What Would Buddha Do?- Stephen Prothero - one of my former professors and unofficial advisor (in my mind) says it in a way classier way that I was able to express my frustration haha.
Unforgiven: Brit and Tiger and the Problem of Speed-Cycle Grace- Peter Laarman Just a nice lil article. I'm a total geek for RD. I'd love to write for them one day.
Meanwhile, school starts in two days and I hope to actually reflect much more often about what I'm reading there for it may be of some interest (if anyone reads this blog anyway). I trashed the Bento thing also, I got bored with it. Oh well. :)
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Today in American Dharma: Fox News Offends the Dharmic Traditions in an Epic One Two Punch
First of all, Happy New Year 2010 everyone! Let's start it off with some good old fashioned American religious-intolerance, shall we?
I try not to show my sometimes liberal socio-political bias (I will acknowledge that sometimes it exists), but I want to put it out there that I am not a fan of Fox News. Not so much because I am anti-republican but rather anti-insensitivity. This week was an epic one two punch for Fox News as they managed to offend two religions of Asia.
The first offensive remark came from Bret Hume while discussing the sex scandals of Tiger Woods:
In this clip Hume remarks that Woods would be better off a Christian than a Buddhist because he needs the kind of redemption only Christianity can offer. Now, far be it from me to blast Hume for his own personal opinion and religious conviction, but it does seem uncalled for that a supposed "objective journalist" make such a statement. Or am I being naïve that objectivity belongs in journalism? I know Fox News doesn't have a good track record and that the idea of the cable news networks is about talking heads with opinions, but honestly, has Hume gone too far? Or is the entire liberal media, and myself, overreacting?
The second clip comes to insult another of Asia's "isms": Hinduism. On his show Glenn Beck, probably one of the most dramatic news anchors I have ever witnessed had this to say about Hinduism's most holy river, the Ganges:
And of course... insulting others: Back, Bath and Beyond
So what do you all think? Were all these allowed b/c of freedom of speech or is there somewhere we must draw the line??
I try not to show my sometimes liberal socio-political bias (I will acknowledge that sometimes it exists), but I want to put it out there that I am not a fan of Fox News. Not so much because I am anti-republican but rather anti-insensitivity. This week was an epic one two punch for Fox News as they managed to offend two religions of Asia.
The first offensive remark came from Bret Hume while discussing the sex scandals of Tiger Woods:
In this clip Hume remarks that Woods would be better off a Christian than a Buddhist because he needs the kind of redemption only Christianity can offer. Now, far be it from me to blast Hume for his own personal opinion and religious conviction, but it does seem uncalled for that a supposed "objective journalist" make such a statement. Or am I being naïve that objectivity belongs in journalism? I know Fox News doesn't have a good track record and that the idea of the cable news networks is about talking heads with opinions, but honestly, has Hume gone too far? Or is the entire liberal media, and myself, overreacting?
The second clip comes to insult another of Asia's "isms": Hinduism. On his show Glenn Beck, probably one of the most dramatic news anchors I have ever witnessed had this to say about Hinduism's most holy river, the Ganges:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Temple of Hume | ||||
| ||||
And of course... insulting others: Back, Bath and Beyond
So what do you all think? Were all these allowed b/c of freedom of speech or is there somewhere we must draw the line??
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Today in American Dharma: Mormon Senator Writes a Hanukkah Song
Only in America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/us/politics/09hanukkah.html?_r=2&hp
Thoughts? Opinions? Yay Pluralism?
On a side note: it is quite the catchy song. haha
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/us/politics/09hanukkah.html?_r=2&hp
Thoughts? Opinions? Yay Pluralism?
On a side note: it is quite the catchy song. haha
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving
Enjoy this great article about American Civil Religion and Thanksgiving and have a great day with your family and friends everyone! :)
The Sacramental American Day of Thanks
The Sacramental American Day of Thanks
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Vicaarana: Oh My God. Questioning Religion in the Movies.
You may recall (or perhaps you don't) that I had a good discussion on Bill Maher's Religulous film in my Vicaarana section about Atheism. Well, about a week ago I saw a preview for this movie called "Oh My God" which seemed to be a different attempt to do what Bill Maher was also doing: grapple with a belief in God. Now, I normally like to go for the socio-cultural side of religion because who am I to say whether or not you should believe in God...its not my place. Buuuut all of these movies keep coming out asking that question: What is God? Why do we believe? I'm not going to weigh in on the question but rather address why I think this film Oh My God was more successful than Religulous in achieving the same intended goal: to put the question out there as to why we as human's believe and God and, more importantly in my eyes, why do we practice religion?
I've gone on the oh so popular religious studies rant about how religion is undefinable, so I will not get into it again. Instead I want to focus on the scope of these two films. In the beginning of his film, Maher says that he is not an atheist, but rather the best thing he can do is say that he does not know. Then he continues the film to pick out the craziest seeming Islamo-Judeo-Christian peoples he can find in the US (mostly), a bit of the UK, and Israel / Palestine and badger them to account for their belief in God and their religious practices. He ends this string of interviews with a plea to the world to give up religion (which is definitely crazy, by his count) and belief in God (which is what religion directly is) and to give in to science or we will destroy ourselves. So much for not being an atheist... My problems, besides the definition of religion itself, are many. Namely Maher's lack of consideration of all aspects of religious life and people, his focus on only the Abrahamic sphere of religious life, and of course his kind of hypocrisy for claiming he is not looking to make a case for atheism and yet being incredibly militant at the end of the movie complete with doomsday pictures and music.
I now want to turn to Oh My God! Oh My God was a documentary made by Peter Rodger that is in the process of being released in select theatres in big cities throughout the US (it was just release in NYC this weekend). The project was the filmmaker's attempt to wrestle with his own belief in God by traveling to 23 countries and interviewing countless people. He also enters with a similar intended mindset as Maher, which is one of neither atheism or theism, however, in my humble opinion, Rodger succeeded where Maher failed. Although Rodger's film is not perfect (for example, there is a huge focus on the celebrities over the common people, but as a small filmmaker when you can get a Beatle, a princess, and Wolverine to speak in your movie, I guess you take it), I really do think he created an interesting film. Rodger managed to a) cover a multitude of religions and worldviews from all different countries and b) to leave the answers to his questions about religion and God ambiguous in the end. Where Maher ended with judgement, Rodger ended with more questions and I think that more closely relates to what we are looking at here: there are no answers. There is no definition for religion. And that's ok. Perhaps that's why we study it and why its fascinating. Rodger's manages to capture the full spectrum of religious life and expression: the positive, the negative, and the multiple view points. These are all the areas of Maher's movie I found wholly unsatisfying, and they were found in this movie. Rodger's main question may have been about the ontological existence of God, but he also addressed why we practice religion as a people, how we do it, and what it means in our relations with one another. Sure he had director's OCD, used weird Moby-like music (according to the reviewer from Time Out New York), and seemed to jump around while moving between topics, but overall I do wish this was the movie that was wide released and Religulous was limited release. Overall, I thought that this movie better (not best, of course) addressed this enigma of our socio-cultural lives that is religion for a mainstream audience. Well, and it was just a goshdarn pretty looking movie, and that always helps!
Religion Dispatches Review of Oh My God
PS- If you happen to see this movie, respond back and let me know if you also noticed the strikingly interesting focus on Islam over all the other religions mentioned. I left the movie wondering what that was all about. Addressing Islamophobia?? haha.
I've gone on the oh so popular religious studies rant about how religion is undefinable, so I will not get into it again. Instead I want to focus on the scope of these two films. In the beginning of his film, Maher says that he is not an atheist, but rather the best thing he can do is say that he does not know. Then he continues the film to pick out the craziest seeming Islamo-Judeo-Christian peoples he can find in the US (mostly), a bit of the UK, and Israel / Palestine and badger them to account for their belief in God and their religious practices. He ends this string of interviews with a plea to the world to give up religion (which is definitely crazy, by his count) and belief in God (which is what religion directly is) and to give in to science or we will destroy ourselves. So much for not being an atheist... My problems, besides the definition of religion itself, are many. Namely Maher's lack of consideration of all aspects of religious life and people, his focus on only the Abrahamic sphere of religious life, and of course his kind of hypocrisy for claiming he is not looking to make a case for atheism and yet being incredibly militant at the end of the movie complete with doomsday pictures and music.
I now want to turn to Oh My God! Oh My God was a documentary made by Peter Rodger that is in the process of being released in select theatres in big cities throughout the US (it was just release in NYC this weekend). The project was the filmmaker's attempt to wrestle with his own belief in God by traveling to 23 countries and interviewing countless people. He also enters with a similar intended mindset as Maher, which is one of neither atheism or theism, however, in my humble opinion, Rodger succeeded where Maher failed. Although Rodger's film is not perfect (for example, there is a huge focus on the celebrities over the common people, but as a small filmmaker when you can get a Beatle, a princess, and Wolverine to speak in your movie, I guess you take it), I really do think he created an interesting film. Rodger managed to a) cover a multitude of religions and worldviews from all different countries and b) to leave the answers to his questions about religion and God ambiguous in the end. Where Maher ended with judgement, Rodger ended with more questions and I think that more closely relates to what we are looking at here: there are no answers. There is no definition for religion. And that's ok. Perhaps that's why we study it and why its fascinating. Rodger's manages to capture the full spectrum of religious life and expression: the positive, the negative, and the multiple view points. These are all the areas of Maher's movie I found wholly unsatisfying, and they were found in this movie. Rodger's main question may have been about the ontological existence of God, but he also addressed why we practice religion as a people, how we do it, and what it means in our relations with one another. Sure he had director's OCD, used weird Moby-like music (according to the reviewer from Time Out New York), and seemed to jump around while moving between topics, but overall I do wish this was the movie that was wide released and Religulous was limited release. Overall, I thought that this movie better (not best, of course) addressed this enigma of our socio-cultural lives that is religion for a mainstream audience. Well, and it was just a goshdarn pretty looking movie, and that always helps!
Religion Dispatches Review of Oh My God
PS- If you happen to see this movie, respond back and let me know if you also noticed the strikingly interesting focus on Islam over all the other religions mentioned. I left the movie wondering what that was all about. Addressing Islamophobia?? haha.
Monday, October 19, 2009
A Hindu-American Blogger Gets Added to Beliefnet
I am an unapologetic reader of beliefnet.com... perhaps its a bit unacademic of me...but I like some touchy-feely spun religious stories every once and awhile (what can I say). One part about the site that I do especially like is the blogs. These blogs are usually by faith practitioners commenting on stories in their religious communities (to date, my favorite was the one on keeping Ramadan in America) . I was very excited to see an add on of my own particular interest. The newest blog is Om Sweet Om: A Hindu American Journey by Vineet Chander. My own interests in the South Asian-American diaspora have gotten me excited about this new blog. So far there are some really cool entries about Obama's Diwali message worth checking out. So, I just wanted to give a little shout out to Mr. Chander that i'm logged on and reading, and to direct my own readers (if you do exist! haha) to go ahead and check out the always interesting Beliefnet Blogs.
PS-
Idol Chatter and Pontifications (which seams to have been replaced by Deacon's Bench) are also worth checking out....
PS-
Idol Chatter and Pontifications (which seams to have been replaced by Deacon's Bench) are also worth checking out....
Friday, October 16, 2009
Today In American Dharma: He Really Is the Theologian in Chief
There are a great many reasons many in America has slipped from their love affair with Mr. Obama (the big ghost in the room is called HEALTH CARE)... but one cannot deny his role as the Theologian in Chief. I documented earlier in the year about how impressed I was with his address to the Muslim world, and the man is at it again. This time in his care and consideration to grant the religions of Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism a Happy Diwali. Furthermore, he went so far to invite a Hindu pandit to chant a prayer in the White House and lit a White House diya. Why am I impressed by this? Well, first of all, in a mostly Abrahamic rhetoric that the US has taken in regards to religious themes, its kind of interesting to see an acknowledgement of the thousands of American citizens who are from Asia and practice non-Abrahamic religions. In addition, I don't know about you, but I think this also sort of spreads religious tollerance, and hell, even religious acknowledgement. I didn't know what Diwali was until I went to college. How many people in America are aware that this holiday is celebrated by over a billion people worldwide? From my personal experience...not too many. So, kudos to the Theologian in Cheif for taking a step towards teaching America about the world's religions, if even on the base level. Perhaps you'll earn that Nobel Peace Prize yet!
President Obama's Diwali Message:
The entire celebration complete w/ South Asian a cappella group:
As covered by an Indian news channel:
President Obama's Diwali Message:
The entire celebration complete w/ South Asian a cappella group:
As covered by an Indian news channel:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
