Scientology IS a religion

This post is in response to the terrible discussion in Friday's class about Scientology. Many people were speaking about how religions need to be accessible to anyone who is not already a part of the religion in order for the aforementioned religion to be legitimate. I disagree completely. That's like saying the anonymous leader of a group of guerrilla rebels doesn't exist simply due to the fact that there are no photos/name to apply to the leader. Just because you (the yous in class that were speaking on this) don't know all about Scientology does not mean that it is not a religion. Absolute rubbish.

New Religion

Founding a new religion is a tricky process. The main elements that I see going into founding a religion are establishing moral rules/guidelines (i.e. how does this religion affect my day to day actions?), establishing a hierarchy (or lack thereof), and setting up a system of symbols that can be recognized as adhering to said religion. I think that any religion that is founded that wishes to stick around for a while (without being mocked by everyone *cough* scientology) requires a lot of time. Maybe not for the actual process of founding the religion, but the more time the religion is around the more legitimate it will become. By legitimate I mean respectable to the general public. In general I would say that any new religion that is founded inevitably draws from other religions that exist before the founding of a new religion. This could be a progression as obvious as Christianity to Judaism, or something harder to draw connections with, like scientology. The founder's position is one of great importance. Depending on who the founder of a new religion is, people might automatically accept or reject the new religion. If the founder is well-respected and esteemed by colleagues/general public the religion has a much better chance at being recognized than if the founder is on death row for raping and murdering children. Sorry, that example is a little extreme, but it gets the point across.

Ganja

One of the most intriguing elements of the Rastafari faith is the ritualistic use of marijuana, or ganja. Ganja is used to help bridge the gap between the spiritual world and the physical world, and it is an essential part of Rastafari tradition. Even though its importance is clear, many countries do not allow Rastafari residents to grow/ingest ganja. I don't understand how this religious ritual can be denied to Rastas--it's like denying Christians the right to partake of wine during communion. No, it's worse than that. Juice can be substituted for wine and it does not alter the ceremony (the alcoholic content of wine is not necessary for the communion experience). But there is not a legal alternative to marijuana that allows for the same type of religious experience.

When will this world learn...

Rastafari/Marley

The side of Rastafari faith that Bob Marley exhibits in his music is one of passion and rhythm. Marley is delivering messages that have the potential to be interpreted in different ways, but his delivery always involves the same passion and the reggae style always provides the relaxed rhythm. Seeing the Marley videos made me feel like the Rastafari religion is one of passion, love, and music.

The video of Rastafari in Jamaica promoted ideas, but the message about the faith was much more upfront (obviously). The Rastas who are interviewed speak of traditions and rituals, something that is not immediately obvious in Marley's music. Marley does exhibit many of these things visually, though, such as dreadlocks and portraits of Selassie. Rhythm and passion are very evident in this video.

The main difference between these videos was that Marley's music provides a message rooted in modernity while the video of Rastas in Jamaica offers a much more traditional view of the religion.

Ehm

Here are a couple of poems that deals with elements of religion by one of my favorite poets (Andy Graff):


Posted by: “Rabbi78375.” April 5, 2:20 AM.

Today I bring a joke first:
A man builds a box of lead in which to grow his daisies, fitted with rain dials and sun dials, fully equipped to circumvent the world. His garden, inside his lead box, is a perfect garden. But when he opens his box to gaze upon his daisies the man exclaims, Crabgrass! I never dialed the box to crabgrass! I remember this as a good joke, but now to a lesson.

I read today from Moses and Lacan:

In Genesis, God said: Let the water teem with living creatures of the sea, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of sky…and let the birds increase on the earth. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. What is interesting to note is that man is not created until the sixth day… therefore the birds had one full night to age, to eat in the garden, to experience light and dark. The bird, we see, is older than man.

The second prophet, in a poem called “The Insistence of I,” wrote: Meaning always unfolds its dimension before it. As is seen at the level of the sentence when it is interrupted before the significant term: “I shall never…,” “All the same it is…,” “And yet there may be…,” Such sentences are not without meaning.

I believe we will, given more time, understand why birds have been falling.



Posted by Rabbi22770, April 9th, 2:59 AM.

This Sunday it is my turn to bless the offering at church and I will speak of the bulbous spill of birth and I will show slides. I will fire a cap-gun when the water breaks, and I will spread my arms wide to connote an infinite dilation of cervix. I will roll my eyes back to their whites—this placental ache, this deep reversal, this naked child coiled in his staff.

Blast! Kebra Negast has done it again

After reading the section from the Kebra Negast about King Solomon and Queen Sheba I realized how silly history can be. That Ethiopia claims to be the new location for the Solomonic line of kings is amusing. That anyone from Ethiopia cares who their kings are descended from is also funny. Okay, so my perspective is a 21st century one, but still.... the idea that a king is only legitimized by bloodline is completely problematic. Do the king's credentials mean anything or is it simply a matter of family names?

Another interesting thing about this reading in relation to the Psalms: the author tries to make the reader believe that the whole Solomon/Sheba affair was 100% OK and both people are still very cool cats. I wonder how many Ethiopians that bought into this idea were familiar with the Psalms. Would it have changed their outlook? Who knows. My guess is: probably not.

Conceptual Blending: Smoothies and the like

Gilles Fauconnier's article on Conceptual Blending and Analogy is very easily applied to religion. The conceptual blending that Fauconnier discusses in this article is basically typical analogy taken a step further (conceptually) because the situation requires a further conceptual understanding or because a further conceptual understanding enhances quality of learned material/understood material. In an analogy, one thing is compared to another in order to draw a conclusion. The two things being compared must have an agreement of ratios in order for the analogy to work correctly. But what about those situations where there is not an agreement of ratios? Use conceptual blending! Blending is a process that takes into account each of the two things and assigns them to an input (input 1 and input 2). Or, in Fauconnier's words, "two inputs share organizing frame structure." In fact, why don't I just use his words. "Two inputs share organizing frame structure. They get linked by a cross-space mapping and projected selectively to a blended space. The projection allows emergent structure to develop on the basis of composition, pattern completion (based on background models), and elaboration ('running the blend')." Blending allows us to apply analogy to objects that don't actually have an agreement of ratios.



So how does this apply to religion?

Well, all I could think about while reading this article was the similarities of the Christian god to the god in Judaism. Basically, Christianity stole the same god and gave him a son and a spirit.... I'm not exactly sure if this applies directly but... I feel like it's definitely related to blending.

Baruch Spinoza

"By GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is,
a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of
which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation. I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind:
for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes
may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in
its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation."

This quote is taken from the introductory notes of Spinoza's Part 1 of The Ethics.

The God that Spinoza defines intrigues me. I think that this definition of God applies to almost every time that he/she is mentioned in conversation. What interests me most is where this idea came from. This idea of God is a giant one and I am curious as to when it originated in human thought. The human mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of God (as defined by Spinoza) yet the human mind is indeed where the definition came from. Thinking about this makes my head spin.

On a side note, if you are familiar with Spinoza and are interested in poetry then you should pick up a copy of any of these fine texts:

The author


DJ Spinoza's Dozen


Infinite Recursor Or The Bride Of DJ Spinoza


The Life and Opinions of DJ Spinoza


If you like those books, then you'll like this one:

The Off Centaur