Eliade and the Second Viewpoint

Religious scholar Mircea Eliade also argued for this broader definition of religion. The Marian apparitions, which he would have called hierophanies[1], have contributed a great amount of feeling to the practice of Roman Catholicism, whether the church approves or not. He would call these sightings and objects of worship religious, as long as people feel a sense of holiness when interacting with them. A hierophany is a “breakthrough of the sacred into the World.”[2] The Virgin Mary is a sacred person, and her appearance is certainly a “breakthrough” into our mundane world. We can safely say, then, that the Apparitions are all hierophanies in and of themselves. So are hierophanies a vital part of religion? Eliade says that not only are they vital, but they are what shape a religion, and give it body. He would say that the Marian Apparitions have more weight in Catholicism than many more common rituals that are not necessarily hierophanic in nature.

How have the Marian Apparitions led to a greater sense of Catholicism? The answer is in the legions of followers who visit the sacred sites of the Apparitions, both approved and unapproved, and those who purchase things like burnt toast in the form of the Virgin. They gravitate toward these because in the original moment of apparition, they were hierophanies. They were Holy moments that lend a feeling of sacredness to an everyday moment. Catholicism in its traditional sense becomes almost superfluous in this sense, as hierophanies are the formation of a greater religious experience.

---

[1] See footnote 5.

[2] Mircea Eliade “Myth and Reality”

Orsi and the First Viewpoint

Orsi said that religion “comes into being in an ongoing, dynamic relationship with the realities of everyday life.”[1] The pilgrims who travel to touch and pray by statues of Our Lady of Lourdes[2] feel a closeness with religion that can’t be replicated outside of the site. Their voyage to the sanctuary, marked by the purchases of plane tickets, bus fares, and other such very physical and everyday actions, becomes sacred despite the fact that they have been through a whole loop of mundane things before arriving. This is the “dynamic relationship with everyday life” in which Orsi believes. Even in the hustle and bustle of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, hundreds of people each day feel a union with Mary and with Catholicism which they paid and travelled a great deal to experience.

If this apparition, which brings so much joy to Catholics, has been approved by the Church, it’s easy to argue for its place in religion. However, we are met with a new challenge when talking about unapproved Marian apparitions. I consider there to be two fairly well-defined classes of unapproved Apparitions. In the first class are those which have been visited by the Pope, are followed by large numbers of worshippers, and are considered by most Catholics to be genuine. In the second class I would place those objects such as toast burnt in Mary’s resemblance, or stains on walls which take her shape. As one can imagine, it grows more difficult to defend apparitions as religious as one progresses from approved, to first class, and to second. However, Orsi would defend all of these, as they all involve a personal relationship with the religion, even if only by a few. Even if the majority of Catholics would not regard the burnt toast as Holy, some Ebay purchaser paid $71 for it. Like pouring holy water into radiators[3], those who worship the approved and unapproved Marian apparitions feel spiritually fulfilled by their relationship with these objects of worship.

In order to support the relationship between Orsi’s worship-centric theory of religion and the worship of the Marian apparitions, I propose to travel to the site of various approved and first and second class unapproved Marian apparitions. Interviews with worshippers would determine how far pilgrims travel to see these apparitions, and how they feel that their worship has a place in their personal experience of Catholicism. It would be important to ask whether they consider themselves strictly Catholic, especially those at the unapproved sites. If it were revealed that people do indeed consider these apparitions as vital to their experience of religion, and that they will travel far to visit them, I would consider the apparitions to fall into Orsi’s category of the “ongoing, dynamic relationship” with religion which he considers to be as important as any tradition approved by the Church.

---

[1] See footnote 4.

[2] A Church-approved Marian apparition in France

[3] See footnote 4.

Beginning of the Finale

The Virgin Mary is one of the most iconic religious personages of our time. She is pictured holding the baby Jesus, rising to Heaven, and simply praying in any number of mediums. Her face is in paintings, stained glass windows, statues, and in every manner of mirrors, pill boxes, rosaries, and other trinkets. She is even said to have appeared many times in everyday circumstances, dating back to 1531 in Mexico[1]. These appearances, or apparitions, are at the center of a great deal of folk lore, worship, and occasionally approval by the Catholic Church.

Although only thirteen of these apparitions have been deemed to be true by the Church[2], hundreds of other seeming appearances have found their way to the public and to the internet. A Google search for “Mary apparitions” contains pictures of burnt toast, the windows of a high rise, a bowl of soup, and even the wall in a subway station which bear resemblances to Mary. Some of these are sold on eBay; many are simply worshipped with small shrines, but the reverence for these objects, almost completely apart from Catholicism, creates an interesting division between the Catholic Church and popular culture. This division seems to be completely disregarded by many followers, who consider these unapproved apparitions to be just as wholly worship-able as the approved ones[3].

These cleavages between popular ideas and the Church’s approved doctrine are not new. They are not fought over, although many unofficial apparitions and their supporters wait and lobby for centuries in order to obtain approval. They are simply examples of faith beyond religion, as is Robert Orsi’s depiction of the shrine in the North Bronx[4].

Orsi said that religion “comes into being in an ongoing, dynamic relationship with the realities of everyday life.”[5] He would argue, then, for these apparitions to be called religious, as it is one of the small, everyday parts of worship that defines an individual’s religious experience.

Religious scholar Mircea Eliade also argued for this broader description of religion. The Marian apparitions, which he would have called hierophanies[6], have contributed a great amount of feeling to the practice of Roman Catholicism, whether the church approves or not. He would call these sightings and objects of worship religious, as long as people feel a sense of holiness when interacting with them.

Thomas A. Tweed argued that sacred places and items created something of a separate reality[7], and would have considered the apparitions to be indicative of the unity of the worshipper with the religion itself and with its origins. A Catholic in Chicago can light a candle at the shrine in the Chicago subway[8] and feel himself transported to the realm of the holy, even despite the racket of the subway and the bustling crowds around him. This indicates the religious nature of the apparitions, as they exist in two almost distinct realities.

---

[1] Mary was said to have appeared to a man in Mexico at this time, asking that a temple be built for her. When no one believes the man’s tale, a portrait of Mary appeared on his cloak. This image came to be called the Virgin of Guadalupe.

[2] http://www.catholicdoors.com/isit/approved.htm has a clear list of approved apparitions.

[3] Such as the author of marypages.com, who gives a list of the more serious apparitions, excluding toast and windows but still including many not officially approved by the Church.

[4] Robert Orsi, "Everyday Miracles: The Study of Lived Religion"

[5] See footnote 4.

[6] Mircea Eliade, “The Sacred and the Profane”

[7] Thomas A. Tweed, “Our Lady of the Exile”

[8] An unapproved apparition of Mary is the result of water damage in a Chicago subway.

Women in Freemasonry: The Material Aspect

Regular Lodges of Freemasons such as the United Grand Lodge of England have made it clear that Freemasons are free to explain that yes, women are accepted as Freemasons. However, this is something of a foil, as there is no formally recognized Lodge accepting women. There are two such fully female Lodges in England (The Order of Women Freemasons and The Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons) which are admittedly regular in every aspect except that they are female, but they are not even allowed formal contact with regular male Lodges. Of course, there are Orders such as that of the Eastern Star, but these are considered by traditional, male Lodges as simply mirroring Freemasonry and not as equals. So why, considering that Freemasonry has changed a good deal since its inceptions in the twelfth century, are women still not considered as equals?

First off, every Freemason must swear in his obligations to never help in the making of a woman into a Mason. Some men consider this to be too powerfully binding and unchangeable to overcome, whatever their personal beliefs.
Secondly, Freemasonry is a fraternity. If there exist side by side female organizations, why should the men include the women, since they have their own possibilities?

Perhaps most importantly, mainstream Masonic bodies follow the regulations laid down during the 17th century, one of which is the strict exclusion of women.

I'm interested in further exploring the reasons for excluding women, in addition to finding things that have changed in mainstream Freemasonry which might necessarily have been considered quite as strange as introducing women. I'll also be researching current opinions of important figures in modern Freemasonry.

Feminist Oppresion

Although I had never really thought about the feminist or anti-feminist values of Evangelical Christians, the point made in the Conclusion by Griffith really resonated with me. I hear a lot of anti-feminist rhetoric, and it comes from women just as often as men. I think the underbearing thought is that feminists are pushing women to be a certain way just as much as male chauvinism is pushing them. There is more than one way for a woman to feel liberation in her life, and what feminists usually push is a very specific way of going about it. Perhaps there are other methods of achieving happiness - this seems to be what the female Muslim characters in The Taqwacores understand. What outsiders often miss is this feeling of freedom within a different set of rules. Rabeya understood and embraced the Burqa, but Lynn couldn't escape her feminist set of rules defining feminine happiness. She rebelled against society in the more typical way - she had dreadlocks instead of a more typical feminine haircut, she listened to rock music, and she approached sex in a recreational way. She simply couldn't understand that perhaps Rabeya's road to liberation, as conservative as it was, could be just as empowering. She didn't want to dawn the Burqa, even though as we saw, Rabeya found a great degree of liberation through wearing (and not wearing) it.

Feminist thought, in the end, is just one way of going about female liberation. Evangelical women as much as Muslim women find their happiness through ways, although similarly potent, that a feminist wouldn't understand.

Walking in the [House Full of Punks]

Although De Certeau is difficult to follow in his intricately woven rhetoric, I think what I took out of his essay Walking in the City is that our systematic destruction of our own physical culture, something which shames us as a society, will lead to the downfall of said society. The shunning of myths, legends, and the misinterpretation of the importance of socially unifying things such as walking are mistakes which are being reinforced by the ability to hide one's eyes at all times behind mirrored windows and the complete avoidance of such vital interactions as window shopping and wandering through the streets of the city.

In a way, the Taqwacores are rejecting this modern mentality of stark avoidance of reality. Rather, they dive into social interactions, pushing their personalities on those around them, and loudly proclaiming their place in society. They are doing what de Certeau surely would approve of; they are following the more primitive instincts to culture and they don't walk with their eyes downcast, but rather with their mohawks upcast and their eyes in search of God. They are the reintroduction of feeling into a culture full of nonfeeling and avoidance of feeling. They are passionate and follow their instincts, like de Corteau's walker following the streets of Paris.

Introductory Introduction

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Punkfighting

As Geertz makes clear in Deep Play: notes on the Balinese cockfight, a culture can be understood through the various “texts,” as he calls them, contained within the culture.

Looking at Tawqacore in this way, the first step would be to identify texts. Two immediately come to mind: from Punk, the Taqwacores’ outlandish clothes and hair, and from Muslim, the daily ritual prayer.

The second step would then be to analyze the emotional meaning of each text.

Quite obvious is the way in which the Taqwacores individualize themselves and separate from the larger society – their image. The very act of wearing a Mohawk or getting a tattoo is a way of expelling oneself from mainstream society. The Taqwacores are essentially breaking off, that is to say, separating themselves not only from non- Taqwacores, but also from each other. Looking at Jehangir next to Yusef, it would probably be hard to imagine that they should have anything in common.

In sharp contrast, prayers embody the spiritual, displaying the self containment and recognition of oneself as a smaller being in a larger universe. Each prayer is a way of bonding oneself not only with Allah, but also with other people. These people may be strangers, as when the many bands camped at the house and held mass-group-prayers, or one’s closest friends, as when the Taqwacores pray together on a daily basis. However, there’s always contained in this act a sense of greater unity.

This simultaneous separation and unification within the Taqwacore culture forms a central mode of being; the two acts balance each other out to create what is uniquely Taqwacore.

Taqwacore/Eliade and Otto

Otto’s discussion about the rationality of God made me wonder a little about whether he would consider the Taqwacores to be worshipping rationally. They seemed to consider Allah as a complete mystery more than giving Him human characteristics. They certainly, however, regarded him as Holy as defined in this essay. The complete mystery, the “mysterium profundum” seemed to often overwhelm the inhabitants of the house, whether because of the electric call to prayer from the roof, or because of the intensity of the relationship between the characters and their daily routines.

Eliade’s idea of the “hierophany” fits in well with the radically different religion as well; again, Jehangir seems to exemplify this, at least for Yusef. As Yusef describes the house in the first chapter, we get a glance at a hierophany of sorts, as Jehangir holds jumaa on page 19:

“He’d stand there by the hole in our wall with brilliant high stripe of hair down the middle of his head, the sides often dark with stubble and whip up something about the Rasullullah, sallallaho alayhe wa salaam, that would send us charging out the door feeling like we could all be the secret heroes who lurked as fantasies in our chests, the Super Mumins, MegaMujahids and Laser-Eyed Shaheeds.”

The whole culture of the house is based on the idea of hierophanies, and the characters live their lives in a constant state of anticipation, waiting for the next divine moment which would illuminate just a little more of what it means to be Taqwacore. Eliade would also agree that the Taqwacores belief system, their religion, is more than just the sum of its parts. It’s not defined by when they pray, or what they eat, but rather by the meaning it holds for each one of them. It’s a far stronger and more personal religion than researchers like Tylor might portray in a report.

Questionable

Although this isn't a response, I believe we were supposed to post our three questions if we weren't going to be in class on Monday. Mine are:

1. Sunni and Shia Islam are practiced side by side in this book, but aren't they a source of quite a bit of fighting in the Middle East? Are most Muslims not concerned by the distinction, or is this just a characteristic of the Taqwacore culture?

2. There are many mentions of differing interpretations of the Qur'an, and it sounds as though other Islamic works are almost important in determining the "rules" of the religion. Is this correct? Is the Qur'an like the Torah, including discussions alongside the text?}

3. How common is it for a Muslim woman to wear a full burqa out of fear, whether of disgrace or of arousing a man? Or is it often a pride in the privacy of their own bodies?

How do we know if a person or group of people is/are “religious”? What does Tylor say we should look for to answer that question?

Although individually we may have different definitions of belief, Tylor sees the importance of coming to a common set of rules defining a religion. His proposal is to use a wide definition of Religion: “It seems best to … simply claim, as a minimum definition of Religion, the belief in Spiritual Beings.” In his experience, previous definitions of Religion have been too narrow, only taking into account beliefs congruent with those of the researcher. He quotes several writers who have simultaneously confirmed Religion in “savages” according to Tylor’s definition, and refuted the Religion according to their own more narrow definitions. In this day and age, we tend to generally accept this much wider definition, therefore causing Tylor’s argument to seem the more adept; however, the researchers which he mentioned must have sounded thoroughly logical in their own time. Consider the possibility that our “logical” definition of religion must be as constantly changing as the religions it defines. Thus, perhaps Tylor’s “broad” definition is not really so broad. Belief itself is arguably reliable. However, limited to Tylor’s point of view, Religion is defined by belief in some sort of soul, whether it belong to inanimate objects, animals, or especially humans; along with a tendency to believe in higher spiritual beings, who feel “pleasure or displeasure from human actions.” He denotes this crude base of religion as Animism and affirms its presence in all currently known religions, whether in its most basic or most “evolved” (or Christian) form.

What is Religion According to Luther?

We are all sinners in God’s eyes, as Luther says repeatedly in this essay. The root of all sin, the flesh, is something with which we must continually battle if we wish to reach Heaven in the afterlife. However, there is no way of consciously battling against the flesh. Neither is there any conscious way of appeasing God with one’s goodwill and giving nature. These works, as Luther points out, are not virtues at all, but rather a sign of interior sin, for “[one does] these things without a free desire and love of the Law, with loathing and under restraint.” At this point in the Preface, I found myself wondering, wouldn’t a truly holy person do good works and love them in his heart? Could there be no exception to the seeming rule that good works indicate inner sin? Luther addresses this at a later point, saying that there is no person good enough, who keeps the Law so well, that he should be so virtuous as to want to do good works without thought of himself and his salvation. If no such person exists, then how does any person arrive in Heaven? The answer is simple; Paul is quoted as saying, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Luther explains, “They must be saved without any merit of theirs, by faith in Christ.” There is no sinless person. There is no way to enter Heaven on one’s own. Faith in Christ is our only hope of salvation, and as it seems, there is no sinner so great as to not be extended this favor, unless his faith in Christ lessens for his belief in his ultimate salvation. Therefore, it is almost unnecessary to do good in one’s life; only true faith would instill in us the desire to do so, but none has such faith as to do such good. Therefore, any outer sign of good is a sign of inner sin. No worries, though; Christ will save all those who follow him. What, then, is the good of being good?