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/

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

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.

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.

All-American Muslim - Episode 1

The TLC show All-American Muslim is a reality show about the lives of several Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest concentration of Arab-Americans in the country.  This episode focused mostly on the marriage between a Muslim woman and a Catholic man.  In order for the father of the bride to approve, the groom had to convert to Islam.  At first his Catholic family was not happy about this, but after being welcomed openly at the wedding reception, they changed their opinions.  I think it's interesting to see how the opinions varied within the group of featured Muslims; even non-Muslim Americans who do not automatically hate Muslims are sort of programmed to view them all in one stereotypical way.  We can contrast Nawal, the more conservative but still outgoing pregnant wife, with Nina, the stripperesque strong-willed woman who wants to run her own club.  These women are both Muslims and both claim to honor the faith in their hearts, but their outward practices are definitely very different.  I think it is useful, and I dare say essential, for non-Muslim Americans to see this type of show, canned as it may be, so they can just begin to get a real view inside Islam and see that life for Muslims is not drastically different from life for Christians, Jews, or atheists.  Yes, the hijab is like a neon sign on the forehead that reads MUSLIM, but if people look beyond that, they see "regular" people with a different way of dressing.  Americans suck at accepting people different from themselves, but I think this is a good place to start.  I am intrigued to watch more of this show.  The impression I got was of wholesome families who strive to do their best in life, albeit in very different ways.  I am wondering what sort of day-to-day benefits being a Muslim has.

Inside Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think

I just watched the movie Inside Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, which provided the results of a Gallup Poll surveying Muslim and American opinions of the Muslim world.  Many of the elements were political, but there were quite a few statistics relating to religion.  Not surprisingly, over half of Americans reported knowing little to nothing about the beliefs of Islam.  The documentary also talked about violence, saying that terrorism was a political issue, not a religious one.  The radicals (defined as those who believed the 9/11 attacks were completely justified and had negative views of the US) were found to be no more religious than the mainstream.  Also, the movie stated that "jihad" is not actually a negative term.  It means a struggle for God, but this can be a struggle to improve oneself as a person, to work to change government, or to fight to throw off oppression.  It does not refer to deliberate mass killing, and according to the movie, it is supposed to have a positive connotation.  In fact, one of the experts' name was Jihad, and he was really proud of his name.  The movie said that people "use" religion, clinging to their own interpretation of Islam to justify actions. This is obviously also true for other religions.

The documentary also addressed the issue of women's rights.  In most countries surveyed, almost as many men as women believed that women should have equal access to jobs for which they are qualified.  The hijab was discussed, and the main female speaker said most women view the head covering not only as a religious mandate, but also a garment that shifts the public focus from their physical appearance to their intellect.  The movie also showed women who were using the Qur'an to combat practices such as honor killings, saying that for true Islam, these practices are unacceptable.

Another thing that I just have to bring up even though it is not about religion is the results of one particular question.  Muslims were asked if they had unfavorable opinions of certain countries.  Kuwaitis' opinions of the US and Canada were used as an example, and the results were striking: 67% had unfavorable views of the US, while only 3% had unfavorable views of Canada.  The narrator said that the US and Canada are very similar except in foreign policy, which is what determined this huge discrepancy.

Google helps put Dead Sea Scrolls online

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15063895

            This article discussed that the Dead Sea Scrolls have been transformed into an online format and are now available for viewing on Google.  This is important for several reasons.  First, it makes the scrolls accessible to a wider audience.  Previously the scrolls were probably only seen by scholars, but now any curious Jew, history buff, or average citizen can browse through these ancient texts at leisure.  Second, it is a backup copy of the scrolls.  Although I am sure every precaution is taken against the decomposition of this artifact, increasing wear over time is probably inevitable.  Having a digital copy will allow scholars to continue to study the texts even if the condition of the originals worsens.  Third, this is another demonstration of how technology is aiding religious studies.  We saw other examples of this with the video The Bible’s Buried Secrets and in the article “Is God an Accident?”  Science and religion are often thought to clash, but in these three cases science contributes significantly to the study of religion.