god-fearing

April 13, 2008 at 12:57 am (culture, language, religion, trends) ()

Perhaps we should take great objection to the mere existence of the word. It’s a blight on what should be our relationship with the creator; that is, of course, assuming there is one. But whether or not there is one, it is clear that fear should be no part of any equation that a being has with its universe at large.

Why then do words like ‘god-fearing’ crop up in so many manifestations of all kinds of organized religion? It’s a sad reflection on how willingly we allow ourselves to be controlled - not only by “religion” but also by fashion, tradition, whatchamacallition. Like Ben Harper might say, it’s high time we fought for our minds.

Incidentally, he has a song called ‘God-Fearing Man’ on his CD called ‘Fight For Your Mind’. But here’s yet another - and perhaps more fitting - of his songs instead.

Permalink No Comments

who would jesus vote for?

February 16, 2008 at 11:01 am (market research, politics, religion)

.

As part of a recent poll, Relevant magazine - which caters to young evangelicals in America - asked the following.

Who would be voted Best to Bring Home to Meet the Parents?

Barack Obama 18.4%
Dennis Kucinich 2.1%
Mike Gravel 0.5%
John Edwards 24.9%
Joe Biden 0.9%
Hillary Clinton 2.6%
Mike Huckabee 16.6%
Rudy Giuliani 4.1%
Fred Thompson 4.8%
Ron Paul 5.4%
Mitt Romney 13.2%
John McCain 6.6%

Who would be voted Most Likely to Be a Preacher?

Barack Obama 19.8%
Dennis Kucinich 0.8%
Mike Gravel 1.3%
John Edwards 7.5%
Joe Biden 1.0%
Hillary Clinton 0.9%
Mike Huckabee 37.3%
Rudy Giuliani 1.2%
Fred Thompson 6.5%
Ron Paul 4.8%
Mitt Romney 12.9%
John McCain 5.8%

Who would Jesus vote for?

Barack Obama 28.7%
Dennis Kucinich 2.8%
Mike Gravel 0.2%
John Edwards 4.7%
Joe Biden 1.4%
Hillary Clinton 1.8%
Mike Huckabee 24.2%
Rudy Giuliani 4.3%
Fred Thompson 6.0%
Ron Paul 15.6%
Mitt Romney 3.7%
John McCain 6.6%
.
No matter how much the need for these questions makes me balk, this ex-market researcher has to commend Relevant’s ingenious way of getting at some, well, relevant answers.

 

Permalink 20 Comments

bloody mary

February 7, 2008 at 10:42 pm (culture, marketing, psychology, religion)

No matter how delightful the concoction, I’ve always found its name vaguely distasteful. Some say it refers to Queen Mary I of England who was known for her violent persecution of Protestants. Others say it is just a cheeky reference to the color of the drink. I sense from it (especially when you consider its non - alcoholic counterpart, the Virgin Mary) a mild irreverence for Christianity. It’s funny, sure, but also sort of irreverent…

I’m no proponent of church (or for that matter any temple, mosque or synagogue), but I’m no fan of deriding religion either. In fact, I find organized religion fascinating - from a marketing perspective. Seems to me that the need for something like it is a hallmark of humanity and I am curious about why organized religion “sells.” (I apologize if this is way too simplistic or mundane or offensive to some, but I had to start formulating my thoughts on this somehow.)

So, I believe, organized religion tries - and usually haplessly fails on the whole - to satisfy a few very basic human needs:

Our need for congregation. Simply getting together with other people regularly, for the sense of community, being part of a social group, hanging out with likeminded others, call it what you will. When I was little, my parents held traditional celebrations of a couple of religious festivals, and the aura of purity and cohesion during those times at home was lovely. But we also satisfy this need at places of non-worship, such as the cofffee shop down the street, where for instance, some of us to the left might congregate and then complain about those to the right.

Our need for devotion. We need an earnest, almost mindless attachment in our lives, whether it is to a person/s, pet, cause, or a hobby. Really, art could be a great substitute for organized religion. Unfortunately, the focus on artistic passion is in dire need the world over.

Our need for hope. What guarantee do I have that I will be or keep being happy? None whatsoever. So maybe I should pray to someone/something outside myself in order to truly believe that it is all going to be okay. But perhaps I could also find that within myself somehow, and I could also perhaps learn to enjoy (or at the very least, accept) the present moment a little more. (So could I have that Bloody Mary now please?) :D

Our need for harmony. I believe we have a need to feel that we are one with the universe. I went to a Christian private school, and singing hymns was a part of our daily morning routine. We called it assembly, and raising our voices together in praise of ‘Him’ was one of my favorite parts of the day. I realized, when I was a teeanger, that the feeling I got waving a lighter around with thousands of other people at a Europe concert satisfied (albeit in a slightly different way) that same need for harmony.

Our need for distinction. All of us want to feel like there is a difference between us and them, to see ourselves as one of those who know the difference between right and wrong. I am a Christian/Hindu/Muslim/Jew/atheist… religious affiliations and non-affiliations are great identity-generators.

Our need for indignation. We unfortunately have some misguided need to enhance ourselves (and those we associate with) and derogate those we feel are not like us (i.e. those we don’t or can’t associate with). Organized religion satisfies the need for an ego-boost particularly well. Consider this however: I tune in to preachers on the radio on and off. Besides giving me fodder for thought, it also allows me my self-righteous indulgence of the day. How am I different from the rest of the world? “Well, don’t you see, I can see right through those manipulative sermons. Oh, the poor suckers who fall for that stuff every week…” One might say some of us are religiously irreligious.

Our need for rituals. There’s something very gratifying about doing something familiar regularly, whether it is eating a bagel every day, taking your dog to the park every Sunday morning, or praying every night. We are creatures of habit, and again, organized religion happens to step in and satisfy this craving exceedingly well.

Our need for tradition. This one is close to but not quite the one above. Tradition makes us feel like we have a legacy, that we are of historical value, and so we must do things a certain way. For instance, I can’t imagine being married in a purple outfit, no matter how much I like the colour or how anti-establishment I’m feeling. Ah, tradition, good old tradition.

Our need for escape. It is a harsh reality sometimes, and we all need a break from it on and off. So some might escape with alcohol or drugs, others with exercise or food, and yet others with religion.

Our need for mentorship. So we are all a little lazy and would like someone to help us with our homework, in this case with something that should be as personal as spiritual deliberation. It’s not just that though; it really is nice to be able to trust someone we look up to in guiding us in the “right” direction. However, should we not pay a little more attention to the credentials, intentions, and wisdom of who we trust? (I’m thinking of the likes of Ted Haggard and Raj Thackeray, ugh.)

Our need for awe. This one I find particularly interesting. When you look at a beautiful cathedral for instance, you might see how it is designed to inspire a feeling of awe. It juxtaposes a tiny little you against a massive and beautiful monument often times associated with some sort of “creator”. Awe has two components: a sense of utter humility mixed with a paradoxical sense of upliftment. I think it is a very addictive emotion. I realized this more so in Los Angeles - there are tons of newagey religious outfits around (the L.Ron Hubbard building on Sunset Boulevard is huge and straight out of a sci-fi movie), and yet the worship of celebrities is way more pervasive than any other in the city. The awe generated by nature (think of the Grand Canyon, a magnificent sunset, or a really pretty tree) could be a great substitute for that created by religion or Paris Hilton. Sad thing is, it is nature (catastrophes like hurricanes/floods and natural diseases like the plague/cancer) that religions are created to “explain” and superstitions come about to “control”.

The point is this: we could satisy all these needs in ways other than religion, if we just bothered ourselves with a little curiosity, observation, engagement, and introspection. But therein lies the irony, doesn’t it? The garden-variety of most religions drastically curbs introspection, ceremoniously puts blinders on people, and systematically detracts from our innate curiosity about ourselves, our worlds, and how deeply personal spirituality should be. Simply obey, do not question, practise rituals, live your life just so, be afraid, feel guilt, look down covertly if not overtly on other religions, proselytize, fight wars for your beliefs. This is how religion usually manifests itself today, when in reality, it should be classified under philosophy, and each religious text just be considered somebody else’s point of view - one that you are free to agree or disagree with, so long as you are discerning and careful to avoid a herd-like mentality.

Let’s say cheers to that.

PS: Just in case you were misled here by the title of this entry, then I hope this recipe will leave you a little less disappointed!

1/2 fresh lime juice

1 tsp wasabi, 1 tsp hot pepper sauce, or both if you are brave

6 cups low-salt tomato/veggie juice

3 tbsp Worcestershire sauce

3/4 tsp salt

1 1/2 cups vodka

Combine lime juice and wasabi with a whisk, until wasabi dissolves. Pour into a pitcher, and add juice, Worcestershire sauce, hot pepper sauce and salt. Chill. Stir in vodka and serve over ice, with a stalk of celery or pickled asparagus. Sprinkle on some crushed pepper. Serves 8. Enjoy.

Permalink 4 Comments

ra ra rall?

January 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm (india, people, politics, religion, the world)

Sunday’s cartoon responds to the generally respectful tone accorded Mike Huckabee, who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic.

- Ted Rall

Permalink 2 Comments

marketing memes

October 22, 2007 at 7:29 pm (advertising, branding, market research, religion, sociology)

Folks in evolutionary studies have this idea of memes. If I understand it right, a meme is the fundamental unit of cultural evolution - like the gene is to biological evolution. Richard Dawkins coined the term in 1976, and it seems to have become quite the thang, in academia and out. According to Dawkins, some memes - like genes - will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and mutate.

I see memes as ideas that evolve in to trends - the iPod revolution, for example. It’s like a cultural contagion for better or worse - an idea that leaps from mind to mind. Santosh Desai, a brilliant commentator on popular culture, explains: “A meme is something that is imitative, almost in a reflexive way rather than a cognitive way. Like a tune which gets into your head and refuses to leave. It is possible to infect other people with it. It bypasses the intellect.” Think catchy. Viral marketing and religion are other examples of memes cited by Desai.

Sort of a side note: Dawkins contends that memes can at times be even more powerful than genes and gives the example of celibacy. There’s more on the spread of ideational infections - whether bad or good - in this TED talk by the remarkable Dan Dennett.

Permalink 1 Comment

pill bill

October 11, 2007 at 8:24 pm (politics, public speaking, religion, television, the world)

Help!

I am addicted to (gulp) TBN.

Today, I watched Bill O’Reilly in earnest conversation with James Robison. The latter is a regular on the evangelical channel I have become so intrigued by. They were discussing O’Reilly’s latest book called ‘Culture Warrior’  where he talks about some stark divide between America’s “Traditionalists” (Ts) and its “Secular-Progressives” (SPs).

I have watched him on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’, and often been impressed by his ability to think rationally and articulate quickly and succinctly his point of view. What he sorely lacks however is the ability to discern the shades of grey of any issue and therein lies his (fortunate) unpopularity with more than just the “SPs”. I saw the same trend play out in this interview, where Robison asked him to tell “people of faith” in the TBN audience about his book.

O’Reilly spoke of how, in polls, 65% of America was found to be of the “T “variety and how, unfortunately, a liberal media represents the 35% “SP” minority. He went on to beckon viewers of TBN to be a “T warrior” and help to preserve the Judeo-Christian foundation on which the nation has prospered so far. He pointed out how there exists a clear distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, and how this line is sadly made blurry by people who think secularly and progressively.

He claimed to be against the removal of Christian prayers from public school, espoused his clearly anti-gay-marriage view, and spoke passionately about how Ts need to fight SPs from causing furthur deterioration of this nation’s values. “Too many Americans,” he told Robison, “are sitting this one out, when in fact, we need them to go out there and be warriors!” What he means by that is “boycott liberal media” and other things in that vein, but the language is incendiary, to say the least.

Needless to say, Robison was lapping all this up. It seems to me that this “T” state of mind is the internal war - which in turn fuels the external wars - that America is embroiled in. And the same issue seems  to exist worldwide. That Shilpa Shetty would be given such a tough time in India (wasn’t the Shiv Sena involved?), for a little kiss in public from Richard Gere, reeks of the same misguided and arrogant sort of “traditionalism”. 

Well, I’m going to have to avoid getting my daily fix of TBN drivel tomorrow. But I’m afraid that The Bold and The Beautiful will toss me in to the throes of withdrawal.

Permalink No Comments

enough is enough

October 10, 2007 at 7:31 pm (politics, religion)

While switching channels on TV yesterday, I came across a show with two women in deep discussion about the competition that women feel with other women. It sounded like a rather secular discussion of the nature of human beings until one of them exclaimed, “It is the attack of Satan, that’s what it is.” The other one somberly agreed. Hilarious!

That’s when I realized that I was watching the Trinity Broadcasting Network , a fervently Christian endeavour. TBN is available in every major continent via 47 satellites and more than 12,000 cable affiliates worldwide. It broadcasts in to 92 percent of the American homes and its website receives more than 25 million visitors monthly.

The two women went on to converse about how competition between women is “natural”. And by that very definition, they postulated, it is “off the flesh” and hence “opposed to God”. Who would have ever have thought that Nature is antithetical to God? Goodness, I was honestly rivetted and stayed on the network for hours. I saw a newscast where evangelicals were shown trying to spread the word of Jesus at a congregation of Muslims clearly there to celebrate Allah. How very audacious!

(See how I might have gotten hooked on to this incredible programming?)

 

Finally, they talked about Kathy Griffin’s “blasphemy” while receiving her Emmy. Here’s Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, expressing his sentiments about Kathy in greater detail. Anyway, to bring this full circle, the anti-defamation Catholic League apparently decided to issue a reprimand (in the form of a full page ad in USA Today) to Kathy with a headline that read ”Enough is enough”.

I’m not applauding Kathy saying, “Suck it, Jesus!” (Even though I think she is generally very funny.) But what about the freedom of speech? And letting people find funny what they will? How about honestly dwelling on why people might have found the comment humorous, rather than the knee-jerk censoring of it out of the Emmys?

O M G.

Permalink No Comments