Judgment Day - Warring America

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Summary: Judgment Day is a documentary about Dover, Pennsylvania mandating that a one minute statement about the faults of evolution be said in biology class and points the students to an Intelligent Design book as supplement material for the class that would give answers these faults.  The documentary goes over the six week trial in detail with the results being Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism, and thus religious in nature.  For full detail: <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html>.

To be honest, the moment a bunch of lawyers and businessmen decided to make decisions about science their motivations became suspect.  They wouldn't have had a biology class in years.  They have no biology credentials to be commenting on any biology class.  So, it was impossible for these men to make a legitimate decision on biology curriculum.  Let alone to add alternative to evolution theory, since there isn't current alternative in science.  It was clear from the get go that with these guys background the only alternative they had in mind was Creationism.

Intelligent Design

The main argument for Intelligent Design was that life was too complex to happen at random.  The Intelligent Design group used the flagella as an example.  The thought was that the flagellum is irreducibly complex and that without all of its parts the proteins and other components would have no function.  Unfortunately, the plaintiff (parents) gave a counter argument of using the plague virus that uses many of the same proteins in a needle that injects toxins into host cells.  Another argument used by Intelligent Design (although not during the trial) was the words written in the sand, 'John Loves Mary'.  The thought behind it was that the words written in the sand are too complex to have happened at random…  Stop, reread, and think about that.  What does that have to do with science again?  When all else failed, the Intelligent Design comment on it not having any connection with Creationism and the fact that it doesn’t use God, but intelligent designer.  Plaintiff ripped the defendants a new one with this one, by finding manuscripts with Creationism in place of Intelligent Design… Ouch… 

Still, there is other evidence that support evolution including genetics which is explored during the trial as well.  Moreover, large scale evolution can be seen in the similarities of DNA throughout life, I give one of the histone proteins as an example of a highly conserved DNA sequence which is similar (extremely) in all organisms.  Even more, Intelligent Design can't be used to explain natural world, since it is a negative argument.  Why can't people believe in both God and Darwinism... oh that's right the bible is to be taken as a literal account word for word let’s not look at any inconsistencies.  This wasn’t the first time Creationism (wait I mean Intelligent Design) has been put on trial.  The Scopes Trial, better known as the Monkey Trial was the first of such insistences.

The Monkey Trial

In 1925 Tennessee passed legislation prohibiting “teach[ing] any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man in the Bible and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals”.

John Scopes a biology teacher from Dayton Tennessee violated the ban on teaching evolution in class.  His lawyer Darrow went up against the defender of Chritian faith Bryan.  Bryan asserted that law was legal since added with the instance of popular and parental control over public education.  Darrow emphasized that law violated constitutional guarantees of free speech and the separation of church and state.  Darrow was not allowed to put scientific experts on the stand, so when all looked lost Darrow called Bryan as expert witness on the Bible.  He managed to get Bryan to admit that there were some ambiguities in the bible, but after that omission the judge had the testimony erased from hearing.  Scopes was found guilty and fined $100.  The Supreme Court of the state of Tennessee later overturns the decision without ruling on the constitutionality of the law itself. 

The battle would continue in the 1940s to bar public school religious instruction and outlawing of sponsored religious oriented prayers in public schools.  In the 1960s, the US Supreme Court would overturn the anti-evolution statute in the Tennessee law.

Modern America and the Bible

As our society advances so does our understanding of natural processes.  To turn a blind eye on the reason, is the same as slowing the advancement of human understanding.  With that said, I like to say that the bible, while a nice story, is too similar to folk lore to be ignored.  The bible has many tales that seem to have been exaggerated over time to a point where the underlying message is the only thing the same.  I find it hard to believe any intelligent individual would believe the bible is literal.  So, I have to agree with the people from Judgment Day that this approach ‘makes Americans stupid’.  It limits the advancement of science.  If we answer a problem by saying 'well God did it', then we would not be helping ourselves (a point from the bible in Job) and we would be stopping the progress of science.

This is just one example of warring subculture within America.  As America becomes more modern many issues arise like crime, gun control, and affirmative action.

Death Penalty

The death penalty is one of many controversy issues involving crime.  The nation is seemingly divided although data shows that the death penalty is being used less and less in America.  One argument involving the death penalty is that it is a form of physical torture.  I’d like to ask this question, “Is not caging people for the rest of their life not a type of mental torture?”  Why is having them die in prison many years after committing the crime and death two or three years later in prison any different?  The men and women on death row get a detailed appeal of their case, while individuals serving life without parole don’t have the same amount of resources on their side for their own appeals.  I’m not saying the death penalty is without flaws, because right now the system is extremely faulty.  However, I don’t see how mental torture is any better than physical torture, since physical torture is only temporary.  

Gun Control

Gun control would decrease crime rate in America, I have no doubt in that.  The problem is getting Americans to let go of their guns or the possibility to own a gun.  Impossible.  We are entitled people, and we will not let go of one of our 'God given rights'.  Too bad the founding fathers hadn't thought of a day when individuals didn't need guns in their homes.  I'm going to be honest here; I'd like my own rifle one day too…  What can I say?  It’s my God given right.

Side Note: of UFO and Satanic Worshiper

UFO Religious Movement

The UFO phenomenon started when Kenneth Arnold saw nine shiny objects in a chain-like formation speeding at 1600 miles per hour “like a saucer” (media used the term flying saucers).  After which, UFO observes can be categorized into both scientific investigation and religious aspects.  These aliens from outer space have taken roles as either space borne saviors or stock demonic figures.  Either way they have become intertwined within folkloric or mythological characteristics that are associated with supernatural entities (after all it would take something more than a human to be able to travel across galaxies since we, humans, have yet to discover the technology).  Phenomena like the Stonehenge and the pyramids have been explained using the aliens from outer space having constructed them.  Other puzzling aerial phenomena in medieval, classical, and Vedic sources have also had alien explanations.  The prophets of this ‘religion’ can be considered as the contactees.  With that it is possible to like Spiritualism and UFOism in the same category.  They both have religious interpretations and scientific inspection.  They are essentially a new popular religion of the same type with significant beings between humans and ultimate reality and physical phenomena or traces to support belief. 

Satanism and Satanic Churches: The Contemporary Incarnations

The first Satanic Church began with Anton Szandor LaVey born Howard Stanton Levy in 1966 with Year One in the Anno Satanas.  LaVey became the Black Pope (that’s a lot of power there…) and promoted his new belief in a club called the “Witches Sabbath”.  Before the start of the Church of Satan, LaVey had an interesting life as a rebel.  Living home at the age of 16 to join a circus and continuing on in that line at 18 with a carnival, then burlesque, the then Levy established a background in entertainment and persuasion (tell me the circus isn’t a type of art of persuasion).  The startup of the Magic Circle with Kenneth Anger as a Friday-night gathering to discuss occult phenomena soon turned into an enterprise with LaVey entertaining his audience with stories of witches, werewolves, and vampires.  His exotic pets (boa constrictor, black leopard, and Nubian lion) just made him seem more in-line with the occult. (All he needed was a black cat… wait that was the black leopard.  This guy did it big.)

The Church of Satan has some surprising rules that would have made it compatible with its God centering counterparts.  None surprisingly sex is considered natural and encouraged (second only to self-preservation).  Drugs are discouraged since they were viewed as escapist and would interfere with realism LaVey preaches.  More importantly, violence was prohibited.  The breaking of church or state or federal laws constitutes grounds for ex-communication.  Guess Susan Atkins/Sharon King didn’t get the message (She was a member of Manson Family).  Like many churches, disagreements within the church which resulted in a sect breaking away and forming.  Temple of Set started by Michael Aquino was one of those sects.  It was during the 1980s when Satanism Scare really began.  Before that LaVey was pretty much a celebrity.  I kind of wonder why America and Europe decided about twenty years after the formation of the religion to have a Satanism scare…  What every the reason accusations about animal deaths were disproved upon further investigation.  Succession of recent homicide cases in the 80s had perpetrators linked offenses to Satanism, but no credible evidence was found that any of these individuals had been a member of a satanic cult network or that the crimes were satanic rituals.  I’ll just point back to the Church of Satan’s nonviolence policy here…  Clearly Satanic Churches just get a bad rep… I wonder why…

 

Religious Intolerance

Ethnocentrism

I would like to go so far as to say that it is almost impossible to have a strong nation without having ethnocentrism of some size, shape, or form.  The fact that it has appeared in throughout history time and again (I'd argue that it has never left society), should indicate the prominence of ethnocentrism to growing and sustaining nations.

European colonization and imperialism

Europe is one of the most well know examples of ethnocentrism from Roman period and earlier to Crusades and now with NATO.  During European colonization and imperialism the success of conquests and enslavement were often rationalized using an ethnocentric ideology.  The New World people were at first  considered to be the lost tribes of Israel, descendant of the lost cities of Mu or Atlantis, or descendants of none races in general (Egyptians, etc.).  Europe ideology moved from this thinking to Europeans being superior and others being inferior.  With it, came theories of human evolution from uncivilized to civilized cultures.  This way of thinking, however, is ethnocentric in nature.  To call any civilization uncivilized based on the European standard, is a short sighted accusation.  The colonization of Africa took on a different rationalization with the added dimensions of race superiority.


Africans became the antithesis of everything European, dark versus white, which helped justify their enslavement.  I personally think it would be much scarier to see someone without skin (a white person to a black person) then someone with a really bad tan...  The differences between the Africans and the Europeans didn't end with skin color, but was many including their differences in religious practices.  Slave labor ranged from the race being enslaved and by the nation as well.  While the French were prone to live like the natives, other landowners and mine operators would use the natives as slave labor for weeks, months, and even years before allowing them to return 'home'.  The differences in treatment from the English settlers to the French could probably be contributed to the amount of colonists from each respective country.  The French only had a small amount of settlers going to the New Worlds, and thus, didn't have the luxury to farm their own food or create major towns.  Therefore, the positive relationship that the French fur trappers need to create with the natives was necessary for their survival and success at their given trade.

Intermarriage in central and south America was looked down upon for centuries by racially pure individuals and groups.  Even to this day in north America, interracial relationships is not socially accepted in most places.    Despite the superiority complex of mainstream Europe, there was also a counterculture saying all humans were citizens of the world or making the 'savage' life out to be a romanticism life.  Still some thought of the 'savages' as the remnants of the lost tribes of Israel.  Then there was science.


Blumenbach used biological terms to differentiate races based on skull measurements.  Lavater correlated outside appearance to inner virtue (i.e. light skin and small facial features meant great intellect and inner virtues).  However, it was the social Darwinism that gave support for the people in power being in power since they were the most fit.  I think Darwin would have turned in his grave with the social Darwinism.  Still, social Darwinism impacted the Western World giving Christian notions of being favored by God and the wealth freedom to not care about the rest of society (freedom to be wealth).  Moreover, social Darwinism fueled the race war in America justifying the inequality of blacks in America.

Identity and ethnicity 

Identities are created by humans, that they are externalized in symbols, rituals, and institution, and embodied in individual bodies...

Ethnocentrism is just another form of ethnic identity.  It won't be a positive mindset if one believed that their own race was inferior to another.  If an individual had this mindset, they would never believe they were good enough, and would be constantly getting in the way of their own success.  You would think that it would be close to impossible to think of yourself as lesser than another race, but this kind of mindset was common in black children in the mid-twentieth century.  Ethnocentrism creates a tie for a group of people whether it's with a state or nation or a race.  It creates a unity with distinctions between the group, 'us', and outsider to the group, 'them'.  


Ethnocentrism is the sense that one group and its society and culture is superior to another/others.  This type of ideology can create prejudice and discrimination, which can include both passive and aggressive; ostracism, apartheid, legal mechanism, mass massacres, and genocides.  But this isn't that much a problem as it was back in the day... right?  I'm from Indiana, and I can tell you that there are parts of Indiana where a person of color just isn't welcome.  Places where you don't want to even look like you might be commenting a petty crime, because the legal system will not be in your favor.  Racism is still very strong, maybe not as aggressive as a lynching, but passive none the less.

With all this talk about the ethnocentrism of Europe, one can forget that ethnocentrism isn't all that uncommon.  The Athenians destroyed cities and killed all the male inhabitants while enslaving the surviving women and children.  The Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, and Asia all have displaced or outright killed the natives of the land.  A little known fact about the Japanese is that the current majority of Japanese people were not the natives of the island nation.  The natives were mostly killed and only a few groups remain today.  There are so many examples of the killing and enslavement of other races that the practice can be seen as common in history.

Genocide

Genocide is to kill a tribe, race, a people, a group.  In this day and age, the Holocaust is the most known example of genocide of a people, but it was hardly.  The United Nation defined genocide after the Holocaust in article two of the convention:

Any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This definition doesn't include non-humans like the buffalo killed to decrease the food supply of a group of native Americans.  Ethnic cleansing, a synonym for genocide, describes the forced removal, rape, torture, and murder of ethnic populations by other ethnic populations can be seen often throughout history.  The blacks cleansed from 260 American locales including Indiana in 1864.  The cleansing of Turkey after the Greco-Turkish War, and much more.

Religion and Ethnocentrism

With different religions located in the same region, cultural tensions are created and are associated with religion.  The Holocaust, for instance, arouse from a long history of anti-Semitism.  Once Christianity became the church of Roman, Jews were regarded as Christ killers.  The fact that pagan Romans were the ones to actually kill Jesus seems to be forgotten here.  Myths like blood libel and desecrating of the host would influence the relationship of Europe with the Jews.  


Side Note:  For those like me who didn't what blood libel or desecrating of the host are, blood libel is when a Christian child who has not entered puberty is kidnapped by Jews taken to a secret location, tortured, tried, crowned with thorns, tied or nailed to a wooden cross, and finally killed with a thrust through the heart from a spear, sword, or dagger.  Afterwards, the child's blood would be caught in bowls and drank in a mock version of Christian Eucharist.  [Clearly the Christians didn't hold Jews in a very high light...].  Desecrating the host is the deliberate piercing of holy communion wafers (since Jews live to harm the Christians way of life).

Jews were blamed for just about every thing that went wrong; the black plague, must have been them Jews poisoning the wells so that both Jews and Christians a like could get sick and die.  The Nazis used the Jews as the reason that Germany was in such poor economic times.  If something went wrong, it was probably a good guess that it was caused by the Jews.  So, it's not that surprising that the Jews had limits placed upon them.  Jews were not allowed to join guilds, required to pay taxes to local bishops, allowed to make their living as moneylenders (since good Christians were prohibited).  If that wasn't enough, Christians dictated where Jews could live creating the first ghettos.  They were told what to wear, after all it would be pretty hard to distinguish one white person from another, so you add something unmistakable.  (It's so much easier to discriminant against blacks...)  Finally, when that wasn't enough the Jews were expelled, England in 1290 and Spain in 1492.  Therefore, the Nazis didn't have to work too hard to build up hatred toward the Jews.  It was already there.

Beyond Anti-Semitism: Religious Intolerance

Religious intolerance is not a Jew only party.  Islam, heretics, in America Catholic, and many other non-mainstream religions have all been discriminated against.  The Christians were discriminated when they were a non-mainstream religion as well.  If your different, then it's more than likely that they will be discrimination and prejudice toward you at some point in time.

Contestant Number 2

Summary: Follows the journey of a Druid girl who wants to become Ms. Israel.  Her life is threaten by her own family over the issue of wearing a bathing suit in front of the world, which is against her religion.  What surprised me the most was the inflexibility of the competition for her.  Throughout the competition even after it became apparent that her life was in danger, the pageant did not give the option to her to wear a less reviling bathing suit.  This is a sort of religious intolerance.  Since every other girl could wear the bathing suit, the directors of the pageant didn't see fit to allow the Druid girl something that would cover her up more.  

Neo-Paganism and Witchcraft
Neo-paganism/witchcraft is a spiritual orientation and a variety of ritual practices using reconstructed mythological structures and pre-Christian rites primarily from ancient European and Mediterranean sources (Miller 1995).  A common misconception of neo-paganism is that it is similar to Satanism, since satanic organizations often imitate the practices and language of neo-pagans.  Neo-pagans have been criticized for their generally libertine attitudes toward variant sexual orientations/practices and the use the word of 'witch' and 'magic'.  The fear of witchcraft has lead to neo-pagans' losing their jobs, their homes, and their children in come cases.  A neo-pagan was lynched by a group of fundamentalist who deemed him a danger to the community.  Neo-pagan ritual sites have been vandalized and festivals threatened.  This is just another example of religious intolerance.

The Influence of Europe and America on Religion of the World

For God, the Tsar, and the Fatherland

For God, the Tsar, and the Fatherland is a documentary about the people of Durakovo, which in Russia means the village of fools, and their thoughts on democracy.  The leader of Durakovo is a man named Mikhail Fedorovich leads the people of Durakovo to a better life.  

The people who go to Durakovo (inmates of Durakovo) have some problem assoicated with their life.  Once becoming apart of the social group, they are strengthened.  Here the people of Durakovo are the in group.  They feel loyalty and respect to Mikhail, which is demonstrated in the documentary.  

The out group in Durakovo is not all the other Russians, but democracy in general, and thus, the opinions toward Europe and America are filled with contempt.  During the Paratroops celebration, the common that the strong Russian men could easily defeat NATO shows just a degree of this contempt.  Moreover, the comment from the boy (who lives in Durakovo) illustrates the he's negative feelings toward America.  He blamed Russia's current economic problems on democracy.  This brings the mind the question of democracy itself.  


Is the American democracy a one size fits all?  Without taking into account the people of a nation, I can say democracy cannot possible be the solution to every nation.  This is not a every nation should have freedom of speak kind of thing, I only want to take into account the different cultural difference of America versus Russia, or for that matter America versus China.  How could the same type of system, like democracy, work for these very different cultures?  So, it's easy to see why this child and the people of Durakovo would have negative feeling about democracy.  It's not working for them.

Here in lies the function of Mikhail's Durakovo as a primary group.  I believe Charles Horton Cooley best summarizes the impact of Durakovo to its people:

Primary social groups are usually small, characterized by face-to-face interaction, intimacy, and a strong sense of commitment and unity among its members. Primary groups tend to exert a long lasting influence on the development of our social selves and include family, friends, and peer groups (Helfrich). 

The influence that Mikhail exerts over the people of Durakovo could be debatable on whether it is positive or negative.  What cannot be debatable, however, is the amount of influence Fedorovich has over them.  They are to do as they are told, and they 'do not need to think' any more.  The thinking is now up to Mikhail.  In some ways you can see how this could be a positive influence on the people.  Mikhail gives them a purpose in life, a purpose that they might not have been able to find otherwise.  Mikhail is their reference, a standard for judging attitudes and/or behaviors.  Mikhail is the people of Durakovo's looking glass self. 

The movement to bring back Orthodoxy Christianity here is cement that Mikhail and many others in this video believe will hold the Russian society together.  This is in agreement with Emile Durkheim argument of religion as one of the cements that held social order together.  

Everything set aside, I find myself wondering what am I not seeing?  Was everyone else's view about America and Europe negative?  Why were the people there at Durakovo to begin with?  I would seem that they had one problem or another.  But what was the problem, is it common?  For instance Oleg's mother said he was aimless, did this mean that he was having a drug problem?  Moreover, what would the intelligent agency want with Durakovo?

What is the function of deviance?

In some ways, the people of Durakovo are social deviants of democracy.  Their way of life shots out at the way democracy.  The people do not have a voice, they do not even have thought of their own.  Instead of cohering to the social norms of democracy, they choose (for Durakovo does not take anyone that doesn't want to be there) to form bonds with Mikhail and to form a society of their own.  The Durakovo society is a social sanction that ties both mechanical and organic society together.  The members themselves are interchangeable and can perform the functions of every other member of society, mechanical society, while Mikhail is interdependent from the rest of the members (Durkheim).  

First Peoples Religions and Western Cultural Imperialism

The religious leader of the First Peoples is Handsome Lake.  Western influence can be seen in several forms, but most importantly is Handsome Lake's alcohol addiction which lead to some of his rhetoric.

Fully recovered Handsome Lake began preaching about the dangers of alcohol abuse and he established a moral code which outlawed witchcraft and several of the outcomes of alcohol abuse including promiscuity, wife beating, and gambling. The Code also counseled Seneca to learn English and that the family should replace the clan as central in Seneca life.

There are a lot of western thinking in the Code created by Handsome Lake.  The outlaw of witchcraft, and family as a central unit being the most glaring.  Both of the practice of spirits and clan central, where central to the Natives of North America, and would contribute to assimilation of native culture with western culture.

Alcohol influenced another First People religious leader, Tenskwatawa.  Tenshwatawn also saw visions that made up his new beliefs.  He saw a heaven that would appeal to the First People and ancient Shawnee spirits being tortured for their wickedness like alcoholism.  This is analog to a heaven and hell, where the hell is the punishment of Shawnee that are wicked.

The Role of Punishment

Punishment in mechanical societies was punitive justice.  It marked off the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (Durkheim).  This is seen in the notion of hell for Shawnee.  Today's jails and prisons is more of an organic society approach.  It is aimed at the individual and tailored to fit the crime in the hopes of rehabilitation (Durkheim).

Black Jews

The Church of God and Saints of Christ is a mixture of Jewish, Christian, and African nationalist content.  William Saunders Crowdy, the leader of the church, preached that Africans were the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel and thus the true surviving Jews...  Wait a moment, doesn't this sound familiar?  *cough*British-Israelism *cough*, *cough* Christian Identity *cough*.  (Sorry about that, I think I might be coming down with something.)  The religion key theme is the Exodus, the liberation of people in bondage, like many African-American religions.  Jesus to them is a racial equality, but not part of the Lord (or God).  Marcus Garvey a black nationalist how advocated the return of blacks to Africa (the back to Africa movement) influenced many black Jewish and black Islamic groups.

Vodou
I have the interesting experiment to have living relatives that practice and/or believe in vodou (voodoo).  What could be considered more interesting is that these same believers in vodou are also devote Christians.  This is just another example of official versus popular religion.  Moreover, it's not surprising that my Creole relatives believe in voodoo as it's one of the African-derived religious traditions in the Americas.  In fact the origins of vodou sum up my grandmother's (on my father's side) background nicely.  The Fon (Haiti) ideas and practices mixed with the Catholicism of the French produce the traditions call vodou.  What I find most interesting, is the ability of vodou traditions to co-exist with Christian beliefs.

Cults - What's in a Name

Panorama:

BBC's Panorama Versus Scientology Panorama

Summary: Panorama (Scientology and Me) is a documentary on Scientology.  The BBC show a version of this documentary on Scientology, while Scientology counters with a film about how the documentary was filmed by the BBC.

Because of the one-sided nature of both videos, I learned more about the character of the filmer than about Scientology itself.  From the Scientology version, it was plain to see that Scientology is just like many other religious with regards to manipulating media by showing only the positives aspects of Scientology.  This is not to say that Scientology is a horrible religion or, from the BBC's position, cult.  It is understandable that no religion would want to point out its negatives.  In fact without overwhelming evidence, most churches will not admit a problem (sometimes not even with overwhelming evidence).  What happens in a religion stays in that religion.  *cough* Catholics *cough*


The BBC's version wasn't much better with controlling bias.  It was amazingly clear (without the Scientology guy pointing it out every chance he could get) that the journalist didn't see Scientology as a religion.  This, however, could be contributed by the journalist's country, Britain.  Here, the British state has already decided that Scientology was not a religion.  The journalist goal seemed to be to determine if Scientology was a dangerous cult, not whether or not it was religion.  Moreover, the journalist didn't take into account the feelings of the members of Scientology with his usage of cult in the negative imagery.  How would you like for someone to refer to your religion as a cult, whether it is one or not?  Think, for a moment, the shoes of the Scientologists.  Some how I don't think you would enjoy someone calling your religion a cult with its negative meaning in popular culture.  Thus, to continue to call the religion a cult to the members was not a neutral approach to filming this documentary.  It no surprise that the Scientology response was aggressive and provocative.

Brainwashing & Cults:

There was two repetitive theme throughout the Scientology response to BBC's Panorama.  The first one being the idea that Scientology brainwashes its member.  I thought that my Sociology professor had one the subject of religions brainwashing its members deserves repeating here.  

"If these religions are so good at brain washing its members, then why don't they attract many members and why do they have such a low retention rate?"

I would say that Scientology does 'brainwash', but so does every other religion and for that matter country.  The only difference that I find is the degree to which they socialize (brainwash).  I don't know the rituals or practices of Scientology, so I can't put into perspective the degree of brainwashing that Scientology does with comparison to other religions.  I'd just like to point my reader to the documentary "Jesus Camp".  Some how I think Scientology would be a little less intense.


The second theme involved the usage of cult to describe Scientology.  When labeling one needs a reference.  In this case the reference for normal is a functional society, while abnormal is dysfunctional society, where normal is considered here as the social norm.  The problem with this definition of normal versus abnormal is the fact that not all abnormal things are dysfunctional.  A good example here is polygamy, which is abnormal in today's society.  However, the practice still survives today and has for centuries.  How can something that has survived for centuries by dysfunctional?  After all, dysfunctional things are unstable, and unstable things go toward the stable position naturally.  I think that the idea of abnormal is more of something being dangerous the social norm.  Abnormal 50+ years ago was the idea of women working.  It was dangerous to the social norm.  It would change the very way people think.  Cults are similar here.  They are dangerous to mainstream religion, but that doesn't make them dangerous to the populous.  They could even have a positive effect.

This brings me to the creation of religions.  When Judaism was first created, it was a cult.  Today, no one would openly call Judaism a cult.  Maybe incorrect or outdated, but not a cult.  The same can be said of Christianity, both Catholicism from Judaism and Protestantism from Catholicism.  

What is a Cult?

So far, I've used the word cult, but I have yet to define it.  There have been many definitions of cult through out the year.  From Becker:

A “cult” is a loose association of persons sharing a private and eclectic religion that originated out of popular devotions to holy men or holy shrines. They are individualistic in orientation with little in the way of set doctrine and that they were inclusive, pluralistic, and loose in their membership. Cults were often in tense relationships with their broader religious environments since they “threatened” dominant religious authorities and were, as a result, often persecuted because of their perceived threat to the religious social order (Systematic Sociology, 1932).

To Stark and Bainbridge:

"Cults” were either new or transplanted religious groups or movements which were in a tense relationship with the broader social and religious environment (The Future of Religion, 1985).

The common component of both of these definition that Panorama does not take into account is religion.  In both definitions, cult is always considered a religion.  The BBC journalist is not using cult in this way (since he don't believe Scientology to be a religion).  The Scientology spokespersons also don't use the definition of cult to their advantage.  I would have been impressed if Scientology had said, "Yes, we can be considered a cult because of our tense relationship with mainstream religion as shown be Britain not approving Scientology as a religion." or something like that.  However, even I can see that editing could make that into something else entirely.


Now that we are getting into typologising religion, let's consider the Stark and Bainbridge's definitions for church, sect, and denomination:

“churches” are organizations which dominate society, “denominations” are organizations which accommodate to society, and “sects” are schisms within churches or denominations which attempt to purify the church or denomination and restore it to its “original” primitive pristine form  (The Future of Religion, 1985).

What says that a religion can be only one of these?  Does this make the definitions too flexible?  We as human are hard to catalog.  When we are young we can be in one category, but as we grow and mature so does that label.  A child can be nerdy, but in the teen years become athletic.  While a young fit man in his twenty, but lazy and fat in his forties.  The same principle applies here.  Who says a religion cannot be all of these as time and place varies?  If humans are this way, and humans create religion, then it logically follows that religion can also have more than one category.  Whether is helps individuals is another matter completely.  An example of this is any religion from Asia in America.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Yogis
It doesn't matter which Asian religion we are talking about.  They all could be considered cults at the time of their founding in America.  The different Yoga styles, however, have a more every day place in American society.  One will find a devote Catholic who practices a style of yoga, or an Evangelical who might have yoga class once a week.  This is an example of the difference between popular religion and official religion.  One doesn't really consider Yoga as a religion.  

Unification Church 

The Unification Church, or Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity, founded in Korea, and like the Buddhism and Hinduism can be considered a cult upon it's introduction to American society.  Despite being Christian in origin, founder Sun Myung Moon's interpretation of both old and new testament make it farther from traditional Christianity than the Latter Day Saints.  Moon's interpretation on original sin in Divine Principle places the Unification Church firmly in the cult category in America for several years to come.  In fact, the Unification Church has been accused of brainwashing just like many other cults in spite of the high drop-out rates and low interest.  The future of the Unification Church is still uncertain as Moon still lives.  It will be interesting to see the progression of this religion.  Will it be able to transition from a cult to a church?

Jesus Camp

Jesus Camp

Summary: Jesus Camp follows several children going to a summer Evangelical camp and the camp leader.  It includes Evangelical ideas of global warming and the education of the homeschooled children.  The watcher observes several sermons during and before the camp, however, the majority of the movie is the reactions of the children to the sermons and the ideology of the speaker.

The beginning of the movie sets the tone as the Pentecostal children minister gives a sermon and mentions American's as being to 'fat and lazy' when she herself could be considered obese.  From here the minister continues to say several hypocritical comments.

This Means War

The children minister's main goal with her conferences, sermons, and camps were to 'train' children in the way of the lord.  The opening scenes of the conference the children minister held and the camp demonstration this with the children performing a war dance including the use of face paint.  The children minister believed that children were the future.  The minister wanted to train the children as the Muslim train their children in religious practices.  In fact many, if not all, religion have some form of training of children with some being more extreme then others.  However, this minister wanted to train the children to the point that they would lay down their life for Christ similar to Muslim suicide bombers.  This brings the Crusades to mind, where war was waged in the name of the lord.  The fact that the children saw themselves as part of God's army makes me think that the minister was some what successful.  The children saw themselves as warriors, peace warriors, and saw martyrdom as being 'cool'.

Evangelical Children

In the Evangelical belief, to be saved one must experience a born-again baptism.

43% [Evangelicals] born-again before age of 13

After watching this documentary, I can easily believe this statistic.  Moreover,

75% of homeschooled children are Evangelical

This brings about the question of education among the Evangelical, who have a strong belief in creationism.  One of the children in that this documentary follows happens to be one such homeschooled Evangelical.  We observe one of his lessons from his mother with highlights explaining how there is no global warming occurring and the fallacies of evolution.  This particular scene starts off with the boy finishing watching a Christian cartoon, then having lessons with his mother about the global warming and then evolution.  Here, anyone familiar with the melting of the polar ice caps and the change in ocean currents would have pity for the child's one-sided education.  Moreover, it reminded me of Sarah Palin who at first said there was no such thing as global warming during her campaign as vice president during 2008 elections.  During that time, I couldn't understand how she could have come up with that conclusion.  Now, I see the influence of her religion on her knowledge.  The evolution discussion, however, was far more one-sided bordering on the side of hate for the theory.

"...[creationism] is the only possible answer to all the questions..."

One of the mothers reasons for fallacy of evolution was that "....science doesn't prove anything...".  It's interesting to note that she is saying this while living in a house with all the conveniences of science.  

There is also a sense of nationalism to God being taught as well.  Another child is shown plaguing allegiance to the Christian through the Christian Flag.  The philosophy of there being 'two kinds of people in the world: those that love Christ and those who do not' as gives support to this group of Evangelicals nationalistic behavior.

Camp

The location of the camp is Devil's Lake, and no matter how you look at it this must have been intentional.  I as the viewer only wishes to understand why anyone would want to have a Christian camp at Devil's Lake.  More notable was camp sermons.  From the few scenes we got from the other activities, the camp seemed to be filled with enjoyable activities.  In the sermons however, there wasn't a smile in the crowd, and at times there was crying.  From the few segments we were able to watch, the sermons appeared to be a form a emotional abuse.  Popular fictions like Harry Potter were condemn because of the use of sorcery.  The teaching of pro-life were established without consideration of all sides of the issue with abortion.  I am in no way encouraging abortions.  However, I am a strong supporter of knowledge.  Without knowledge, important decision cannot be intelligently made.  

Popular versus Official - Evangelical

The camp itself doesn't appear to be part of the mainstream religion of Evangelical, but more of a popular religion.  Although the camp is very organized, some of the rhetoric is inconsistent.  There is also an aspect of ethnocentric with both the Christian flag and the belief that there are 'dead churches'.

Religion as a Meaning System

Religion as a Meaning System 

At the center of functionalist definitions of religion is the assertion that religion is a meaning system.

This definition, however, is to broad.  It would be more accurate to say that there are several types of meaning systems and religion is one of those meaning system.  The difference is syntax.  In geometry (although I'm sure not many want to go back to those years) we learned that every rectangle was a parallelogram but not every parallelogram was a rectangle.  The principle is the same here.  If every meaning system was a religion then everything we do, believe in, support, would be considered an action of religious participation.

On that notation we can now consider Nationalism.  Nationalism is a meaning system.  It can bring a country together in times of hardship, take the Revolutionary War in American history or the events of 9-11 for examples.  During world cups around the world, countries come together to support their teams.  They preform rituals.  It could even be said that the teams are worshiped, praised.  Does this sound like the beginning of a religion?

For many social scientists meaning systems like religion, create, manufacture, and recreate human identities and create and recreate human groups and communities including families, cliques, enclaves, regions, nations, and a sense of global community through shared meanings, shared cultural interactions, and shared perspectives. 

Can it not be said that Nationalism creates human identities on a large scale?  

Another interesting idea is atheism as a meaning system.

If, on the other hand, one defines religion in functional terms seeing religion as one form or type of meaning system that gives meaning to people’s lives then atheism can be viewed as a religion or better a meaning system.

This is an example of how the functional definition of religion as a meaning system is to broad.  I find it hard to even call atheism a type of meaning system.  It does not give meaning to the world around it in the say terms as traditional religion or even nationalism.  It is more that with atheism is almost always science.  

Science is a meaning system.  In fact, science could be called a religion as well.  There is a lot of blind faith, known truths, that one must believe are true without doing the calculations oneself (for you would need many a life-times to prove all that has already been proven).  It is a progressive religion that changes with society and the increasing knowledge of the world and universe.  If there is an unanswered question in this world, like black holes and dark matter, then scientist will say the answer can be found in science, but we just don't have the technology yet to prove it.  This is faith.  It gives comfort and meaning to the world without always giving answers.

Religion and the Individual

Humans have two types of identities: social identity and self-identity. Social identity is what other people attribute to someone. Self-identity is the process of self-development through which we formulate a unique sense of self and a sense of our relationship to the world. 

Religion and Age

I find the best examples of religion and age come from the Children of God and the Boston Church of Christ religions.  Both religions targeted young adults, those right out of college or those currently in college.  They targeted an age of discover for human self-identity.  They gave out of work colleges students something to do and a place in the world.  The Children of God used the age they were in (a time of sex and drugs) to their advantage.  Their idea of free sex did well in that time period.  The Boston Church of Christ gave an intense support system to their members.  At a time when the young adults were far from home (most of the time for the first time in their lives), the Boston Church of Christ gave emotional support.  It is no wonder they did well with recruiting.  It should be noted that despite high recruitment rates they also had low retention rates.  The Children of God's type of living arrangements made it hard to leave the church and remain financially stable.

Religion, Ethnicity, and Race

They found, in other words, that American Christianity remains the most segregated institution in the US today just as it was in 1963 when the Reverend Martin Luther King remarked that Sunday beginning at 11 am was the most segregated hour in the United States. ("Hues in the Pews: Racially Mixed Churches an Illusive Goal", Christian Century, 28 February 2008, http://hirr.hartsem.edu/cong/articles_huesinthepews.html).

The British-Israelism and Christian Identity are probable some of the most extreme christian religious groups with regards to religion and race.  The British-Israel rationalized that they were descendants of Israel.

According to British-Israel theology, the true inheritors of the birthright and name of Israel can  be found today as the 'white, English-speaking peoples'. 

This rationale can only lead to race superiority.  Although the British-Israelism racial chauvinism was mostly covert, the Christian Identity another version of the British-Israelism was anything but covert.  The Christian Identity grow out of the face of social changes and a need to preserve the status quo.  Groups like the Ku Klux Klan held similar beliefs.  I'm sure I don't need to elaborate to get my point across.

Established Christian Alternatives

When taking on the topic of discussing 'Established Christian Alternatives', I first must understand what is considered Christian and what then makes another Christian group 'alternative'.  If I were to ask any of the groups I plan to discuss below whether they considered themselves alternative Christians.  I am 85 percent positive that they will say they are the one true way, that they are not alternative Christians, but simply Christians.  Therefore, I do not want any of those who follow one of the Christian faiths I plan to mention below, or don't mention, to take offense to being called alternative.  The use of alternative is to distinguish the Christian groups that can be considered mainstream from different interpretation of Christianity.

Anabaptist

The Anabaptist movement are a mixture of different groups with similar principles revolving around modestly and hard work.  They were considered excellent farmers and were mostly against war.  What I find most interesting amongst the Anabaptist is the degree that they interact with the world around them; be it agriculture, trade, or war.

The Swiss Brethren main goal was 'to be obedient and converted disciples of Jesus Christ, forsaking all other connection'.  Yet, they took control of Munster and forced Munsterite resident of Catholic or Lutheran persuasion to leave the city.  This is the most extreme of the Anabaptist with consideration to warfare.  The violence of the Brethren might be accounted for the time period and the repressive measured used against them. The seven points accepted by the Swiss Brethren can be seen in the practice of all other Anabaptist that come after them.  Three points in general are worth repeating here:

(1) Christians should separate themselves from the world; (2) the sword (coercion) was ordained by God but is outside the perfection of Christ; and (3) Christ's followers must not swear oaths.

These three points in general seem to explain the effect the Anabaptist have on the world around them.  Their isolation from mainstream culture, and their non violence status (majority) can be observed in many of the Anabaptist groups.  The differing between the religions would be how they go about integrating modern culture and technology within their societies while still following their own doctrine.

The Mennonites appear to be a second generation of the Swiss Brethren.  They share similar rules and regulations; isolation and no fighting rules.  There are not many differences from the original Swiss Brethren.

The more well known Anabaptist, Old Order Amish, are the most conservative Anabaptist.  They reject many modern technologies such as motor vehicles, television, commercial electricity.  It is not uncommon to find agriculturally based trade products in Indiana, particularly during the state fair.  Despite strictly avoiding intercourse with the world, the Amish do adapt modern innovation by carefully considering the modern innovation.  My question here is if they had unrestrained modern advancements such as the television or radio would they loss more of their young and not grow as quickly as they do today?

The Hutterite Brethren was one of the two principal groups create from the Swiss Brethren movement.  I find it interesting that one of the groups lead by Balthasar Hubmaier believed that Christians could be magistrates and government leaders to the point that they were permitted to conduct defensive warfare, which would be a contradiction to the one of the seven general points established by the Swiss Brethren.  The other group was more tradition in its policy of not permitting its members to conduct defensive warfare.  These Brethren restored and united by Jakob Hutter were known for economic efficiency and prosperity, skill in crafts, universal adult literacy, and successful schools.  However, their non-warfare approach lead to some conflicts with their nations.  


Another interesting point with regards to the Hutterite was their modern agricultural practices, but retention of German language and traditional lifestyle similar to the Amish.  The Hutterite use of anything that would facilitate economic pursuits including computers and motor vehicles demonstrates the Hutterite sacrificing complete isolation to advance their own endeavors.  With the absence of birth control, the Hutterite Brethren continue to expand.  My question here is if both the Hutterite and the Amish are expanding, then would an introduction of media, computers and televisions, decrease the Amish population?  This question ties into my previous question about the Amish.  Many would agree that if one religion can accomplish this integration with modern innovation, then it would be possible for the Amish to adapt more modern technologies without losing their identity.  However, if their identity is the lack of modern innovation, then my question still stands.

Methodist

The Methodist came from the Holiness and Pentecostal movements.  They had several leaders, Walter and Phoebe Palmer, John S. Inskip, and William McDonald to name a few, which probably led to the different styles of Methodist.  What I find most peculiar is how the speaking of tongues is an important characteristic of Pentecostals.  In many other Christian faiths, tongues-speaking would be considered a sign of the devil.  So, I find myself considering what other Christian groups would think of the Methodist.  Would they consider them a follower of Satan?  Misguided?  Or would other Christian groups believe that any other forms of worship is in itself an act of the devil?  I would hazard to guess that other Christian groups that also believe that the speaking of tongues is a holy event would sympathize with them.  However, would they also believe the Methodist misguided because of their worship styles?  I cannot even begin to formulate an answer for any of these without a better understanding of the Methodist group and the other Christian groups, so I will leaves this questions for my readers dissection.


Another interesting question regarding the Methodist is the effect of media on the relationship between church and the church members?  Does the media effect the growth and fall of the Methodist?  Would a structure more similar to the Amish or Hutterite have seen the Methodist Christians expanding?  In some ways, isolation can keep members from leaving a church.  If all you know is one way, then why would you leave for the unknown?  However, the growth of both Amish and Hutterite is most likely a result of the practice of no birth control, and thus, high birth rates with in the population.

Adventist and Witness

The Seventh-Day Adventists (SDAs) and the Jehovah's Witness came from the same prophecy of apocalyptic, or date-setting for Christ's second coming.  Yet, they are both very different religions.  Moreover, I find it fascinating that even after many false predictions the two religions still exist, which must mean that the religions are offering something else to their congregation.  It can be said that the leaders who lead SDAs and Witness are among the great since it becomes harder and harder to explain away the failure of a prediction.  I will leave it to my reader to speculate on the survival of the two religions.  For now, I would like to focus on the differences of the two religion in spite of the similar origins.


I first would like to look at how they effect/interact with society because of their view points.  Witness are ruled by the belief that they are 'living in the time of the end'.  I believe this belief is the main reason the two impact society differently.  The Witness strongly discourage members from pursuing higher education.  This is understandable since if we are 'living in the time of the end', then higher education would be unnecessary.  In fact, a lot of desires and activities would be a waste of time.  Of course, even with this understanding it brings the question of how many generations will be 'living in the time of the end'?  How long can one continue believing that you are 'living in the time of the end'?  Or is every generation that lives and dies before the end just proof that we are closer to the end of time?  If that was the thought process, then I can see this religion continuing for a long time, despite 'living in the time of the end'.


In contrast, the SDAs have had more of a positive impact on society.  This may also be due to their belief in 'reject innate immortality of the soul', and have an emphasis on the Old Testament giving healthful living, titling, responsibility for education and welfare programs top priorities.  The SDAs have contributed greatly to knowledge on health studies.  This brings a question to my mind.  Does the contribution to society effect how each religion is treated by the nation they live in?  Do not mistake me here.  Although I have not listed any of the persecution each of the groups have received, this does not mean that either group is completely accepted into society.  I only wish to point out that SDAs have been persecuted less than the Witness.  Is this because of economics, where one group contributes more to a country then another, and so is tolerated more than the other?  Or is there another reason that would better explain this phenomena in an empirical way?  I would like to leave this question to my readers as well.

Christian Science

The metaphysical movement, Christian of Science, was contributed to Mary Baker Eddy, although Phineas Parkhurst Quimby is considered the first individual to practice the Divine Mind, or mind healing.  Today we know this way of thinking as 'mind over matter' or other sayings that give a message of people being about to control their bodies with their mind.  This religion is one of the few American religions and in some ways can be explained with the cultural development of America.  This religion came about during the 'time of science' when 'Higher Biblical Criticism' reviewed the Bible as a historical document.  Add into the equation the aftermath of the civil war, and we have a time of distress as to the nature and meaning of what was once known.  With increase in immigration and capitalism unrestrained, people with Protestant morals, achievement through hard work, put one at a disadvantage.  The ideals of Mrs. Eddy "change your thinking, change your reality" were novel and empowering.  Unfortunately with the death of Mrs. Eddy, the Christian Science is forever in the time of the nineteenth century.  With the increase in American culture, Christian Science is no longer novel and has been decreasing.  I pose this question for my readers; since Christian Science was built on American culture and is now in effect nineteenth century, will Christian Science die out with increase in American culture?

Charismatic Leaders and Their Relationship to Religion

So far there seems to be one unifying theme to the start of these and other 'alternative' Christian religion; charismatic leaders.  The Anabaptist had Ulrich Zwingli, Mennonites had Frisians Menno Simons and Dirk Philips, Amish had Jakob Ammann, Hutterites with Jakob Hutter, the Methodist with all their starting leader, Adventist had William Miller, and the Witness with Charles Taze Russell,  even the Mormons had Joesph Smith, and the Christian Science Mary Baker Eddy, the Quakers with George Fox.  In fact, it would seem that all religious groups started with a charismatic leader; Judaism with Moses, Christianity and Jesus, and Islam with Mohammad.  Yet, if I were to ask any devote follower of one of these religions mentioned, they would say that their leaders where not just charismatic but had a special relationship with God.  They might even respond by saying that the leader was speaking 'for' God.  As an outside observed, it would appear that religion has a relationship with charismatic leader in that without that leader the religion would not have started.


With that said, another thought comes to mind.  If cult can be defined as 'a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols', then is religion just another type of cult?  This thought then brings the idea of nationalism as a type of cult.  Or sports teams for that matter.  One could use the logic of religion to cult to nationalism to religion, but I find this to be a fallacy in logic.  One would need to define religion to tie it into nationalism, and I would like to leave that for another discussion entirely.