Jane Adams: motivations

I think that it is obvious that in forming Hull House in Chicago, religion was, for Jane Adams, at the very least and element in her "master plan", but I don't' think that it was everything. Her motivations for helping the Urban poor can be traced back to her earlier years. Jane Adams grew up in a family of Quakers and that, I think, inherently planted some sort of a seed in her. The morals she learned as a child growing up no doubt helped influence her later accomplishments. Her father was also a great influence on her, which she makes very apparent in her writing. I think this influence in particular was very important. Because she looked up to her father so much Jane became the fan of equality that she was. She looked up to Lincoln, who was also a great influence, because of her father.

Jane's education played a key role as well. Because the college she attended was just that, a college (no longer a seminary), she learned different values that she otherwise may not have learned. With her college education she had a more diversified knowledge of the world. Not only was her school one of the liberal arts persuasion, but it offered a more secular view of the world that built upon the Quaker ideals that had already been instilled in her. It was all of these influences combined, I believe, that drove Jane Adams to view the world the way she did, and to do the monumental things that she did.

Rastafari: Because I Can't Think of a Title

One question that came up in class that I found very interesting was: without the oppression (or downpression) and persecution that the Rastafarian people experienced, and that Bob Marley wrote about, would the Rastafarian religion exist? and if it did to what degree would the religion be different than it is now? I think it is very interesting to think about the "what ifs" of this situation. I think that if the aforementioned oppression (downpression) had never occurred Rastafari would still exist as a modern religion. But to me, it seems, the religion would not be as widespread without this cultural aspect, because the main conduit through which the world learned about Rasta culture was the music of Bob Marley. Marley's music quite possibly could have been drastically different (at least lyrically) or even been nonexistent if he didn't have the angst caused by downpression. At the very least, without oppression, Rastafarian culture would just be less well known to the world than it is today. I don't think the oppression affects the size of the religion's population in either direction because even though there are people all over the world who are persecuted that could fit into the Rasta mold, but because of the exclusivity of the religion they wouldn't be able to be a part of it. If the oppression had never happened there would likely have been much less press coverage, keeping the religion more of a secret.


Another related idea that came up in class referred to the Rastafari ideal of seperating themselves from mainstream society. The question that was posed was: what would happen to the Rastafarian religion if mainstream conformed to their ideals and became Rastafarian. I think, first of all, that this isn't completely possible. It would be possible for everyone to convert to a similar lifestyle to the one that the Rastafarian people live, but the Rasta people would not let certain people partake in their religion. If this happened, as unlikely as it is, it would not destroy the religion. No doubt, though, it would be a devastating blow to the aims of the religion. Currently, a great deal of the Rastafari people's efforts are focused on being their own culture and shunning what is "Babylon", taking away that aspect of their religion would alter the nature of their religion a great deal.

During this unit on Rastafari and Rastafarian culture in general, we haven't talked a great deal about the book itself or the main ideas presented by Ennis Barrington Edmonds within it. I think that Edmonds' approach to Rastafari was very interesting. He was essentially using the religion to shoot down Weber's theories of charisma and routinization, but at the same time he revealed some interesting things about the Rasta culture. The middle section of the book (excluding the first and last chapters) were a very objective look at Rastafari and the culture that surrounds it. He does a good job of separating what he wants to apply Rastafari to and the description of what it is, so that the religion itself tells a story, and then Edmonds explains why it proves his point. A really interesting side affect of the book is how it shows the isolation of Rastafari as a religion. Weber made a generalization about religions when he posed his theories of charisma and routinization, Rastafari is simply one of the exceptions to this generalization, an outlier when it comes to religion. This highlights what is important in Rastafari culture. Rasta culture is based on the fact that they aren't like everyone else, they aren't Babylon. Because being out of the mainstream is what Rastafari is all about, it isn't surprising that it doesn't coincide with a theory that was made to apply to more mainstream religions.

Bobo Shanti Video

In the video I noticed a few things that we have been talking about in class and also a few things that I didn't expect to see. First I'll talk about the things that have already been reoccurring themes in our talks about Rastafari. The first thing that stood out to me was the first image that is shown on the screen, the lion holding the cross draped in Rasta colored banners. This image gave a good segue into the remote Bobo Shanti Sect of Rastafari. To me, the Bobo Shanti are a really good representation of the characteristics of Rastafari hat we have talked about. This group of people are definitely very spiritual and it is shown in all aspects of their lives. Most of the houses that the people were living in were painted red, green, and yellow. The area was also littered with banners sporting the sacred colors. The people live a very simple life away from the system, avoiding influence by other groups of people. The only participation that these people had in area trade was selling hand made brooms at the market. Most, if not all, of the people in the video had dreadlocks, which varied in length from person to person; what was different from what I've seen so far is the wearing of turbans over the top of their dreads.

There were a couple of things that surprised me a little though. One thing that stood out for me was the frequency of their worship. These people got up at three AM and prayed, then they played at 9 AM and then again at 3. They take every day as a holy day, while we would be, sleeping they are getting things done "spiritually, mentally, and physically" as the man in the video said. Another thing that surprised me was the blatant signs that spoke negatively about whites. There were signs that said "Black" written in black and "white" written in white positioned below "black". This is meant to imply that white is bad and black is good. Also there was a sign with the "R" of righteousness in black and the "X" of evil in white, associating white with evil and Black with righteousness. Ironically there is another sign that says "Equality and justice for all people", which makes a statement quite contrary to the other two signs.

Round 1: Kebra Negast vs. Augustine/Dr. Dino; Round 2: Kebra Negast vs. Psalms

In reading the Kebra Negast, there were a few things that really stood out to me. The first was its reinforcement of the importance of eloquent speech in order to be considered truly wise. It is mentioned in the Kebra Negast that Solomon was given wisdom by God and made to be in the likeness of God, but that is not what the Queen and everyone else praises him for. The Merchant of the Queen that visited Solomon did not mention his likeness to God, but his eloquence of speech: "He opened his mouth in parables, and his words were sweeter than the purest honey; his whole [behavior] was admirable, and his whole aspect pleasant." In the queen's encounter with Solomon the first thing she noticed was "... the eloquence of his speech." Even though Solomon was truly wise and favored by God, he was admired for his eloquent speech. This fact helps reinforce the point that Nate made in his blog about Dr Dino (Kent Hovind): Though the cause a person stands for may be completely ridiculous he can still gain support because of his ability to speak well... it is better to sound right than to be right. St. Augustine knew this when he wrote On Christian Teaching.He explicitly emphasized that a professor of religion/knowledge needs to be eloquent in speech or else his point will not be heard.

Despite Solomon being an instrument of God, it surprised me how independent he was. In the psalms there was a lot of psalms written as cries for help. They were written to ask God to come down from his throne and smite all of Israel's enemies and provide Israel with abundant resources for a prosperous life. Solomon's prayers to God had a different tone than the ones in the Psalms. Solomon "... Did not ask for victory over his enemy, and he did not ask for riches and fame, but he asked God to give him wisdom and understanding whereby he might rule his people." Instead of asking God to do everything for him, Solomon asked God to give him the tools to get the job done by himself. The Kebra Negast, I think, has a bit more faith in humanity than the psalms show. Perhaps since Solomon was "the image of God" he wasn't technically human, but even the creation of a God-like human is a changed image from what the Psalms portray.

Blog #7: status of Ethiopia

The reading of the Kebra Negast outlines, through the story of Solomon and Sheba, how Ethiopia should be nearly as holy a place as Israel. Comparing the slide show about Ethiopia to the Kebra Negast, it seems that modern day Ethiopia has recessed from its former glory. In the slide show the country was shown in poverty and the churches seemed much less large and elaborate than the kinds of religious structures found in Israel. The Ethiopia described in the Kebra Negast was wise, elegant, and respected; a stark contrast to the images of modern poverty stricken Ethiopia. The Kebra Negast speaks of pursuing true wisdom, something that can only be pursued when physical needs are not at the forefront; it is difficult to ponder true wisdom when a country is focused on feeding its people.



Of course, Ethiopia holds a certain amount of gravity in Christianity due to the rumor that it is in possession of the Ark of the Covenant. This fact is mentioned in the subtitle of the Kebra Negast: "being the history of the departure of God and his Ark of the Covenant from Jerusalem to Ethiopia." Obviously the idea that Ethiopia possesses the Ark of the Covenant was implanted centuries ago (not just a passing rumor). Ethiopia's former status is outlined in the Kebra Negast with the story of the conception of the Queen's son (which is really what the whole thing is about). The Queen fell in love with the wisdom of King Solomon and wished to learn from and admire him, so she went to see him. King Solomon heard from God that he had to impregnate the queen to give Ethiopia higher status. She had King Solomon's son and thus the blood line of Solomon came to Ethiopia by the will of God.

Dearborn Documentary

Today I attended Professor Smith's documentary on Arab/Muslim culture in Dearborn Michigan. I found the documentary very interesting. It was initially interesting simply because I had never heard of Dearborn Michigan or that it had a higher than average Arab/Muslim American population. After I got over the shock of learning these fantastic new facts I was interested because I wanted to know a little more about Arab/Muslim culture in America (which I did). The documentary reveled to me a something that I have never really given much thought to: that Arab culture and Muslim culture do not always go hand in hand with one another. This is why I've been using "Arab/Muslim", instead of one or the other, in the first part of this writing. It was interesting to find out that one half of this Arab/Muslim population in Dearborn wants to focus on Arab culture while the other focuses on Muslim Culture (there is a difference. The differing views put into perspective the dynamic between culture and religion that we have been talking about in class. Religion conducts aspects of culture, but culture also conducts aspects of religion (such as the National Center for Islam in Dearborn).

Christian Symbols

This picture is a depiction of the birth of Jesus Christ, which is, to put it lightly, an important event in Christianity. The picture depicts a couple symbols that were developed because of the events summarized by the picture. The painting also makes use of other, previously established symbols, to emphasize the importance of the images. The star directly above the baby Jesus is a symbol that was created as a result of the story told in this painting. The star, in Christianity (and this painting), is used in reference to the star that the three kings from the east used to guide them to the baby Jesus. The images of the animals and the manger represent, in Christianity, the lowly nature of the birth of Christ. They show the sacrifice made by Jesus, by not only becoming human, but being born into a low class, where a crib could not be provided for him, born among animals. The baby itself is also a symbol established in the events depicted, the child is one of the first, and definitely one of the most important symbols in Christianity. The child is the first image of Christian salvation. These are symbols that prior to this event did not exist; they are, essentially, the basic building blocks (chronologically) of the Christian religion. Christianity exists because these symbols carry on the meaning of the story they represent.

Within the picture there are also symbols that, I would assume, previously existed. For example the image of angels, is no doubt an established image, even prior to the New Testament event occurring in the painting. Angels have, previous to the birth of Christ, been used as mediums through which God communicates with humans. Another widely used symbol that is present in the picture is the halo. Around the head of any sort of holy being within the picture is a ring of light (halo). The ring of light is used to help identify those beings in the picture that are holy.

This picture contains different religious symbols, old and new. The older symbols perpetuate the ideas that had previously been established; the new ones help to form new ideas and present them in a memorable fashion. Any sort of biblical painting similar to the one above, is usually packed with old news, it is the image itself as a whole that takes the old and adds to it the new. All religious symbols are used to take something intangible and put it into an image that can be comprehended. This picture uses previously established symbols (angels and halos) and puts them together in order to introduce a new symbol (the picture as a whole) in order to convey a message (Christ our savior is born (Jesus is no ordinary kid)) which ultimately has symbols pulled from it (star, animals, manger) which represent highlighted parts of the story. Symbols... gotta love 'em.

On Christian Teaching: Book 2

In book 2 of St. Augie's On Christian Teaching I encountered some very interesting passages. One that stuck out to me was about the types of learning according to Gus (by humans vs. by divine power). In the by humans section I found some of the examples very interesting. SA started out by describing superstitious human constructs, such as: astrology, fortune telling, foretelling, etc. I found this very interesting because Gus condemns any sort of forecast of the future given by a human being, regardless of whether it is correct or not. What I think is interesting is that Jesus made predictions about the sequence of events leading up to his death and was completely correct about them. Jesus, in his time on earth, was a human being and would seem to fall under the same category as astrologists. The only difference between the two would be the origin of the foretelling: Jesus' predictions coming from God and an astrologist's from the stars (the devil). Obviously there is also a difference in the predictions in that Jesus predicted his own death for the most noble cause there could possibly be and the astrologist would be predicting for money. I just think that it is interesting that there are such similarities between who is condemned and who is worshipped. I think it is safe to say that Augie wouldn't be a big fan of modern day weather forecasters; they predict things based on human created inferences.

Another type of human created learning is essentially: art. Any sort of human expression of the things around him/her falls under this category; it is also an accepted form of human constructed learning, one won't be condemned for performing an interpretive dance. Both of these types of human created learning are based on natural God given things. They both utilize the natural world in order to make sense of things, one just oversteps its boundaries. Also, both of these types need to be interpreted, because they are human created, they can't necessarily be completely understood by all humans. Only ideas presented by God himself/herself can be understood universally and without any translation. This is related to Gus' methods for interpreting scripture: we have to interpret it because it was written by humans and passed along via a human created system.

An interesting point I came across in the "human created" section, was the part about lies. Augie says that lies "derive exclusively from mankind itself." This idea is part of why human created mediums need to be interpreted, whereas anything coming from God is wholly true and universal. One would think that some sort of evil spirit (ie. the devil, demons, etc.) would be the original source of falsehood by influencing humans, and that these spirits tell nothing that is truthful. On the contrary Augustine himself mentioned that demons influence humans to correctly predict future events, which would be truthful. I think that a being that presents a statement is not labelled as "evil" or "good" based on whether it lies or not, but the intentions of that statement. A demon may influence a person to always tell the truth, but that truth causes pain and suffering each time. Whereas a person may lie constantly but each time he does he saves a person's life, should that liar be condemned? Humans created lies, but lies can do positive things (though admittedly they do some really bad things too).

Book 2 of Augustine applied to The Book of Psalms

One thing that St. Augustine mentioned early in his language/interpretation section of book 2, was his suggestion of cross reference. SA seems to have a method for decoding scripture. To him, it is best to know any of the literal translations or to know practically know everything about Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. I know nothing about any of those languages or how to translate them to English; learning them prior to reading the Psalms would take a little bit more time than I have. The next best strategy according to Augie is not relying on a single translation of the text. Not all translators of the text are going to do it the same way. They'll have different levels of literal accuracy as well as varying levels of intelligence (His Saintliness doesn't think very highly of some translators). In hindsight, looking at the translation of the Psalms in my bible could put into perspective what the psalms were trying to say. Alter's translation could be more literal and meant to be more objective translation, whereas my bible could be a little less literal and meant to be read by believers. Cross referencing would be a very useful tool. Another basic ground rule that Gus set down for reading scripture is that you have to be smart... I don't know if I would live up to his expectations, but I'd like to think I'm smarter than the average bear.

When it comes to signs within text, St. Augustine separates them into two types: literal and metaphorical. A literal sign would simply be a word that represents a single specific object (for example: bovem, which is the Latin representation for an ox). Metaphorical signs are words that mean one thing but represent another (ox is used to represent a worker of some kind, in this case a worker for God). Gus highlights two reasons that textual signs go wrong: ambiguity and unknown signs. Ambiguity messes up interpretation of a text when a sign in a certain language has multiple meanings in a different language. Some translators (the dumb ones, according to St. A) will pick the wrong meaning and it can severely alter the text. Unknown signs are words in a language that do not have a direct translation in another language; in this case translators must simply infer what the text means. and can be terribly wrong.These are essentially the reasons that cross referencing translations of a reading can help pull out what the base ideas are for the text.

Earlier in the Psalms unit we did look at a different translation of one of the Psalms from The Bay Psalms Book. SA outlined the fact that interpreting translations relied on the reader's knowledge of the language in which it is written. What made the Bay Psalms translation difficult to cross-reference was that the style of English in which the psalm was written was not as familiar as the modern version that we use now. Because of this the translation was of limited helpfulness. If more translations were presented it would really give a better idea of what the basis for the psalms was meant to be.

Universality and Hypocrisy in the Psalms

As I wrap up my reading of the Psalms, I can't help but notice some characteristics that seem to span almost every one of the psalms. One that is almost impossibly obvious is that the psalms are all written about subjects that would have been fairly universal to the people of the time. Things such as: war, sex, violence, etc. tend to pop up occasionally in the text. These things are all of human invention and practice. They are things that a person living in the times that the psalms were written in would encounter at some point. The text occasionally will reference a specific occurrence of human fallibility (such as David's little fling with Bathsheba), but a lot of the texts refer to hypothetical situations that, in my opinion, are written in a way that would make the reader apply the situation to his/her own life. In this regard, I see two kinds of Psalms (though I acknowledge that there are other separations): ones that lead by example (historical stories (David and Bathsheba)) and ones designed to be optimally applicable (hypothetical stories/stories with a nameless narrator (not famous)).

Another feature that I noticed tended to be a trend throughout a great deal of the Psalms is how much the text seems to contradict itself. Often the text is hypocritical when it comes to its attitude towards violence. In a lot of the Psalms there is mention of wicked people enacting violence on the narrator/someone close to the narrator. There is a definite negative tone towards the violent actions of these "wicked" individuals. Often after describing and deriding the terrible deeds of the "wicked", the narrator will either ask for God's help to destroy that person, or recount how the Lord gave them strength to cut down each of his foes. This contradictory style, to me, seems to add to the universality of the text. If the reader looks at the text through a lens that is seeking to be above violence they will focus on the "the wicked are being naughty people" section, emphasizing that "wicked" people are the violent ones. A reader seeing the text with more of an "eye for an eye" point of view would probably concentrate on the vengeance section. By covering both sides of the story (despite the fact that it's done in a contradictory manner) the Psalms become more applicable.

The above sections, I realize, have a distinctly negative tone towards the writing in the Psalms. This tone is not purposeful. Though I may not agree with the some of the ways it is done, I believe that a religious text needs to be fairly widely applicable. In my opinion, a religion is only as good as its applicability; it needs to adapt to cultural changes without a drastic overhaul. Religion needs to stick to its guns though. If a religion completely changes its core values to appease society then it betrays itself. That's why I think that the contradictory statements in the psalms are sort of walking a thin line; if there is too much of a contradiction it is likely that the ideas will be rejected.

Ethics in Psalms

Within the Psalms there are many occurrences of the narrator begging forgiveness, but not as many that outline exactly what they are begging forgiveness for. In psalm 69, verses 12-13 it is stated "I made sackcloth my garment and became for them a byword. I was the talk of those who sit in the gate, the drukards' taunting song." I interpreted a couple of things from this passage. The entire psalm is the narrator's pleadings with God to forgive his sins. This section is him trying to look good for God; so first he fasts, and then he wears a sackcloth, which is a very low quality garment. If it is good to dress plainly then it can be inferred that it would be unethical in God's eyes to dress in a great deal of finery. Next the narrator speaks with disdain for the drunkards at the gate, which shows that excessive drink wouldn't be ethical.

Another passage from the psalms that shows the ethics at the time of the writing of these psalms comes from Psalm 51. In lines 1-2 of this psalm it outlines an event in history that we discussed in class as well: "For the lead player, a David psalm, upon Nathan the prophet's coming to him when he had come to be with Bathsheba." This passage tells of David committing the sin of adultery with Bathsheba, which would be considered unethical.

One thing that really surprised me about the psalms is the sort of disregard for a certain ethic that I would usually associate with Christianity: killing. Throughout these psalms there are multiple references to was and killing. The narrators often ask God to help them kill the "wicked people" that stand before them. A great example of this is in psalm 18, in which it says "I pursued my enemies, caught them, turned not back till I wiped them out. I smashed them, they could not rise, they fell beneath my feet." (verses 38-39) as well as "I crushed them like dust in the wind, like mud in the streets I ground them." The narrator seems to be perfectly okay with violently killing people without even thoughts of mercy, whilst he begs for mercy for his sins (besides killing). Later in the psalm the narrator says "[God] frees me from my enemies, yes, from those against me You raise me, from a man of violence You save me." (verse 49). It is obvious from this section that it is bad to be a violent person, but for some reason our narrator can get away with it.

Psalms Etc.

A discussion that we had in class this week really stuck in my mind. When we started to talk about the way that we judge religions. Professor Smith posed the question to us at the beginning of the class period: If a religion is one in which human sacrifices are required, would it still be a religion? According to the guidelines we've set down already on what a religion is, technically it is still a religion given that it has the characteristics that we've outlined. The question that we talked about, though relevant to what we are trying to figure out in class, made me think about how people judge religion. A question that occurred to me was: Where do we draw the line on moral standards in religion? If we claim to allow people the freedom of religion, what gives us the right to say that another person's religion is sick and wrong? Granted, human sacrifices in religion is a rather extreme example of this situation. But what if there was a religion in which the members have underage/premarital sex (safely of course) with as many of the other members of their religion as possible? Undoubtedly this religion would be heavily contested by some people. These people would base their judgments on what their moral beliefs(which is usually based on religious morals). If the situation is flipped, the people of this religion may not like the fact that other people wait until marriage to have sex, or that they even get married at all. The big problem with how we look at religion is that too often we view religion based on our religious views. If we look at religions objectively we see what our final answer to professor Smith's question was... that even though human sacrifice may not be socially acceptable, but it doesn't make the group that practices it not a religion.

In reading the psalms there are a few things that stuck out to me. One characteristic that I noticed about the Psalms is that they are designed in a way that the themes expressed in them would apply to most people of the time period they were written. For example, in some of the Psalms the narrator is praying for God to punish their enemies and to protect them. Having enemies is definitely something that is universal. The Psalms are designed to contain cultural universals. The Psalms are written to apply universally because religion exists to answer universal questions about humanity.

Psalm 2 (English English vs. modern English)

The first thing that I (and hopefully everyone else) noticed about the Bay Psalm Book version of Psalm 2 is the physical shape of certain letters, as well as the spelling of certain words. They are obviously much different than the ones that we use in modern English. Though this physical difference is irrelevant to the contents of the Psalm, I think that it is an important indicator of how much things have changed since the Bay Psalm version was written. It illustrates the vastly different world that these people lived in, in comparison to the modern world that we live in. Despite these facts, it is important to note that the ultimate meaning of the text remains the same throughout the years, all the while, the context to which it applied constantly changed.

As mentioned above, the text of the two versions of psalm 2 ultimately have the same meaning. The only real difference between the two is how it is written, it is translated slightly differently. There are very few cases between the two texts that may present different ideas to the reader. In line 12 of Alter's version of the Psalm it reads "With purity be armed." (Alter 7) where as in the Bay version of the Psalm, the line reads "Kiss ye the Son." The two versions present different actions that the reader should take to be protected from God's fury. The modern version presents an idea that is not something "attested to in the the Bible" (Alter 7) as Alter says himself. The Bay version is less heavy than the Alter version of this line. Instead of asking the reader to be ready for "battle" it simply requests that they kiss the Son.

I think what will differentiate these two translations of the Psalm is the context in which they will be interpreted. For the audience that the Bay version was written for, the text is something that incited legitimate fear. This text is sort of a what happens to the good people and what happens to bad. It's mostly warning to the people of what will happen if they do disobey God. I believe that in modern day this Psalm would not be one widely used in the christian religion. In our modern world with our "God-like powers" we feel invincible and above everything around us. I think that we want to avoid this kind of scripture because it makes us confront not only our sins, but our mortality. So we focus on texts full of God's love... not his rage.