Like we said in class, it's interesting that books used to get banned because now everything is on the internet and there's no way to stop the viral spread of newsworthy information. Today what makes books so much more acceptable? How come it feels more "ok" to read a book with inappropriate content than to watch a movie with the same content? Religion today is not as sacred to the majority of people as it once was. Because of the internet, religion as become more widespread; however its practice has become less prevalent.
I'm currently reading a book called "Left to Tell." It's about a survivor's experience through the Rwandan Holocaust. She talks about her attitude throughout the experience as she lost every member of her family, yet still retained a solid faith in God.
"A Thousand Splendid Suns" and "Kite Runner" by Khaled Housseini are also religious affiliated books that made discuss the dominant religious beliefs and cultures of many Middle Eastern countries. “A Thousand Splendid Suns” reflects the male-dominant society and the torture that women experience in their lives because of the religious beliefs that are forced upon them.
-What is so captivating about reading books whose authors and characters have completely different beliefs than our own?
-Does reading these books enhance our understanding of other religious beliefs and diminish our own or the other way around or both?
-Can we all have a spiritual experience by reading a book that talks about religion that is completely not of our faith?
Some of the best books I have ever read have come with a recommendation from Oprah Winfrey. While I read those novels because they intrigued me and not because of the Oprah’s Book Club sticker on the front cover, there are millions upon millions of people who hone in on that little orange sticker like flies to light. Commonly called the Oprah effect, the overwhelming influence of Oprah’s Book Club immediately projects her choice reads onto bestseller lists around the world.
Her book selections commonly include themes of women’s empowerment, strength in the face of adversity, and Christianity. However, lately her taste seems to be leaning towards self-help books centered around new age spirituality, featuring titles such as The Secret, or most enthusiastically A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose.
She felt so passionately about the message of author Eckhart Tolle, that following her endorsements on both her television and radio show for A New Earth, she organized a ten-part series streamed live online, facilitating interaction and discussion of the book’s ideas with fans and the author. People from across the globe, representing 139 countries, tuned in to these “webclasses” in which viewers were walked through the book chapter by chapter.
“This is the most exciting thing I have ever done. I’ve done a lot of things in my life but I am most proud of the fact that all of you have joined us in this global community to talk about what I believe is one of the most important subjects and presented by one of the most important books of our time,
A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose.”
--Oprah Winfrey
I watched the online classes to see what the hype was all about, which are still available on her website nearly a year after their completion. It is easy to see where the appeal of some of these new age spiritual movements comes from. Tolle preaches ideas of removing preconceptions from people and encourages us to strive for a place of “stillness” where we can be in touch with our inner consciousness. From a distance, the ideas of the book are very much in line with mainstream Christian teachings and are, to a certain point, motivational. However, as the discussions delve further and further into the author’s message, a clear divide between Christianity and the spiritualism of the book becomes apparent as it denounces the commonly accepted idea of God as conditioned thought and claims that ideologies of one way to peace (aka Jesus Christ) are limiting.
Tolle describes his philosophy as “going deeper” into religion stating that the book’s main purpose “is not to add new information or beliefs to your mind or to try to convince you of anything, but to bring about a shift in consciousness, or to ‘awaken.’” But how can someone, say a Christian like Oprah, rationalize such contradictory teachings?
Personal belief systems are important and we are all entitled to them as human beings, however, in many cases Oprah is seen as more than human. She has flown under the radar of political correctness, easily speaking about her faith and religious experiences as one of the most headed queens of all media, whether it be through her television show, her radio show, her magazine, or her book club. I can’t generalize all Oprah fans, but she is idolized by countless people who hang on her every word, accepting it, for whatever reason, as ultimate wisdom. She is literally the most influential woman in the world. So, seeing her making contradictory statements about a subject in which so many people look to her for guidance, was unsettling. I thought of the millions of people reading and living out this book simply because she says so. Frankly, it’s disturbing to see the power that one, under-qualified, person can have over the faith and spirituality of so many.
So I ask you this:
Do you think the trendiness of books about new age spirituality such as A New Earth is threatening to traditional world religions, Christianity in particular?
Concerning varying media and their formats, have we as a contemporary society consumed in television, internet, and other progressive forms of media failed to acknowledge the lasting influence of books?
Can we as members of the LDS Church rationalize such new age spiritual thought with the traditions of our Christian faith?
Throughout the past two decades the Chicken Soup for the Soul series has taken the Nation by storm. It started as a compilation 101 feel-good stories and now has flourished into over 150 different books in 44 different languages. It gained success through word of mouth rather than through the media or celebrity endorsement. It especially gained a lot of notice and use throughout the American Christian community. I can remember on several occasions in Young Women’s or in Sunday school reading stories from Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul in order for our leaders to demonstrate to us what acts of kindness and charity are.
I feel that originally these stories and books were geared towards Christian faiths, especially because some of the first books published following the original were Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul and Christian Soup for the Christian Teen Soul. This perhaps could have been a marketing plan considering the majority of the first book’s audience was Christian or perhaps the stories only seemed “fit” for the predominant religion of the U.S. As I first thought of this book in regards to writing this blog, I automatically thought that it was a perfect example of how the U.S. is ignorant to other religions of the world, in that writing a book about morally uplifting stories and of acts of kindness could only apply and reach out to those of Christian faith. I was, in fact, wrong.
In looking at the official Chicken Soup for the Soul website, I found that these books have reached out to many different situations, race, and some other religions:
Just a few of the books within the series:
- Soup for the Jewish Soul
-Chicken Soup for the Latino Soul
-Chicken Soup for the African American Soul
-Chicken Soup for the Adopted Soul
-Chicken Soup from the Soul of Hawaii
-Chicken Soup for the Soul: Dog Lovers.
This list goes on and on with stories and situations that any one person could relate to. The series of books does not have very much variety for religions in that there is only Chicken Soup for the Jewish Soul and Chicken Soup for the Catholic Soul (which really is not that diverse), but the messages are still the same of charity, love and kindness, which all seem to be underlying themes in every religion. It is the classic battle of Good vs. Evil and with the faith to have Good and God prevail.
And so, do these stories blend the line between different religions and faith through being morally uplifting? Do these books serve as a tool for unity? Is there any other example of outreach from one faith to another through literature?
Here is a video of one of the stories from the book (the video is a bit cheesy but it will make you feel good!):
As I made a cursory examination of a lot of the anti-Mormon books in print, I noticed many common elements of their attacks on the LDS faith. I will discuss some of those commonalities below. As you read them, keep in mind the questions, “Which of these tactics are effective in steering others away from learning about the Mormons?” and “Could any of these things actually lead someone to be more curious about the LDS faith?”
One of the most common themes I found was the “inside perspective” motif. This theme is embodied in the book “Mormon Missionaries: an inside look at their real message and methods” by Janis Hutchinson. Hutchinson claims to offer an insider view of the Mormons, being an ex-member. In doing so, she sets herself up as an authority on all things Mormon, even though at no point does she lay claim to any real authority or scholarship on the matter. She often declares certain doctrines and practices of the church to be wrong without offering a doctrinal basis.
In many other examples, authors took the icon of the Bible, a symbol of absolute truth for many, and tried to set the LDS church at odds with it. In “The Mormon Illusion: What the Bible says about the Latter-day Saints,” author Floyd C. McElveen begins by declaring that he regrets to inform the Mormons that they are wrong and that he is going to prove it to them with his knowledge of the Bible. He also fails to offer some form of reliable credential for undertaking the work. He claims it is his divine mandate to warn Mormons of their error, yet makes no effort to warn those of the countless other faiths that must be “wrong” according to his standards. Finally, I noticed a newer branch of books with the intent of debunking LDS apologists who were debunking earlier claims laid against them. In “The new Mormon challenge: responding to the latest defenses of a fast-growing movement,” authors Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen declare that Mormon scholars were leaving them in the dust and that there was a need to keep up with the critique of the LDS church. Why? Why was there this need? The book claimed it was for continued debate and dialogue between the two faiths. But as far as this book is concerned, it was a one-sided attack, not the beginning of a conversation. This group at least made a claim of authority- all scholars of Protestant religious studies. They appealed to the logical side, the reasoning side of religion. They failed to suggest that readers confirm their research or seek heavenly help in making the decision- again, readers are to accept it, "because they said so."
Very few of these authors offer credentials or authority for attacking the LDS faith. Most were vague about which denomination they represented, preferring instead to declare themselves, “Christians.” All of them expressed their regard and sympathy for Mormons, masking the fact that they were, in fact, on the offensive. None of these groups suggested seeking out answers for oneself or for confirmation of the information they presented.
Are these tactics effective in dissuading people to learn more about the LDS faith? Do we ever see examples of people in our church using these tactics to discredit other faiths?
Religion and books go hand in hand. While religion uses books as a way to showcase their beliefs and principles, books constantly use religious archetypes and themes to better tell their story. While it is obvious that religion would need to use books, I found it interesting how much religion comes up in books.
What I couldn't help but think about was all the books I read and how most
of them (especially the classics) always seem to have some religious theme. Some are more blatant about their association with religion, while others may take more of an effort to uncover the religious connection, but all in all, more times than not religion seems to be coming out in some form or another in many of the books I have read. A few of the classics that came to mind were; The Scarlet Letter, Les Miserables, Crime and Punishment, and Tale of Two Cities. I'm guessing that most of you have probably read at least one of these books and you were probably able to pull out some religious connection.
Why is it then that religion has been used so much in literature? Was it just that these "classics" came from a time period when religion was much more prominent in society?
I than started to think of books with obvious religious themes that are perhaps a little more recent. East of Eden which is closely related to the Cain and Able Bible story was published in the 50's along with C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia- which we all know has an obvious religious connection. People have even said Harry Potter has some religious archetypes. So it is clear that religion is still a theme maintained throughout literature, no matter the time period. But is this still because it's a reflection of a religious society or do people just enjoy the good message and archetypes that religion adds to literature?
My last thought to the recurring religious themes in books is wondering why books get far less complaints about religious content than any other medium (Internet, music, TV, etc)? You
mention God or Christ too many times in a song or a movie and people start getting antsy, and yet in many books Christ has become quite a popular archetype to use. I recently read a popular book, The Poisonwood Bible, and as you can imagine it had many religious connections. It wasn't a religious book by any means, but clearly had some religious ties. As far as I know, however, there were no protests or complaints towards this book- in fact it was New York Times Bestseller!
Overall I just feel that when I think about the relationship between religion and books, a flood of books come to mind. From classics to contemporary, religion finds itself in books all the time. So my question again is why is religion so prevalent in literature? And why does it seem that books get away with a lot more when it comes to mentioning and using religious themes and content in its medium?
This summer I read a New York Times bestseller book, Reading Lolita in Tehran, by Azar Nafisi. From the books own explanation, “Azar Nafisi’s luminous masterpiece gives us a rare glimpse, from the inside, of women’s lives in revolutionary Iran.” Nafisi was a literature professor at the University of Tehran. After being expelled from the university for refusing to wear the veil, she selected a few of her most committed students to read forbidden Western classics in her apartment every Thursday morning. This book recounts those stories.
Nafisi is not the only Muslim women to speak out against her religion through books.
Although more extreme in her views than Nafisi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, now a former Muslim, is a prominent critic of Islam and particularly women’s position in Islamic societies. She is the author of Infidel, another New York Times Bestseller. Her book is about her own life and her experiences growing up in a strict Muslim family.
In the following video, Hirsi Ali explains her own views, which are also expressed in her book.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on FOX News Sunday
As expressed before, Nafisi is less extreme than Hirsi Ali in her views on Islam. However, both share and express in their books the common belief of the suppression of women in strict Muslim families and communities.
Suppression of women is depicted in these books; however, is a “Villain and Victim” approach an appropriate and accurate depiction of Islam?
Although these books espouse to depict the conditions of Islamic women, they have been criticized across the globe as merely creating more inaccurate stereotypes. A Boston Globe article written in 2006 explained the accusations of a prominent scholar who is against Azar Nafisi’s memoir, Reading Lolita in Tehran.
He accused her book of being neoconservative propaganda aimed at Islam. In the article, the scholar, Dabashi, stated ‘‘'One can now clearly see...that this book is partially responsible for cultivating the U.S. (and by extension the global) public opinion against Iran,’ The book… feeds into the stereotype of Islam as ‘vile, violent, and above all abusive of women—and thus fighting against Islamic terrorism, ipso facto, is also to save Muslim women from the evil of their men.’’’ Follow this link to read more: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/10/29/book_clubbed/
In the following video, others also critique Nafisi’s memoir and similar books. They blame such books as a cause of increased inaccurate stereotypes about Islamic women. (Stop the video at about 7 minutes).
Critique of Azar Nafisi and Similar Authors
Personally, I enjoyed reading Nafisi’s memoir and am planning on reading her newest book, Things I’ve Been Silent About. I have not read Hirsi Ali’s book, Infidel, but it is also on my list of books to read. Although I can see how they could increase stereotypes, these accounts and stories are true. They may not be true for all Muslim women, but I believe their stories are heroic and need to be told.
So now you know what I think, but what are your views?
Questions:
1. Why are we, as a western society so captivated by these books about women critiquing their own Muslim religion?
2. Do these books give us real insights into Muslim women’s lives or reinforce inaccurate stereotypes?
3. Do the views and expressions in these books ultimately help or hurt other Muslim women?
The little kid inside each of us has unwavering admiration for our favorite superheroes. These enforcers of justice and goodness make for ideal role models. An essential ingredient in these characters is their backgrounds, the intricate culmination of factors beginning from childhood that ultimately led to embracing their hero destiny. You probably know, for instance, that Superman was born on Krypton, raised in Kansas, and adopted by the Kents. But have you ever wondered how Superman spends his Sundays? Superman is a Methodist. Who knew?
Adherents.com has produced a carefully constructed list of comic book characters and their religious affiliations. They based their labels on sometimes subtle, sometimes direct references within comic books and surrounding comic book mythology. They’ve compiled an impressive list. Some highlights: The Hulk and Hellboy are Catholics. Atom Smasher and The Thing are Jewish. Batman is Episcopalian. Wolverine and Green Arrow are Buddhist. Thunderbird is Hindu. The Wonder Twins are LDS. The full list (with nifty graphics and detailed explanations) can be found HERE.
It’s an interesting list, but it doesn’t change the fact that religion is swept under the rug in most popular comics. A conference was held at Boston University in 2008 called Graven Images: Religion in Comic Books and Graphic Novels Conference. The mission of this conference was to discuss both purposefully religious comic books as well as less obvious instances of religion in mainstream comic books.
James Sturm is one religious comic book author who contributed to the Graven Images Conference. He pointed to Charles Schultz’ “Peanuts” as an unlikely source of inspiration for his religious-themed comics. In his opinion, Schultz’ was a pessimist. Sturm said, “The idea of having faith and kind of being let down by it - the whole Charlie Brown always trying to kick the football thing and it always getting pulled out from under him - has come to play a big part in a lot of my own work.”
Sturm blamed retailer bias for the lack of religion in comics. He said, “In the comic book store, the superhero is the god of choice. Occasionally, in mainstream superhero comics, you’ll see a superhero enter some sort of a generic, non-denominational church in a moment of crisis for spiritual encouragement, and the main inspiration they take away from that is usually, ‘Okay, now I can go beat up the villain!’”
Retailers may not be entirely to blame, however. In the 1989 Comics Code drafted by the Comics Magazine Association of America, there were blatant restrictions on the presence of religion in comics. But by excluding religion from comic books, authors may have missed out on an opportunity to more fully develop their superheroes. The Adherents.com website suggests, “How many characters would be more interesting, have added depth, and simply be better than they are if we knew a little bit about their religious affiliation - whether they tend toward belief or disbelief, orthodoxy or apostasy?”
Elliot S. Maggin, longtime Superman writer said, “I give all my characters religions. I think I always have. It's part of the backstory. It's part of the process of getting to know a character well enough to write about him or her. Jimmy Olson is Lutheran. Lois is Catholic… Luthor is Jewish, though non-observant, thank heaven.”
So here’s the question: Is the religious background of comic book characters important, and more broadly, does religion have a place in comic books at all?
I’m going to be honest; I never even made it through the first book of Gerald N. Lund’s The Work and the Glory series. And I don’t really regret it (especially after seeing the first movie). The same happened with the Left Behind books, by evangelical preacher Tim LaHaye and novelist Jerry Jenkins—an interpretation of Revelations, set in the context of contemporary global politics. And with countless other Christian fiction books that found their way into my Christmas stocking or were cleverly disguised as birthday presents. I couldn’t get into it.
A July 2004 issue of World magazine reads, "The bigger problem is . . . religious fiction has become a genre unto itself, with conventions of its own. One-dimensional characters contend against one-dimensional villains. The style is preachy. The theme is moralistic. The plot is characterized by implausible divine intervention. While the convention demands a conversion, the characters are never allowed to do anything very sinful, or, if they do, the author is not allowed to show it. At the end, all problems are solved and everyone lives happily ever after. It is all sweetness, light, uplift and cliche."
Like any genre, Christian fiction has certain conventions, which its readers look for.
According to evangelical author Angela Hunt, the story should illustrate some aspect of Christian faith.
In addition, the story should be clean—devoid of profanity and obscenity. Most who read Christian fiction believe in God and would be offended by profanity, so writers have to get creative, using phrases like, “He cursed,” and “His muttered oath made her blush.”
Finally, Hunt says that Christian fiction needs to offer hope, because that’s what God offers.
These elements, which Hunt says are required in Christian fiction, are only advanced by the fact that the market for religious fiction is much smaller than other fiction genres. This means most religious fiction is published by religious publishing houses and sold in religious markets. Writers of religious fiction must comply with these standards if they wish to succeed in their competitive field and win over publishers and their audience.
But in addition to these, readers want what any fiction reader wants: good writing—tight plots, believable characters (the heroes and the villains), new settings, attention to details, subtle themes.
Evangelical writer and editor Penelope Stokes (The Complete Guide to Writing and Selling the Christian Novel, 1998) wrote, “Let’s be honest here. Our customers are not, by and large, bright-eyed, eager, deeply spiritual intellectuals who want to be challenged, educated, and stretched. They are ordinary people—usually women and usually middle aged—who want a good story with strong values, likable characters, a fast-moving plot and a satisfying ending.”
Angela Hunt’s characters drink, commit murder, curse, divorce, abuse their children, have affairs and interact with demons. In Christian novelist Frank Peretti’s The Oath, characters confront raw evil, murder one another, take secret oaths, commit adultery and fight dragons (what?!)
In my opinion, and drawing from personal experience, I have found Christian fiction to be unfulfilling as a literary or a spiritual experience. Due to the restrictions placed upon the authors by their audience and their publishing houses, creativity is limited. In addition, I find the watered-down spiritual principles, which are often haphazardly thrown in, uninspiring. I find taking serious doctrine and placing it in a fictitious setting alongside serious sin to be uncomfortable for me as a reader and as a Christian.
So,
Do the conventions of Christian fiction stifle authors’ creativity and result in substandard work?
What qualifies as Christian fiction? Is it OK to place doctrine alongside murder, adultery, and other grievous sins? If all it is, is a nice story about a good girl, that never mentions anything opaquely religious, is it really religious fiction?
Has the internet become a religious battleground? Scientology has been a controversial religion since it was founded in 1954 by L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology has received criticism for claims of brain washing, controversial personality tests, dangerous practices in medicine, and for many other controversial claims.
On January 21, 2008, a group of computer hackers called Anonymous attacked the church of Scientology with some very innovative tactics. Anonymous used the internet to spread their message against Scientology. Along with live protests by masked boycotters, Anonymous attacked Scientology online. They hacked into the Scientology website where they used a denial of service attack to shut the website down.
Anonymous also posted videos online that spread rapidly. Though the video was only two minutes long, it had over 500,000 views within just a few days.
The videos posted from Anonymous threatened to destroy the church.
“Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind--for the laughs--we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent, and we are prepared for a long, long campaign.”
The hacker group continued to post anti-Scientology videos on Youtube. Within a few days, Anonymous opened the Scientology website.
So, whose side are you on? The Annonyous group believes that they are upholding their freedom of speech , but it may be at the cost of somebody’s freedom of religion.
Where do we draw the line for freedom of speech? Protesters feel that they have a freedom of speech to protest a cult whose beliefs they believe to be dangerous.
Do you support Scientology and it’s freedom of speech and religion, or do you support Annonymous and their freedom of speech to a religious cult they believe to be dangerous?
As I began to study religion and the internet it was amazing how you really can find anything on the internet. There is so much information out there—some of it useful and some it not. The thing about the internet as we all know is that anyone can post something or create a website on the internet. But some religious organizations have done an especially good job in setting their messages apart from the others.
Two religious groups that I think have used the internet to effectively set themselves apart are the Mormons and the Scientologists. A bastardization of both religions’ goals in using the internet would be to promote awareness and to encourage conversion.
Whether or not you believe in either religion, the LDS church and Church of Scientology are both organized cultures—with distinct beliefs and hierarchy. Both churches have a lot of coverage in the media, but especially on the internet. They also both have well-designed websites set up by themselves to answer questions about their beliefs, to provide comfort, and to encourage viewers to learn more (and ultimately convert). The Mormon website, as you all know, is Mormon.org. The Scientology website is Scientology.org and they also have a video website (http://www.scientology.org/#/videos/the-basic-principles-of-scientology) that is very similar to Mormon.org.
The most interesting thing that I found about the religions and their use of the internet was specifically their use of advertising on the internet. Using Google type in Jesus Christ or Jesus or Christ and every time Mormon.org comes up in the Sponsored Links section. Doing the same thing but using the word spirituality Scientology.org comes up. And words like church or religion often bring up both Mormon.org and Scientology.org.
I admit that I do not really understand how the Google Sponsored Links section works, but it appears that both of the churches are paying top dollar to have their websites represented in these searches.
Do you think that design and layout of a website makes a huge difference in the appeal of that religion on the internet or is the message more important? What do you think the perceptions are of people that see other religions advertising on the internet?
With all this talk about various religions and their interactions with mass media, I think it is time we take a look at how the non-religions make use of modern technology: particularly the Internet.
Atheism is a broad term used to describe both (a) people who do not possess a belief in the existence of deities, and (b) those who actively disbelieve in deities. Most phenomena that you find on the Internet are generally manifestations of the latter group.
Atheists-dot-org is a web-based organization of American Atheists promoting atheist ideals. Features include headline news about atheist issues, blogs endorsing an increased separation of church and state in order to protect the non-religious freedoms of non-believers, and announcements of calendar events such as “Blasphemy Day” (the highlight of which is, of course, the opportunity for de-baptism).
Atheistbus-dot-org is the official website of the atheist bus campaign, courtesy of the British Humanist Association (BHA) in the United Kingdom. Their main contribution to the atheist cause is the slogan-ads reading “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” that appear on the sides of buses in London:
The website urges visitors to take pictures of these buses and post them online, supposedly so the world can see the impact that they are making.
Common themes on these and similar sites include the debate between Creationism and Evolution; discussions about whether or not atheists possess any sort of moral compass and if so, where it comes from; and how to break free from the oppression of religious tradition and dogma.
This kind of organized un-religion stands in contrast to the modern cyber-churches like the Church of Fools. And yet, maybe atheist websites such as these actually work toward the same end as online Christianity or virtual Islam.
Greg Peterson writes about the effects of the information age on organized religion. For years, some clergy have fought to use religious dogma as a way to keep the common man in control. Before Gutenberg invented the printing press and Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, people had to rely on the word of their priests in their search for truth and enlightenment.
Today, almost all information that mankind has discovered has been uploaded to the Internet, and is available at the click of a mouse. Peterson highlights those whom C.D. Batson calls Questers: those who seek after more truth than their organized religious communities have been able to offer. In short, Peterson argues that through online communities, the Internet has empowered the individual to question traditions and seek for further enlightenment.
True, the atheists may be jumping to conclusions about the extent to which people are oppressed by religion. But if there is an Absolute Truth out there, how do the blogs and news feeds from atheist websites contribute to our Quest to find it? Does their constant encouragement to look beyond the status-quo effectively persuade people to denounce belief in the Divine, or does it actually lead the honest-of-heart closer to discovering the true Web Designer behind the universe?
As I was looking at all of the different websites and "online churches" I couldn't help but notice the somewhat repetitive plea for donations. Almost every single site that I stumbled across, there was a little box at the bottom where participants were asked to "support the church."
Although I do believe that it is important to support causes and different institutions that you believe in, most of the donation requests were very vague, and seemed rather sketchy. No clear information was given pertaining to where the money was going, and whose hands it was going to be in.
** The first example I found was on the Church of Fools website. I was curious as to what all the fuss was about, and I was even more surprised than expected. This virtual online church, put on by the Methodists, comes equipped with a program where one can build their own "character," and attend church with others. They can kneel, pray, listen to sermons, confess, and interact with other "church-goers."
In the side barthere is a link to "support us". Below is what followed:
SUPPORT US
Although Church of Fools is a virtual place of worship, it has real-life costs. We're also looking at ways of launching other online churches in the US, France, and Australia. If you'd like to support what were doing , please consider giving via credit card.
To make a credit card donation to the work of Church of Fools, please click one of the options below. Thanks!
Although it is not too pushy it is completely vague. It does not tell the reader where the money is exactly going. I feel like this is conniving, and really makes me question the real motives of this program. Is this so-called religious center just a way for some creative cartoonists to make money??
** I also felt like the whole cartoon element of the Church of Fools is rather distracting. The only reason I wanted to "enter the church" was to pick a character, and "play the game." It seemed like the video game, "the sims." I don't feel like I could take this as a serious church, and a way to worship. I think it is actually somewhat disrespectful and impersonal.
The second example I found regarding a plea for donations was found on the Buddhanet website. Buddhanet is a Buddhist education and information website. On this website there is a Buddhist e-library, the Buddhist magazine,religious audio, links, readings, etc. Right smack in the middle of the main page is a donations plea.
BuddhaNet is a not-for-profit Buddhist education and information service and is supported entirely by donations. If you would like to contribute to BDEA by helping us maintain BuddhaNet, you can now do so with confidence as this is a secure credit card facility.
This is for online credit card transactions only. If you would rather make a donation by post, please use the manual donation form. Thank you for your support.
Once again, the use of these donations is vague and unclear. Readers are expected to just trust that their money will end up in righteous hands.
I feel that alot of these websites have ulterior motifs. After giving readers a spiritual and uplifting message, they ask for money to support these great causes. They butter up the participants. Just when they are feeling refreshed and spiritually edified, they are asked to do something righteous. They are asked to give money so that others can experience what they have experienced. By doing this, participants are more willing to hand over the credit card. And I know that this money is not going straight to this great cause, and for the righteous people. It is for the profit of those same people who claim to only be in the "service of their lord."
This reminds of the Christmas program idea. Viewers watch heart-warming and emotional programs, and are then asked to send flowers to family members. These types of programs, including online religious programs wake up the generous side of us, and those behind these programs love to take advantage of this.
Questions:
Do you think that it is right to ask for donations on these websites, especially with such a vague description of where the money is going??
Where do you think all of these "donations" are going?
Do you think that people truly are being edified by these "online churches" and why??
.jpg)
mention God or Christ too many times in a song or a movie and people start getting antsy, and yet in many books Christ has become quite a popular archetype to use. I recently read a popular book, 
