Wednesday, September 29, 2010

What do you think about quest religion and how is the internet helpful in quest religion?

What do you think about quest religion and how is the internet helpful as a tool in quest religion?

This is my question for you to think about and answer as you read this post.
 I am focusing on "The New Individualism" section in Chapter 6 on pages 126-129 and more specifically quest religion because it was interesting to me.   
Quest religion, defined by the book (Religion and Popular Culture in America), is religious seeking motivated by dissatisfaction with existing answers.
So, it is an individuals' or a questers' search for answers.
A quester may or may not be a part of an exisiting religious community as they seek for truth by themselves. They're willing to explore the depths of other religious traditions in order to find the truth or answers to their questions.
The book states it well, "questing is a kind of religious indivualism, one that refuses to accept pat answers and accepted dogmas. "
So, I decided to be a quester because I think it is good for an individual to seek out knowledge for themself and to examine their belief system. And the internet is a great way to find, compare and synthesize information, especially in the subjest of religion. For this blog I went to these sites and challenge you to do the same. http://www.beliefnet.com/http://www.bible.com/http://www.quran.org.uk/, and http://www.mormon.org/.
Here is my discovery from beliefnet.com. I took the 20 question Belief-O-Matic personality test (it is under the tab for "faiths & prayer"and I have posted my top 13 results for what religion my thoughts and values best matched (see below).  I tied with a 100% match for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witness.  This was followed by 82% for Orthodox Judaism. Try it yourself.
 
On the bible.com they have a scripture of the day and one of the tabs was a prayer room. This is the prayer of the day:

"Dear Heavenly Father, I am thankful for all of the good foods that You created for our pleasure. They have been a blessing and I have enjoyed them. Lord, help me not to over-indulge and put too much emphasis on food. Give me a desire to eat things that are good for me and deliver me from those things that are not healthy for me. Since You created our bodies, I trust Your wisdom to know what things are best for me to eat. Forgive me for any lust for food, and may I eat those things that will cause me to have a healthy body so that I can serve You without illness and lack of energy. I ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen."

This Arabic text was on the home page of the quran.org.uk.  It is the scripture of the day.
Arabic Text æóÌóÍóÏõæÇ ÈöåóÇ æóÇÓúÊóíúÞóäóÊúåóÇ ÃóäÝõÓõåõãú ÙõáúãÇð æóÚõáõæøÇð ÝóÇäÙõÑú ßóíúÝó
ßóÇäó ÚóÇÞöÈóÉõ ÇáúãõÝúÓöÏöíäó
[27:14] And they rejected those Signs in iniquity and arrogance, though their souls were convinced thereof: so see what was the end of those who acted corruptly!

This was one of the screen shots on the home page of mormon.org:

I enjoyed my quest and will pose my question again: What do you think about quest religion and how is the internet helpful in quest religion?

Monday, September 27, 2010

Blog your prayers, Tweet your scriptures, and Google to church.

Has it really come to this? The Internet is evolving every facet of our lives. It is becoming faster and wider spread than ever before. We can access it from personal computers, phones, and our televisions. With greater accessibility comes greater utilization. We use the internet to shop, socialize, study, and now more frequently worship.

I have only recently realized the extent of the Internet’s influence on religion. In our text book, it quotes a survey done by the Pew Internet and American Life Project that claims, “a quarter of all internet users have searched the web for religious material” (pg. 124). Newer websites such as godtube.com and faithout.com are dedicated to faith based content. The following clip demonstrates the growing popularity of faith online.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53wucE8muP4

Another news articles explains that more youth are turning to the Internet for religion.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/07/millennials-finding-religion-online/

If you didn’t take time to read the article, no worries, my emphasis is on the thought provoking conclusion of the articles that states “Young people are not only creating their own religious identities, they may also be changing the future of worship itself.” It seems religion to many is leaving the chapels and finding refuge in the individual. So, YouTube makes people like Antoine Dodson a celebrity, and GodTube makes people like me and you pastors of our own fold.

Ok, so we’ve briefly discovered that religion is finding a new home in the Internet. How can we compare this to the past? Can you think of another time religion evolved along with technology? The parallel is with the invention of the printing press in 1450. Our text states that “for the first time, everyone who was able to read had access to the Bible, making it possible for them to disagree with Catholic authorities and even the Protestant Reformers themselves” (pg. 125). The new technology was a catalyst in causing major reform and lead to dissent and the forming of a great number of new denominations.

Now, the Internet makes an incredible amount of information available to each of us. It also affords us the means to communicate our own message to others anywhere on the globe. With the impact of the printing press in mind, my question is, IS THE INTERNET CAUSING A SIMILAR REFORMATION TO THAT OF THE PRINTING PRESS? WHY OR WHY NOT?

Online Confessions

For those who are sick of the traditional method of going to your religious leader and confessing it's time to try a new tactic--online confession. There are several websites, including ivescrewedup.com, and mysecret.tv where people can go to confess their sins. (The second site asks you if you are 18 before you enter because some of the sins that are confessed are very sexual in nature.) In addition, you can read the confessions of others and ask for prayers on your behalf. I wouldn't necessarily recommend reading over the confessions because they are pretty depressing, but they are interesting.

The title page of mysecret.tv asks, "Are you living under the weight of a secret? No matter who you are or what you've done, God wants to remove your guilt and fear, restore you, and transform your life. You can take the first step toward healing right now by confessing your secret." It also quotes John 1:9 which states, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

IveScrewedUp.com has a simple subtitle that says "Confession is good for the soul."  Anyone who has been under any sort of stress from hiding a lie or other misdeed knows that it can be quite painful. Getting things off your chest does feel good. But will it have the same effect if you are blasting it out to the internet instead of going to personally visit a church leader and talk about it? What does this say about the way that we communicate?

In Chapter 6 of our book Greg Peterson talks about the impact of the internet on religion. He says, "Instead of liberating us from our bodies, the internet creates an alienation from our true, physical nature. Instead of community we get pseudo-community; instead of true religion we get a false idol." (p. 130) What do you think about this? Has the internet helped to create a greater sense of community for churches and religions? Or has it just allowed people to take a step back from their traditional religious community and search for answers individually online?

One more question. The philosopher Alfred North said, "Religion is what people do in their solitude." (p. 126) Do you agree with that? Or is religion an intrinsically communal activity?

Here is a link to an article CNN did on these online confession sites from a couple years ago.

I felt the Spurrit surrisly SO strong on facebook last night!

(The title of this post is to be read in the most terrible Utah accent you can muster. Please go back and read it again with that in mind. Many thanks.)

In the month of December, 2009, Americans sent over 10 Billion textual messages, according to Matt Richtel's New York Times series, “Driven to Distraction.” We send them to our friends, our family members, our co-workers, our business clients, and even our bosses. Facebook, Twitter and email all offer similar, instant communication to texting.

Many people – especially the older generations – complain that these social media are deteriorating people's abilities to develop good interpersonal skills to build meaningful relationships.

As social media has become more and more pervasive in our society, it has incorporated even some of the more personal and even sacred areas of our lives, including our belief systems.

With the advent of the Internet in the mid-1980s came the ability to quickly communicate with other people and even ministers of other faiths quickly jumped on the bandwagon, going so far as to develop Web sites that allow professionals in religion to collaborate with other professionals in their field. One such Web site is www.ecunet.org, which doubles as both an online meetingplace, as well as a collaboration center for professionals of religion.

Reverend Charles Henderson (http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/religion.html) first discovered this resource in the late 1980s and started using it to formulate his sermons. It even allowed, as the link explains, ministers to use others' sermons and then return to the forum after giving the sermon and give an evaluation of the sermon itself. Henderson cited ecunet.com as a great resource for his sermon preparation.

More and more people are using the beloved interwebs to share their beliefs. I (although slightly shamefully, for the mere reason that I consider it to be “succumbing to Mormon culture”) frequently post links to www.mormon.org (ps – have you seen the new mormon.org?! It'll blow your mind.) on my facebook because I want to share the gospel in a fast, convenient way with past acquaintances thousands of miles away who I am now not terribly close to, but still feel a moral duty to share the gospel with (that was a terribly constructed sentence. My most profound apologies.).

Similarly, the MTC has people working on mormon.org as “chatters,” answering people's questions and, in essence, teaching them the gospel. I have even heard of people being taught all the lessons through the chat function on mormon.org and being more than prepared for the baptismal interview, in which they participated and were subsequently baptized.

And the Church hasn't stopped there – select missionaries are now allowed to keep blogs and maintain facebook accounts about their work so they can hopefully access people whom they normally wouldn't be able to. Some are allowed to spend up to an hour every day working on their blog or facebook account.

A missionary facebook profile: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001108500975&ref=sgm
Said missionary's blog: http://restoredtruth.wordpress.com/
And another's: http://www.dannytcook.blogspot.com/

The purpose of bringing up these social media is not to highlight the Church's new and innovative approach to missionary work – about which I am skeptical, by the way – but to bring to the surface my question: what role does real, interpersonal interaction play in someone's spiritual development? Is our use of social media affecting more than just our interpersonal relationships - could it also hinder our own spiritual development? Can those people who are “attending” church services online or chatting with a Church representative online have equally powerful spiritual experiences as those who physically attend church services or meet with missionaries? Does the electronic element of the spiritual development dull the power of the Spirit? Think of your personal studies that you have done online: when you read the scriptures online, does the Spirit communicate differently than when you are reading your leather-bounds?

I certainly have my own opinions on the matter, but I am curious to know your views and even hope to see some links to empirical evidence supporting your opinions.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Paganism and Heavy Metal

I remember listening to Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven when I was a kid and thinking it was the most beautiful song ever written. Apparently, many others agreed. According to Wikipedia, the most famous song off Led Zeppelin's classic 1971 album was the most requested song on FM radio station in the U.S. throughout the 1970s. It was among the most requested songs for me and my brothers growing up as we raided my fathers music collection, and all of us at one point in time even learned how to play the song on piano or guitar. What we didn't realize, though, was the controversy that has followed the song for so many years, specifically it's content. It amazed me to find out how many people at church believed Led Zeppelin was a satanic band, and that Stairway to Heaven was an occultist song with pagan themes (check out the Wikipedia section on backwards masking Stairway and judge for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairway_to_heaven#Allegation_of_backward_masking). I'm not sure about the satanic accusation, but the pagan themes in the song are real and probably ignited the firestorm about anti-Christian themes in the band's music.

Fast forward to 2010. Thanks to the internet, diverse music sub-cultures are able to thrive via chat rooms and message boards, and the ease of travel and increased connectivity in the world have allowed such people to even coordinate and gather at more and more music festivals all around the world. Heavy metal has evolved from a niche branch of rock music in the mid to late 1970s to a fully-blown genre that has seen more and more of the popular music charts. While the popular and broader side of the genre has captured a segment of the public, more niche branches have evolved, and sub-cultures within the metal community have taken root around the world.

One of the more interesting branches is the pagan or folk metal branch. These bands, mostly from Scandinavian countries, use folk instruments in their extreme styles of music in an attempt to fuse heavy metal with native folk influences. Lyrical themes are usually related to pre-Christian pagan beliefs and mythology. If you're brave, check out a song from the Finnish band “Turisas” (most of the vocal parts are harsh):



This form of music has a small yet devoted fan base worldwide. There is probably some correlation between these bands springing up in the region lately and the rise of Neo-Paganism in Europe recently, but that's not the most interesting part of this genre, mostly because they're from those countries and are getting in touch with their history. It's the people outside of the countries that are taking on this pre-Christian paganism as their own religion, if just for a few hours each day. Take a listen to the first few minutes of an interview with a member of “Tyr”, a band from the Faroe Islands:



I had several friends who saw this band in concert in Salt Lake City. When the lead singer asked in there were any pagans in the audience, most of the crowd yelled in agreement. I doubt many of you believe most of that audience would classify their official religion as some form of paganism, but at least for one night, many in the audience identified themselves within the culture surrounding the music, a culture we got a glimpse of in the interview. I've read message boards with fans from Maine to Pennsylvania to Texas to California all wishing they lived in Finland or Sweden, with some outwardly admitting they considered themselves pagan even after admitting they were raised Christian.

My question: is it necessarily bad that some people are identifying themselves with another people's culture and religion through these musical communities? Or is this passing “fad” destructive on one or more levels to a person's “religion” development? Remember that most, if not all, of these fans see themselves and deeply entrenched within a culture and community.

Can sex speak to the soul?

For anyone who missed out on the Madonna chapter in our book, not to worry...I've got you covered. While I can't say I was the biggest fan of A. reading the wrong chapter or B. the chapter itself, I inadvertently stumbled onto my topic for this blog post. Sex sells music videos. No denying that. Hundreds of artists have tried to cash in on provocative content.

But what about those videos that are truly unforgettable? The ones that keep people talking, whether they liked it or not? The magic word: controversy. And when you pair sex with strong religious overtones, themes, and imagery...you strike a chord with people on both sides and create...you guessed it...controversy. Fierce loyalties and strong opinions lead to a lasting dialogue, and the longer we talk, the more money they make.

As the author of the chapter said, "...it takes effort to remember when Madonna videos were not moldy oldies on VH-1." So for those of you, like me, who would get smashed in an 80's Pop Culture trivia challenge, let's start the discussion with someone you know. Someone whose wardrobe, music, and image scream promiscuity. Someone whose lyrics contain so many explicit sexual references you wonder how certain songs clear the FCC for daytime radio. Someone with music videos so controversial they've been both banned and censored from YouTube and MTV. Someone whose taste for shock value rivals that of even Madonna.

Meet...Lady Gaga.

Labeled this generations's "Queen of Controversy," Lady Gaga is known for her taste for taboos. With her music video for her latest singleAlejandroshe's lived up to her name. I'll embed the video below, but be advised...it's racy, raunchy, and unsettlingly risqué.

For those of you who want to spare yourselves from its graphic nature, here's a brief description of the controversial imagery that's causing public outcry. I'm not inclined to rehash it in detail, so I found a blip from FOXNews that I believe does it justice.

"The pop princess, real name Stefani Germanotta, recently released the music video for her single “Alejandro” and has sparked quite the outcry given its saturation of controversial imagery, including her swallowing rosary beads in a latex-version of a nun’s habit, holding the crucifix in front of her crotch and simulating group sex with a bunch of beefed-up men, who are nearly naked save for underwear and high heels."


As expected, Gaga has received quite a bit of praise for pushing the envelope. But this song is the first that has had an overwhelming negative response from the music community. Music critics have called the religious elements of the video "confusing" and "over-the-top." They fail to see how the religious imagery ties into the video's narrative (which the video's director, Steven Klein, describes as "the character's battle between the dark forces of this world and the spiritual salvation of the soul).

Fellow pop artists are voicing criticisms as well.
Despite her skin-baring spreads for magazines and highly provocative lyrics, singer Katy Perry launched an attack on Gaga's Alejandro video back in June. In a twitter post, Perry said "blasphemy as entertainment is as cheap as a comedian telling a fart joke." In a later interview with Rolling Stone she spoke up again, referencing Gaga's video before saying, "I think when you put sex and spirituality in the same bottle and shake it up, bad things happen."


Like A Prayer, one of the highest selling-singles of Madonna's career, featured similarly controversial religious images. Complete with a gospel choir, Madonna's passionate kiss and implied sexual encounter on an altar with a black Jesus, seductive dancing in front of burning crosses, and a clearly drawn comparison between Christ's suffering and the suffering of a man who has been wrongly accused of rape (and is later cleared by Madonna's Good Samaritan act of testifying on his behalf), it's clear that this video is rife with religious imagery. It caused so much fall-out with religious communities that Pepsi withdrew a very lucrative ad campaign to save itself from from being labeled as "the blasphemous cola."

Madonna, on the other hand, defended her video. She said, "Passion and sexuality and religion all bleed into each other for me ... I think I’m religious in the broadest sense of the word, and I am very sexual in that I’m very aware of my sexuality and other people’s, and am very interested in it."

Not a very strong defense, but that's how some artists see it. They see music as an arena for artistic expression and see no lines, no restrictions, no protected territory. They play on the most sensitive issues because they feel those elicit the strongest emotions and leave the greatest impact...good or bad.

But my question to you is if it's right. I realize our bias and conservative tendencies, but try and think of it from a free speech perspective. Is this ok? Can you juxtapose religion and sex to make a statement? How about to make a buck?

And another angle...how does this affect religion? Does it undermine that which is sacred? Or do the religious symbols retain their value because people simply write these controversial videos off as cheap attempts at producing shock value?

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Music and Lyrics

As I was reading chapter 5 in our book I was intrigued by the discussion on when Christian music becomes secular.  Is it only about the lyrics, or is a musical type itself spiritual?  I think the nature of the music does play a large role in the spirituality of a song, or in the emotion of the song in general. I'll give my opinion in this post, but I'd love to hear what you think in the comments.

I worked at Seagull Book for a little while.  (For those of you from outside of Utah, it's the discount version of Deseret Book.)
Here is an example of the type of music I would here while working there.



The lyrics are nice, but the music itself is formulaic and predictable, like most other forms of LDS music. To me, it's trying to hard or cheesy. I have a hard time feeling the Spirit when I listen to it because it seems to diminish the glory and power of Christ by putting Him in a formulaic and cheesy song. It also gives an impression that all Mormons are squares.



Here is an example of Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith (both of whom were mentioned in the book.)



The music is still a bit formulaic, but it doesn't matter as much to me because the subject matter isn't as deep as the previous Kenneth Cope song. The lyrics match the music better.

Here is a song that became very popular about five years ago.  "I Can Only Imagine" by Mercy Me.



To me, this is an incredibly beautiful, spiritual song. I think the music matches the subject matter in a simple yet moving way.  Notice how his voice goes from weak and quiet at the beginning to a near shout with the excitement of the thought of meeting the Savior. The drums also enhance the feeling.

Now to contrast that, listen to this by Mama Shirley Caesar.


Can I get an Amen? For some reason, this music just gets to me. I can't get enough of it. I listen to it on Sundays all the time. A lot of people in the LDS Church complain that it is far too rowdy for religious worship. I feel that it might be a bit much for a Sunday meeting, but I'd love to sing in a choir like this on weekdays, or Sunday nights.  God, of course, deserves reverence and respect, but doesn't He also want us to rejoice in His Word? This, to me, is sincere rejoicing.

This song is by Fireflight, who are a Christian Rock Band very similar to Flyleaf and Paramore. (Flyleaf is also a Christian band)



I actually enjoy this music. I'm not sure it would be something I'd listen to on Sundays, but I appreciate the goal of singing about God to an audience that may not be looking for Him. If it opens their hearts to start to believe, then I can certainly appreciate this music for that. I think this music would have a more powerful influence on someone who had never been introduced to the gospel than the first Kenneth Cope song. However, I think the Mercy Me and Mama Shirley Caesar songs have the most powerful spiritual effect.

This one, by Disciple is interesting to me.


Here is an example of one that isn't very Christian. Saying that you will be "Brought Down" if you defy God is a little contrary to Christian love and tolerance. I don't think this kind of music or these lyrics are likely to bring anyone to an understanding of God's love and mercy.

This of course, is my opinion. Everyone is touched by the Spirit in different ways, so I want to know:

When does Christian Music become secular? Is it no longer Spiritual if it is too rowdy, or is it not spiritual when it is too formulaic? Are the lyrics the most important factor, or does the music itself need to be a certain way in order for it to be religious?

Religion=Music

At the beginning of class we defined religion. In order for us to understand religion in pop-culture, we must have an understanding of the broad definition. Towards the beginning of our book religion is described as "an integrated system of belief, lifestyle, ritual activities, and institutions by which individuals give meaning to (or find meaning in) their lives by orienting themselves to what they take to be holy, sacred, or of the highest value."

Just as we discussed in class the relationship between religion and sport, the concepts of the definition of religion can draw similarity to music. Perhaps out of all the outlets of media, music can pull out more passion and emotion then any other. Part of the reason why is music comes from a source and is transmitted to to us, and by using our imagination, we interpret the lyrics, beat and rythm, and overall presentation of the music. Just as we read about the divine feminine in books like The Da Vinci Code and The Secret Life of Bees, our imagination is sparked with curiosity due to the arthur trying to paint a picture in our mind. Music can have the same affect on us. We listen to it and interpret it how we want. This can cause very emotional and passionate feelings.

Also, just as religion brings people together in a group for the same purpose, music draws many people together in concerts. In the definition listed above, religion is taken as something personal, sacred, and held to the highest value. Many people are greatly influenced by their taste in music. It is commonly the focus of our lives, conscientiously or sub-conscientiously. Different music has different effects on us. It can inspire, motivate, anger, move, and change our feelings. Just as religion is thought to be able to change or mind and attitude for the better, music can alter and influence us in the same fashion.

To many, religion=music. In many religions, music is a vital tool in involving spirituality. The conclusion I have drawn is, there are many similarities in the definition of religion and music. What I have noticed is music is many people's religion.

Another phenomenon in pop-culture is many people view others as being "religious" by solely listening to "religious music." In this clip on Seinfeld, Elaine is surprised at her boyfriend being religious by finding his radio stations in his car being christian rock.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3BDY3tfs8M


(Here is the URL. I tried to post the video, but it wouldn't upload.)


What makes someone religious? In this case, Elaine discovers Puddy's christianity by his taste in music. By this discovery alone, she comes to the conclusion that Puddy is a very religious and spiritually person. I have noticed in our society that some people in order to get their religious fix, they will listen to religious music and consider themselves performing a religious act. Rather than living the principles their specific religion teaches, they feel they are fulfilling their religious duty by listening to religious music.
I would like to pose two questions to the class: Using the your understanding of the definition of religion, how have you seen music become religion to some people? Also, have you seen (if so, please elaborate) any examples of someone listening to religious music as their only religious practice?

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Spreading the Gospel Message: One Way or Another

In class, we’ve talked about the pros and cons of demonstrating religion in television and film and how it can influence the audiences’ outlook and opinion of that certain religion. There are countless examples of how that plays true in music as well. Through music, like television and film, we can find connections to emotions inside of us that we wouldn’t necessarily express with others freely. Our emotions play heavily on music and vice versa. How many times when we are upset do we turn to a hard rock song to get out that anger, and then afterwards we suddenly feel better? Musicians understand this as well as we do and for that reason, there are times when some of them use this power to influence us in one way or another. In an essence, through these examples that I’ll use, these musicians are spreading a gospel message in one way or another by promoting a certain religion’s beliefs or causing the audience to evaluate that religion and the things that they believe in.

A More Serious Promotion

The first example is of solid Christian beliefs of charity, love and giving back. Now there are countless examples of Christianity undertones in music, especially country music. This video is from American Idol’s Give Back Charity Concert raising money to help children and families in need throughout the U.S. and the rest of the world. Carrie Underwood performs George Michael’s “Praying for Time”.



How do you feel after hearing this song? Do you feel you need to become more Christlike and give back to those in need? Do you think that after viewers listened to this song and other songs performed that night, that they called in and donated money to American Idol Give Back?

The second example is the song, “Legalize It,” by Bob Marley who was a member of the Rastafarian faith. Rastafarians believe deeply in the use of cannabis or marijuana as a part of their religious, spiritual life. Anyone that has visited the Caribbean will see that this faith is very prominent and many people believe that Bob Marley was a prophet, promoting the Rastafarian faith.



How do you think this song empowers Rastafarians? And for those that listened to Bob Marley when he performed it, do you think that their opinion changed on the use of marijuana?

A Little Less Serious Promotion

Now, let’s think about how other religions have been promoted in a less-serious way. Here are two examples: Adam Sandler’s, “Hanukkah Song” about the Jewish faith and Weird Al Yankovich’s parody, “Amish Paradise,” about the Amish or Mennonite faith.





Now after seeing this video by Adam Sandler, who wouldn’t want to be Jewish? Adam Sandler’s saying that after all these decades before of WWII, Civil Rights Movement, etc., it’s cool to be Jewish. Weird Al Yankovich’s parody of the Amish faith raises questions for the audience about this faith, that maybe they had never heard about. Isn’t that a form of publicity for that religion?

So my friends, what do we think about all of this? Do you believe that it is morally correct to play on emotions to promote causes, such as Idol Give Back and legalizing marijuana?

AND…do you believe that by spoofing religion is a good way to promote that religion?
Okay…have fun…Discuss!

Emily Borders

P.S. Not part of the blog…but it is interesting how Jack Black portrays Catholicism and just I LOVE this song! Nacho Libre’s Encarnación:

Monday, September 13, 2010

Religion and Film-The Feminine as Divine in the Arts-Literature, Media, Fiction, and Film-Moving the discussion from fiction to NON-FICTION?

Blog Post B-Religion and Film by Brittany Glas, COMMS482
September 15, 2010

As discussed in the third chapter of the text Religion and Popular Culture in America primarily, a new wave of thought and analysis of the divine as feminine, as opposed to masculine (and Caucasian), is resurfacing... and it is resurfacing in the arts-FILM, particularly. As mentioned in the chapter, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Sue Monk Kidd's The Secret Life of Bees, both best-sellers in the world of literature and both later turned into successful films, have been revolutionary pieces of fiction that have spurred the debate surrounding the divine as feminine. And in some cases, they have really caused audiences to see or at least begin to see the information presented in this art form-film-as pieces of legitimate NON-FICTION.

To push this topic further, the chapter discussed the imagination of the divine as feminine through ICONS. Immediately, the term "icons" makes me recall art and its history (specifically Early Christian and Byzantine Art concerning the divine), in various mediums relating to the representation of a female divine figure, or "Madonna," as it is often referred.

The Madonna and Child-The BEARER of all humankind? The Divine?

The Madonna-as in Christ's mother, the Heavenly Mother, or even as the divine as the bearer of all humankind beginning with Adam and Eve-has been represented in art since nearly the beginning of time, identifying this figure with some sort of spiritual power and authority at the very least.

And even in Egyptian Art and architecture prior to this time with goddesses such as Nefertiti of the Armana period.

Nefertiti-Female Divine-An Egyptian Goddess-A Female Divine

And now, to the medium of FILM, a more interactive outlet of the arts...

After reading the text, I first remembered the scene in The Da Vinci Code (2006) where Tom Hanks and others debate the relationship of Mary Magdalene to Jesus Christ. In this scene, they evaluate Leonardo Da Vinci's famous PAINTING-another medium of art-The Last Supper to debate their TRUE relationship.

See the video below. Most interesting discussion of this begins at/around 3:30.

The words, "The mind sees what it chooses to see" spoken by Tom Hanks's character were quite eery here... as if to call out to the audience-in the theater-that they too may refute or join in this intellectual discussion spurred by the supremely famous work of art whose focus is the divine. Remarkably though, it is here that it is actually CHALLENGED. As if a revolutionary idea.

-----

To continue, The Secret Life of Bees (2008) calls upon various forms of art to experiment with the identity of the divine, both in gender and race, as well. Miss August Boatwright, the character played by Queen Latifah, can arguably represent a "Black Madonna," as discussed within the chapter. She introduces Lily Owens (Dakota Fanning), and her family of Black women to multiple forms of art including music, painting, and dance as a sense of therapy (spiritual therapy, perhaps) and is seen as a Christ-like Savior figure. She takes in the troubled girl. It is in her home that the girl finds refuge from her abusive WHITE MALE of a father (living with him was void of any artistic and spiritual experience-their home was small and white in color and expression). The Black Madonna continually tells the young girl that "love is everywhere."

Below is the trailer of the film where these things can be noted.

Ironically, Lily even says, "They're so cultured. I've never met women like them before." This remark implies that WOMEN; ARTISTIC WOMEN (perhaps even Black women) are divine. And she says she's never met any women like them... as one might say when they are first introduced to the feeling that comes with the presence of the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit in Christian doctrine. She polarizes the idea of the divine's identity directly by race and gender to her previous experiences and interactions (White people would have been the superior class at this time and yet Lily's speech is more broken than Miss August's and her families--in this voice-over particularly--and also, each member of Miss August's household has some sort of experience in the arts-instrumentalists, vocalists, dancers, painters, etc. introduced by none other than the Black Madonna figure herself).

-----

In an alternative interpretation of the feminine as divine in the remake of The Wicker Man (2006) with Nicolas Cage, we see an obvious representation of art as power and literal craft for deceit and manipulation with the use of artistic masks by the members of the feminine spiritual cult. Ironically too, each of these women seem to be quite beautiful-almost porcelain-esque-faced women that could be painted themselves. So too important an artistic figure as the Wicker Man itself in the final scenes of the film. Though the cultish frame is a bit different in comparison to the other two films mentioned above, it is undeniable that the women in the film occupy a sense of divinity with their role as mothers (HEAVENLY, DIVINE MOTHERS?) in their spiritual worship and rituals. Women in the film reign "divine" and men, primarily Cage, are but human sacrifices in their religious sect.


The feminine cult partakes in musical chants with demonic tones and throughout the film, Neopagan symbols are prevalent.

-----

QUESTIONS:
So what does this all mean? I beg the question: Is it solely in artistic outlets of discussion and representations that we beg the question of the feminine as divine? Is it only in these "safe place" arenas that we can beg the question gently so as to make sure we do not upset our white male religious superiors? Are images and icons (and the arts overall) overwhelmed with supreme limitations in this aspect? Is there a possibility to provide stronger and more serious debate concerning the matter of the divine as feminine in the arts? Is there real argument and legitimacy to this debate elsewhere then if not through artistic portrayals only?

I believe that in the world we live-engrained in a cultural and religious society overwhelmed with the white male as supreme ruler-film and the arts overall have been the outlet wherein we have experimented with the idea of FEMININE as divine instead primarily; as if we have pushed the envelope in an artistic portrayal only versus more legitimate discussion of the idea out of fear to a degree. Has this debate been more seriously established outside the artistic world today? I'm not so sure... I do firmly believe however that the root of feminine as divine comes from art... Egyptian goddesses found in ancient hieroglyphics to the introduction of a Heavenly Mother as Mary Magdalene in Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper...

What are your thoughts? Is this movement just the beginning of questioning and probing alternative thinking concerning the divine as feminine or will it fade out? Will there ever be a time, now or in the future, that we can see the divine as feminine on the same level and to the same scale that we see the divine as masculine? If so, do you believe it might be because of this idea represented in the art world and more specifically in the medium of film and documentaries?

More specifically...
Do you believe that there will be spiritual feminine institutions that will be strong enough to become TRUE contenders against modern organized masculine religious institutions that see the divine as solely masculine (like the Christian feminist non-profit centers mentioned in the text)?

-----

The entire discussion of the arts and feminism paralleling with spirituality urges me to introduce a documentary series entitled "Who Does She Think She Is?" Here is a trailer for the large documentary series directed by Pamela Tanner Boll.

Take a look.

-----

To discuss the outlet of film as a whole (including documentaries), this shift of thinking comes without surprise to me. I believe film is a unique medium of art that is not meant for the sole purpose of entertainment. Because of its unique venue and experience, it often has the ability to cause its audience to think. To evaluate. To QUESTION. And to DEBATE. Though it allows for the depiction of scenes that are clearly unrealistic, it allows for its audience to picture the unbelievable and suddenly sometimes... believe. For this reason, I believe that we have not seen the last of this idea of the feminine as divine in modern society and popular culture.

Religion and Film.

Viewers and critics alike always have plenty to say about film adaptations of books. Some complain about missing scenes or critically components or misrepresented characters. However, they often remain silent on subject of religiosity and its transplantation onto the big screen. For example, the prominent Christian author CS Lewis wrote the series The Chronicles of Narnia, series about a battle between good and evil and a Christ figure purifying power. CS Lewis wanted to portray these characters as biblical people. For example, the Lion is supposed to be Jesus and the Queen represents Satan. In the film the Lion is preaching the better life to everyone and the evil people end up killing him. He is then resurrected because of his pure intentions, which, all leads to a battle to cleanse the earth.

www.musicnear.com.jpg

Now this example is one that is deep and makes one really think about religion and the way Christians view their beliefs. Can someone who is not Christian see this film and know what symbolizes are taking place? Probably not. So, can all religious films be understood the way they are suppose to be?

Another example is in Passion of the Christ. This film was very controversial in the sense that no one made a film to be so intense and detailed about Christ’s life.

In the film, The Passion of the Christ it covers Jesus’s last twelve hours of his life. It starts with the Agony in the Garden and ends with his resurrection. Throughout the movie it shows us flashbacks of his life and everything he went through, from when he worked as a carpenter, the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper.

The Passion of Christ Trailer


passion_of_the_christ_verdvd-300x430.jpg


People saw The Chronicles of Narina for the effects, but did they see The Passion of the Christ to fest on Christ or for the controversy? This was a film that I believe to be one that people went to see because of all the hype that was talked about with it. I personally never saw it but had friends who did because they heard it was so controversial.

Religion movies always seem to cause some type of disagreement usually having to do with someone of the opposite faith.

It is the writers job to get the audience drawn in with the movie and wanting to learn more about the religion. But, are movies the place for that? There are tons and tons of films out there having to do with religion. I think its up to how the director portrays the film that makes us view that certain religion in a certain light. For a religion I know nothing about and see a film on it, most likely that is how I will view that religion.

So my question is: can religious themes be portrayed effectively in wide range of audiences? Is film the right place to be portraying religion?

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Conditioned to Religion in Film

When I walk into a movie theater I leave reality behind. I recline in the often broken seat, un-stash some hidden candy, and wait for the dimming lights to shut out what little is left of what is noticeable as the real world. 




So what happens when, after making that escape, we are presented with representations of religion and so-called truth?






When watching movies that are completely fictitious, such as my most recent in-theater experience (Inception), I am well prepared to receive what I know it is going to be purely entertainment and not necessarily true. In fact, most movies are completely fabricated and meant merely to entertain. However, it is not uncommon for movies to contain material that is religious in nature and even in accordance with one's religious beliefs. There is a chance, however, that after years of mentally setting our minds to "Entertain" when watching movies that we might reject some of the religious truths presented to us in the name of "entertainment." Have we chosen, in our desire to escape "real life," to consider everything presented to us as opposite of reality and what affect does that have on our own personal beliefs? Similar to the way individuals become desensitized to violence through repeated viewing of violent acts in film, our society may becoming conditioned to the type of religion that is presented to us in film.


Maybe it is too extreme to say that we reject/accept everything that is shown in the movie. Clearly we can separate the obvious and pick out that which we recognize as true/false. God probably doesn't look just like Morgan Freeman (Bruce Almighty). For the strongly religious, themes and characters that are religious in nature are far more likely to be accepted/rejected immediately, regardless of ones "escaping from reality." 


However, what about those who are merely casual church-goers or those who are even less spiritually inclined? Perhaps the portrayal of religion in fictitious movies will cause them to file "religion" more closely to the "fiction" category in their lives. Perhaps all of the different ways that religion is portrayed, usually in gross generalizations, in film has driven people away from participation in their chapel and synagogues. The constant use of film as a medium of escape from the real world may be diluting our faith as a society. 

Are Screenwriters Religious?

There are plenty of movies out there which show religious settings and have religion in them, but my question is, do screenwriters portray a sense of their own beliefs in their films, or do they make us think that there is some type of religion in their films, without doing it on purpose?
For example in The Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia there is an obvious correlation with religion, because they were both written by religious writers and then became movies. But the two movies I want to look at are Gladiator and Field of Dreams. The writer of Gladiator, David Franzoni, who also wrote the screenplay for King Arthur makes an attempt to tie in a sense of a christian afterlife in a movie which deals with pagan Rome. Throughout the movie Russel Crowe, Maximus, has dreams of an afterlife where he meets his wife and son, who were murdered at the beginning of the movie. At the end of the movie Crowe is talking with Djimon Hounsou, Juba, about how he will see his wife and child again. I guess even in a pagan tradition people believe that they can live with their families in an afterlife.
In the movie Field of Dreams the screenwriter Phil Alden Robinson who also wrote The Sum of all Fears and Band of Brothers, takes a different approach and doesn't make it as obvious, but as you watch the film you can't think that the film portrays some type of afterlife. It is a movie where there are plenty of metaphors, but to me I can't help but think that it tries to show that there is a close tie between those who are living and those who have already passed. And when Kevin Costner, Ray, meets up with his dad who is dead, it makes you think "is there really supposed to be some correlation here with family and the afterlife?"
I obviously recognize that these religious hints in these movies come from the religious screenwriters, but I'm curious if it reflects their own beliefs, and are they doing it on purpose to show us that the whole film was about that religious point, or is it just simply an insight for us to think about?

Religion and Film

As I reflect on the movies I have seen that include a religious influence I am reminded of many movies that have aspects of the Catholic church with regards to Nuns and the Pope. Every religion wants to be portrayed in a positive light but I feel as if members of the Catholic church are the most "forgiving" and take things less serious then members of other faiths. One of my favorite movies is Sister Act, where the main character played by Whoopi Goldberg goes into hiding by playing the role of a Nun. Rather than attempt to fit in to the Nun's way of life, she influences all of the other Nuns to change and become less strict/obedient. (This picture shows the "rebel" Nun and sassy attitude the movie portrays.) However, I have never met a Catholic who thought the movie was offensive. When Goldberg takes over as the choir director the difference between entertainment and reverence is easy to spot as this clip shows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqp89bkFe8k. (My next door neighbor in California is a Catholic Priest and having gone to some of his church events I never heard any song the way they do in the film...and I assume nobody else has either.) However, for me the biggest controversy is not the music but rather the whole idea of someone pretending to be a Nun and all of the other Nuns being lied to because the cops want to get someone safe.
The Catholic Church is also mentioned in other blockbusters such as The DiVinci Code which gives them a lot of plublicicty eventhough some of it is not ideal. However, I think having religion in films is very important because for a lot of people their religion is more important then their nationality. Religion also plays a big role in many aspects of society such as education, politics, sports, entertainment, etc. Having a movie such as Sister Act brings the Catholic church into pop culture and it shows that many people know about the religion. I have never seen a blockbuster about being LDS, Baptist, Methodist, etc.
My question is: Do movies like Sister Act do more good or bad for the particular religion being portrayed? Why isn't there other religions portrayed in films at the same degree as the Catholic church?

Monday, September 6, 2010

South Park and the Sacred


The satirical comedy South Park recently celebrated it's 200th episode. And to celebrate the show decided to do it's best to offend absolutely everyone by making a mockery out everything from popular movie stars, minorities, Tom Cruise, and every major world religion in one hour.


But the show outraged some extreme Muslim groups when it decided to include in it's vast list of targets the prophet Mohamed.


I do not wish to dive into the question of Islam and South Park, (although here a discussion on Larry King Live.) but rather dive into the idea of South Park and the sacred. At first glance South Park would seem to not hold anything sacred at all. It degrades religious figures ranging from Buddha, to Joseph Smith, to Moses, Jesus and yes Mohamed. Nothing is off limits, and if you're going to try to tell them something is off limits then they're going to make sure and say it louder.


But in an interview with BB Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, reveal that there are perhaps things which are sacred to them to. (Here is the link to the youtube video, but be warned, although the vast majority of the interview is profanity free Matt and Trey still manage drop a few in there, so I felt it more wise to put the quotes I wanted in quotations.)


"South Park matters to us, it's our whole world."

Matt Stone


"It matters to me that when we talk about Mohamed that we can say that this or we did this me. Just me. I don't think it's going to change the world. But just being able to have that conversation.

Trey Parker


(For those who ventured to watch the youtube I may not have quoted them word perfect since the interviewer would interrupt from time to time, but I digress.)


An earlier post commented on how no religion is safe on TV. This could be because Television writers, producers and actors, although having a value structure very close to religious folks, have a very different value system.


What I mean by that is although South Park is not a religion itself, like the religious group it has its articles or faith and sacraments. Only, in the case of South Park, your right to ridicule, satire, and offend others is what you hold as that which is sacred to you. Both of these guys were willing to risk their lives as a testimony of how much they value free speech.


Certainly there is merit to this view. If people, like say Galileo, were overly cautious of offending their community at the time, many breakthroughs in science, religion, and philosophy which we have benefited from today.


But could there be a middle ground? Is there a way to have a productive debate on different belief systems and religious institutions without being intentionally offensive? Are free speech and civility inherently at odds? The argument goes that if civility limits us in how we voice our opinions or what we words we say then we are not truly free to say what we want. But I believe there is a middle ground where South Park (and in the larger context society as a whole) can still voice their incredulity at certain traditions in various religions while still showing the same respect for the sacred as they would want the religious groups to respect what they think is sacred.


So I guess my question is, in a televised 21st century are free speech and civility towards religious views inherently at odds, or is there a place in the middle where religions can be critiqued but not ridiculed? And if television shows like South Park tried this strategy would people still watch or would it be too boring?