American Dharma

Contribution to Religious Freedom USA: President Obama Acknowledges Anti-Islam Attitudes During State of the Union

2011-01-27T15:04:00.003-05:00

I recently wrote a blog post for American Freedom USA. Check it out and don't forget to comment!

http://religiousfreedomusa.org/2011/01/president-obama-acknowledges-anti-islam-attitudes-during-state-of-the-union/

Today in American Dharma: Demonized Yoga from Two Sides

2010-10-27T09:46:00.002-04:00

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?

2010-10-20T09:02:00.004-04:00

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

2010-10-12T00:10:00.004-04:00

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

2010-09-29T00:38:00.003-04:00

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"

2010-08-06T18:50:00.000-04:00

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

2010-06-04T15:49:00.006-04:00

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?

2010-04-12T12:39:00.006-04:00

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

2010-03-30T18:15:00.001-04:00

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

2010-03-02T22:38:00.001-05:00

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

2010-02-18T00:07:00.003-05:00

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

2010-02-16T15:54:00.004-05:00

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

2010-01-18T11:07:00.003-05:00

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

2010-01-08T00:15:00.004-05:00

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??

Today in American Dharma: Mormon Senator Writes a Hanukkah Song

2009-12-08T23:39:00.002-05:00

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

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T11:17:00.001-05:00

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

Vicaarana: Oh My God. Questioning Religion in the Movies.

2009-11-14T23:18:00.006-05:00

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.

A Hindu-American Blogger Gets Added to Beliefnet

2009-10-19T12:09:00.003-04:00

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....

Today In American Dharma: He Really Is the Theologian in Chief

2009-10-16T10:53:00.003-04:00

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:

Dharma Laughs: Sarah Vowell on the Daily Show

2009-10-07T19:30:00.002-04:00

Sarah Vowell thinks there would be fewer car bombs if religious fanatics acted more like Puritan theologian Roger Williams. I found this an amusing interview about the history of religion in America. :) Enjoy!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Sarah Vowell

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Ron Paul Interview

Dharma in the Big City: On Authenticity and the Feast of San Gennaro

2009-09-21T21:42:00.004-04:00

So, its been quite awhile since I've updated, but adapting to life in NYC (as in any new place) has been a bit crazy. However, despite the beginning of school, the starting of a new job, and all of the other transitional things one must do to start a new chapter in life, I did get a chance to go to something I've always wanted to see and experience: The Feast of San Gennaro.

The Feast of San Gennaro, or simply "The Feast", is an Italian American festival that takes place every September in New York City's Little Italy. The Feast originated in 1926 with Italian immigrants from Naples settling along Little Italy's Mulberry Street and began celebrating the Feast Day of the Patron Saint of their city once a year. From the Middle Ages until today saint feast days have been celebrated as a way of releasing the grip of the social order; Mardi Gras and Carnival are other examples of this. Since the original festival, the Feast has turned into an 11 day event that includes street vendors, carnival games, live music, religious festivities, and an all out celebration of Italian American culture.

But New York is not the only American city with an Italian American fueled feast day celebration. Last year I had the pleasure of attending the St. Anthony's Feast in the North End of Boston. This feast actually originated before the San Gennaro feast in 1919, however, it is not as well known due to the presence of the Feast of San Gennaro in popular culture, such as in the Godfather Trilogy of the 1970s. This feast celebrates St. Anthony, the Patron saint of Montefalcione and the finder of lost things (If you lose your car keys, you pray to Saint Antony).

Having visited the St. Anthony's Feast last year in Boston and *loving* the celebration of my own Italian American culture, I was incredibly excited to experience the San Gennaro Feast which had been talked up by my entire family for as long as I can remember. However, upon reaching Mulberry Street with my younger sister and taking the 6 block walk down to Canal, I found myself disappointed. Disappointed by everything this Feast lacked in comparison to the St. Anthony's Feast in Boston. The Feast of San Gennaro was not just an Italian American festival anymore, but rather a multiculturally mixed spectacle (every other vendor sold Hillal food), the blaring sound of Lady GaGa's "Poker Face" permeated the festival, and one would not have know this was even a religious event at all until a half a block from Canal Street where the statue of San Gennaro was enthroned and older parishioners were selling rosary and saint paraphernalia.

The St. Anthony's Feast in Boston, however, featured a band stand playing old swing and jazz standards and Frank Sinatra (Ever Italian- American's dream son/lover), featured only Italian vendors, and had a nightly procession of St. Anthony for the devoted to give offerings and ask for intercession.

Throughout all of the San Gennaro Feast I made these small comparison's in my head until I realized what I was doing. I, myself, had a preconceived culturally constructed notion of what it meant to be an Italian-American. A true idealized notion of what my culture was and aught to be. As one who study's culture and religion in diaspora, I am no stranger to the concept of "authenticity". When a group relocates in a diaspora, often there is an idealization of the "homeland" and an attempt to recreate it in a new place. I have just finished reading John Jackson Jr.'s Harlemworld where he talks of an African-American population removed from any remembrance of Africa and rather idealizing Harlem as the center of their world and their culture. I could say the same for Italian-Americans. When most Americans think of Italian-Americans they surly wouldn't label Boston as the center of "authentic" Italian-American culture, but rather New York (in all Burroughs) and New Jersey. My childhood was filled with these ideals of the Italian-American culture: what we ate, how we practice our religion, how our parents and grandparents grew up; all of this in the attempt to preserve and pass on our culture. My biggest disappointment after hearing miles of stories about the amazingness of the Feast and its celebration of our "authentic" culture, the way it used to be, was to find that what I had built in my mind as "authenticity" was found in Boston rather than New York. How shocked was I!

However, it helped me to reflect on what can be found in any kind of religious and cultural diaspora and that is the attempt to maintain this "authenticity" by any means necessary. Where we can learn is in how any particular culture or religious group attempts to do so, where they succeed, where they fail. How do these groups adapt their culture to a new setting and how do these groups create a new "authentic" culture in America? When does the Italian, African, South Asian culture become the Italian-American, African-American, South Asian-America culture, respectively? In this case, can we ever find "authenticity"? In spite of myself, I'd say no. We can have an ideal. Such as my idealized conception of what a Saint's Feast celebration *should* be or how Jackson's interviewees saw Harlem as a cultural mecca, but none of these things are static. Time and space changes everything. Time and introduction of new cultures into NYC brought on the extra not-so-Italian carts to the feast, as well as Lady Gaga. We need to learn to embrace change, however, I see nothing wrong with still striving to maintain a certain level of "authenticity" within reason. Without an ideal of the "authentic" to at least strive for, how do we attempt to preserve our culture? Or am I just talking via my disappointment?

PS- All of this does not even mention my surprise at surprising lack of religiosity featured in the NYC Feast as compared to the Boston feast. In the Boston Feast, St. Anthony was constantly present and presented and you were to be reminded often of the presence of the Saint and the purpose of the Feast. However in NY, as mentioned, San Gennaro was hidden in the side streets and back alleys as the original purpose for the feast seemed to have shrunk into the background.

Feast of St. Anthony: Official Site

Feast of San Gennaro: Official Site

Dharma in the Big City: Scenes from the Streets, Pt. 1

2009-09-07T15:46:00.004-04:00

Some scenes of American Dharma from New York City:

Holy Water in a Spritzer!
Union Square, Manhattan

Advice from the UU's
Gramercy, Manhattan

When light is on, Jesus is in (This is the only time I saw it on, it lasted for two days)
East Village, Manhattan

Dharma Travels: American Dharma Everywhere in NYC!

2009-08-27T15:14:00.003-04:00

Hello readers! Sorry I haven't been as attentive to this blog lately. I have been, over the last few weeks, currently relocating to New York to begin my Masters program in Religion at NYU. Well I officially moved in on Sunday and let me tell you, my interesting encounters with the American Dharma have not stopped. The first morning I was in New York I ran into a Muslim women in a Abhaya texting on a Sidekick (god bless her too...it was SO hot out), and since then I've seen just about everything: giant statues of John Paul II, Hare Krishnas with bead bags, an incredibly large statue of Gwan Yin, Ramadan fast breaking at the Mosque on the corner of my street, my roommate explaining the concept of Purim to a farmer's market vendor, and a very strange store front Hindu temple. Needless to say, I think there's a lot to see and experience here and thus I am starting a new segment called "Dharma in the Big City" which will include, but won't be limited to, chance encounters, photos, and site visits. When classes start, there probably will be a lot more book reviews and theoretical reflections (I appologize in advanced, its due to the theory classes!). I don't have the internets at home yet, so for now, I'll be signing off from some random NYU student lounge.

Until next time!

PS- If you would perhaps like to contribute to this blog as a guest, let me know. It might be nice to not hear my opinion every once in awhile. haha.

Vicaarana: College Will Make You An Atheist

2009-08-17T13:40:00.002-04:00

This Just In: College Will Make You An Atheist

Uh oh! So much for all turning into Hindus. haha.

Vicaarana: Are We All Hindu Now?

2009-08-16T12:36:00.002-04:00

First I wanna give a special thanks to my friend Aditya for posting this article on his facebook. So, in her article We Are All Hindu in Newsweek Magazine, Lisa Miller claims that America is not *really* a Christian nation, but actually a *Hindu* nation. Not that we are all becoming Hindus, but rather, because Americans are starting to encompass, perhaps subconsciously, Hindu Dharmic beliefs including the famous quote from the Rig Veda: "The truth is one, though sages call it by many names". As much as I can see where this is coming from, I have to put up a small argument that it depends where in America you are. On the coasts, I totally believe it. I've grown up my whole life in the Northeastern US, I went to school up here, and I am going to more school up here. I have met plenty of people from the West Coast who practice, as the author cites, Dr. Stephen Prothero's term "cafeteria style religion". I will even cite myself as guilty of this (look at the name of this blog, after all). I've met the "spiritual, not religious" and I've met the agnostics who just don't know, and those trying to create some sort of meaning. I went to college, after all, and worked in religious life, the spiritual seekers were widespread and hungry for something that wasn't their Mama's religion (often shying away from THAT word, of course). But as many of these people and views of religion in America appear, there are still plenty of the "Christian nation" to contend with (as much as Newsweek has repeatedly insisted we are a Post Christian nation). The Christian political stances on abortion, LGBT marriage rights, and a host of other issues are too hard to ignore. (On a side note, I'm also currently reading Jeff Sharlett's The Family which furthers my belief that we are far from being a post Christian nation. Woah. Its crazy.)

But despite all this, I understand the point being made, things aren't like they were. Americans now have choices and new interactions with Diaspora communities and different faith traditions that were never made available to them in the past. Even death, Miller points out, is being treated differently as more and more people, Catholics included, leave behind that old adage of body and soul = self and go for cremation for their remains (How very Hindu indeed!). So, while I don't think there's gonna be a whole rush of people to begin installing murthis (images) of Sri Rama at their new local Mandir (temple), some of the underlying philosophical ideals of the Hindu tradition are, I can agree, starting to slowly grab hold of the American subconscious.

On the other side of the coin, as Americans are becoming more Hindu, are Hindus becoming more American? It could be argued that some of the American freedom and individualism ideology is equally grabbing hold of the South Asian Hindu diaspora psyche. So how does this new Newsweek article fair for the other side? Does it make more Americans aware and accepting of their likeness to Hinduism, or does it continue to morph the continually Americanizing Hindu tradition as it makes the transformation from India to American culture. Eventually does everyone meet somewhere in the middle? Where does culture and tradition go after we make that sort of jump to the everyone's happy little bit of everything religion, or can we just accept everyone's religion as is and live together? The author claims a little bit of both is happening, and I've seen it around me, however, as I said before, I'm living in a Northeast coast world, and I wonder if these claims are true of the whole country.

Today In American Dharma: Corruption Thy Name Is New Jersey

2009-07-26T13:48:00.004-04:00

(And it breaks my heart)

So, as I often do, I surfed around some news sites to remain aware of the world around me and I saw there had been an arrest of 44 officials in a corruption scandal in New Jersey. I was saddened to hear of more corruption in my beloved state, but not surprised. Not at all. Those things are true about New Jersey...corruption...corruption from the North that comes to vacation on the Shore (where I live)... not to say we are totally innocent down here...but that's usually the way it goes (this case was no different, choosing the Shore town of Deal as the vacation home). There was one kick to this story that I just wasn't expecting... and it wasn't that the corruption had to do with money laundering and spare parts (kidneys to be exact), but that out of the 44 people arrested, many of which were unsurprisingly mayors, 5 of the 44 were Jewish Rabbis. Really?! And not just any Jewish Rabbis, Hassidic (Ultra Orthodox) Jewish Rabbis. But there were the pictures of Rabbis with dark locks and full beards, dressed in black suits with widebrim hats in handcuffs. 3 from Brooklyn (you are not so innocent NY) and 2 from Jersey.

Why do I bring it up besides my kind of uncalled for shock (there have always been corrupt "men of god" scattered throughout the centuries).. I guess it just continues the growing nature of religion in this country (or at least in some of it): individualism. The clergy and organized religion are corrupt, many will say. We are spiritual and not religious...religious institutions are bad. Priests touch little boys and rabbis launder money and kidneys to Israel! Right now I am reading Anne Rice's Servant of the Bones, which was written in 1998, and she issues the same cry (this was prior to her return to the Catholic Church, of course): be careful of men with too much power high in religion. They are dangerous. She sites Jonestown and also the issue of Japanese subway poisoning to create her notorious character of Gregory Belkin, the messiah of the Temple of the Mind.

As it all continues to go down, as more and more priests, rabbis, preachers, imams, gurus (Satya Sai Baba sex accusations anyone?) are caught in acts of corruption and sexual mishaps, can we, as Americans trust these leaders with our souls and spiritual journeys? One has to wonder how much longer the trust can last as things like this continue to happen, or will soon it be every spiritual journey for itself? Or is that just my East coast perception?

44 Charged by U.S. in New Jersey Corruption Sweep

Officials lambast NJ corruption after 44 arrested

Bodhaka: The Year of Living Biblically

2009-07-15T17:00:00.008-04:00

So, since I'm a grad student (and a dork), I read a lot of books concerning the subject of religious studies (both for class and in my free time, because I am a dork), and so I thought it only wise to begin a new segment for this blog: Bodhaka In keeping with the use of Sanskrit words, I decided to use the word Bodhaka ( बोधक ), which means informative, as the name for my book review segments because I hope that you will find my opinions and book suggestions informative and useful, and also because I like the alliteration between Bodhaka and book.

So, the first book I thought I would feature in this segment of Bodhaka is a book I finished a few days ago called The Year of Living Biblically One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible (2007) by A.J. Jacobs. This is a more fun than scholarly book, but I still think it is bodhaka (probably not really how you use that in a sentence, but work with me! haha).

The Year of Living Biblically is exactly what it sounds like, the author, Mr. AJ Jacobs, who also wrote a book about how he read the entire encyclopedia from A-Z, attempts to follow the Bible as litterally as possible in the hopes of better understanding what it means to do just that: live your life according to the Bible. The book takes you on a year long quest as Jacobs grows a rediculous looking beard, attempts to keep pure on the New York City subway, and interviews all walks of Biblical adherants including, but not limited to, Hasidic Jews, the Amish, Creationists, and Evangelicals from Lynchburg, Virgina (the home of Jerry Falwell's Libery University; Jacobs visited prior to Falwell's death in 2007).

The book is humorous, including an amusing encounter with a Hasidic chicken sacrifice, and also grounded, as you see the author's own humble attempts to be a better person and a better father to his children. This book was written more for a public audience than a scholarly one, but it still addressed some great issues such as how comunities of Biblical literalists live in the US and what their place in our communities are, and also the question of the possibility of following the entire book word for word, when every translation is just a little bit different. I have to say, in addition, I admire Jacobs' attempt to connect with his own Jewish roots and to use the Hebrew Bible, in addition to the Christian Bibles, and to also consult the Talmud and Jewish scholars and Rabbis, as well as Christian scholars and Rabbis. I think it really gives the book a unique perspective, that, I, personally was not expecting. I honestly thought this book was going to be centered around Evangelical Christian communities, but I was plesantly surprised at Jacobs' attempt to include a broad range of the Judeo-Christian literallist experience.

The book, of course, is not without its flaws, but most of them are acknowledged as part of the burden of the task at hand: the impossibility of following every word of the Bible all day everyday. You have to pick and choose because there are just too many rules, and Jacobs does just that, dedicating the first 7 -8 months to the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament in Christian speak) and the last 2- 3 months to the New Testament (including an interesting interaction with some Red Letter Christians).

Overall, I thought this was a light and fun read about one aspect of the Judeo-Christian experience in America. Bodhaka beach book! (oh the alliteration!)

Happy Independence Day from American Dharma

2009-07-04T10:46:00.003-04:00

So today is Independence Day (the 4th of July in colloquial) and what better way to celebrate than talking about my favourite figures in American history and American Dharma: Thomas Jefferson. (All who know me in real life have thus given a large groan due to their knowledge of my absolute unabashed love for Thomas Jefferson. They saw this coming). Why is Thomas Jefferson so special in the context of this blog? Well, aside from his importance to this day (aka penning the Declaration of Independence), he was an interesting character when it came to religion. My other major was archaeology and I used to love to say that Thomas Jefferson was the first scientific archaeologist, but he may as well have been among the first American religion scholars (well perhaps I wouldn't go *that* far with the latter! haha). He did have an interest, however, in religion; that much I can say for certain is true.

Most Americans, if they know anything about the religions of the Founders, know that many of them, particularly those from the Southern states like Washington and Jefferson, were Anglican Christians (the modern day cake or death Church of England). Still others proclaim many of the founders to have been Deists (from Wikipedia: " a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme God created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for faith". Its a very Enlightenment era- vibe kind of religion. Jefferson's deism could be argued with one of the books he "wrote" (I use that term loosely in this case): The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (aka the Jefferson Bible). He didn't so much write the book as he took a razor blade to the New Testament and carefully cut out any mention of miracles (including the Virgin birth), thus leaving only the moral teachings of Jesus. He believed that this, more than the popular Christianity of the times, "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.".

On the more political front, for those who argue that America was founded as a "Christian Nation" (see previous posts), Jefferson could be considered the first opposition to that idea. Jefferson is the modern day founder of everyone's favorite phrase "the separation of church and state". It could be thought that this notion was the direct response to the Church of England and the state support it got from America's former Mother Country. Jefferson first enacted this idea in 1786 for Virgina, thus freeing the state from paying tribute to the Anglican Church and he further proposed (with his good buddy James Madison) the Bill for Religious Freedom, claiming that no one should be forced to follow any religion that wasn't their choosing. Perhaps this could have been influenced by the privacy in which Jefferson regarded his own piety (or lack thereof to some) and his own personal (unorthodox at the time) views on Christianity and Deism. In this same regard, Jefferson would continually support the Establishment clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states the same: that the US cannot establish a state religion and everyone has the the freedom to choose there own. Todays pluralism can thank Mr. Jefferson (directly or indirectly aka via his friend Mr. Madison who penned the Bill of Rights while Jefferson was absent in France as the ambassador for the US).

Despite all this free exercise and anti-religious establishment-ness flying around, the Federalist party during the 1800 elections still felt free to slander Jefferson as anti-religious and a death the providence of America (and all sorts of other fancy slanders which are as similar as the Obama is a Muslim / Obama is a Christian with a crazy preacher claims from the 2008 election). Thus religiously, the rather private Jefferson became on of the first victims of the still on-going battle of Christian v. Secular nation.

But after stating all this about Thomas Jefferson, his relationship with the American Dharma, and his influence in creating American Pluralism, his crowning achievement remains what we celebrate today. Some say his human rights proclamations are the influence of Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and 18th century Deism, others say they are Christian rights, but regardless... in 1776 on July 4th in Philadelphia, a group of men in the midst of war signed a statement that claimed,"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...". This is the American Dharma, and all else are just the different flavors.

Happy Independence Day. Now go shoot off some fireworks!

Dharma Laughs: Mark Sanford Consults the Old Testament

2009-07-01T09:43:00.001-04:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Mark Sanford Consults the Old Testament

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

Vicaarana: Is Atheism a "Religion"?

2009-06-24T16:56:00.005-04:00

Nothing starts a controversy like claiming atheism is a religion-- at least in my world. But in my opinion it is one just like any of the major 8 and the minor hundreds. And the debate always comes up between friends (we are East Coast living, libral arts graduates after all!) and I always insist that atheism surly is a religion because it really depends on how you define "religion" (See the intro post to this blog about the word "religion" and the word "dharma"). Its the same argument Brent S. Plate makes in his criticism of Bill Maher's Religulous (glad to know someone out there felt similarly about this movie): you can't have an old school definition for a new school understanding. Meaning just this: religion is more than "belief" and "God". Those are not the only things that constitute a religion. Those terms may be included in a definition of a specific religion but it inacurrate to say that is what defines religion. And the search for the proper definition of what is and isn't a religion can go on and on for as many hours as it takes to teach 1000000 Theory of Religion seminars (and how many hours during those classes I have to pinch myself to remain awake! haha). But meaning is everything and as long as the definition is black and white, there are atheists and believers and never shall the two meet.

However, its more complex than that, especially in America. There are the culturally religious, the agnostically spiritual, the organized atheists, the Unitarian Universalists of a varying degrees, the right wings of all sorts, the left wings of all sorts, the New Agers, the Old Time Religions (as many Pagans sometimes call themselves) , and the list goes on. Religion is more than belief and non-belief (but those American Protestant origins tend to give us all a little bias in this black and white)-- there are rituals, expression, community, communitas, and multifaceted brakets of religion go on and on.

Before I go on and on any further about the importance of "religious studies" in society (justifying myself in a bad economy, right? haha)--let me return to the topic at hand using what I have just mentioned: Is Atheism a religion? Yes. Yes it is. And to go futher, it sometimes even goes as far to be exactly what it claims to despise: ideological and sometimes radical.They call them the New Atheism , and they are just as much a "religion" as the rest in the American Dharma spectrum. Bill Maher's documentary is a great example of this. In the movie Religulous, Maher only focuses on the negatives of "religion" (Western only, might I add) and he emplors the viewer to "convert" to his side (for the sake of science!). Its the same sort of mind set that sparked the Tibetan exile by the Chinese ("saving" the Tibetan Buddhists from the "terrible theocrasy" in which they lived; freeing them from the bonds of religion. They saw themselves as liberators the same way that the American government saw themselves as the liberators in Iraq). There is right and there is wrong, black and white, believers and atheists, and the dichotomies continue. But the point is, its not like that at all. And that is how atheism is a religion.

Well, you could say, God must be in a religion! Wrong. What about Theravada Buddhism? Well it must have a faith community, books, centers, ect. And Atheists have all this and then some. They have their poets and prophets, their leaders, and beliefs. They have their own hardliners and even their own (anti-)religious violence (Polpot, anyone?). About the only thing they don't have yet is their own tax break. But their belief in the separation of church and state means they're morally opposed to that of course! ;).

You can disagree with me all you want but there is as much a case for the religiousity of atheism (which as far as I'm concerned is just that- no god, not no religion) as there is for the Jedi-ism and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his noodly appendage!

Read More:
Purpose Driven Atheism by Frank Schaeffer
The New Atheism and Something More- Peter Steinfels
Don't Stop Unbelieving- Scott McLemee
What Would Jesus See: Fireproof or Religulous? - Richard Corliss
The Variaties of Non-Religious Experience- This one is a little old, but still useful

(ed: In keeping with my new idea of Sanskrit names for some segments, I've named this segment vicaaraNa (विचारण), which means "discussion", "reflection", "inquiry", "examination", and, as often with religious discussion, also means "agitation" )

Today in American Dharma: The Other American Terrorism

2009-06-19T11:30:00.007-04:00

When most people in this country think of terrorism, they automatically assume that the word is only inclusive of Islam and al Quida, however, no religion is devoid of violent extremism (if you don't believe me read Mark Juergensmeyer's Terror in the Mind of God originally written pre-9/11 and revised to include it). Lately the terrorism that has been prevenlent in the news as of late was the return of pro-life extremist Christian terrorism. Yes, return. Although most of us who were not old enough before 9/11 to know or understand what terrorism was, in the 1980s and '90s strings of pro-life killings and arsons occurred at abortion clinics throughout the country. Most of them were initiated by the Christian group Army of God and the pastor (all of which you can read about in Juergensmeyer's book).

As I was saying, although the pro-life terrorism was quelled during the years of the Bush administration, they are back and in full force beginning about two weeks ago with the shooting of Dr. George Tiller, a late term abortion doctor. Since the occurance two interesting ideas have been brought to the table concerning the incedent: the language of terrorism in America and the dichotomy of the abortion debate.

The first subject is what I was speaking of before, when you think of the word terrorism what word comes to mind: Muslim. Whether you like it or not. It was a direct by-product of 9/11 and, I'm from the tristate area, I understand, those wounds hurt deep. And the language concerning the matter around the nation didn't help (but that's another story for another time). But as I mentioned before, there is extremism present in almost ever religious tradition (almost always culminating in violence to boot!) and Christianity is no exception to the rule as proven by the actions of the Army of God in the 80s and 90s and the recent gunning down of Dr. Tiller. However, it almost seems as if the American public (or at least the media) is not ready to accept the existence of Christian terrorists. The example brought to my attention was the media treatment of two different cases occuring at once: the George Tiller assassination and the killing of an Army Recruiter in Arkansas by an American convert to Islam. In this interesting article by Dan Mathewson called Muslims Murder, Christians Don't, the media's attention to detail concerning the Islamic connection of the latter killer versus the avoidance of Scott Roeder's (Tiller's killer) commitment to extremist Christianity is appalling but surprisingly typical. These two related incedents bring to the forefront so many issues: the end of Christian America (yes! says Newsweek; Not even close says Dr. Stephen Prothero), the hypocrasy of pro-life killing, and especially the Islami-phobia of the general American public (see the previous entry on Obama's address to the Muslim world).

Finally just one more issue worth discussing remains with this issue: the dichotomy of the abortion debate. Pro-life v. Pro-Choice. Religious v. Secular America. Good v. Evil. Notre Dame v. Obama. Roe v. Wade. But its not so black and white as we want it to be. The ever increasing shades of gray grew ever present the minute Dr. George Tiller got gunned down while attending Luthern Sunday Services in his Church where he served as an usher. Its not so simple at all says Ed Knudson in his 6/18/09 article, On Religion, Abortion, and Politics: Dr. George Tiller and Christian Ethics. Now I'm not too familiar with Lutheran Theology to make too much of a detailed comment on this article, but I found it interesting enough to bring up particularly about the point of gray areas in this debate.

The assassination of Dr. George Tiller was indeed a tragedy but it did bring many issues to the forefront. How far the dialogue on Christian terrorism will go, no one can say, but it is an issue that cannot be ignored, that is for certain.

Dharma Travels: Encountering Brahma in Sin City

2009-06-11T11:41:00.010-04:00

A few weeks ago I went to Las Vegas with three of my friends as a post-graduation celebration. Although Las Vegas most likely would not have been my first travel destination choice (exactly one year prior another friend and I backpacked in Northern India), I decided to go anyway to have some fun with my friends, to go West (I had never been west of PA), and to enjoy the general kitchi-ness that is Las Vegas. I got a little more interested in the trip due to a lovely book that we read in my Spiritual Wandering class called Wanderlust by Rebecca Solnit and an interested class project by this guy Daniel (who later gave me the wanderer's guide to Vegas via facebook message which I am thankful for). I was ready to see Sin City in all its glory: all of the reconstructed miniature, clean and safe replicas of the world's great cities. I thought I knew what to expect, especially after being there a few days before I did my own wander of the strip, however, what I didn't expect to find was some good old fashioned Eastern Religion smack in the middle of Las Vegas.

The day I wandered alone, I walked the three miles from our resort to Mandalay Bay at the beginning of the Strip and all the way down the strip to the other end at Sahara. (I think I walked a total of 10 miles, because I wandered the entire Miracle Mile Shops looking for a potential meal which I didn't find 'til I reached Paris, but that's a) another story b) fun to say). Somewhere in the course of my journey I came upon probably the last thing I thought I would find in Las Vegas: a shrine to Brahma. I say this because a) here was a Hindu shrine in the middle of the Las Vegas strip in front of Caesars of all places and b) Brahma is not really popularly worshiped now a days. However, there is was in white marble looking back at me. I stopped dead in my tracks when I saw it because I wasn't expecting such a thing. While I was looking at it, a small Thai woman came (the plaque I found later said this was a Thai shrine) and began placing flowers and oranges around the different spots of the shrine. In silence I watched her do this as tourists who had never seen a Hindu or Buddhist anything looked at the statue and moved on, as men directly behind me handed out pamphlets for prostitutes, and as the strip echoed a searing blazing noise of motors and horns in the hot Nevada sun. But amidst all of this a small Thai women made offerings of flowers, fruit, and incense to a shrine of an unpopular god in an unlikely city far removed from its culture of origin.

What does this really say about the nature of religion in America? Perhaps it is its adaptability. At least that is what struck me about this shrine most of all. Perhaps the most striking thing about this shrine to me was the ability for a clearly "spiritual" thing to be placed in what seems to be the antithesis of a spiritual place. But perhaps that was the point. I am not sure. I was quick to write it off as a gimmick when I first saw it (like the ginormous Buddha in the Tao restaurant and nightclub in the Venetian), because that is what Vegas was full of--I had seen it all day. Cheep gimmicks to ease you into spending money. However, the minute I saw this woman making offerings to this shrine I realized that this was still a place where people lived and worked and not just played and partied. This seemed to be a bit more than what people usually think of when they think of religion in Las Vegas: little wedding chapels with ministers dressed like Elvis. However, perhaps there is more to the story of American Dharma in Las Vegas after all (and I'm talking about the strip of course, I'm fully aware there is a living Las Vegas community outside of the strip in the other parts of town). I have to admit I just couldn't help but be intrigued by an operating shrine to Brahma in the middle of the Las Vegas strip. Life is full of surprises in that way I guess.

Ok-- he had a securty alarm, maybe he is a little bit kitchi haha.

Today in American Dharma: Obama Addresses the Muslim World from Cairo

2009-06-04T12:44:00.006-04:00

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward.It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's
a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today. - President Barack Obama, 6/4/09

Today, June 4th 2009, President Barack Obama made an address to the Muslim world from the University of Cairo in Egypt, in this speech he covered such topics as terrorism, nuclear programs, the Israel-Palestine disputes, and in general Islam and the West. This speech was a very interesting one because I noticed some things (besides the fact that an speech like this would have never come out of the last administration) : the call for religious tolerance, the mention of only the Abrahamic faiths, and the well thought out use (imho) of the Koran. What the impact of President Obama's speech will be, I couldn't say. However, I felt it was very well done to attempt to promote religious tolerance between the American people and the Muslim world. How it will be received in a country in which sore feelings are still felt against Muslims because of al Quida and the incidents of 9/11. All of these Obama addresses but mostly from the perspective of the people he's addressing: the Muslim world. But what do Americans all over the country feel about this outstretched hand of diplomacy and religious tolerance? Will they be willing to put aside their differences and preconceived notions of Islam and unite as a country to work with the Muslim world? Will they even care to listen to this speech? I'm waiting to hear more reactions to this speech to find out.

Transcript: A New Beginning: Obama's Address to the Muslim World

All Transmitters to Full! All Receivers to Boost!

2009-06-01T13:27:00.004-04:00

And we're live with American Dharma!

What is American Dharma you may ask? Well, like it or not, religion is an integral part of America from our founding to our very existance today. From the Anglicanism and Deism of our founding fathers to the Pluralism, Evangelicalism and even the Atheism mixture in our present society. I chose to use the word "Dharma" instead of Religion (and not just because I study things on the East side!) because a) the very word "religion" leaves a nasty taste in many people's mouths b) Religion is not exclusive in and of itself (or "sui generis" as the theorist Mircea Eliade once claimed) and c) because Dharma is meant as an ultimate overlying truth. Though I cannot comment on the kind of Truth with a capital T the Hindu Rishis really meant, I can say this: the "truth" is that love it or not, religion (and the absence thereof) and all of its implications is a fact of American life and religious ideas, rituals, and symbolism, interplay with our everyday lives.

Jack Kerouac once dreamed and wrote of an "American Dharma", which is now recorded in a collection of his journals on his Buddhist meditations and writings called Some of The Dharma. He dreams of uniquely American sages and figures, creating uniquely American Buddhist texts and sutras. Although Kerouac's dream of an American Buddhist wonderland did not quite come to fruitition the way that he hoped, one thing is true in my mind, and it is this: there is a uniquely interesting way in which "American Dharma" is different than religious expression in any other country in the world. Perhaps it is our puritanical beginnings, our mixed salad society (I'm ever wary of the term "melting pot"), or the great expanse of land where each region holds different customs and traditions. Perhaps its all of this.

All I can know for sure is that the American Dharma is ever expanding, ever changing, ever developing, and ever encompassing the different aspects of our everyday lives and love it or loath it, it is there and it effects each and every person who calls themselves an American.

So please, sit back and enjoy watching the American Dharma unfold. All transmitters to full. All receivers to boost. Forget London-- this is America calling. American Dharma is live and running!