Visual Blog

I forgot to edit the time between slides so I would recommend pausing the show and changing slides manually...or reading really fast.

Visual Blog

View more OpenOffice presentations from guest6cb60a8.

My last, and perhaps too cynical, regular blog.

In light of both our discussion on unity as well as my last blog dealing with the two different types of unity I see between Baha'i and Unitarian Universalists, I couldn't help being somewhat of a harsh critic on the Chicago Baha'i Temple video. The phrase that stuck with me from our discussion on Monday was: (paraphrased) "hey you [Christian, Jew, etc.] you are Baha'i whether you like/know it or not". With this in mind I will bring to light a few of the contradictions I saw in the video...and then I will discuss a few nice things too.
My cynical wheels first began to spin when the narrator said that this temple brings people together from all different types of ethnic, cultural, social, economic, and professional backgrounds. They failed to mention religious backgrounds, which I understand because Baha'i believe that there is only one, but it felt somewhat like a strike against unity to not include other religions even if it were in the context of other religions coming here to discover that they in fact are just another chapter of the bigger book. My next beef came with some of the phrasing of their message of unity. They made claims with such words as "unity of all religions" and "universal embrace", which, when taking very literally, are very true of the Baha'i, but taken at more of a practical/everyday use seem a little misleading. I feel it would be more accurate to say "unity and assimilation of all religions...into one religion" and "universal embrace...of the idea that every religion is in fact a part of ours". The last flare of criticism came with the explanation of how the flowers represent all the religions and people living in harmony together. I feel, again, that a clause could be added to this image, saying something to the effect of "...living in harmony together, but if a flower feels like it really out to belong to another, separate garden, it is SOL.

I know this blog took a pretty harsh turn from the onset, but I haven't had a cynical blog yet so it was my last chance. I do like the idea of harmony but I don't think this is the best way of going about it.
On the other hand, I like that the gardens were so expansive, as they reminded me of the garden of Ridvan. Also, I like how the architecture based on "mathematical lines of astronomy" ties in with the imagery of the sun and its rays.

Ooops, I just remembered one last negative thing: They state that they discourage extremes of poverty and wealth, but I guess I feel that this giant and elaboratee temple might contradict that a little bit. Maybe a more humble temple would better reflect this ideal.

I apologize to all followers of Baha'u'llah for this harsh blog, its not personal.

Unity through ONE truth?

As I was thinking about the concept of the Baha'i faith, I went to their international website to see how they present themselves in the very public context of the internet. Their short explanatory blurb on the homepage sums up, in brief, all the detailed accounts of their faith, culture and message that we have come across in the Baha'u'llah's biography. (the Baha'i international web site) It is clear from both the biography and the web site that unity is a concept that is at the forefront of Baha'i faith : "Baha'i believe the crucial need facing humanity is to find a unifying vision of the nature and purpose of life and of the future of society". What I find interesting about this idea is that the "unifying vision" that we need to find is the vision explained by Baha'u'llah. This is interesting to me because, in effect, the Baha'i are not just saying we need to unite, but that we need to unite under the flag of truth--under the flag of Baha'u'llah. For some, they make this acceptance easier than others. By claiming that religions such as Christianity and Judaism are just chapters and components of the one true religion, it becomes slightly easier for someone of this faith to accept their claim. However, if an individual falls outside of this spectrum, say an Atheist, for them, unity (in this context) also means a complete reform of their personal beliefs. 

This sense of unity reminds me very much of the ideals of the Unitarian Universalist church. The difference I see, however, is the way the unity is attained. With the UU, they ask that any and all faiths come together, not under one universal truth, but that whatever your truth is, it can live in unity with other truths. This differs fundamentally from the Baha'i approach, as they feel that everyone can attain unity by accepting the one truth I have mentioned above. 

The Long and Winding Road...

As is clear from the example of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i, the creation of a new religion is long, complex, and often trying task. It combines two elements of life that people tend to avoid and fear: change and contradiction to prominent beliefs. As discussed in the Rastafari book (by Weber), a spark of charisma is needed to propel a new idea into the realm of popular acceptance if that idea hopes to prevail and survive. In this context, the Bab was the creator of this new idea and the charisma of his followers (especially individuals like Tahirih, Quddus and Baha'u'llah himself) was the reason the idea persisted. After establishing what the new faith is to be about, the religion then goes through phases, almost like software upgrades, in order to fully develop and become something that many people can embrace. This is often the long part of a new religion's journey. With regards to the Baha'i, they started of with Babi version 1.0, but it was often unstable. Because there were many claims to leadership and severe opposition from Government forces it became difficult for the Babis to "settle" down with their religion. This is especially evident with the example of the Babis reduction to the "low morale and degraded state of the Babi community" (in Baghdad when Baha'u'llah was gone and living as a hermit). As division between sects was a major "bug" in the Babi community, what the new version needed--and what most religions need--to become stable was a unifying leader. This is were Baha'u'llah's claim to be the awaited messiah-esque figure comes in. Through this claim, and its acceptance in the community, the sometimes wavering seeds of this Babi faith were able to be unified and solidified, reforming/fixing Babi version 4.0 so much that it warranted the new name Baha'i. As a side note, it is possible, though not necessary, to say that persecution is often an element in the formation of a religion. As many new religions are faced with opposition due to their "radical" ideas, this oppression can often act as a force to unite people under that cause and empathize with fellow believers. 

African Drumming to Reggae, Reggae to Hip-Hop/Rock?

In the sixth chapter of Rastafari, Edmonds explores the musical progression of styles that led to the birth and popularization of Reggae. Like most other developments in music, new styles are often the product of multiple influences (i.e. modern jazz from dixie land and african music), and Edmonds conclusion is no exception. However, often, there is one style that stands out more than others in the development of a new musical genre, for Reggae, Edmund believes it to be Nyabinghi drumming. While there are other factors to take into consideration (other precursors like Ska and Rock Steady), Nyabinghi seems to comprise the deepest roots. After considering Edmunds conclusions, I began to make a few of my own (though they are supporter soley by personal experience and not legitamit research) as to what are the consequences of Reggae and what styles it has influenced or helped to develope. I first thought about hip-hop, and while there are some definite connections between it and Reggae, I feel that hip-hop's precursors are too many and varied to claim Reggae as its main derivative. However, the fusion of Hip-hop and Rock and Roll, as purely exemplified by Rage Against the Machine, has some very compelling links to Reggae. Using Rage Against the Machine (RATM) as a model for consideration, I began drawing connection betweeen it and Reggae. As far as the musical style and instrumentation goes, there is a striking similarity in the bass heavy (both bass guitar and drums) grooves of both styles. Also, the fact that these grooves are generated by acoustic instruments, as opposed to the digital beats often scene in rap and hip-hop, further strengthens the connection. Another connection is made in the vocal styles. Unlike standard rock and roll, where vocal emphasis is generally placed soley on melodic ideas, RATM combines ideas of strong rhythm as well as melody in their vocal parts--which is very similar to Reggae. The last connection I will mention here is the aspect of political/social awarness exhibited by RATM. Reggae's strong ties to Rastafarian themes of social change are very much reflected by the poetry in RATM songs. I have provided two videos that I think accurately portray the similarites between these two styles.

A difference of direction.

When looking at the Rastafarian culture present in Boboshanti, as compared to the Rastafarian culture displayed by rastas like Bob Marley, I find a large difference to be the direction or orientation of their faith. The version of Rastafari exhibited by Bob Marley, the version most are familiar with, is very public and out-reaching. While it has the core ideals of Rastafari--ital living, anti-colonialism, ties to Ethiopia/pro-African heritage--it also has strong ties to social change. Rastas like Bob Marley would promote their views of life through public demonstration, music and in some cases militant action (both theoretical and physical). Their symbols were as much as a tool to further their agenda as they were a means of identification (this being visible throughout all aspects of reggae music and clothing/accessories). The Rastas of Boboshanti were much more introverted than the "classic" form of rastafari. Though they still maintain many of the ideals I listed above (and especially the association to Ethiopia/African roots), they do not seek to use these pillars of faith as an agent for social change. As a natural consequence of their relative seclusion, the symbols they use to identify themselves differ from other versions of Rastafari. Dreadlocks were first used as a method to signify a breaking away from accepted colonialist culture, whereas the turbans of the Boboshanti are worn as a way to connect to their ethiopian roots. Another difference between these two versions of Rastafari, is the organization of their daily lives. There appears to be a lot of weight placed on organization, structure, work and worship in the Boboshanti community which differs from the more unorganized and organicly-structured lifestyle of the "classic" Rastafari. 

Bob Marley: Charismatic Leader??

I put on some Bob Marley before I started reading (just to get in the mood) and by the time I had finished the first two chapters several questions about this musician came into mind. According to our reading, a charismatic leader is a often a key component to a movement's emergence and continued success. I began to wonder if people like Weber and Edmonds would consider Bob Marley as one of these charismatic leaders (and I understand that this will likely be addressed in the up-coming chapters, but there's no harm in talking about it now). My initial thought was that of course Bob Marley is a charismatic leader/figure in the Rastafarian faith. He's probably one of the most well known--if not THE most well known--figure of this group, and to get to that status you have to have the exceptional qualities (similar to divine qualities) that our reading discussed. But then I hit a brick wall as I thought about another characteristic of the charismatic leader: the idea that they are "innovators and agents of social change, not by making some technical adjustments or further systemizations of the prevailing ideas, but by espousing new ideas, making new demands, and creating new visions for potential followers". This made me stop because though Bob Marley is incredibly influential and important to the Rastafarian movement, he didn't create the ideas that make up their faith. He promotes them, perhaps to more people than anyone else in that faith, but they aren't his original ideas. This, however, did not sit well with. How could the arguably largest Rastafarian not be a "charismatic leader". After thinking some more I finally came up with an idea that I think would cast Bob Marley into the charismatic role: Though he did not originate the ideas/ideals that he speaks of in his music, he did create the music itself and was the main engine behind the spread of this genre of music, and thus through his creation of a music that speaks of Rastafarian faith, he in turn "espoused new ideas" and created "new visions for potential followers".

The story of King Solomon and Queen Sheba, in my mind, does a few things to set Ethiopia apart from other nations. By connecting Queen Sheba (and her son) to the direct blood-line of Solomon, Ethiopia's line of kings becomes important and has ties to places outside their own country. Because the connection to Solomon distinguishes Ethiopia from its sorroun ding neighbors, it also seperates them and in effect raising them above the sorrounding nations. This is especially interesting when thinking about the way in which Ethiopia will later be seperated by their Christianity (in contrast to their Muslim neighbors). Another interesting aspect of this story that makes Ethiopia of more note is their conversion from sun worshipers to the belief in the God of Israel. To me, this 180degree change (seemingly overnight) reflects the same ideas of extremes that were present when we read the Psalms. In the Psalms, the narrator (or whom ever he was symoblizing) was always on one end of the spectrum or the other. He was always completely guilty and in the worst degree, or completely in the Lord's faith and full to the top with his love--there was never any middle ground. With the Ethiopia conversion we see the same extremes. They went from heathinistic sun worshipers to believers in a "sophisticated" God and belief system.

Jesus Camp

This is a very interesting film that I'm sure some of you have seen. There are nine parts (if you click on the video itself it will take you to its youtube page were you can find the other eight parts).

Structure Mapping in Religious Models

Presented in the chapter on "Conceptual Blending and Analogy" in The Analogical Mind, is idea that our minds can take actions/ideas of the physical world and project them into that of a mental realm--"the remarkable human capacity for building novel conceptual/physical domains". Though the author dealt with the relationship between a mouse and a computer screen, the idea can also be thought of in a religious context. When analyzing the various structures and models that religion takes on throughout the world, it becomes clear there they are many and varied. For example, religions such as Christianity take on a structure that very closely resembles a kingdom or monarchy, while the structure of Indian mound builders in the midwest spiritual world resembles layers of the world (sky, earth, water) with no single "god" or "ruler". Applying the ideas conveyed by the relationship of a mouse to computer screen (something physical and "real" to something invented) it seems likely that the various structures of religion were modeled after the physical realities seen by their respective people. Both past and present Christians have often existed in societies that resembled a monarchy (Kingdoms, countries with presidents, etc.). It thus makes since that they took a model that made sense to them and used it as the structure for their religion--making God a reflection of a King. Similarly, the ancient Indians in the midwest lived in a tribal society that was so in touch with nature that it basis for almost every aspect of their society, and, without surprise, their spiritual society too. 

Many religious structures, however, don't exactly match the models they were based on. This fact is also explained in the chapter. In the description of the mouse-computer screen relationship, the author explains that the "correspondence between inputs can be highly imperfect" (i.e. the mouse can be touching the desk or not but only when it is will there be corresponding movement with the arrow on the screen). This idea also accounts for the way in which our society is often more complex or varied than that of an idealized religious model. 

Don't Play Poker With Augustine.

The second book of Augustine's On Christian Teaching goes on to discuss the way signs should be interpreted and to help clarify many issues of scripture through numerous examples. From the perspective a someone who believes in God, and especially a Christian God, Augistine's insight is flawless and absolute. However, similar to the way in which he believes that you should "know the answer" before reading or investigating scripture (understand that it promotes Christian ideas), every argument or idea that Augustine throws down basically boils down to "cause God said so". While people, especially teenagers, often hate this sort of trump card logic, it poses no problem to people of faith--its a bullet-proof shield of faith (which to me is actually pretty impressive and admirable becase it requires a great amount of faith that many people wouldn't be able to come up with). I was so impressed that I decided to look for some kind of fault and hypocrisy within Augistine's words. While he covers his bases well, extremely well, I did find one idea that did bother me. He discusses at one point that "faith" is a gift from God and that some people are more deserving than others. But if this is the case why do concepts like conversion and missionaries exist? Assuming that Christians follow God's will it would seem that either God has giving the gift to whom he feels deserves it and thus there is no reason to convert others or that faith is in fact not a gift. Other than that, however, Augustine is pretty thorough in his insight (which is why I created this flow chart as a visual aid...)

Saint Augustine gives answers and problems.

In On Christian Teaching, Saint Augustine provides insight in the form of a double edged sword (or maybe a sword with foam on one side and razor sharp steel on the other). His ideas on interpreting religious texts is quite helpful for those within the faith of that text but can be somewhat problematic (though insightful) for those who are analyzing the text (as non-believers). Augustine spends a great deal of time focusing on ambiguity. He references both the ambiguity of various translations of text from older/different languages as well as the ambiguity of signs in texts (whether they can or should be taken metaphorically or literally). His advice on which translations should be used is helpful for all: "We should aim either to acquire a knowledge of the languages from which the Latin scripture derives or to use the version of those who keep excessively close to the literal meaning." While this applies universally to readers of scripture, it also creates a somewhat elitist structure to understanding religious texts. Whereas with some disciplines there are certain theorems or formulas or themes that can be used to address unfamiliar concepts and derive meaning, with religion, according to Augustine, the way to understand religious texts, and especially the signs and ambiguity within, is to become completely knowledgeable in "the complete canon of scripture"--which is a pretty hefty list. In other words, Augustine is stating that understanding of signs/ambiguity in religious texts must come from contextual clues (not necessarily in the same text but in texts that are part of the canon) and that we must provide the context with our own knowledge. Because of this, it seems that a relatively small group of people will be able to completely comprehend the subtleties of religious text. A dedicated believer in a religion would likely become well versed in the complete canon, as would a someone who's occupation or main field of interest was in religious studies, but for perhaps the average believer and certainly the average non-believer, Augustine's method of understanding is likely beyond the realm of possibility. Thus, for us taking intro religious studies, it is almost essential that we have the instruction of a well-versed religious studies professor so that we may have a tie to this "complete canon of scripture" and a better (and non-face value) understanding of the Psalms.

Does it matter if you're in or out?

When we discussed the way we can use the Psalms to discover different aspects of religion than those presented in texts like the Bible (and essentially the analogy to pop songs vs. the constitution), I connected it with the song we watched in class--the adaptation of the Psalm in Christian rock form--and it got me thinking. When I was in high school I played in a rock band. The bass player's dad was a pasture at a church and he let us use a room upstairs for rehearsal space (hence our name The Upstares). Other than the bass player none of the other guys in our group went to that church or were even religious. Because we played there so much we eventually got invited to jam with the church rock band that played on Sunday nights for a youth worship gathering called "Xtreme" (there was a second word that I can't remember). For the service only Christian songs were played. I remember while I was playing there I always felt a little weird that I didn't believe in God and yet I was standing there singing backup vocals about Jesus and soloing over tunes about God. After our discussions in this class I've come to think of this music experience as a symbol of this church and Christianity in general. In thinking through that lens, I wonder if its at all problematic that I was part of a symbol that I myself didn't believe in and normally wouldn't stand for. Does my playing for a Christian assembly as a non-Christian de-stabilize or corrupt the power of that symbol? I suppose if know one else knew it would only matter to me but if it were public that I didn't believe in God I wonder how the audience would have perceived it.

Barrow Shmarrow

Psalm 18 barrows certain elements and ideas of God from different religions. For example imagery from pre-Israelite mythology (i.e. seismic events) and Canaanite mythology (cherubs) are used. While some may argue that this is problematic and potentially hypocritical, I feel that it is something so common in religions that it is perhaps inherently embedded within religion. In almost any religion you can find something that has been borrowed or adapted from another group or religion. A clear example of this is the choice of dates in Christian holidays. Christmas, which marks the birth of Christ, is celebrated on December 25. It is clear from contextual clues that Christ could not have been born in winter and it has been theorized that December 25 was chosen as the date because a pagan religious cult of sun-worshipers celebrated December 25 as the birthday of the sun, and as they were the largest rivals to Christianity, choosing Christmas on the same day would "ease" the process of conversion. Borrowing ideas from other religions is not hypocritical or problematic, it just marks a progression of ideas and beliefs--similar to the progression of mound making we studied before (conical --> effigy, etc.). 

Psalm 18 also projects God as an aid/instrument of war. I believe that this is actually a more scary thought for those who are saying God is on their side than for those who are not. When stating that God hears one's call and will answer it, the stakes for that battle are raised a considerable amount. For example, if a group that did not believe God was involved with their wars lost a battle/war, that's all that that would mean--they lost. If a group that believes God will aid them in war and they lose, they then must consider several possibilities: a.) their God has forsaken them b.) they are no longer worthy of God's aid or have done something to offend that God or c.) their God was not strong enough to defeat the other side's God. All of these scenarios, I feel, are much more scary than just thinking you lost a battle because you were outnumbered or were poorly supplied. 

The consequence of interpretation.

As discussed in class on Wednesday, Psalms and other religious texts and scripture have been able to survive generations and even centuries by the idea of interpretation. Where once a verse or chapter was framed in a historical context, referring to something that actually happened, subsequent generations have taken the same words and applied symbols to them. In doing so people have been able to make the ideas presented in religious texts eternal. They take something specific and make them more into themes that can often be generalized and made versatile for many different occasions.

Psalm 44 is a great example of how text written about a certain event can be interpreted and generalized into something different, and what consequences that may cause. The narrator of the psalm refers to a "time of yore" when God disposed of nations and then, apparently, to the present when God has "neglected and disgraced" them, and let their enemies gain victory. Yet despite of this neglect they stayed true to God and are waiting for him to rise again to help them. The actual event the "time of yore" alludes to is the "conquest of the land of Canaan in Joshua's time". A present day religion could easily interpret this idea of a victory long ago and a subsequent defeat of the present to pretty much any war or conflict that they have had or are having. This may include anything from the Crusades to the modern turmoil in the middle east. What I find particularly interesting about the possible interpretations is the consequence it may have. If a religion believes that in victory or defeat they are doing the right thing by sticking to their beliefs and thus to the fight, it makes perfect since that conflict between religions is so common and lasts so long. If they are victorious its because God helped them, and if they are suffering in defeat its because God is in a sense challenging them and soon he will rise again to help.

A matter of quotation

When looking at both versions of Psalm 2 (Alter's version and the version from the Bay Psalm Book) many subtle differences can be found, but do little to change the meaning. On the other hand, I believe, one big difference effects the entire meaning of the psalm. The difference I am referring to is the presence of quotation marks in Alter's version and the lack of quotations in the Bay Psalm version. This particularly effects the meaning of the third verse. In Alter's version, it would seem that the quotes imply that the narrater is referring to what was said by the "nations" and "people" of verse one. However, the lack of quotations in the Bay Psalm version would makes it seem that the verse three is the voice of the narrator himself. 

When viewed through the lens of an early American time period, this lack of quotations in the Bay Psalm Book allows for a very bold and different reading/context for Psalm 2. When this book was published (1640), there was a great deal of religious tension, especially between pilgrims and England (which became the reason why many fled to the new world). In this context it makes sense that the narrator would proclaim: "Let us asunder break their bands, their cords bee from us throwne"--he/she could easily be referring to those in England responsible for their religious persecution. This statement, when perceived as the narrator's voice, would also parallel the reaction of the Lord, as conveyed by the narrator: "Who sits in heav'n shall laugh; the lord will mock them; then will he speak to them in his ire, and wrath: and vex them suddenlie" as well as "Thou shalt them break as Potters sherds and crush with yron rod". 

Link: The Bay Psalm Book online

Consumerism: A religion?

After discussing the role of religion, and the subsequent lack of religion, within our modern culture at places like Target and the Home Depot, I began thinking again about Geertz's definition of religion (which I've included below) and thought that consumerism might fit pretty well. However stereotypical this may be, I immediately pictured the shoppers at a ritzy mall (i.e. Woodfield or Geneva Commons, if you are familiar with the Chicago land area) as a model for comparison to Geertz's definition. 

It is clear that within the consumer society there is an established order (classism) that guides a large portion of our actions and feelings toward life and other individuals. This would be Geertz's "general order of existence". However, if we push further, other aspects of a consumerism can fit fairly well into the rest of the definition. The "powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations" would be the foundations of consumerism: the desire to buy more and more goods. This impulse is more substantial (and possible) in some, just as there are varying degrees of faith within religion. The idea that these moods and motivations are clothed in an "aura of factuality" is apparent in the social hierarchy that is created through consumerism. An individual of "high class", who drives a nice car and wears expensive designer clothing, will often feel superior to others. Similarly, by associating this individual as "high class", the society recognizes the hierarchy as well. As a by-product of this individual's strong "faith" in consumerism, several symbols emerge that mark this faith. A nice car, a big house, and expensive clothing are all clear symbols of a consumeristic faith. The last aspect of Geertz's definition, the "uniquely realistic" part, fits nicely with the fact that a large part of the world is not consumeristic (or at least not to the same degree as our culture). Wether this is a result of government (i.e. Communism) or a lack of opportunity (i.e. third world countries), a relatively small group of cultures in the world buy goods with the same fervor that we do. Though it may or may not be a stretch to think of consumerism as a religion, it definitely is an interesting concept, and one with some legitimate connections to how we think and define religion. 

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

A spiritual sandwich with a hungry eye...

As discussed by Birmingham and Eisenberg, the effigy mounds can be seen as the symbolic representation the spirits/animals in this society's idea of a three part world--upperworld and lowerworld (both water and earth). Various animals correspond to these distinct parts, such as the thunderbird shaped mounds representing the upperworld. This idea is also reaffirmed by the same type of upper/lower world representation and animal symbols present in the pottery of this period. With regards to Geertz, this three-part system is the "general order of existence" of the people in this culture. 

While the structure of this "order of existence" may be fairly self-explanatory, what raises a few questions in my mind is the symbols themselves. We believe that they represent animals of the different layers or domains of the earth, but a key element of a symbol is the idea that someone else will perceive and recognize it. Who is the "audience" of this cultures symbols? With the conical mounds it could have been said that anyone who viewed the large land mass would realize that it was a marker (potentially for both a group's territory and their dead). However, the effigy mounds, while still large land masses, also have the large-scale image component. One would think that if the image was meant for other humans to see, the animal would have been represented vertically like a statue. Instead the images are horizontal, and often only clearly viewed from an arial vantage point or on a map. I feel that this component to the symbol suggests that the audience for these images is one that is non-human. Of the three levels (sky, land and water), humans (at this point in time) occupied just the land and the people in this culture have found deities or spirits in the other two--water spirits that go under ground via bodies of water and more cosmic or heavenly spirits that reside above (i.e. the thunderbird and celestial bodies). These other two levels would have the only practical vantage points for viewing the horizontally oriented images. Because of this, I feel that it is possible to conclude that the symbols in some respects were meant to be viewed by the spirits of this time, whether they had to look up or look down. 

Turn the other prescription pad...

It is well known that the Catholic Church condemns abortion, sterilization and the use of contraceptives. This belief is evident in the ERD's (ethical religious directives) of Catholic hospital systems, prescribing which practices and procedures are allowed and which are sinful. While abortion and sterilization are weighty and significant procedures, contraception is not only simple and cheap, it is extremely common in today's society. This posses a problem for all the men and women, wishing to acquire birth control of some kind, who find themselves within the catholic healthcare system. It also creates a problem for many of the non-Catholic physicians and health care providers working in the Catholic healthcare system as a notable amount of their business deals with contraception on some level.

For some, this is just the way it is but others have managed to find a way around this conflict of interests. A certain catholic hospital system in Central Illinois has created a loop-hole of sorts in the way that they deal with patients asking for contraceptives. If a person walks into a medical office and wants contraceptives, the system now says that the physician or healthcare provider can give it to them as long as they write the prescription on a different pad than the standard one and they say that they are writing it from "their private practice". 

If we take a minute to think about this, what this rule really says is this: "You [physician/healthcare provider] are in our Catholic health care system and must conform to our values and morals when practicing medicine--which means no contraceptives. However, if you really would like to, you can just use a different piece of paper and we will just look away and ignore the fact that we think you are sinning." 

This poses a fundamental problem that I feel many religions are facing today. The world is changing quicker than ever in both beliefs and technologies and it can be very difficult to continue living by doctrines of the past while keeping up with the present. This example of "turning a blind eye" to the hypocritical practices within the Catholic healthcare system marks a way of dealing with this problem by not dealing with it. It may preserve the system's integrity on the surface, but I feel that a large deterioration of faith reverberates below.

Religion = Need

Though there are many varying explanations for Prehistoric cave painting, as is clear in the chapter: Palaeolithic art and religion, the one feature that unifies them all is the actual content of the paintings themselves. One can try to explain the different modes by which they were painted or what they represented, but it is impossible to dispute that the majority of the paintings were of animals. This may seem like a very obvious statement but when broken down and compared to other times and cultures, there may be more than meets the eye (or ear, i guess).

When asking the question "why paint animals?" many of the old/rejected theories cited in this chapter provide glimpses of an answer. For example, the "sympathetic magic" theory argues that painting an animal was a way to control it and thus help hunting (Clottes & Lewis-Williams 25), and the "totem" theory argues a hierarchical structure between humans and animals (Cottes & Lewis-Williams 27). What is common-ground between both of these, as well as the new ideas presented in this chapter, is the idea of a relationship between animal and man. This relationship is one of survival--man needs food. When so much importance and necessity is placed on one thing it in turn becomes the principal focus of life. This gives great power to the idea of the animal, as it is the provider for the main element prehistoric people needed.

Turning the clocks ahead we see similar trends on the relationship between need and religion. As basic needs--food, water, shelter--become more of a given, the "needs" of mankind were able to change. Because daily activity is not now consumed by hunting and finding water, other, arguably less essential, aspects of life have become "needs". Such needs may include: hope, happiness (or the promise of happiness), motivation, and companionship. These needs are some of fundamental pillars of modern religion and are clearly the most marketed for recruitment. 

What we can draw from this is the idea the we find meaning and significance in what is essential to our lives. Prehistoric man needed food and coincidentally (or not) he drew animals on the wall, modern man needs happiness and thus he goes to church where the components of happiness are promised.