EoG: Chapter 6 - From Polytheism to Monolatry

Highlighting this chapter is the law of religious tolerance- colloquially speaking (the best kind) people will only respect other religions when they think they can get something out of it. I find it a little coincidental that I'm typing an article about religious tolerance, or lack their of, in the midst of the rise of Islamophobia, and maybe that is something I will try to highlight. In fact, reading this chapter, I continuously found myself referencing modern day happenings, such as the takeover of America from the Native Americans to the modern day fight with Muslims. So if anything, we will learn that time does not change human nature.

First off, the definition of monolatry- it is the step between polytheism and monotheism, where the society believes not the a pantheon of multiple gods, but rather in one god for their culture; however, they do not believe in one universal god. Other cultures have their own gods as well.

Essentially, around the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, prophets began to teach xenophobic practices. This coincided with Israel being taken over by Assyria and other major power sources. Wright defines two possible reasons for the rise of monolatry- foreign policy and domestic power. As Israel's power shrank with Assyria's takeover, kings and their citizens got angry. They got nationalistic. They believed in the power of Israel. This nationalistic pride would reasonably be reflected in their unifying national religion of the time; claiming allegiance to Israel and Jerusalem is a way of showing national pride, and what better way than to claim allegiance to Jerusalem's god, Yahweh?

Similarly, this was reflected in domestic policies. As Israeli nationalism took root, worshipping foreign gods became totally passe. It was only the rich people that enjoyed being abroad and who had foreign objects because they were the only ones who could afford such nice things; thus, they were cosmopolitan and elitist. So it was a class system that was also xenophobic. Again, we can draw parallels between then and now. Today there is an overwhelming sense of patriotism that may have been present before 9/11, but now can be seen as a reaction to terrorism. Some areas of the country are proud to be 100% American and reject so-called "foreign" influences, such as Islam. Similarly, Israelis hated non-Israeli influences. Other gods in the traditional Israeli pantheon were eliminated for their "foreign" influence, leaving the capital city's god Yahweh as the one true god.

EoG: Chapter 5- Polytheism, the Religion of Ancient Israel

This chapter is set up as Ba'al versus Yahweh; the ancient king god of the primitive Pagans versus the new, more powerful monotheistic god of the Israelites. It helps that the Bible includes many stories about the battles between Ba'al and Yahweh, which can be taken metaphorically for larger cultural issues. But this era of Western human history has more to do with the evolution than modern monotheism emerging fully-fledged from the minds of the Israelites.

Robert Wright claims that rather than God emerging fully fleshed, announcing himself to the Israelites as their lord and savior, it is far more complicated than that, just like the culture of the time. As implied by modern interpretation of the Bible, the Israelites destroyed and overtook the disgusting pagan Canaanites and replaced themselves and their religion as the dominating force of the land. However, it is more likely that the Israelites and Canaanites peacefully coexisted, trading culture and goods, until the gradual peaceful takeover of the Canaanites.

Wright's reasonings for this:

• There is no archaeological evidence for a war between the Israelites and the Canaanites. As evidenced here and also in Wright's book, most of the digs revealed cities without walls or weapons. Walls and weapons are indicators of cities at war; without those, it is far more likely that the two cultures coexisted peacefully, and considering the Israelites used to be a nomadic tribe, they more than likely traded.
• There is evidence in the Bible that the omnipotent God we know today wasn't always that way. Many passages of the Bible allude to a pantheon of gods of which God was only a minor member; Psalm 82:1 says "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgement." Most, if not all of the original wording, was probably edited out by the original authors, intent on maintaining Yahweh's divinity in a changing world.
• Many of the mythical narratives proclaiming Yahweh's divinity bear a striking resemblance to the tales of Ba'al and El.
  
  • El is the god of the Canaanites, the original king of the Canaanite gods. The name "Israel" is likely derived from this name; ancient cultures had a habit of naming important things like cities after their gods, and Israel ends in El. The Hebrew word for God is "El," possibly derived from Canaan tradition. There is a school of thought that the El worshippers lived to the north of Judah, and the Yahweh worshippers, to the south, and both are mentioned interchangeably in the Bible, almost seamlessly. In fact, there is one passage, Exodus 6:2-3, that specifically says "I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them." God himself explains that he started out with a different name. Should the Canaanites and Israelites trade culture and goods (such as explained in the text above) then, like previous Pagan cultures, it would make sense to merge pantheons to create a peaceful cultural connection. The question is how a minor god such as Yahweh ended up absorbing the more powerful god El.
  • Ba'al is the enemy of Yahweh. Ultimately, Ba'al came to embody the evil pagan religions and everything that was wrong with them; Yahweh stood for the morally upright monotheistic religion. This epic battle culminated in 1 Kings 18:16-46, in which God burns a sacrificial bull and Ba'al does not. Elijah seizes the followers of Ba'al and slaughters them all. Considering how much Ba'al and Yahweh did not get along, it is a surprise that many stories about Yahweh seem to be rewritten Ba'al stories. This isn't so surprising when you realize that competitors often steal each other's ideas in order to outdo each other; Apple products are getting copied left and right, to get a piece of the action. Ba'al was a storm god, worshipped as a bringer of rain, very important and popular for agricultural communities. It is no wonder that Yahweh, to compete, began developing aspects of a rain god: his voice as thunder, his spear as lightning, a rider of the clouds.

Ultimately we can see where the origins of Yahweh, of the Judeo-Christian God, the original monotheistic god, lie in polytheism. What effect does this have on our interpretation of religion?

I can see that by recognizing the changes of the origin of God, a lot of the mystery and myth is taken away, and with it, a lot of mysticism. God is no longer infallible. He is susceptible to time and the philosophy of the times, just like the rest of us. Personally this appeals to me, a god that I can relate to, but the power of a Christian god lies in his beauty and omnipotence. We (his worshippers) are not worthy to worship him, but with this knowledge, he might not be worthy of us.

Church

So for some reason I am up abominably early this morning, which leaves me with a dilemma. For the past week, I've been debating whether or not I am going to church today. Earlier this week I was torn between "Well, it's not like I ever go to church, I don't want to start a church-going trend for myself" and my dad basically hounding me to go to church. "Go to the 9:15," my dad said, "I think you like that one better. You don't have to go to the same one as your mom and I."

So the reasons I don't want to go to church are as follows: one, I've never really enjoyed or believed in church and the worship service. Robert Wright's Evolution of God brings up the whole theory that worship was used in the ancient times basically to appease your god so that s/he doesn't explode you with fire. Also the Christians believe that service is used to show your devotion and love of God, and to say that you are not worthy to be loved by God. Also probably so they don't explode in fire either (the Apocalypse). I have not accepted God, either "into my life" or even as a fully fledged concept yet, so whenever I do visit church, I felt like I was visiting a cult and feel really uncomfortable. And two, church is really early on a Sunday, when I just want to be sleeping. I also don't really know anyone at church, except for the one girl that keeps smiling at me and saying "Hi" even though I don't know who she is. So essentially, I'd show up and just sit there by myself, really uncomfortable, while everyone is clapping and singing, until the thing was over, and then my parents would show up for the the later service and I'd have to awkwardly explain myself to Jair about how I am still not a Jesus freak.

Contrarily, I do feel like going to church today. Number one, I am awake at 7AM for some stupid reason, which gives me time to not only update this blog, but also to actually get to church on time. Really, what else am I going to do this morning? (Porn?) Number two, as stated above, my dad has been bugging me to go. Although if I give him the satisfaction this week, I will not hear the end of it, ever. Thirdly, ever since the mission's trip to Haiti, I've sort of felt obligated to go, as if I would be taking advantage of the church if I just used them for Haiti and then left them in the dust, laughing, which would be like the worst six-night stand ever. Especially because I didn't use them, I worked hard, and other people that went on the trip don't go to St. Matthew's (or St. Matt's, which is what the cool kids call it, which you and I are not). So finally I have also felt like I should go. One of the missionaries I met in Haiti, a team leader named Hannah, talked all the time (nonstop) about how she always "felt called" to God and to follow his wills, and she always had to look for his will. All of the times God "called her" sounded like huge coincidences to me, like when God called her to India and and she could tell because for some reason everyone she talked to for like a week kept talking about India. So I guess maybe there is some non-cynical part of me that feels like going to church and seeing if God is calling me to church.

I asked Twitter what to do and my good friend Carlo just replied: "Just go." Fine. But I get to look super cute doing it. I mean, what else am I going to do today?

Love & Haiti

While I'm going to get more in-depth on my trip to Haiti (I plan on trying to sell an article about it, I think) I just want to highlight one really, really stupid part of my trip.

While the fine ladies and gents over at Praying Pelican did a wonderful job of keeping my fellow missionaries and I safe from hostile locals and illness-inducing food (sort of) they failed to warn us ladies about handing out our actual contact information to the local construction workers we would be working with. I know, I know; whenever I hear warnings about "Don't give your actual number out to strangers," I always think "Who does that? Who is that stupid?" Apparently, I am.

My main mission in Haiti was to help rebuild schools and houses, buildings that people would actually need. Three out of the five days that we were there we actually did that; Monday through Wednesday we spent sifting rocks out of sand, mixing cement, shoveling pieces of cinderblock out of rooms, bailing water from the nightly rainstorms, and throwing cement on the walls. We worked with a local Haitian construction crew of about a dozen young men, between the ages of about twelve to 35. (I don't actually know about the 12-year-old part, Fiddler Cherie may or may not have actually been a hired member, maybe he was just doing it for fun.) It was exhausting, strenuous work, made harder by the boiling hot sun. Our first night there Praying Pelican also encouraged us to "build relationships" with the local people. So in addition to building infrastructure, our second mission was to develop God in their lives, by talking to them, or something, I don't know. I talk to people anyway, I figured I wouldn't have a problem with that, language barrier or no.

The local construction crew absolutely loved my friend Deanne and I. We're both cute girls, in our mid-20's, friendly and chatty. We threw ourselves into the dirty work and actively engaged the construction workers in conversation, fulfilling both missions pretty well.

One thing that they (the proverbial "they") tell you is that Haiti is a poverty-stricken, destitute place, where infrastructure is non-existent, people bathe in standing water in the streets, children run around naked for lack of a better option, and trash stands in heaps for months until they burn it, because there is literally no other option. It is a dirty, smelly country that needs help. People will do almost anything to get out of there. (Unless you're Wyclef Jean, apparently.) Almost anything, including marrying an American to get to America and a better life.

You see where I'm going with this? Three men in particular loved chatting with Deanne and I. There was John, Lucien and Pierre Louis. John was the biggest offender- on the same day, he wrote "love letters" to both Deanne and I, declaring a passionate romantic love for Deanne and saying something "wet" to me, which I refuse to try to understand. He tried to write these letters in English, but his grasp of English is challenged, to say the least. Both of us got marriage proposals throughout the week. They would call us over to where they were working, saying "You my frien?" After we nodded- yes, I your frien- they would tell us, in broken English, using French, Haitian-Creole, and hand gestures, that they wanted to visit us in America, asking us where did we live, could we buy them laptops? After struggling to understand them for about ten minutes, either we would nod and say "Yes, ok my friend!" and walk away, or the big boss would walk by and they would scatter. He spent the better part of Tuesday and Wednesday chasing them back to their posts. And then they would come back, asking us to please, give us our numbers, our addresses, our emails, so they they can contact us after the trip.

It sounds harmless, it does. And I thought it did at the time, so I wrote down my email and phone number one time, giving it to John. I wasn't too sure if I should- I'd seen the Digicel guys walking around the main streets of Haiti with their red aprons, so I knew they had cell phones, and I'd spied a few Internet cafes. But Deanne assured me that they couldn't contact us anyway, so I thought of no reason why I shouldn't. One other woman on the group, Vicki, said we should've given the church number, but it was after the fact, and I didn't know the number anyway.

Hindsight! Perfect 20-20 vision, right? Last night I received 20 calls within ten minutes of each other from John. The first night I got back I received dozens of calls from the same number. I added the number under my contact list as "Do Not Answer." Deanne actually picked up the phone when John was calling her to try to talk to him. We don't have the benefit of being actually in the same room with him anymore, so he can't use hand gestures, limiting him to his measly broken English-Creole combination. The only words she got out of him were "I love you" and "You my frien." When I contacted Verizon, they, in their brilliant wisdom, do not make it easy to block a number via cell phone. In order to block a number, you have to go onto their website, go to "Safeguards," and then enter the number, as long as it is a 10-digit American number. Because no one has ever been harassed by a foreigner, ever. It was recommended to me that I write a letter to Verizon, which would be addressed within 24 hours.

So the saga continues. Lesson learned- learn a fake number to give to these people, and fast. I'll keep you all posted.

I'm going to Haiti!

Haiti is coming up soon. Very soon. Apparently I haven't told anyone that I'm going, because every time I mention "Oh, I'm going to be out of town that week," or "Man, my arm feels like a friggen' pincushion," someone gives me a weird look. Then I have to explain that I'm going to Haiti on a mission's trip with my family's church, etc, etc.

A few warnings that I have been given:

• After I told my mom that yes, I wanted to go to Haiti, my father called me to talk to me about the trip. He told me (and I heard this so many other times after this) that this wasn't a vacation. The country, already one of the most poverty-stricken, economically weak nations in the world, had been devastated by the earthquake. Even months later (the earthquake hit January 12, 2010) they're still finding dead bodies in the rubble. Children wandered the streets, recently orphaned. Crime and disease were constants. This was going to be one of the most eye-opening, life-changing experiences of my life. Was I sure I wanted to go?
• At Buffalo Wild Wings, I was talking about the devastating poverty I was likely to go up against, and my friend (I guess he's a friend? My friend's boyfriend, at least) went over the three easiest ways to protect myself.
  • The area at the base of the throat is the weakest point in the body. Jab at it with your knuckles or, if you've got them, your keys, and you've at least knocked out his breath, if not collapsed his pipes.
  • When being raped, grab and twist. I will leave you to fill in the blanks. HINT: IT HURTS
  • Less effective, but I would feel like such a badass doing it: Jab or punch his nose. If done right, like if you've broken his nose, blood will pour out and you will go blind. If not, then you've just pissed off the shark, and now he's hungry for blood.
• At the meeting at the church I went to on Wednesday, we asked why the women would need to bring a bathing suit, specifically a one-piece. The guy in charge of the trip paused for a second, then said delicately, "There's going to be communal showers." Which is hilarious! Showering together. Guess who has to worry about athlete's foot, too. One woman stood up and said, when asked to express her anxieties, "I know this isn't a vacation, but I guess I thought I would have time to relax. I thought we were going to the beach, that's why I thought the bathing suit was on there!" Oh, I did too.
  
  But another thing that they talked to us about was to write down everything that we felt and thought during the entire experience. When we got back, he said, we would be absorbed back into our everyday lives, with its everyday concerns- jobs, houses, school, etc. But if we wrote down everything, when we opened the journal to read it again, it would be like being back there, and everything that we learned and saw would never be forgotten. Because while we get to take a plane out of Haiti after a week, the people there will spend their entire lives downtrodden by poverty.

So, uh, yes! Haiti. I'll fly in on Saturday, probably have church or prayer or something that night, then Sunday I'll have church again, and probably hang out with the orphans or something. Monday through Thursday I'm going to be working on building a school or community center during the day, then having a meeting with Praying Pelican Ministries (the people who are organizing and running the trip), then another prayer/bible study session with my own church group. This isn't no vacation, I'll tell you that much.

EoG Chapter 4: Gods of the Ancient States

As Western society began transitioning from chiefdoms to ancient city-states, religion began to have elements of modern religion, namely:

1. Monotheism
2. Ethical Core
3. Universalism

Let's begin by looking at monotheism. To explain why gods were so cranky and finicky, gods in pre-literate ancient chiefdoms were anthropomorphic, with human flaws and desires. As such, the courts of gods reflected ancient courts of kings. As such, there was often a "king" god who controlled all of the other gods. Gradually the "king" god (such as Marduk in Mesopotamia or later Aten in Egypt, early home of the Hebrews) began to replace the other gods either by absorbing them or usurping them altogether. As ancient cultures began to study science, the need for a bunch of finicky gods who held nature and humanity at their whim receded as ancient scientists discovered that they could be predicted and/or prevented. In addition, ancient societies previously relied upon polytheistic gods to create cultural and economic bridges, or syncretism. Whereas before including or absorbing another society's gods was good diplomacy, gradually creating a single powerful god became a way to show dominance over another culture.

Another element of modern religion whose roots can be found in ancient times is an ethical core. Religion was originally used to explain why the world worked the way that it did, and later to manipulate it for desired results. As society became more complicated, kings and other community leaders began to use religion to control the general populace. Whether knowing that they were taking advantage of the established belief system or as an extension of the belief system is an argument I leave up to the Marxists and fundamentalists. Nevertheless, ancient gods began to send out demonic beings to punish their followers- beings such as "Fever" or "Jaundice" to punish people who acted amorally, such as urinating in the river or similar acts that violated social decency. This played to ancient people's self interests. The difference between modern and ancient religions is that our religions have the concept of the afterlife to put us in line- ancient people were punished pretty quickly if they stepped out of line. Philosophers also compare the modern law system to this ancient practice.

The final element of modern religion is universalism, or that religion applies to everyone and not just the followers of the religion, ie, that Marduk created all people, not just the Babylonians. Before technology allowed them to, people lived in isolated city-states that allowed them to develop an us-vs.-them mentality. Gods were used by kings to incorporate nearby villages and cities into their religion to display dominance economically and diplomatically. As technology and the economy progressed to the point that large city states (and thus their religions) began trading and inter-marrying, the concept of a dominant god began to take hold. While Hammurabi began the idea with his Code of Law, touting Marduk as the one god, it was Amenhotep IV in Egypt that began to tout his god Aten as the god of all people (not coincidentally, this was also the original home of the Hebrews). There was a global need for cosmopolitanism and cultural acceptance that came with economic and technological advancements; having one god over all people united the world (as they knew it) under one philosophy. This paved the way for monotheistic faiths, which we address in the next chapter.

EoG Chapter 3: Religion in the Age of Chiefdoms

So far in this book, we have had the question of Marxism versus fundamentalists; rephrased, we have been discussing if religion is good for the people or for those in power. In the last chapter, it was a question of whether shamans created mystical gods to control and victimize the people around them or if they genuinely believed that they had control over the supernatural world and used that power to help those around them. In this chapter, we have reached the next step in human cultural development, the chiefdoms. These groups are larger than the bands of kin that spread throughout the world, and are more complicated and hierarchal, but not as large, complicated or hierarchal as future ancient city-states.

As groups became more complicated, so too did religion. Religion stepped in to reinforce a moral code and social system to keep order. In Evolution of God, Robert Wright uses the example of Polynesian islands whose concept of manu and tapa used to keep control. Manu is good; tapa was bad. Chiefs and priests would invoke tapa to punish those who were exhibiting anti-social behaviors, either morally (such as murder or theft) or not following religious rituals. Similarly, chiefs were considered conduits of the positive religious energy of manu, which protected you from religious wrath and made your life more successful. They rewarded those who lived their lives positively and religiously. Thus began moral dimensions within society- do good, receive good fortune; do bad, be sacrificed to appease the gods.

In many ways, concepts such as manu and tapa served ancient chiefdoms as science. People would find correlations between two variables-such as the appearance of stars in the night sky and weather, or perhaps the behavior of the parents and the health of their child- and surmise an explanation, using their religion. In the first case, they would interpret their gods' wishes to predict the weather; in the second case, they would reason that the parent's tapa made the child ill. While their methodology was crude and their explanations often wrong, our modern science is dated back to ancient times.

The Marxists believe that chiefs and priests selfishly used manu and tapa as a carrot to control those in society and, while they may be correct in some instances, ancient chiefdoms tended to be subject to cultural Darwinism. Chiefs that abused their power or rule poorly tended to fall victim to wars or coups, and their societies tended to be trampled by socially stronger societies. Just as anti-social people tended to be eliminated through sacrifice or by outcasting them, so stronger and more harmonious societies developed and grew, and more selfish chiefs were eliminated in coups. And the most successful societies eventually grew into larger ancient states, such as Babylon, forming the next chain in human development.

EoG Chapter 2: The Shaman

Between ancient hunter-gatherer superstitions and more organized village chiefdoms, there lay the shaman. The term "shaman" is an umbrella term that covers any person (man or woman, perhaps child) that claims to have some control or insight into a culture's supernatural belief system. Cynics (Marxists) and optimists (functionalists) debate over whether the shaman truly believed that they had control or insight into their gods and goddesses or if they were a sort of primitive scam artist. There is merit for both arguments.

For the Marxists side, there is the idea that shamans didn't do the work that they did to serve the greater good, but rather for personal gain. Services that they provided were paid for rather than given for free or the common good. Using their so-called access to the supernatural world, shamans leveraged political powers for themselves, bringing themselves into further notoriety. The anthropologist Paul Radin explains that the shaman techniques were "designed to do two things: to keep the contact with the supernatural exclusively in the hands of the [shaman], and to manipulate and exploit the sense of fear of the ordinary man." By developing this religion that revolved around service for the shaman, the shamans were servicing themselves at the expense of culture.

The fundamentalists argue that the shamans weren't necessarily in it for themselves. They point to the strenuous hardships that many shamans suffered to get in touch with the spiritual world- many cultures required them to abstain from food or sex for days or months, some even to pierce their penises. If a shaman was found to be a fraud, he was ostracized from the community, probably to certain death. In certain cultures, shamans guaranteed their work- beads or blankets that they received for their services were given back if their incantations failed to heal the sick or prevent storms. According to the fundamentalists, the shamans gave social cohesion and created "social vitality."

Who was right? Were the shamans fundamentally good, creating social unity and serving society? Or as the Marxists believe, did they control society and exploit innocent people? As Robert Wright puts it, why not both? Both viewpoints come into play for cultural evolution. Shamans paved the way for the next step in human development- chiefdoms.

EoG Chapter 1: The Primordial Faith

Religion started out several millenia ago as a way for early hunter-gatherer societies to explain the world around them. A few questions they wanted answered- what were dreams? What happened when you died? Why do bad things happen to good people? Good things to bad people? What can I do to make good things happen to me?

Religion first began when man developed the concept of a soul, that dreams were your soul wandering the earth while you slept, and death was your soul leaving your body once your earthly form was finished. From there it's an easy leap to putting souls in everything- trees, animals, even inanimate objects like rocks and the wind. (Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?) From there, early societies developed the idea that there were gods that were in charge of all of these different objects- the god of trees, the god of the sun and wind, etc. Religion started as a way of explaining the world around them and grew organically from that.

Hunter-gatherers developed five different types of gods:

1. Elemental spirits: Objects that we consider inanimate, such as rocks, have intelligence, personality and a soul.
2. Puppeteers: Parts of nature, such as the wind, were being controlled by gods distinct from themselves.
3. Organic spirits: Objects that we consider alive, such as animals or trees, have souls themselves and can control elements of nature.
4. Ancestral spirits: Deceased members of society stuck around, able to help or hinder the living.
5. The high god: This isn't a god that is in charge of other gods, but rather one that is somehow superior to the other gods for some reason or another.
   

Robert Wright is careful to explain that early religions weren't religions at all, that they were a way of explaining the world before there was writing or modern technology to understand it all. So then was early "religion" more of an early science, albeit a supernatural one? Modern science uses technology, a scientific method and the rapid exchange of ideas to explain why the world works the way that it does, to explain why the wind blows, storms come and disease strikes. In hunter-gatherer societies, religion didn't serve as a moral compass. People lived in small, transparent groups, so if one did steal or murder, it would not only be seen easily, but backlash against that person- his or her close kin and tribesmen would know that it was that person and prevent a cohesive society from functioning. Then people didn't worry about betraying some higher god, just each other. Ritual was used to appease the ego of a god to create good things.

Finally, a quote: "Religious doctrines can't survive if they don't appeal to the psychology of the people whose brains harbor them," meaning religion will only work if it appeals to the hunter-gatherers. If a religion or religious idea doesn't make sense to a group of people, they will reject it and search for a new explanation of why nature works the way that it does. This raises the idea of cultural evolutionism, or cultural Darwinism- weaker ideas are discarded in favor of stronger, more logical ideas. This can come in the form of rituals, when one ritual doesn't work and must be discarded to find another way, or simple theory.

My thoughts about my personal religion:

• If ritual was originally created to make good things happen to good people and prevent bad things, then the rituals that I went through when I was younger- communion, baptism- were there to make good things happen to me?
• My original religion- Episcopalianism, or Diet Catholic- doesn't make any sense to me. Does this mean that it doesn't reflect my own ideas about the way the world works? Is this why science is more successful, and why Catholicism and Christianity is losing members?
  

Evolution of God

For my Questioning Religion class, I'm writing a thesis paper on the different manifestations of God within western religions, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It sounded smart to me, anyway, and it was better than debating the existence of evil all summer (or going outside.)

To this end, I'm reading Evolution of God by philosopher Robert Wright, about the development of religion in western society. It's pretty convenient for me that this book exists; it's like my work has been done for me!

To help me figure out this book, I'm going to be summarizing and analyzing the book chapter by chapter. If you guys want, you can read along with me or comment or criticize to help me think of concepts I hadn't thought of yet and help me further my thinking! It'll be fun.

Photoshop

Body image is a pretty common topic on feminist blogs- consider Broadsheet's recent article on recent cover girl Nancy Pelosi or here which talks about photo retouching and the recent trend against it. Photo-retouching is pretty common practice in magazines, making beautiful women even more impossibly beautiful and giving us some impossibly high standards of beauty to boot.

So I googled some images:


and


And I got to thinking. When I see images in magazines of impossibly beautiful images, like the picture of Britney Spears or Mariah Carey, it does make me feel bad about myself. As the blog Feministe points out, these images create an idea that beauty is something that can be achieved rather than something you're born with naturally, that if you work hard enough and pay enough money than you're beautiful. These magazines create two-fold ideas: 1. that if you're not beautiful, obviously you're not working hard enough and 2. you're never, ever going to be beautiful enough.

Looking at these photos, though, I feel better about myself. Namely, I know that the ethereal beauty are reachable with a few hours on Photoshop and, conversely, that even the most beautiful women are as ugly as me.

Date Night

So Tina Fey is one of the hottest stars on the planet right now. She has a hit show (you may have heard of it, 30 Rock? You know, the critically acclaimed show and a huge success with audiences?), has written and starred in several popular movies (Mean Girls, Baby Mama) and is considered one of the funniest and most successful women in Hollywood today. Plus she has this new movie coming out, Date Night.



The movie also stars Steve Carell, Mark Wahlberg, James Franco and Mila Kunis, although watching the trailer you'd swear only Carell and Franco are in the movie. All five are established comedic actors on their own: Fey as listed above, Carell's roles in Forty Year Old Virgin and Anchorman established his career, Wahlberg was hilarious as an existential firefighter in I <3 Huckabees, James Franco redefined his career in the stoner-buddy-comedy Pineapple Express, and Mila Kunis has been a comedy darling since her role in That 70's Show. But again, watching the trailer above, you'd think only Carell and Franco were the ones with comedic chops.

I have enough confidence in both Fey and Kunis as comedic actresses, and that they both have the smarts to pick strong roles that give them great, funny, memorable lines. But it's the trailer that doesn't show that- the trailer betrays a lack of confidence in its female stars. Fey is used to ogle the man-candy that is Wahlberg shirtless, and Kunis sets up a joke for Franco. That's it. What- does that mean that Kunis and Fey don't get any good lines in the entire movie? Did Kunis and Fey settle for the stereotypical wife role, playing second banana to Carell and Franco?

I lean more towards the filmmakers and the editor of the trailer not trusting the appeal of Fey (specifically) and Kunis as comedians, or even women. Again, as I said above, Kunis and Fey are hilarious. Everyone knows it. I mean, Carell and Franco are doing extremely well for themselves, but Kunis and Fey are as well! Do they think that funny women are going to scare off their target audience? What target audience would be scared of funny women, twelve year old boys?

Personally, this exclusion turns me off from this movie. The marketing team is underselling its actors and that doesn't bode well for the movie as a whole.

New Scott Pilgrim song revealed via Facebook!

For those of you who don't read any sort of graphic novels, read movie news or have just never heard of Bryan Lee O'Malley's Scott Pilgrim series, here's a quick summary- Scott Pilgrim is a bass-playing Vancouver-ite in his early twenties who meets the girl of his dreams. Besides all the baggage that comes with starting any sort of relationship, there's one major one: seven evil ex-boyfriends that Scott must battle before he can even start dating her. It's currently one of the most praised graphic novel series currently being released and its sixth and final book is one of the most anticipated book releases this year (by me, anyway.)

In addition, Edgar Wright, director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz is directing the film adaptation. It stars Michael Cera (the guy Hollywood has weirdly decided represents early-twenty somethings, apparently), Kieran Culkin, and Up in the Air's Anna Kendrick. Wright has been releasing a picture a day from the set for the past year or so on his blog, driving up anticipation for the film.

Another nugget was announced today- Toronto band Metric has been collaborating with Wright to create some of the music for the soundtrack. A significant plot point of "Pilgrim" revolves around competing art-rock band called "Clash at Demonheads." Metric collaborated with Nigel Goodrich, who also produced for U2, Beck, basically tons of great bands, to work on 'Black Sheep,' encapsulating the sound of "Clash at Demonheads." You can hear it here, on Facebook (you have to become a fan to hear the song, oh no) and it's a pretty cool song, origins aside. It helps that they seem like a pretty cool band anyway, and the song originated before the movie, which only makes the song cooler.

The movie is being released August 13, 2010 and the final graphic novel still doesn't have a release date, making Edgar Wright and company still the only people who know how the series ends. Why do they tease me so?

Side note: Anna Kendrick was also in Twilight? For the love of God, no!

Interview with Bill Watterson!

After fifteen years of being a recluse (reportedly, he just drew pictures in the woods with his father) Bill Watterson granted the world an interview. By email. With his local newspaper. It's here, and it's disatisfying, to be honest.

The reason Bill Watterson's comic Calvin and Hobbes made such an impact is probably that Bill Watterson knew when it was time to quit- he got out of the business before his popularity went downhill and "the people now "grieving" for "Calvin and Hobbes" would be wishing me dead and cursing newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like mine instead of acquiring fresher, livelier talent." Bravo, Mr. Watterson.

In the interview, Watterson comes across as a soft-spoken yet immovable man. His answers, like his artwork, are quiet and understated. "The only part I understand," he explains, "is what went into the creation of the strip. What readers take away from it is up to them. Once the strip is published, readers bring their own experiences to it, and the work takes on a life of its own. Everyone responds differently to different parts."

So what we, as readers, were looking for was some sort of resolve- an ending to the story or a grand explanation for everything that Bill Watterson ever did or drew. Maybe we were looking for some sort of formula for success that we could copy to become just as beloved as Calvin or Hobbes. Maybe an answer to what Hobbes was- in Calvin's imagination, or did he really come alive? Of course we will never get those answers. And we shouldn't expect to.