Quick Response

Response to Kelly D. and Sarah J.

Both Kelly and Sarah talked about how Rastas do not "seem to want to see cannabis become fully legal. They accepted that there were laws prohibiting the use; it seems they thought the ban was necessary." I understand that this view has come from the wikipedia article, but I would like to disagree to some extent on this. While some Rastas may have come to terms with the illegality of cannabis, there are definitely many who advocate for its legalization:

(I was going to have a link so you could hear the song right here, but I will just have to tell you about it, and you can find it yourself on iTunes or something.)

The song I immediately thought of was "Legalize It", by Peter Tosh. If the title isn't obvious enough already, here are some of the lyrics:

Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it Yea-ah Yea-ah
And I will advertise it.

Some call it tamjee
Some call it the weed
Some call it marijuana
Some of them call it ganja
Never mind, got to...

Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it Yea-ah Yea-ah
And I will advertise it.

This is not the only song of the kind. I do not mean to say that this is common, and I definitely don't mean to say that it is advocated by all Rastas. It is simply common enough to take note of.

Reggae and Christian Rock

In class on Wednesday, we discussed the similarities and differences between Christian Rock and Roots Reggae (Reggae specifically associated with the Rastafari movement). The class seemed to agree that Reggae was more integral to Rastafari than Christian Rock was to Christianity. At the time I was skeptical, but did not have enough information to disprove this theory. Well, I have done a bit of research, and have concluded that Roots Reggae and Christian Rock do serve the same purpose for Rastafari and Christianity, respectively.

Here are three ways of looking at our misconceptions:

1. First, I believe that this misconception of Roots Reggae comes from our lack of understanding of other cultures' music. We know first hand that there is more to Rock than Christian Rock (most of you have probably just exclaimed, "duh!"). However, when we only know surface bits of a culture, we automatically assume a very serious connection between all the bits, likely stemming from the serious nature of studying. While we should not discount anything we learn while studying, we should not automatically assume that all Rastas are serious about reggae just because we have suddenly become so.

2. Another misconception that comes with our lack of knowledge is the assumption that Reggae music was conceived of as religious music, and had thus had religious roots. I'm not sure if anyone specifically stated this in class, but it is a logical next step, assuming the class's logic. We assume this because of this all-encompassing grouping of Roots Reggae and Rastafari. We have decided that Roots Reggae is integral to Rastafari, thus we might assume that it could only have been conceived of as Rastafari music.

3. I also feel that we translate the popularity of the music (or our own level of liking the music) into a measurement of the affect or importance the music has to the group it is associated with. We young Americans generally like reggae music. Because it was built upon hip-hop, R&B, and soul, you could say it is a cousin of modern American popular music. When we learn that much of it is spiritual music, we automatically assume that all Rastas love it also (both because it is "their" spiritual music, and because we happen to like it). But, just because Bush supports the Iraq war does not mean the war will automatically support him. This is a case of unrequited love.

I do not mean to say by this that those who play and listen to Roots Reggae are not serious in their meaning, feelings, and beliefs. I mean to say that Roots Reggae, while important to some, is not integral to the entire religion—and thus is not taken seriously by all Rastas. In fact, "some orthodox Rastas disdain reggae as a form of commercial music and a 'sell-out to Babylon.'" While many of the creators of Reggae were Rastas, it was, and is not an entirely spiritual music. The ancestors of Reggae music are also not entirely religious—original Reggae was inspired by ska, which was in turn inspired by popular American music and African rhythms. "But Roots Reggae is entirely spiritual", you say. Yes, but it is not the main spiritual music for Rastas, and it is not spiritual to all Rastas. The main spiritual music, the kind used in worship ceremonies is called nyabinghi, and "is the most integral form of Rastafarian music." It has its roots in East Africa between 1850 and 1950. Use of nyabinghi in the Rastafari movement includes rhythmic chanting of many Christian texts, including Psalms and hymns.

Thus, it seems that Roots Reggae actually serves quite a similar purpose to Christian Rock. They are both emotionally spiritual, and inspire many people around their respective religions, but they are harmonically and rhythmically secular. * Also, they are not spiritual to all in their respective religions. There is a traditional form of spiritual music for each religion—nyabinghi for the Rastafarian movement, and traditional hymns or Latin chants for Christianity.




*The base of both Roots Reggae and Christian Rock are secular, but some artists may choose to integrate spiritual music (hymns or nyaginghi). This does not mean that the music itself (not the text and emotional content) can be classified as completely spiritual.

Catholic Chips

I would like to respond to Oliver's post on the Ever Dividing catholic Church of Christ. Of course, this is one of the topics that is most interesting to me (and most personal), but I will try to be as objective as possible.

First, I will not disagree that the Catholic Church's attempts to bring different religions together under Pope John Paul II could cause a split in the church. However, I would like to point out a few things. Oliver says, "the addition of more commentary slowly chips off sections of the conservative base of a religion." In this class we have been constructing our idea of religion as always-changing…the "conservative base" is always changing. I don't think you can say that the base is always conservative—it is simply a base. In the case of the Catholic Church, it may be richer in formal tradition, but that is different from conservatism. People often confuse the strong traditions—which are simply actions—for a conservative philosophy. While I realize that John Paul II was new in bringing different traditions together, I hardly think his impact was small on the "base" of the church (the Vatican). Therefore, the description of the base of a religion as "conservative" is not always accurate.

Also, Oliver indicated that the "chips," or minority in religious splits are always not conservative—in other words, the minority is liberal. In the case of the Vatican today, it is hard to tell which way it will go. However, John Paul II was an extremely popular pope, so I doubt that only a small portion will agree with him on this issue. (This opinion also comes, in part, from my personal contact with the Catholic community, so…) In any case, I would like to caution against stereotypes that strongly traditional religions are always conservative, and that splits always leave a majority of conservatives in the "base" of the religion. However, that is not to say the Oliver is not correct that this "warming" to other religions in the Catholic Church will not cause a major split.

Building Ethiopia

While looking at the pictures of Ethiopia (and reading the Kebra Negast), it struck me how isolated they were, and yet how many other cultures influenced theirs. Not only did they influence Ethiopian culture, but Ethiopians also took whole chunks of "defining" images from other cultures. For example, many of the architectural elements are directly borrowed. There was one church that was strikingly similar to Greek (and to some extent Roman) temples, like the Parthenon. Another Ethiopian church adopted Mosque-style ornamentation. Although other cultures have borrowed building styles, it is striking that in Ethiopia they would borrow from other religions' architecture for their own religion's architecture. When Christians began building churches, they borrowed from the style of building used for government purposes in the Roman Empire. They would not have taken the temple plan because it would come with too many cultural associations.

The Kebra Negast seems similar to the borrowing of architectural elements. It takes stereotypical, or well-known images in Christianity and creates a new book with them. In the process, some of the stories are a bit jumbled and changed. For example, the Holy Trinity is part of God's plan from the beginning in the "Genesis" part of the Kebra Negast, where as the Bible does not allude to Jesus or the Holy Spirit until much later. But what is startling is that these elements of other cultures have such a seemingly large impact on Ethiopian culture. However, by "impact", I don't mean that these other cultures always profoundly change Ethiopian culture. I mean that they leave a very bold stamp of identity on Ethiopian culture—it's as if they were writing the stereotypical "--- was here" on Ethiopia.

However, this is not the only way Ethiopia is influenced by other cultures. It seems that because they are isolated, all the information they get about other cultures either comes through telephone-like, in small trickles, or in single, bold statements. Thus the emphasis on the possession of metal crosses and crowns. Missionaries who went to Ethiopia would probably bring crosses to immediately identify them. Some might have brought elaborate-looking crosses in order to "wow" the people they were trying to convert. Ethiopia is not so hard to get to that they never have contact with other cultures, but it is far enough away that other cultures' symbols (like the mosque-style architecture) do not have many cultural associations. Therefore, because of their relative isolation, Ethiopia is able to take aspects of other cultures that they find have surface-appeal, and without cultural baggage, easily incorporate them into their own culture.

Religion and Politics

In response to Catrina's post on April 17

In one of her posts, Catrina talked about how we should not assume that all the texts written by people of “one” religion have the same message. Although these texts “[were] written by men who deeply believed in and followed God,” writes Catrina, “religious texts are still written by men, with all of their faults and humanity.” I would like to agree with and expand this idea while making a connection, if somewhat dangerous, to political and/or secular theorists.

I think we talked about, at the beginning of the term, how one main aspect of religion was to give a guide for how to live your life. In a similar way, political theorists write about how a group of people together can live their lives. In come cases, more common many years ago, religion and politics are one in the same. However, while we view political theorists as often updating or refuting prior theories, often changing the entire meaning of the group—as have democrat and republican theories in the US—religion often seems fixed, at least in the main ideas of the group. However, if both are telling people how to live, why is there such a difference in how we read each group’s writings?

It is not just that religious texts have been around for many more years, because they haven’t. For many, many years, in many places, a monarchy was the main political form. Also, democracy is not a new idea—the Romans instituted the first infamous democracy. It is also not just that categorized-as-religious theorists have always been inspired by a deity. In Chuang Tzu’s Basic Writings, he does not reference a higher power, and teaches only that one must follow “the way”. Nevertheless, Chuang Tzu’s writings are definitely spiritual.

Between Chuang Tzu, religion being the same as politics (as is trying to be formed in Iraq), and flowing into more “traditional” religions and political theories such as Christianity and Communism, there seems to be a kind of continuum between the two groups. It is only our imposition of the categories of “religion” and “politics” that we read these things differently. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating that religion and politics be mixed in practice. I am simply saying that they serve similar general roles—teaching people how to live—and that that their theoretical writings should be read in similar ways. People may choose which theory (or theories, in the case of, say, a Jewish Democrat) they identify with.

Garments of "The Concealed One"

I found some of the Zohar chapters very vague and a little confusing, but I would like to try and interpret a little, if I can. Please respond if you feel I am way off.

It seems to me that Elohim and the light—talked about in the third section—are very similar concepts. I am proposing that “the Concealed One” created two layers of a garment, so that the people he created would understand. These garment are explained in two different ways…through Elohim, and through light.

Elohim is said to have been created by “the Concealed One.” They describe this “One” as “the Concealed One”, because it is something we can have no concept of—knowledge of it is concealed from us. This is why (I think) Elohim was created. It is a translation of a concept into terms we as humans can understand—it translates to the idea of God. This makes sense with the text’s reference to Elohim as a palace. The idea of God—Elohim—is the one way “the Concealed One” shows ‘himself’ to those ‘he’ has created. Elohim is a tribute to the “One”, ‘his’ palace on earth. Within this garment, we usually substitute the word “God” for Elohim, or the idea of God. We think we are talking about “the Concealed One”, the highest possible power, but we can really only talk about Elohim, because it is all we have knowledge of. Therefore, we are sometimes confused between God, “the Concealed One”, and God, “Elohim.”

The second layer of garment is the light. The light created is said to have been created by God. I interpret “God” in this instance (and in most instances) as our attempt to allude to “the Concealed One.” This light is knowledge of the concept of the “One,” or Elohim. Few have seen all the light. Only a handful of prophets have been priviledged to have all the knowledge of “the Concealed One” we as humans are capable of. A few rays of light—a few rays of knowledge of the idea of God—filter in here and there and continue to keep “the Concealed One’s” palace alive.

Here is a rudimentary image of this complicated system:

Lamentations as Social Commentary with Religion in a Supporting Role

Lamentations is more of a political and social writing, with the religious elements simply supporting the social aims. I am not saying that the religious elements are not as important. In fact, they are the means by which the social agenda is put forth.

After such a devastating attack such as the sack of Jerusalem, which left people with no means at all with which to fight back, the first step in the rebuilding of the society is to hold together group identity. As we talked about with early Holocene peoples, organized religion is one thing that holds a large group of people together. Lamentations connects to the people by empathizing with what they are feeling, and holds them together as a cohesive group by referencing both the Lord and Jerusalem. The writing takes the anger, sorrow, and hopelessness people must feel and, through allegory, says that this happened to everyone together, not just individuals (using the “you are not alone” technique).

When such a wholly devastating event occurs, it is hard for people to take in the truth—that an enemy has simply become more powerful. Thus, religion is used as a tool for explanation. Not only is religion something that is common among the people of Jerusalem—and functions in bringing the group closer together—but it can function as a means of social change. With no way to fight back, the group simply needs to survive. This means they must prepare for a hard life with patience and humility, until they save up enough strength and unity to free themselves from their conquerors. Through religion, Lamentations achieves these means. Humility is invoked by blaming the sack of the city on God’s anger, which is caused by the sinfulness of the people themselves. God being like a father figure, it is a natural reaction to be at first ashamed when a father is angry, and continue on with humility. Patience is invoked by saying that God “will not reject forever.” Eventually, the conquering people will become weak, as Jerusalem had, and, as long as the people stick together, those now oppressed will be able to break free. Although this is explained as happening when God wills it, the fact that the writing talks about political rising and falling as time goes on shows the understanding of society’s workings—one cannot be continuously on top. However, this viewpoint is usually not very popular, so religion is used to achieve the same social aims.

One issue I am uncertain about is how this writing would have affected the mass of people. Would people have heard prophets, or learned men reading from the writing? Would that have been too dangerous among their conquerors? Or would only the literate be informed about the writing, and then passed on their knowledge in different versions to the mass of people? Or is what is emoted in this work simply written down as the general belief of the people? In any case, I believe it has much more to do with the keeping of social order and cohesiveness, and religion simply supports these aims.