Ignorance is not bliss for the intelligent people who are expected to tolerate it!

ARGH! I went to www.cleveland.com to see if I could find debate footage (it was streamed on this website live) or some informative articles about what people said. Instead I found an ignorant blogger from this website who tried to be witty but really just showed off how little she knows or understands. I haven't had a chance to listen to footage of the debate yet because I felt it was necessary to make some sort of reply to this woman. She closed her short post by saying:

"So far, the NBC moderators have failed to ask the foreign policy question that people most want them to address: "If you're elected president, do you promise to never, ever, ever, to embarrass the nation by allowing yourself to be photographed in ethnic garb?" (Just so credit is given were credit is do, the blogger's name is Sabrina Eaton and a link to her post can be accessed above).

Here was my response:

It's unfortunate that Obama's willingness to learn about other perspectives and honor other traditions is condemned as a bad thing! No, I'm not talking about making deals with dictators, which I am certain Obama will not do! However, there has been WAY too much uproar about the picture of Obama in traditional Somali garb! I am part of this nation and my first reaction to the picture was pride, not ignorant embarrassment! Obama was given the clothes as gift and he honored his hosts by putting it on as a sign of respect, just as their giving it to him can be seen as a sign of respect! It is the traditional garb of the ELDERS, the wise among the many! Obama is Christian and showing respect to other traditions makes him no less Christian. In fact, as a Christian myself, I think it makes him a better Christian by showing his willingness to be open new ideas and new ways of seeing God's love. If Obama had done something offensive instead of putting on the gift of the garments, he would not have been a true vessel of God's love, something all Christians are supposed to want to be.

The US Government, especially the White House, has shown itself to be close minded and ignorant on most issues of religious diversity in the world. Peace depends on a great deal on peace and understanding between religions. If more people were educated about the religions of our "enemies," they probably would not hate us so much. Soldiers would know that flushing a Koran down a toilet is paramount to burning down a church or smearing an altar with feces. Just because the religion is different doesn't mean it is completely wrong. Respect others and they will learn to respect you.

And something I should have added but just thought of:

I have been more embarrassed by my nation over the last eight years than I was seeing a picture of Obama in ethnic Somali garb from a trip to his ancestral land of Kenya.

I must be missing something...

So, the latest "huge" attack from the Clinton campaign is a picture from 2006 featuring Barack Obama dressed in the garb of a traditional Somali elder. When I saw the picture, I thought "Oh cool! I think it's great that Obama is willing to go outside the box and try to converse and get along with members of other faith communities, especially the Muslims who have been getting the bad rap for the last 7 years (or more)!" Apparently this is not what I am supposed to be getting from the picture. I'm supposed to look at the picture and think "Oh my god! Obama's Muslim!! He's goin to change America into an Islamist state and promote bad terrorist things to happen to all of the heathen Americans!" Since my interpretation was so totally different, could someone please tell me what I'm missing? Thanks!

I don't get it!

First of all, we'll just pretend that I've been better about keeping up this blogging thing and that there have been invisible posts the last few weeks...

I just finished reading the third book of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials series, The Amber Spyglass. It was really really good. I don't get it though. It was like watching one of those fascinating artsy movies that ends and you just think "Wow. Something just happened. I wonder what it was." As a religion major, these books were a treasure trove of religious allusion and theology but in the end, I don't quite get it. I don't want to give anything away but the message I took away from the third book especially was "live in the present moment." This is a very Buddhist way of thinking and it is something I have been working on for years, probably my whole life. However, Pullman approached this idea in such a Marxist way that it was hard for me to fully process.

The problem is because of my own religious and spiritual beliefs - I believe in God and happen to be part of the Church that is viciously attacked and negatively portrayed throughout the trilogy. I have no trouble saying that the Catholic Church has been corrupt at times throughout history but I still have very strong theological connections to my religion, no matter what corruption has occured in the past. Pullman focuses on Lyra's world when it comes to the corrupt Church so it may be that I am reading too much into the story. However, focusing on the Church (implied Catholic Church, since it involves the classic hierarchy led by men) in a "different" world allows Pullman to leave out the diversity of religions that affect our present day world. Where were the Protestants in the discussion of the "Authority" and the "Kingdom of Heaven." What would the Buddhist have to say, since their theology doesn't involve an ultimate Creator or all-powerful God? These were things I couldn't help thinking while reading all three books. I have studied the history and theology of the five major world religions in the past four years and it is hard for me to read these books without simultaneously studying Pullman's theology. It is fiction so I'm not saying that Pullman believes in Dust and all of the other things in the book, however, there are theories of religion, spirituality, and theology in these books, undeniably.

Another reason I am having trouble "understanding" or even processing finishing this series is that there are so many loose ends left untied. I like books that leave the future to the imagination but I find it distracting when an author introduces what seems to be a major plot point and then never resolves it. It's hard to explain so I'll try without being so specific to give things away. Even if you've only read the first book, it is clear there are biblical allusions to the Creation story, specifically Adam and Eve. In the third book, there is talk about the "serpent" figure in the world of the story. However, I don't quite know what happened to that very important character! Maybe I was reading too fast because I want to get to reading Harry Potter but I was deeply involved in reading The Amber Spyglass so I don't know how I missed it. There is talk of Original Sin, fallen angels, heaven and hell, and much more but temptation theme seemed to be forgotten by the end. I'll go back and re-read some of it just to make sure but it is certainly my biggest question about the conclusion. If anyone has ideas about what happened, let me know!

All this being said, I highly recommend these books. However, I hope that people do not read them as a metaphor for the truth because it would be too easy to start hating the Church and all devote believers. In addition, don't forget the shadings of Marxism throughout... It is surprising to me that I didn't hear more of an outcry against these books when they came out - maybe I just missed it? I remember Harry Potter being banned from schools because of its ideas of witchcraft but never did I hear about Pullman's books being forces of evil that claim that God is a finite being who has let corruption rule the world(s), not to mention the denial that God or "the Authority" had anything to do with creation... Thinking cynically, I guess it could be because Catholics are the obvious target so the conservative Protestants who fight to ban books would not be as upset as they would about other books. However, that is a mean, prejudiced thought so I do not entertain the idea seriously. I did do some internet research and there is evidence of this book being criticized by conservatives and possibly being banned. However, several book reviews and articles point out that the Harry Potter are more controversial in this aspect because of the claim that they are spreading the practice of sorcery to our children. I'm not even going to touch that one in this post...

In any case, I did come across a FASCINATING review of His Dark Materials that discusses a lot of the same things that concerned me, mainly the all-out attack on Christianity and organized religion. I highly recommend reading what James Bow, the author of this review had to say. I've linked the third part of his review since it mentions book banning but there are links at the top to two previous parts that are also highly fascinating. Clicking on the title of this post will take you to that page (hopefully).

Well, its been a long day and a longer post. I'll come reread the above later and make sure I didn't say anything too horrible but I don't like editing my thoughts on books and art because usually the first thing that comes out is the most honest reaction. I plan on reading some more reviews of Pullman's writing as well as some interviews with him. He apparently is a pretty outspoken aethiest so it shouldn't be hard!