the feed @ blackchicken

With the snow beginning to melt and the promise of warmer temperatures and green grass beckoning, I’m reminded of a Sunday ritual in my family. No, it’s not Sunday service at the local church, but it’s something that bares a remarkable similarity to that ritual activity. The ritual of Sunday golf among the men of my family has steadily become entrenched in our collective consciousness. As such, whenever my husband and I make a trip back home during the warmer months, we know it will culminate in Sunday golfing.  Given that golf season is almost upon us and that last week one of my friends made a comment about how these posts hurt his head, and couldn’t we just talk about the Leafs’ trades — I thought I’d compromise with a post about sports as religion.

My family’s Sunday golf ritual begins with a quorum of usually four men booking a tee time for the morning. There’s a bit of unease if the quorum of four isn’t found – seems four is the sacred number; however, the game still goes on with two, three or even five. Where else can you find a quorum for ritual? The Jewish minyan is the requirement of ten adult males for special prayers and rituals. In fact, numbers seem to play an important part in many religions:  twelve apostles, ninety-nine most beautiful names of God, five elements, etc.

Special attire is a must for the Sunday golf ritual. All the men dress in khakis and golf shirts, and some don special golfing hats. Many religions also have specialized attire for specific ritual, prayer or meetings. In Judaism, there’s the tallit, a Jewish prayer shawl; the tefillin, small, black, leather boxes containing verses from the Torah (first part of the Hebrew Bible) that are strapped on the forehead and forearm; and the kippah. Practically every religion has some sort of ritual clothing that is used in worship, and sometimes everyday life. There’s also widespread practice in Christian communities of donning your Sunday best for congregation. Some religious attire can also appear quite unusual to the outsider and this is also true of some sports fans outfits, as these funny sports fanatic photos will attest too. So, evidently both religion and sports make use of specialized attire to enhance the ritual experience.

The metaphor of sports as religion is also paralleled when you examine other elements such as congregants of fans versus congregants of worshippers. There isn’t much difference between worship and fanaticism, given that they both clearly revolve around revering something or someone deemed worthy. Sports stars are often seen as outside the realm of the ordinary, and the same can be said about saints, prophets and other notable religious figures. What about the church/temple/house of worship and the stadium/arena/field? Clearly, devotees of both religion and sport find something sacred or special at these places. Here the community is brought together for participation in the rites that bind them.

Arguably, the binding of a community is central to both religion and sports. People are loyal to their faith and loyal to their teams. This binding works to not only bring the respective communities together, but also to create division from those outside the community. Just as a Christian may never truly understand the Hindu world view; a Leafs fan is just as unlikely to comprehend the loyalty of a Habs fan.

While the men in my family may be in search of a hole in one, instead of the holy grail – it’s worth noting that maybe the two aren’t so different.  Clearly, both groups are brought together in a ritualistic form, to bond with their respective communities, uplift their spirits, and share in an experience that may not be completely understood by outsiders.

Whether you choose to shout praise at the tee with a resounding “Fore!,” or pronounce praise at the pew with an emphatic “Amen!,” may the spirit of your community bind you together in joy.

Lately, I’ve been becoming more interested in policies surrounding environmental issues – in particular the idea that we can reverse climate change. There have been many scientists suggesting that government policies surrounding climate change are based on flawed data. Those policies are costing us money – lots of money – so, I’m naturally going to be curious as to how the government is spending my tax dollars.
For example the notion that we can somehow reverse climate change seems like a bit of a daunting, if not impossible task. We’d be right in that assumption because the climate has and always will change – that’s the one thing that’s constant about our climate. We don’t and can’t control it.
We’ve also been led to believe that clean sources of energy are better for us and our environment, and well, that doesn’t entirely seem to be the case either. Wind energy is being touted as a renewable, clean, and safe source for us. Turns out there’s questions about the health implications to humans, and implications to birds and other avian animals. Who knows what the real cost will eventually be to us? Sure, the oil sands may not be the best solution for our energy needs, but if the below video is any indication, I’m not sure that wind turbines are the better alternative.
Clearly, we have some more research to do before we start investing billions of dollars into energy sources designed to lower our carbon emissions. Understanding the science behind why these initiatives need to be undertaken, in addition to the real cost to us, is of paramount importance. We may discover that those choices lead us to different issues that cost us far more.

Warning: video is not meant for the squeamish.

Source: FrontierCentre

Religion and the law seem to frequently collide. In secular societies, religion is supposed to be separate from the law. Law is meant to provide everyone in society with certain guarantees and protections, including the freedom of religion. So, there’s the rub. What do we do when freedom of religion directly contravenes the law of the land?

There are numerous headlines that attest to this delicate balance. Recently, a group of Muslim immigrants petitioned a Manitoba board of education to remove their children from music and co-ed physical education classes. Last week, the Quebec legislature banned Sikhs from wearing a kirpan (ceremonial dagger) in the legislature. A private member’s bill has been put forth that would require Muslim women to unveil before voting. Arguably the biggest tango between religion and the law currently in Canada is the case regarding the polygamous sect in Bountiful, BC. A hearing is underway to determine whether Canada’s 1890 anti-polygamy law violates freedom of religion.

Clearly, the protection of citizens must be paramount for the legal system to be purposeful; however, what does that protection entail? If a fringe group of minority Muslims want to remove their children from certain classes, should they be allowed? Is it any different than allowing Catholic parents to remove their children from sexual education classes? How is the anonymity of veiled women voting different than the many Canadians who mail their votes in or show up to the polls without photo identification? Why have we suddenly decided that after years of allowing Sikhs to wear the kirpan in the legislature to suddenly change it? Is it the widespread suspicion of any religion that doesn’t posses a specific Judeo-Christian ideology? If three or more consenting adults want to marry, should they legally have the right? Clearly, the exploitation of minors should be rigorously investigated and persecuted; however, are child exploitation and polygamy unequivocally mutually exclusive? In our secular society, can marriage even be defined as exclusively religious?

I have a lot of thoughts concerning these topics, which I’ll share in next week’s Incubation follow-up post. For now, I’d like to hear from you.

Last week I posted some questions on whether religion should be exempt from critique and satirical commentary. My Facebook status update generated some interesting comments. The overall consensus was, yes, religion is fair game for critique, satire and debate. Now in all fairness, I suspect that most of the discussion was generated by folks who are not part of some organized religion. I’d be curious to hear from those who are members of a specific religion.

There were two discussion points that I found particularly poignant. The first was the idea that both the staunchly religious AND non-religious could be equally hostile and stubborn when defending their beliefs. Each side seemingly claims to know a certain truth and will unabashedly vocalize to the other side the folly and error of thinking otherwise.

The second was that there needs to be discussion/debate surrounding religion, especially in light of growing multi-faith societies and ever increasing global connectivity. As a religious scholar, I’ve visited many Web sites of both a religious and secular nature and the comment boards are often the most insightful sections of the site. If many of the comments are an indication of the state of religious discussion in mainstream society, then we’ve got a lot of work to do. Clearly, there are some huge misconceptions and sweeping generalizations that are poisoning these discussions.

As Rabbi Adam Jacobs summed up in his An Open Letter to the Atheist Community “We still have a lot to discuss. Let’s do it with a caring heart, and open mind and a spirit of appreciation for our shared humanity”.

Wondering how soon the rapture might occur? Need help in identifying that the end times may be upon us? The Rapture Index is the self-proclaimed “prophetic speedometer of end-time activity”. Forty-five components make up the index, each scored according to an activity level. There’s the usual end-times activities you’d expect: plagues, droughts, and satanism (apparently downgraded due to lack of activity). Less expected are categories such as climate and oil supply/price. For the unenlightened, be sure to check out the THE RAPTURE INDEX CATEGORIES EXPLAINED.

I was always told to avoid talk of religion.  It seems that most people avoid the topic, as if lightening were going to strike them. Clearly, religion creates some huge divides among us. You’d expect, given that we’re a “civilized society”, we’d be able to engage in discussion about those things that make us different.  Groups coming together to discuss their differences often find that they have a lot more in common than what separates them.

What’s my point?  I think we need to have these discussions – not debates – discussions.  Let’s leave the debates out of it because that inherently implies that a side aims for victory.  Discussions give us an opportunity to understand another perspective, even if we don’t necessarily agree with it.  New understandings can only serve to make us wiser.

So, I ask:  Should the sacred and holy be exempt from critical engagement?  What about satirical commentary?

Here’s some ideas to think about:
– Is there a difference between critique and satire? Is it okay to question religion, but not mock it?
– Can we really talk about offending or challenging a specific religion when within each religious tradition there is much diversity among its adherents?
– Is criticism of belief any different than criticism of non-belief?
– Are we able to draw a line around what is open for critical engagement concerning religion – and if so, is that line arbitrary?

And if that wasn’t enough, I’ve added some images below to really get those gears grinding. Seems the religious debate is alive and well on the highways and streets…