Today in American Dharma: Demonized Yoga from Two Sides

I just wanted to plop this very interested artical from Andrea Jain at Religion Dispatches. Its about Fundamentalist Christian and Fundamentalist Hindus' opposition to the popular "New Age" for of yoga. One side feels the practice is evil, the other that the practice is theirs and no one elses.

Check out this interesting article about religion, consumer culture, fear of the non-Christian "other", and more:

Is Downward Dog the Path to Hell?

What do you think?

God in America: Will We Ever Move Beyond Individual Key Players?

I faltered in delivering you a first hand reaction devoid of other's opinions on God in America, but schoolwork prevented me from finishing the whole series right away. But now that it is done, and its been a week to soak in, this is my reaction to PBS's God in America.

About six months ago I religiously (no pun intended) watched the other popular American based historical documentary: History Channel's America, The Story of Us. I bring this up because God in America seemed like another focus on the same style of documentary. Now, I have read some reviews that complain that God in America didn't follow more non-Protestants, non-whites, non-males, ect, ect. Yes, I noticed. But I honestly wasn't surprised about that. Not at all. I'm not saying its excusable, but it is understandable. I understand what God in America was trying to do: begin (keyword) to educate the non-academic public about American religion, its roots, and to focus on key events on its development up to here. Finally to squeeze it in to 6 hours (which was so long and even I couldn't do straight through as facinated as I was with both this series and Ken Burn's the 10th Inning-- and I even participated in the live blogging for awhile ). I get all that and thus I'm not going to critique it. The America, the Story of Us series was structured the same way: all of American history in a short go. My small critique has to do with an amusingly American element of both series: the focus on the individual.

Both the America, the Story of Us and the God in America series decided to follow the flow of history through focusing on one individual at a time, and for some reason that bothered me both times. Key players who made key strides in American religion, a continuation of the American history education we all enjoyed that focuses on individual acheivement and says, "This can be you! You could change history one day!" While I appriciate the encouragement, the fact of the matter is, history is not one individual's actions followed by another in a linear sequence, but a culmination of individual actions forming a network of actions and happenings both big and small to create a collective force that pushes history forward. Even when one person seems like a catalyst, he or she is just one knot in the net and even the cause of that important individual be it Lincoln, Jefferson, MLK, or even Jerry Falwell, is influenced by a culmination of other factors. While these figures are important and I can see why focusing on important individuals is of interest holding value for both PBS and the History channel. I would like to see a version of history that focuses not on individuals by on social movements, of groups of individuals who created events, of the people behind the famous historical figures. Part of me accepts though that this may never happen, as how can one person speak about the opinion or even generalize about a group of individuals when there is so much to be said about a historically "important" key figure. I would just like to hear more about a little people's God in America: a history that moves away from the shining light of the famous historical figure and tracks history that didn't happen in the spotlight. The God in the American margins. Like I said, I get why they did it this way and I appriciate the existance of God in America because religious literacy of *any* kind is important, but I guess I'm just looking for the alternative history.

Other critiques of God in America:

Who's God in America? - Marian Ronan
The Brutality of American Eden- Paul Harvey
Religion Profs Critique PBS' God Documentary: Call it Simplistic - Matthew Avery Sutton

God In America

PBS's new 6 hour documentary, God in America premiered today. Its gonna be two hours every night from tonight through Wednesday at 9 pm EST and just incase you miss it, PBS will make it available for viewing on Oct 12th (which is tomorrow in a world where I haven't gone to sleep yet haha):

Check it out and I will be back in the end (on Wed or Thurs) with my opinion:

http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/

Good night everyone!

Today in American Dharma: Obama Lays the "Secret Muslim" Rumor to Rest

This story was brought to my attention by a great blog called Deacon's Bench featured on Beliefnet.com : Obama: I'm a Christian By Choice and also the linked article in that blog that features the video of the President addressing the issue of his own personal beliefs, which I will reproduce here for a bit of a quick thought:



Over and over again, we always come back to the President and religion. There may be a lot of things he does or doesn't do that you do and don't agree on, but I have to say I'm always interested in the ways in which President Obama approaches religion and how it is distinctly different from the previous administration. I have mentioned before the idea of Obama as the "Theologian in Chief" and how his approach to embrace other religious traditions has been markedly different from the Bush administrations (not saying that the Bush family did not hold the annual Eid and Diwali celebrations at the White House, but that somehow no one seemed to notice).

There's a few things that are interesting about this whole encounter. The first is the statistic that CNN presents which says that 1 in 5 Americans are convinced that Obama is a Muslim (up from 1 in 10 from last year). As I've previously mentioned, what bothers me always is why if he was a Muslim would be a bad thing, but that is another issue of tolerance in this country perhaps for another time. Focusing on the above video, what is so interesting to me is how the woman who asks approaches the question and pairs it with the abortion question. I'm interested also in the fact that this question is even something that is appropriate to ask (or is it?).

This just points out an interesting idea about religion in this country, that it is not like that enlightenment ideal of it being pushed into the private sphere (though Obama does mention "personal belief" so we are still talking that language), but rather religion is something that we are increasingly having to deal with in our public lives (particularly this current hot button issue of the Park51 community center also known, problematically, as the "Ground Zero Mosque"). Religion and its public manifestations are so obviously important to so many Americans, otherwise, why would anyone question the President's faith at all. I have been reading some very interesting books (in particular Robert Wuthnow's America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity) that speak of drawing a public sort of common belief structure out of the woodwork. Peggy Levitt calls this the "golden rule" religion, and I think this was the sentiment that President Obama was going for: trying to appeal to the supposed commonality among all religions and yet distinguishing himself as a Christian in his own right (how could you doubt after such talk of grace and salvation?).

I was very interested in the association of his faith with the idea of public service esp considering that he came to Christianity through public service during his community organizing days (I read Dreams from my Father, so sue me! lol). I also enjoyed how gracefully (no pun intended) the President flipped his ideas of social justice and finding one's own Grace to a comment on tolerance and respect for other Christian and non-Christian Americans. Each piece of his statement was so embedded with this ideals of American religiosity (the struggle of the individual (and the choice of the individual to "find their own Grace"), the ideal of freedom of religion, and the emphasis on service (I'm thinking of Bellah's community service people)), it boggles my mind that anyone could doubt that the president is anything but American when, disagree or agree with his policy decisions, his rhetoric screams American ideology and sometimes hints of American ideals of religiosity as well.

Part of me would be interested to see what the 24/7 fear media machine does with this, part of me continues to enjoy the presidents verbal expression, despite what I think of his policy or not.

Today in American Dharma: Anne Rice Quits Christianity "for Christ"

Less than a week ago (July 28th to be exact), Anne Rice, the author of the famous Vampire Chronicles (and my favorite author), announced via that she quit Christianity. The message appeared in two facebook status updates. The first read as follows:


"For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."

and the second promptly followed:

"As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

Now, some may say, "Who cares?". Fans of her books may know that she made a very public return to Catholicism (after being an avowed atheist and the queen of darkness for many) a few years back, claiming she would cease to write about vampires and witches and only write for Christ (including her Christ the Lord series and now her new Angel Time series). What is also interesting is the response this has all gotten, as if one woman's personal, spiritual life spoke out as a beacon to many, and a sign of our times.

I was going to write about this the other day (this entry was started August 1st) , but I'm glad that I didn't. Since then some deliciously interesting reactions to Mrs. Rice's decision have popped up all over the internet including a very amusing advertisement for the liberal Christian United Church of Christ group that claimed: You'd Like the UCC, Anne Rice!. Other groups that have jumped on the ban wagon of reviewing Anne Rice's decision include publications like the New York Times and Religion Dispatches, liberal Christian groups, agnostic groups, conservative Christian groups, and the individuals who have written letters to Rice (which she has posted on her facebook wall): many of whom are intrigued or completely agree with the idea of a personal Christ anti-organization approach to religion.

It is worth wondering if it is the sign of our times... In my own life, I know a majority of the people I know prefer personal spirituality to organized religion. Often they cite the corruptness of the Church, the extremism of the Religious Right, or even the old fashioned nature of organized religion. In my own analysis of my friends, peers, and colleagues, I also wonder how much of this is just us being American. Americans certainly are still religious, but being the headstrong individuals that most of us are, our way is best, and since we are all individuals, shouldn't our God and our Christ (if we are for Christ), be the way we see him, through our perception? I always thought that's why Swami Vivekananda did so well in capturing the American spirit, because his teaching of Vedanta focused on the individual, the individual's experience, and the individual's enlightenment. In this same spirit much of the New Age spirituality flourishes. Even today's evangelical movement is based upon a "personal relationship with Jesus" within the individual's own heart (despite one's Church attendance, only the individual can choose to be "saved").

So, although many think Anne Rice may be doing something interesting and radical by rejecting Christianity for the Christ, I'd say that she's a Catholic soul just tapping in to that good ol' American religion of her Protestant cousins.

Today in American Dharma: The United States in Relation with the Muslim World: One Year Later

From Overheard in New York:

Male office drone #1: So what do you think of them building a mosque by the World Trade Center?
Female office drone #1: I feel it's disrespectful. I have Muslim friends and I know they're not all terrorists, but there's mourning families to think about.
Male office drone #2: Why don't we put a statue of Hitler in Times Square? There might be some Germans who would want to pray to him.
Female office drone #2: Let them put up a mosque there and then fly a plane into it. Show them how it feels. (others look shocked) Not a manned plane, you know. One of those drones.

--Dunkin' Donuts, Lower Broadway


One year ago today, American Dharma posted its first entry. This entry regarded President Obama's attempt to reach out to the Muslim world via a speech in Cairo. Since that time, it seems as if communication between the US and the Muslim world has not gotten any easier. Obama's plans for a war in Afghanistan and along the Pakistani boarder, a car bomber in Times Square, the controversy over the portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed on South Park (and the subsequent Facebook event "International Draw Mohammed day" which caused the entire nation of Pakistan to ban the popular social networking site), a planned mosque in the are of Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan (as featured in the commentary above), and a host of other issues (I'd even Hirshi Ali's appearance on Colbert in there, but at this point, she's not much more than an instigator) contribute to the present state relations between the United States and the Muslim world.

But Barack Obama is not at want for trying. According to Haroon Moghul from the internet news daily Religion Dispatches, Obama seems to be launching attempt 2.0: trying to get together with leaders in the Muslim community and learn how to reach out. Try to Moghul's feeling, I must agree this is an awkward place to the president to be in indeed: "The last time we helped develop a network of Muslims who came together for common cause, it got messy; al Qaeda emerged from the bloody aftermath."

While on the political front, President Obama seems to be attempting to reboot his reaching out strategy, on the popular front, the American people aren't doing very well. Islamophopia still runs rampant, and no more evident than the debate over whether the Cordoba House, sponsored in part by Daisy Khan's (who has a great blog over at the Washington Post) American Society for Muslim Advancement has the right to build a mosque and community center on land they purchased in lower Manhattan near the cite of the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001. Mayor Bloomburg's office has taken the stand of religious freedom for Cordoba to do what they please, which is the legal answer, however many groups of Americans are angered. Groups such as Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and others have planned protests this upcoming weekend to let Cordoba and the city of New York know that they feel that this mosque would be disrespectful to those who have died in the World Trade Center attacks. But would it really? What Cordoba is trying to propose is a center for understanding so that the violent fringe of religious groups do not get the attention that they need to thrive. What is more disrespectful to the dead of 9/11, to continuously foster hatred, or to not even try to understand each other to prevent tragedies like this from occurring?

One year later, and still the same questions arise, what are we doing to contribute to Islamophobia and how can we reach out the hand of understanding as a people? Politics is politics, this is true, and right now, for the political portion of it, the president is doing what he can, but as a people, how are we attempting to reach out a hand to the Muslim world, talk about our differences, and come to some kind of understanding. Until we are collectively as a people willing to work on transcending our own prejudices against the Muslim world, and education is key, how can there be so much hatred for something so few people understand, then we will not move forward. President Obama can make as many speeches as he likes, but we all, as a people, must act.

Happy 1 Year Anniversary, American Dharma.

Today in American Dharma: Is it Time for the Ladies to Take Over the Church?

The more and more I have been reading about the news with the Catholic church, the more and more I have felt inclined to comment. Schoolwork has been such that I barely find time to even remember the world around me, let alone, blog (so much for my new-semester resolution!). However, it was a tiny breath of spontaneity that has lead to this blog, and even for the smallest of these breaths, I am always thankful.

This morning I was a little early to class due to some errands that were time sensitive, so I went into the NYU bookstore (for like the second time ever--which is amusing considering how much time I used to spend just wandering around BU Barnes and Nobel...what can I say, the Strand has stolen my heart), and I was browsing around when my eye caught the cover of this week's Newsweek Magazine. "What Would Mary Do?", it asked, featuring the article Catholics: Time To Break Up the All Males Club by Lisa Miller (who just came out with a new book about Heaven which looks mad interesting).



I plucked the magazine from the rack, hid in the back of the store and delved into Miller's article (aside: Why is this tiny newsweekly $5.95 for a half a magazine. Ridiculous! Too bad--I love this cover art!). Her question is frankly: Can women save the Catholic Church? As the piles of scandals continue to stick upon Pope Benedict XVI's reign, one must wonder, does MIller have a point: has the Catholic church been an "all boys club" for way too long ("The cause of the Catholic clergy's sex-abuse scandal is no mystery: insular groups of men often do bad things. So why not break up the all-male club?" -Lisa MIller)? If men and furthermore celibate men are the problem-- what would be the advantage of letting married clergy and women into the higher ranks? We cannot say that married clergy will be the end of scandal (I'm thinking about the case of Jimmy Swaggart)-- but Lisa Miller seems to be suggesting that letting the ladies in may help.

Women have been a part of the Catholic Church for centuries, but remained on the outskirts. The greatest contributing ladies of the Catholic tradition, in my humble opinion, have remained on the margins of official Church society. These are the mystics and poets, many of whom used their relationship with Christ as a way to escape the social milieu of their day (I'm thinking of Catherine Walker Bynum's fantastic book Holy Fast, Holy Feast. These woman only gained their formal recognition in death and beatification, and still many remain on the margins as the mystics they were.

Skip ahead past the Reformation, the French and American Revolutions to the 1960s and the Post-Vatican II life of the more Modern Church, woman began to be recognized as important members of the Church and its institutions while still being denied the right to vocation. Miller points out that today 60% of Mass attendance and the majority of collection money comes from women. Furthermore that, "nuns dramatically outnumber priests worldwide, [however] they are mostly so invisible that when a group of them speaks up, as they did recently on health-care reform, everyone takes notice" (Miller). Like the females of yesteryear, despite their numbers and their devotion, "[e]ven with a mother, Mary, at the center of the Christian story, the women of today's church have found themselves marginalized" (Miller). Even with the priesthood in sharp decline, 80% of parishes being run by women , and 60% of American Catholics (wonder if they are the 60% that are women? haha) being ok with female priests (what about the other parts of the Catholic world that may be more traditional or even less Protestant influenced than Americans?), the inner sanctums of the Vatican remain men-only.

Lisa Miller, however, isn't the only one who is wondering if its time for the ladies to take over. Last week, New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd called for Pope Benedict to step down and for the instillation of a "Nope" (a nun who is a Pope) in her opinion piece A Nope for Pope. Dowd simply states: "If the church could throw open its stained glass windows and let in some air, invite women to be priests, nuns to be more emancipated and priests to marry, if it could banish criminal priests and end the sordid culture of men protecting men who attack children, it might survive. It could be an encouraging sign of humility and repentance, a surrender of arrogance, both moving and meaningful." I don't know if this would be the case, but its an interesting position to consider: what would happen if the Ladies were allowed to take over the Church? Where would it lead and would there be a liberation of ladies who have felt the strain of the patriarchy? Would the marginal mystical ladies of old finally be glorified?

Aside from the loss of the Patriarchal power (and this would be the sharpest blow, for sure), what would the Catholic Church lose in letting women in? Are they afraid of the rise of the feminine divine (I'm thinking more along the lines of this fantastic blog post by Donna Freistas than Kevin Smith's amusing depiction of God played by Alanis Morisette)? Secular feminism? Contraception? Abortion? Liberalism? What does the Catholic Church have to lose in the empowerment of women inside the clergy is the real question we must ask. To consider this requires a longer look into the history of women in the Church as well as the various reforms that have been made by the Church over the centuries to adapt to "Modern Times" (Let's face it, there are plenty, including the Pope himself, who still resent Vatican II and consider it WAY too liberal). All of these considerations must be taken into account before one can really judge if Catholic culture is ready for such an upset as to let the women, particularly those mystical marginal ladies, into the center. Lisa Miller tells us that it is necessary, or else the Church faces to crumble as women with their children, the building blocks of the next generation of Catholics, will move further and further away into the margins of Catholicism (such as this interesting article from NPR called Leaving the Church, But Not the Identity.

Dharma Laughs: Passover, The American Way

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Passover Commercialism
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Happy Passover, from American Dharma

Little Fish In a Big Sea: The Religion Blogosphere

A very interesting multi-part report on the Religion Blogosphere...some of my favs, such as a few of the beliefnet blogs, Religion Dispatches, and Killing the Buddha getting some major mentions. Talk about Little Fish in a big sea over here at American Dharma. haha.

Bodhaka: On the Separation of Church and State

So I just finished reading (quicker than I'd like to, but that's school work for you), this really interesting book by Philip Hamburger called Separation of Church and State. Although perhaps its a little long for light reading (almost 500 pages, omg!)... it wasn't too complicated to understand. Pretty much, what Hamburger's main argument is (spoiler alert!) is that Thomas Jefferson's famous interpretation of the "wall between the seperation of church and state" within the first amendment is just that: an interpretation, created in a letter to a group of Baptists in Connecticut who had written to the sitting president. What Hamburger does, is trace this idea of "separation of church and state" from the 17th through the 20th centuries and what it meant from its anti-clergical and anti-establishment origins (freedom of to practice your own sect of Protestantism), to its anti-Federalist political mobilization by Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans to protect attacks against Jefferson and to target Congregationalist New England, its anti-Catholic agenda in the 1800s, and its official legitimization by the Supreme Court in the 20th Century as a "fact" of the Constitution and the Founding Father's intention (although it clearly wasn't, given the history).

As many of my readings on American religion have done, this book helps me to continuously reconsider the dichotomies that exist in the American conception of religion and its supposed opposing force: secularism. Unabashedly being forever scarred by Catherine Bell's theories of ritualization she establishes in her book Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (in a good way, I swear!), where Bell suggests that we rethink the idea of ritual not as an object, but rather as an idea in motion: a process of ritualization. It is in this same way, through my critique this past winter of the Journal of Religion and American Culture and even considering this book, I'd like to think of these supposed American religious dichotomies: not as opposing forces, but rather as ideas in motion, constantly creating and recreating each other. I almost think this was the idea that Hamburger was trying to get at (though I could be wrong, I tend to read in my ideas into books). I think just to close out the thought, I'm going to just paste the end of my response paper...it comes to the conclusion of the idea I'm trying to consider and work through (sorry if it repeats what I had said about Bell):

Keeping all this in mind, it seems almost foolish to consider the United States as anything more or less than a Christian nation, and a Protestant one at that. However, still in our modern mythology of our secular-ness, Jefferson’s letter has been mapped upon the Constitutional law, and the intention of our founders seen as a purely secular one. This idea has worked with the dichotomies that also are drawn upon when considering Church/State, such as private/public, religious/secular, and Protestant/Catholic. In his conclusion, Hamburger states that “no state or church can develop its laws and beliefs in a cultural vacuum, separate from the other institutions in society” (489). With this in mind, as well as Hamburger’s entire history of the separation of Church and State, perhaps we should reconsider secularism as a fluid idea as opposed to an objectified one (a la Catherine Bell’s idea of “ritualization”). That if the separation of church and state has never been a static and rigid separation of religion and secularism, of public and private, perhaps we should stop considering secularism as opposed to religion, but rather as working in fluid motion with it: “Ironically even as religion has been separated from politics, politics has become, in a sense religious” (491). Church and state is perhaps not separated by a ridged wall, as Jefferson mused in his letter, but rather a porous wall.

Today in American Dharma: Man Faces Prison for Taking Daughter to Church

Family Feud Over Faith

Perhaps its just me, but sometimes I think people take the idea of "freedom of religion" and manipulate it for their own ends. In this case, I honestly think this guy is doing it to stick it to his wife. What do you all think? Does the court, by the way, have the right to restrict the husband from sharing his religion with the daughter? I feel like there's something missing to this story. I know this isn't particularly significant, but I haven't written in awhile...and it is, nonetheless, and interesting issue (when you make it in the large scale).

Just a few quick articles on the Hume v. Buddha Incident

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. :)

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:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Temple of Hume
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

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??