Religion: Death and Body Disposal

Death is an inevitable part of human life. For many, it is feared. Throughout history, religion has attempted to explain death and speculate on what happens afterward, so it is less frightening. After death has occurred, the body must be disposed of. Because of the various explanations for the afterlife and the sacredness of a human body after death, different methods of disposal are used in different religious traditions.

The most common form of corpse disposal, in Western religions, is burial, usually in a cemetery. Burial is used by the major Abrahmic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

This practice of burial is based on examples from the Torah, such as a passage, “And [God] buried him (Moses) in the depression in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor.” Moses was buried by God, and the high status of Moses makes this way of disposal desirable. Christianity and Islam carried on this custom from Judaism, with some changes.


In Christianity, as with Judaism, the bodies are put in caskets to be placed in the ground. Grave markers for Christianity reflect the importance of the resurrection of Christ to their faith, as see on the one to the right. This is also part of the use of caskets. Most Christians believe in Judgment Day, when the God-devoted will be rewarded and the sinners punished. One aspect of this is the resurrection of the dead, therefore the bodies are still important after death.The Islamic dead are buried, but not in caskets. The body goes through a cleansing and ritual process, is covered by a shroud, and placed in the ground.

Although Muslims also believe in a form of the Last Judgment, they also discourage elaborate displays. Grave markers, if any, should be simple and not ornate. Islam teaches submission to God and excessive use of money on lavish items, such as a casket or expensive grave marker, is looked down upon. That encourages pleasure in earthly materials instead of devotion to God. Giving to the poor is also a major part of Islam, and wasting money with caskets and markers for the dead, who are gone from this earth, causes less to go to the poor.

In most Eastern religions, the body does not hold the same sacredness as in the Abrahmic religions. Saṃsāra, a concept in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism, is the cycle of reincarnation (portrayed by a wheel in Buddhism, see above). Because of this cycle, each human body is not very important; after death, the soul of the person is gone and it is just an empty shell. All of these religions use cremation as the most common method of corpse disposal.

Sikhs usually throw the ashes over a river. This comes from the story of the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, depicted below. Guru Nanak would meditate down by the river everyday. One day, though he disappeared, and when he reappeared 3 days later, he was filled with the spirit of God and began to spread the word of Sikhism. Throwing the ashes over a river, therefore, associates them with Guru Nanak and the significance of the river in the founding of their religion.



Buddhists usually cremate as well, but there are exceptions. In the mountainous country of Tibet, wood is scarce and the ground is hard. Neither cremation or burial are plausible. The people of Tibet perform sky burials instead. They cut the corpse in certain locations and place it on a mountaintop, to be eaten by animals, especially vultures. A main concept of Buddhism is generosity and kindness to all living things. Because the body is no longer occupied, giving it up as food for other living beings is a final act of kindness for the person’s body.


Another type of disposal was performed by Zoroastrians, before the 20th century. They believed that after death, the body was contaminated by a demon that rushed in. In order for it not to spread this contaminant to the earth or fire by burial or cremation, they built “Towers of Silence,” buildings with a flat roof to place the bodies on. They would leave the bodies there until the bones were bleached, which would then be taken to disintegrate and wash out to the sea. The Zoroastrians do not believe in reincarnation, until the final renovation of the world, and do not believe in any significance of the body after death. The dead body only begins to decay and therefore must be gotten rid of to keep everything else from being polluted.

The Baha'i House of Worship for the North American Continent

I live in Chicago, and I remember that my family and I went to visit the Baha'i Temple one day, probably 4 to 5 years ago at least. At that time, I didn't know anything about what the Baha'i Faith was. I think I remember asking my dad about it, since we were going to see it, but I don't remember his answer, or what he knew about it. My parents just wanted to go and show it to my sister and I because of the architecture and gardens surrounding it and because they thought it was beautiful. And it is. When we got there, I didn't care what the building was for, I just found it amazing. All the details and intricate patterns of the building, and the gardens. I don't remember much specific about it, but I do know that I walked around the outside of the building, just looking at everything, fascinated by the building.

I would like to go back, now that I know about the faith. We also didn't go inside when I was there, and the pictures of the inside look equally as beautiful. Something that I think I noticed while there, but understand more now are the details on the exterior, showing symbols from other religions. Something I wonder now is, what do other religions think about this? Have any objected to the use of their symbols?

Some of the Baha'i rules seem odd. They have these symbols from other religions on their temple itself. Yet, they only used donations from Baha'is to fund the construction of it. They sometimes include everyone, sometimes exclude people. I could see accepting funds from people outside the religion being beneficial to their cause. The temple built by everyone, not just those who have accepted the faith. But then again, their purpose is kind of to get others to accept their way, so I would assume they must exclude outsiders at times. I guess not accepting outsider donations is a way of separating themselves and showing that they do believe in certain things and interpretations.

Founders of Religions

From reading about the Rastafari and Baha'i faiths, I started wondering about the founders, leaders, and prominent people of the religions. I thought it was interesting that Haile Selassie was believed to be God incarnated by the Rastas, and he was alive during this time, but not much is available about what he says or believes. It's like he's revered from a distance and isn't really a part of the religion himself.

Baha'u'llah, on the other hand, started off following another man and his beliefs and ended up becoming a leader, and then proclaiming himself as "He Whom God shall make manifest." In this biography, we got to see his life and writings and how the Baha'i faith came about.

What makes these interesting to me is that they are so recent. Although I am not religious, pretty much the only exposure I've had during most of my life has been to Christianity. All the prophets and prominent people of that religion lived so long ago. Part of the reason I had trouble believing all of it was because I didn't see any prove. How could you prove something that happened so long ago? That's not to say that I believe all the claims of the more recent religions, but it's something more new to me, that interests me.

I enjoyed reading about Baha'u'llah because I got a sense of the kind of person that founds a religion. Even though some of it is a little hard to believe, you still see parts of his personality. I still would like to get inside his head more though, see his motivations for his actions. Did he truly believe the whole time that he was this messianic figure? Did he have doubts about himself and his cause when people were getting killed and his family was turning against him? Of course, knowing this would probably make him less of a religious figure because of the flawed human qualities it would show. But it's something I've always been curious about.

Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith

The process of founding a new religion, in this case the Baha'i faith, doesn't happen overnight. There seems to be a lot of elements that go into it. The two things that stood out to me the most were the eloquent, charismatic leader, and the hardships and oppression of a group of people.

Baha'u'llah didn't start out thinking he was going to found a new religion (at least I don't think so). He started out following the Babi Faith and the words of Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad. Through the years, these followers were hated and feared, and treated badly. Baha'u'llah was imprisoned, put into a dark pit for a while, exiled, and went through many rough times, along with those who followed him as a leader of Babis. Because of the nature of Baha'u'llah, he gained the respect and reverence of many people. He became a comfort in trying times, always strong in his convictions. His generosity captured people's attention and respect. His ability to stay calm, to be unfazed in the face of death, torture, and opposition amazed people. During the time when the Kurds tried to assassinate him, he didn't flinch or try to protect himself, but instead told a story, which touched some of the Kurds so much they "bowed low before Baha'u'llah and left (p 48)." Even though they were there to kill him. During another attempt by the Kurds to assassinate him, Baha'u'llah "sat down and spoke to them in such a way that they left amazed at the way their enmity and anger had been transformed into affection and acquiescence (p 53)." The founder of a religion must have this power of people in order to win them over. This coupled with the hardship and oppression of the Babis lead to them eager and willing to follow him.

The faith also gained prominence as rituals began emerging. "Within the Babi community there had been signs that affairs were about to enter a new phase...it had been the custom of the Babis to gather together in the evenings and chant their holy writings...Baha'u'llah began to give the Babis tablets of his own...to recite every evening (p 59)." Baha'u'llah was becoming a main part of the ceremony of the Babis, someone they listened to regularly. They held rituals around his words, making him the center of their faith.

The declaration of Baha'u'llah's mission made the Baha'i religion really begin. After he had built up his reputation, his respect, and his importance in this community of people, all that they were waiting for was this public declaration. His prestige in the community, which came from his charisma in the face of the hardships, had convinced pretty much everyone of his station already, he just needed to come and claim it. The rest of the work was set up by the many years and events prior.

Similarities of Music and Religion

So in our class discussions, we've been talking some about how religion gets borrowed and interpreted and changed through you picks it up. I've never really thought about it this way, I used to not like that religion's would borrow aspects because I thought that it was almost like lying. A religion's trying to say that they're right about their faith, but then what they base their religion on is parts of other religions and I thought that was kinda cheap. But from this class and talking about it, I see religion differently, not looking at just the faith side, but the social side and how it's used.

Because of this, and looking at the Rastarian faith, I noticed how music is similar to religion. In my last free post, I also write about music and religion, so I figured I'd go on about that. Music is also similar to religion in the way it evolves. We talked about people borrowing stories or ideas and making them their own in religion. This also happens in music, which was talked about a bit in the Rastafari book. People build on previous music genres, change it to fit their lives or positions or whatever, and create something new. I think it's interesting to find parallels between music genres and see how something might have been adapted from something else. And I've always considered that a good thing, a sharing and borrowing of ideas that creates something new. Rastas are a great example because that religion did both of these things; borrowed and changed religious aspects and created a new musical form based on others.

I tried to find a video to illustrate this and this was the best I found, plus it includes Bob Marley.

The Bobo Shanti

The first thing I noticed about this group of Rastafarians was their clothes. They have uniform men and women outfits, quite unlike Bob Marley and kind, who wear many different types of clothing. I noticed the backup singers for Bob Marley wore traditional African clothing, while he seems to usually wear casual, more Western style clothing, which thinking about it, seems a little odd. But the Bobo Shanti's clothing was more Christianized. The women wore nun-like outfits, and the men, long-sleeves and cloaks. The colors are specific to the Rastas, but the style is more Christian. This is very different from the Bob Marley kind of Rasta, who either employ African traditional dress or Westernized clothing.

In the beginning of the narration, it's revealed that the Bobo Shanti are "preparing for the moment to finally cross the Atlantic." As we talked about, Marley's take on the journey to Ethiopia/Africa is more spiritual, a mental state, instead of actually going there. However, these Rastafarians apparently still believe that that is what they should do. It's also said they are the most traditional, which is reflected in this. They haven't changed with the times. In Chapter 5 of Edmonds' book Rastafari, he explains how the Jamacian government started working with the Rastas and sent missions to African countries to see if they would take Rastafarians. But they weren't really wanted there. So after this, probably, is when the view started changing from a physical 'exodus' to a mental one.

The Bobo Shanti seem very isolated. More well-known Rastafarians live in Jamaican society and openly reject Western ideals and are active in speaking out with music. These Rastas however, seem to keep to themselves, at least from this video. They have their own views, but do not preach them using song or anything else. One of the women who speak though, says that they are scattered, so perhaps there are other Bobo Shanti who are more integrated into society.

There is a greater emphasis on the teachings of the Bible as well. I didn't notice much mention of the Bible in Bob Marley style Rastafari. There's influence from it of course, but no direct passages quoted, or specifics to the Bible itself, just the ideas within it.

The ceremony is also a big difference. Bob Marley style Rastas seem to do the go-with-the-flow kinda thing. The Bobo Shanti have more organized religion type aspects, with the rituals and praying and community activities. Overall, the Bobo Shanti are more Christianized, organized, and traditional than the Rastafarians like Bob Marley and those he reaches through his music.

And just as a last thought, did anyone else notice the part about the signs? There's a sign that says 'equality and justice for all people" and then the next sign is "black [over] white" as the narrator says "goodness over evil." I haven't noticed much dehumanizing of whites by Rastafarians, more rejection of white ideals as black ideals and the colonial rule, but this seems a little contradictory. I don't know if it was purposefully narrated that way, seeing whites as evil, but I would think that equality and justice for all would mean that blacks and whites were equal...

Uniting Music

Starting to talk about the Rastafari movement got me thinking about music in religion. I think that many people think of Bob Marley and reggae music when Rastafari is mentioned. There is so much connection to religion and music, and we've talked about it some with the psalms. I think part of the reason music is so important in religion (some more than others) is its ability to bring people together. Bob Marley and reggae is a perfect example. Maybe music became so important because there is no real central organization to Rastas. Community is a huge part of religion and music helps create community so music and religion go together. I like the music aspect of religion because of the fact that it brings people together. There are things about religion that tear people apart, that create conflict, that turn people against each other and kill each other. But music, especially if you listen to some of Bob Marley's songs, promote love and harmony. It promotes human rights and taking a place in the world, but not through conflict and war. It is also something that I think everyone can enjoy. I am not a Rastafarian, I don't even believe in God, but I still enjoy music written about or inspired by God and religion.

The Queen of Sheba

From the very beginning of the reading of the Kebra Negast, you get a sense of the importance of Ethiopia. In section 20, "Concerning the Division of the Earth," it is stated that "the Emperor of Ethiopia is the firstborn and eldest son of Solomon." This is after the events in the Queen of Sheba story, but it starts out portraying the significance and then goes into how this came about.

After the merchant Tamrin went to Israel and learned from King Solomon, he desired to go back to Ethiopia. Right at the start we get the idea that Ethiopia is a nice place to be, if he wants to give up all the wonders and riches of being in Israel to go back to it. And when the Queen learns about Solomon, she immediately sees that she must go to him. She is such a good, wise queen that she doesn't hesitate in her conviction of the wisdom of Solomon.

It is written that many others came to learn from Solomon, but that only takes up one line. Through this story it is shown the special attention Solomon gave to the Queen. She was wise, she accepted the word of God, and decided this is the way her country will be ruled from then on. But then, she wished to go back. Again, another person giving up the life in Israel to go to Ethiopia. She learned what she could from Solomon and now wanted to go back to her country and improve it by using what she learned. Israel was the source of the greatness, but it was then passed on to Ethiopia, which was worthy of it.

From reading up on Wikipedia, other accounts, such as that in the Hebrew Bible, do not mention any sexual relations between the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon. The Ethiopian version is unique in that and it presents a very different image. Solomon chose out the Queen, hoping to "give [his] seed in her." He wanted a continuation of his line in Ethiopia and places where his wisdom and belief in God could spread. Ethiopia, therefore, is a very significant place. Solomon sees this in his vision after sleeping with the Queen as well. He see a sun that shines over Israel, but then goes to Ethiopia and "lighted up the country of Ethiopia; peradventure that country shall be blessed through thee; God knoweth." From this story, it seems the sacredness of Israel is going to be transferred to Ethiopia: a pretty big deal I'd say. And after the birth of her son, the Queen decrees that women will no longer rule the country, but only men from Solomon's line. The country is ever connected to Israel and this line of men. It is the country that was chosen to carry on Solomon's line and the lifestyle of the faith.

Conceptual Blending

When I first started reading this, I was so lost, especially thinking about how it applies to religion. But then after reading, I started thinking specifically about how they relate. I was surprised at how much conceptual blending I could think about in religion. People come together in religions and have stories, oral or written, about life and things in life and how to behave and so on. And these stories have morals for how people should live. Having a moral automatically makes people relate the story to themselves. They may think about how they would behave in that situation, or when in a certain situation they will remember that story and remember how to act. The stories don't have to be true and they probably don't even have to be believable, but because of this blending mechanism we have, we can span the time period or place to blend our story and that one.

The skier and waiter example made me think about rituals. Every religion has certain rituals they perform, or things they can't eat, or they aren't supposed to do. And some of those things you can obviously see why they are rules. Most people think that 'don't kill people' is a good rule to live by. But other things have less obvious reasoning behind them. I don't know specifics of religions but I have heard that certain rituals or rules in some religions were brought about because of health reasons during the time. What better way to get people to do something (or not to do something) than telling them they'll go to hell if they don't? So the ritual or rule is given in a divine way, and people don't really think about the actual reason for it. The skier example reminded me of this because the beginning skier didn't know the position for skiing, but did for something else. So without thinking about how they were similar, he blended them. It's not a perfect similarity, but I think it works.

Rise of Atheism

I was reading the New York Times the other day and came across this article called More Atheists Shout It From the Rooftops. I thought it was interesting and reminded me of a post Anne put up a while ago. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the organization of atheists and humanists though. On the one hand, I think it's a really good thing because organized people have more power and influence. Also, people with the same or similar beliefs have some place to talk about it and feel comfortable with people like them. People are social, we need to feel like we belong somewhere. However, I'm a little hesitant because I think with groups and organization can come problems and conflict. If the humanist and atheist groups stay true to their purpose and stay open and willing to discuss, I'm all for this. But if people start thinking of themselves as better for whatever reason, or get into arguments about who is right and are not respectful or open to others views, I don't think it's as good of a thing anymore.

At the end of the article, there is some discussion of Pastafarians and I liked what the leaders said their goal was, "not confrontation, or even winning converts, but changing the public’s stereotype of atheists." Because earlier in the article, there are polls which "continue to show that atheists are ranked lower than any other minority or religious group when Americans are asked whether they would vote for or approve of their child marrying a member of that group." Apparently people still think that atheists have no morals or something? But anyway, I like the idea that they are trying to change people's views, without degrading them about their beliefs, just simply trying to find a place in the world.

Saint Augustine

The beginning of Book 2 of Saint Augustine on Christian Teaching I felt related quite a bit to interpreting the Psalms. From page 32 to page 34, he writes about the ambiguity and imagery in scripture and how deciphering that prevents boredom and makes the understanding of it so much more rewarding. Imagery is very powerful, and can make a statement, or warning, or rule mean more. But he emphasized knowing about the subjects or objects of these images and how that adds to the meaning. I think that is a good way to read the psalms. Understanding the significance of the images presented helps the reader understand what the psalms are trying to convey. However, this is obviously geared toward Christians. He writes on page 35, "In the matter of canonical scriptures he should follow the authority of the great majority of catholic churches...he should prefer those accepted by a majority of churches, and by the more authoritative ones, to those supported by fewer churches, or by churches of less authority." Just because the majority of churches accept an interpretation or translation does not mean that it is the right one. Much of the book also centers on how Christians should interpret scripture and the stages they go through to understand. At this point, it wasn't as helpful. That only works if you are Christian. A non-Christian interpreting or trying to understand does not go through this stages and does not feel "the holiness which makes it impossible for him not to admit and submit to the authority of the holy books..." I did, however, think the point about translations would be useful. He said to look at various translations that use the same basic wording to get the idea across, but the different words show the multiple levels of the translated word. The problem with translation is when the word does not accurately portray all that the original word meant. Looking at different translations can provide those multiple meanings. The notes in the Alter Psalm book did this sometimes, with notes about other translations, why a certain word was chosen, or a connotation behind a word or phrase. So some points I thought could be used in interpreting the psalms, however, the emphasis on Christianity and belief in God, I feel, makes it less accessible to some people.

Religion Interpretations

I was looking through religious videos on YouTube, and came across an interview with a man named Reza Aslan. He wrote a book called No god but God. So I looked it up, because I was interested in what it was about. I found a New York Times book review on it, and it reminded me of the psalms. This book is about Islam, the subtitle is The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. The review described how Aslan pointed out a main problem with the interpretation of Islam today, saying
"the notion that historical context should play no role in the interpretation of the Koran -- that what applied to Muhammad's community applies to all Muslim communities for all time -- is simply an untenable position in every sense.''
That reminded me of our talk about the psalms and all the interpretations that can be derived from them. I saw the connection because Alter only used the historical context as notes and in interpreting the translation, but that allows for whoever to read it then to interpret it in their own way. And I would think that most people don't take the psalms literally to apply them to their own time; I don't think there's too much sword fighting still going on. But I think Aslan is making a similar point. I haven't read the book, but I'm going off of this review. One sentence states how Islam has been reinterpreted over the years, "Over the 14 centuries that followed Muhammad's 22 years of revelation, Muslim kings and scholars distorted its tenets to serve their own narrow interests, and then cast these accretions in stone." When the highest people in society interpret something a certain way, I would assume it's a little hard for everyone else to go against that. So then you get people who believe that they're supposed to act a certain way, when that's not really what their religion is saying at all. I think the Psalms have in a sense wiped the slate clean of all previous interpretations and brought it back to the beginning, for it not to be interpreted based on previous biases. I think that is a problem with religion, that people get so set into an interpretation or view, that they don't want to change. And even though the times change, the social environment changes, people are reluctant to alter their beliefs.

"hail and fiery coals"

Psalm 18 presents a very violent, punishing God. This reminded me of our discussion on whether the God in these psalms was a universal god, or the god of a nation. This psalm, like many others, is about God destroying the enemies of the speaker. This one goes a bit further in detailing how God made the speaker (presumably David) strong and swift and a good fighter, and then helped him defend his enemies with his own God-given strength and the might of God behind him. This God is very specific to one person in this psalm. This is the first psalm (that I remember at least) where the enemies try to call out to God, and it says that "He answered them not." So it makes a distinction between the speaker, who had gone on about how he did everything according to what God said and never strayed, and his enemies, who apparently have no hope. A psalm like that is powerful in convincing people to kill their enemies. If it's God's will, he won't help them. There's no reason to feel remorse or guilt for killing people; they weren't worthy to live.

One line stuck out to me as odd. Beginning on line 48, the psalm states, "The God who grants vengeance to me...frees me from my enemies,...from a man of violence You save me." I thought this odd because of the extremely violent nature of God in this psalm. That line gives "man of violence" a bad connotation. Violence is wrong. Yet, the speaker goes into detail about how he crushes his enemies, "smashed them, they could not rise," "demolished them." I'd say that's pretty violent. And this is all with God's help, because the speaker needed saving. But, of course, the idea is that violence is ok because the speaker was going to be killed otherwise.

I think the incorporation of aspects from other religions is interesting. It seems like the writers took images or titles that they liked, that applied well and brought power to their monotheistic religion. Another reason for this, however, may be to alleviate the peoples of those religions, perhaps make them more likely to follow this religion.

Animals in Religion

I've always had a problem with how I thought religion (mainly Christianity because that's the one I've been exposed to the most) thought about animals. I grew up surrounded by cats and dogs, I've had mice, gerbils, hamsters, anoles, hissing cockroaches, and giant millipedes as pets (and probably more that I can't think of). When thinking of what to write for this blog, animals popped into my mind. It seems that early religions have so much to do with animals and the environment, and I feel like now, (well not exactly right now with all the environmental issues, but contemporary) religion gives people a stronger feeling of control and domination over the earth and animals. I don't really like this view, I don't think everything was created for humans, so I looked into it a bit more.

The Paleolithic cave art is basically all animals. Native American religions based their worldview on harmony with the earth and nature. Other traditional or tribal religions that I know of usually are animal or environment oriented. Obviously, their lives depended directly on the environment and animals for subsistence and shelter. So they lived in harmony with the earth and creatures around them. I never got the feeling that they considered themselves owners, rulers, or superior to animals.

On the Humane Society website, there's a list of some religion's official statements on animals. I skimmed through them, and most of what I saw was that the faiths have some guidelines for humane treatment of animals and care for the environment. The statements that were not just excerpts from scripture were mainly from the 21st century. There was one from 1990 and 1996, but the rest were in the 2000's. There became a need for it. We were mistreating the environment, so religions had to make statements against it in order to help. Now, I didn't think that religions said that people could do whatever they wanted to the environment and animals, but I felt like that was implyed a little bit. All I could find on this site were the good things though, which helped my opinion.

This statement I liked:
The 208th General Assembly (1996) approved the following statement, "No part of God's creation has value only in relation to human needs and human understanding…"
-from the Presbyterian Church USA

This one, however, I did not:
"Animals and all other creatures exist for the sake of humankind and may be used to serve human purposes."
-from the Roman Catholic Church

The Presbyterian Church made it less self-interested. My thoughts before were exactly what this was against; I had though that the world religions would consider animals and nature in how much it benefited humankind. So this statement raised my view.
The next one shot it down. I think the statement "exist for the sake of humankind" is dangerous and wrong. Of course, this has to do with me being non-religious in part, but I really do not think everything on the earth exists just for humans. But besides my own opinion, telling people that animals are for them does not seem like a good idea to me. That just makes it so much easier for people to justify cruel actions towards animals, because it is for the good of mankind. And then that leads to destroying the environment for industry and agriculture, no matter the harm to the creatures whose habitats they were.

There were other statements by the Roman Catholic Church that people should live in harmony with all of God's creations, but even so, I think that giving people the view that they are superior to all other creatures can lead to destruction. Why can't we all just be part of this world, and work to live in harmony, without anything "dominating" over another?

Psalm 2

First impression of the Bay Psalm Book's translation of Psalm 2: hard to read. Obviously the language used is different, which fits with the time, but the way it reads is less smooth as the version in The Book of Psalms by Robert Alter.

The line lengths in the Bay translation don't vary all that much. It normally has a longer line followed by a shorter line, but all in all, it's neat and tight. The Alter version is a little more varied and spaced out; each line carries on a thought and the next thought is the next line. In order to keep the neat, tidy sense, the Bay version has completed a thought or sentence in a line and continued to another within the same numbered line. For example, line 4 in Bay has a semi-colon, and goes on. In Alter, whats after the semi-colon is the start of the next line. This happens again in line 7 of Bay. This leads me to think that the Bay version was more concerned with things looking good and following certain guidelines rather than being worried about how well the psalm flows as a poetic writing. From what I know of early American religion, it was strict. I would think that the rhythm and flow of the text wouldn't really matter to them; that was extraneous and would make the psalm into an artistic form instead of it's true purpose, speaking of God. The Alter version doesn't leave out the message, but puts in it a more poetic form so that it can be enjoyed either or both ways.

The word choice is various parts of the Bay psalm stuck out to me as well. In some places, the wording is a lot stronger than the Alter version, but in others, it's weaker. The first line of Bay read much stronger to me. "Rage" and "furiously" compared to "aroused." Also the change of "nations" and "Heathen" struck me as odd. I thought it may have been used because of the strong feelings for heathens or pagans and serve sort of like a warning. When it's used later, in line 8, the "Heathens" are given away by God to the king, making them property. Seeing heathens as property, or something less than humans looks to fit with the thinking of the time. Back to the strength of word choices, there were places, specifically line 3, 5, and 8 in the Bay psalm that did not seem to have the power behind it that the parallel lines in Alter did.

Line 3
Bay - "their cords bee from us throwne."
Alter - "let us fling away their bonds!" (punctuation helps too)

Line 5
Bay - "Speak to them in his ire, and wrath: / and vex them suddenlie."
Alter - "The will He speak to them in His wrath, / in His burning anger dismay them..."

Line 8

Bay - "and of the earth thou shalt possesse / the utmost coasts abroad."

Alter - "the ends of the earth."

Another note is the capitalization of "He," "His," "My," "Myself," "Lord (although it's capitalized once in Bay), and "Him" in the Alter version. In the Bay version however, "King" and "Son" are capitalized. It seems from this that the early view was that the king, the chosen one is very high standing, much closer to God than anyone else. Emphasis is placed on the chosen one, which may align with the thinking of early Americans of the power and status of those kings. In the Alter version, more emphasis is placed on God. He is more distant and hard to reach, and deserves respect and the worshiping capitalization of any pronoun associated with him.

So, to wrap up my thoughts on this, the Bay translation of Psalm 2 chooses neatness and conformity over rhythm and has a king that is so close in relation to God that he deserves to be capitalized. The Alter translation goes for smooth, poetic feel as well as a strong vision of God.

I looked up religion videos on this website TED, which stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and is a really cool website that contains talks from TED conferences by great speakers and intellectuals. This is the page of talks about religion. I didn't watch it yet, but there's a talk by Billy Graham. I've watched Julia Sweeney's video, which is very funny. The other one I watched, and really liked, is Michael Shermer talking about strange beliefs. He is the founder of the Skeptic Society and disproves myths and superstitions, and talks here about why we believe things and don't take into account all of the facts. He includes seeing the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese and the sides of buildings. Also, he plays "Stairway to Heaven" backwards, and when you know what it's supposed to say, you hear it clearly. Although this talk was about strange beliefs, not normal religious beliefs, it made me wonder about that. In Julia Sweeney's talk, she recounted an experience with two young Mormons looking to teach her about their religion. She thought it was crazy, and wondered how anyone could believe it. But then she says that she can't judge. If she was hearing about Catholicism for the first time, she said that she would probably think that it's a little unbelievable as well. But so many people believe. Why? Maybe if everyone understood psychological processes, why we see things that aren't there, why we are prone to believe certain things, more people wouldn't believe scripture, at least so literally. But then again, maybe they would. Maybe some people, even in the face of evidence against them, would believe and have faith. It's something I think I would like to know more about.

Here's the Michael Shermer video from www.ted.com

A System of Symbols: Effigy Mounds

Geertz's religion definition: A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

The effigy mounds of Wisconsin were categorized into the 3 natural realms, air, earth, and water, and then the conical and linear mounds. A theory proposed by R. Clark Mallam says that the "mounds had been built to symbolize and ritually maintain balance and harmony with the natural world." The Native Americans lived off of the land and were closely tied to it; they relied on it for their subsistence and shelter. They shifted with the changing seasons and knew where to obtain food in certain areas and at certain times of the year. They worked alongside nature, not against it. That was the way in which they knew how to live and which kept them alive.

The effigy mounds represent the realms of the Native Americans world. They could not survive without them all. The mounds in the form of animals signified air, earth, and water. Certain animals were attributed to certain realms; these were their symbols. The way in which they presented these symbols and used so much energy to make them into mounds shows their importance. The mounds may serve to show their respect for these realms and, as Mallam says, to maintain harmony with them. This represents their way of life; to respect and work with nature.

Why have religion?

We've been discussing in class ur-religion and the first concepts and ideas about religion. We read about Frazer, who thought that science would eventually replace religion altogether. But obviously it hasn't. Of course, we don't know everything yet, so one could speculate that it could still be possible, but that theory isn't really considered anymore. So why do we have religion? Why did these first peoples come up with otherworldly ideas and beliefs? And why does it still continue so strongly today?

I was raised in a non-religious family, so I feel like I have more of an outsider's view when it comes to religion. Perhaps because of this, I never saw the point. I didn't think I needed a higher power to tell me what I should and shouldn't do. I didn't think I needed someone to pray to in order for things to go my way. That's all I thought religion was, and I didn't understand why everyone believed. Then, in high school, my best friend started going to youth group at a church where some other people I knew went. I felt so left out. I thought it was unfair that I couldn't really be a part of that group because I didn't believe. My friend made a lot of other friends there and had a great support network. This was the first I really thought of religion as a community oriented group. I know people who go to church more for the people than for the service. I speculated in my last post that the primary element of religion was a need for belonging and community. But that can occur in many different types of groups, such as a family, a band, an age group. So why does religion need to come into the picture? Of course, community isn't the only reason religion forms.

I read a book called The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I don't agree with everything he says, I don't disagree with everything, but a lot of it made me think. A main part of his argument I was interested in was his claim that we don't need religion, that it actually does more harm than good. I don't remember all of what he wrote, I read it a while ago and I didn't have enough critical reading skills to really analyze what he was saying. I didn't know enough about religion then either. Growing up without one, I had a bias against them because I didn't see the point. As I learn more about them, I see the parts of religion that I hadn't noticed before, the parts that don't seem as crazy to me. But I still think about why we have religion. I've done fine without it. True, I feel like I would enjoy the sense of community from it, but that comes from my personality. Sometimes I think it would've been easier for me to interact with people and have a network of friends if I had been part of a religion. But I could've gotten that from many other places; sports, school, volunteer groups, anything else where you hang out with people. It has nothing to do with me not having a religion, just how I am.

So, individually, I don't need religion. But maybe humans as a species do? I don't know. I don't know if we will ever know. Just something to think about.

Paleolithic Art and Religion

Every form of religion has a component of community. There's the individualistic part of it, but that's not always defined as religion, but spirituality. I think the primary element of religion is a feeling of belonging, of connection to each other. We feel like we are connected to other people, to nature, to all of life and the universe, but don't quite know how to explain that. In the reading on Paleolithic Art and Religion, group activities were mentioned and the sense of connecting with nature and the netherworld. People could have done that individually in actuality, but for some reason, the idea that some rituals must occur in groups comes about and has existed ever since. The images painted in the caves and the ritual meanings themselves are obviously important and have some significance. But I think that religion in it's basic form comes about from a need to belong and be connected with people in the community. It is a way to be involved that gets everyone working together and brings people closer by sharing beliefs. From there comes the meaning associated with rituals and material objects and all the other elements that are associated with religion.