslim couple. When it is time to pray, the husband of the couple says, "You want to pray here? Prayer should depend on the place and the people around you." Khan responds, "Prayer does not depend on those things, it only depends on your faith." Because of his Asperger's, Khan is not able to process social situations like everyone else, and this allows him to carry out his Islamic beliefs in a pure way, without societal influence. We can see that the couple is affected by this.
Later on, Khan goes to pray in a mosque and hears a man incite his followers to take up arms and shed blood in the name of Islam. Khan tells this man that Ibrahim always knew Allah wasn't going to make him kill his son, and that Allah's message is a message of love, not killing. Khan then proceeds to throw rocks at this man, calling him Shaytan. This looks stupid at first, like a kid who is mad and starts throwing stones. But we realize that despite his disability, Khan is the person who has understood (after much study) the message of Islam, and the other "normal" people are the crazy ones. I would say that Khan, unlike SO many people, would not even understand the concept of "using" religion to meet some other end. He actually believes it, he knows it in its true form, and it is not a tool for him.
This movie also brings up the topic of typical Muslim dress after 9/11. A Sikh news reporter decides to stop wearing his turban to avoid being mistaken for a Muslim and becoming the target of violence. After being assaulted, the wife of Khan's brother decides to stop wearing hijab to protect herself. Much later in the movie, she begins wearing it again, explaining to her students that hijab is not only part of her religious identity, it is part of who she is.
In this movie we also see religious toleration in action: Khan's mother who insists on there being no inherent difference between Hindus and Muslims, the Christians in Georgia who welcome him into their church, the wife of Khan's brother who warmly welcomes Madira (Khan's Hindu wife) into the otherwise-Muslim family.
I could go on and analyze this film in its entirety, for religious elements and for cinematics. But alas, I have five million other blogs to do. In summary, this movie shows the viewer, through a unique perspective, the damaging effects that stereotypes and the violent actions of a few have on an entire society, and the restorative effects that good religion (free from prejudice, politics, and societal pressure) can bring.
On a side note, I was young when 9/11 happened and there were no Muslims in my community, but I am guessing the scenes depicting post-9/11 prejudice toward Muslims in everyday situations are not far from the truth. Especially considering the automatic prejudice Arab-looking people encounter at the airport, etc. How sad. I am also wondering about anti-Muslim attitudes pre-9/11. Need to look into this. Very depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)