AHHH Religious people
[1:52:32 PM] Juliette Harris says: hey marcus
[1:52:37 PM] Juliette Harris says: it's aimee, not juliette
[1:52:57 PM] Juliette Harris says: i'm in juliette's room booking some plane flights, and saw your away message
[1:53:32 PM] Juliette Harris says: just a question for you
[1:53:48 PM] Juliette Harris says: how could a poem ABOUT religion be taken OUT of religious context?
[1:53:54 PM] Juliette Harris says: and another question
[1:54:26 PM] Juliette Harris says: how could a course ABOUT religion ignore religous poems and look at them strictly for medieval critique?
[1:54:32 PM] Juliette Harris says: and another question, while I'm at it
[1:54:45 PM] Juliette Harris says: why would you write something like that on skype? haha
[1:55:12 PM] Juliette Harris says: anyway. thought your comment was a bit weird - you might want to change it or it might come off the wrong way. i don't take offense because i know you :)
[1:55:22 PM] Juliette Harris says: have a good weekend and I'll see you in class next week! bye
in response to my profile message (skype):
scathingly angered at the religious people my age and frustrated that medieval literature is always read in light of religious dogma... UGH
(*Note: I also changed all of the names within this blurb to protect their privacy / identity. They will most likely never find out that I wrote this.)
**************
Now to set this up: I was in a discussion group for my course entitled, "Saints and Sinners: Voicing Belief, Doubt and Dissent in Medieval Literature", the day prior, and we were discussing the 'Pearl' poem, a 14th century poem written in Middle English about a father who has a dream in which he has met his grown up daughter, his 'pearl', who died at age 2. Naturally, she is in heaven, a Queen, married to Christ and the most beautiful woman in the entire universe.
As the discussion progressed and as we were exploring the various themes that recurred, themes that had also been occuring in previous texts, the overall concensus from the class was that the poem was morally didactic. It advocated Christian faith and it was meant to be an instructional text, to those going through spiritual journeys.
Now, of course, me being the anti-religionist that I am, spoke up, quite in a "Rambo" style (as my dear Queen likes to call it). Debate terms and tactics failed to come to my mind and I found it difficult to voice my interpretation of the text. Nonetheless I continued to express my view. The father challenges the views that his daughter holds. Overall, the text to me seemed to be critical of Church dogma; at the heart of the poem seemed to be a question of criticism based on the way the Church views 'faith'. Equally important was the idea of 'perfection': if his daughter was so perfect and 'peerless' does that mean she is better than Mary herself? What determines a person's worth once in heaven, and once absolved and cleaned of all sin? Does that not mean everyone is equal? The text seemed to provoke all these questions and unveil a weakness in Church dogma. It seemed to express disagreement. Moreover, the way in which the father described her daughter was hyperbolic and more strangely, sexualised. How are we supposed to take this? The manner in which the daughter speaks is very bombastic; she exerts her authority and acknowledges her flawlessness, which is a sign of pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Heaven is painted as tremendously opulent, with jewels and shiny crystals lying about everywhere. How are we supposed to take this description of heaven, especially if man has no conception of it? And finally, how far are we supposed to take this dream for reality? Certainly during this period we have texts which follow the genre of the 'dream vision' which allows poets to express usually Christian views, because to contemporaries, dreams were like portals to the higher realm, the divine realm of heaven in particular. None the less, because of its otherworldy nature, can we view the father's dream as strictly religious? Part of what fueled my rage was the fact that we have 3 religious people my age in my class, two of them being very vocal about how these texts advocate faith and the goodness of Christ. PSSHT! As if... The third one is wonderful and funny (So is one of the two who is vocal, but she carries an air and demeanor about her which might suggest pretentiousness).
I responded to the above person through facebook while I was quite inebriated, and it was quite strong. Facebook, for all its cleverness, saved my sent messages which go like this:
Title: response! =)
Message:
heya,
thanks for responding via lydia's skype profile.
one of the reasons why i thought "pearl" took a radical approach is simply because i thought it was following the same tradition as chaucer and the mystery plays. chaucer and the mystery plays certainly toyed and played around with the idea of religion being an oppressing factor in their daily lives. i felt that some people in class simply accepted the fact that the pearl was a play that was solely expounding a straightforward religious agenda; my experience with other poems in medieval lit has led me to believe that there was something seriously wrong with the teachings of the Church. one glaring example is the fact that the pearl was so opulent and wealthy. surely it can be seen as something to be questioned when an audience member read the pearl; how could god be so gluttonous in his heaven while leaving the poor out and cold? i think you're right; i'm biased in that i have many negative and scathing views on the Church and the way it exercises its power. i guess i'm resentful since i used to be in Flora's position, being a catholic. i can't resolve its past, especially in light of the specific literary pieces that professor Salter has pointed us to. ultimately it will be a choice that the people in our class will choose-- whether the pearl is meant to be religiously didactic or whether it takes a jab at the religious institutions (which is clearly my view, in the way the father criticises his daughter). perhaps that is the brilliance of the poem: it allows us to argue both arguments while simultaneously opening itself up to more scrutiny: if it was absolutely a religious text, then why would i, or others, be advocating for its subversive nature? i can go on, and i'd be delighted to discuss it further with you... i'm sorry if i'm being a bit bombastic in any way... perhaps i'm too stubborn and perhaps i've worked too much in medieval lit to have it read in a religious light...
one of the reasons i became a bit frustrated was in the way the poem provoked and perhaps voiced my own opinions of the church: if god is so great, why *isn't* everyone in a good state? that is, why aren't poor people rewarded just as rich people are? i take offense in anyone defending christianity. and i might be a bit sinister for doing so, but i feel that this side needs to be voiced, just as christians voice their own opinions. i'm a firm believer of balance. i mean, for chrissakes, the bible was written by "saint" jerome, a man who claimed to know hebrew, greek and latin. if the bible is meant to represent god's word, why would a man have licence to write it down? i think at the crux of all these questions will forever be a question of testing the facts.
I'm sorry the I might have alienated everyone in the classroom but I can't stand aside and watch yet another literary piece that might be earnestly dissecting and analysing the sillyness of church doctrine get tossed aside as being purely dogmatic or 'righteous'. i was irked by the piece, which attests, i think, to its ability to provoke discussion. i think ultimately, that quality provides a stronger support for it going against the church than anything else.
sorry to bore you! i suppose it is something close to my beliefs that provoked me to write that message.
i'll see you in two weeks! hope all is well... and i hope my thoughts didn't send a message of offense.
xoxox
Message 2 (Yes, another message. o_0 . because i was still inebriated and felt i might not have possibly answered her question), entitled "oops. p.s.":
in response to your question: "how could a course ABOUT religion ignore religous poems and look at them strictly for medieval critique?"
the course is entitled "voicing belief, doubt and dissent in medieval literature": the course then, i think, isn't necessarily about religious issues; rather, it is about how texts explore their identity within a religious context. that is, while texts may speak of religion, it doesn't necessarily mean they advocate for their legitimacy.
i realise that my skype message might have been a bit confusing: i guess what i meant was, "why is medieval lit. always thought of as advocating the legitimacy of christianity?"
many a people i know shun medieval lit because they think it advocates a purely religious, right-wing message. on the contrary, i believe most medieval lit advocates an attack on church paradigms; especially in the pearl: at the heart of the poem is the central question of god's justice, and accountability.
sorry to blabber on.....
o_0...
hope all is well! xoxo
Yes. I'm silly. The last bit about "hope all is well!" attests to my inebriated state. So any opinion folks? I mean, naturally my tone was a bit... how shall we say it? Perhaps 'condescending' or 'strong'. Ha ha...
In any case, I was annoyed. And I'm not particularly known to go towards the extremes of argument because in my head I tend to rationalise it all and balance it and conclude that each side has its point. It's in my existential nature. But somehow this class and this topic and this atmosphere provoked me to speak up. I feel quite bad now because I might have been too harsh. But no regrets. I did what I did and said what I said and I'll gladly accept the consequences. As we all do when we're not sober.
Part of what provoked my anger, I think, was my somewhat daily activity of reading the newspaper. I read in the International Herald Tribune that a prominent reverend with a fan base of over 14,000 people was called a homosexual; apparently the person who spoke out about it was the person the reverend paid for sex. (Search for "reverend" in the site's archive here if you're interested; the article was run November 2nd or so). On that same day was I alerted to so man other issues of today's world. Russia, the U.S. (of course), the U.K., Sri Lanka, the Phillippines (just to name a few all had trouble politically with people dying as a direct result of their policies and of the actions of their so-called 'leaders'. I ask people, to what extent should these leaders be accountable? I maintain, to the full extent. Bush should be tried for murder, along with Rice, Chenney and Rumsfeld. Bush's crusade in the Middle East will be an event that will forever colour my era, my youth. In 20 years I will look back and say, "Wow. How could that have happened?" Now I know I'm speaking on a tangent here, but it all relates because religion was the source of many of these issues. Bush says he prays to god everyday for strenght and 'advice'. How can a leader receive advice from a persona that has been defined in terms of each individual? That is, the definition of god (and yes, I refuse to capitalise that word) is one that declares that 'he' is ephemeral, without shape or form. So then, how is there a concrete definition of 'him'? Certainly a Christian in Russia has a dissimilar image of someone in Kentucky. This leads to a dangerous event in which anyone can use that notion for evil, as a vehicle for sinister activities. This was my impression of the poem. I urge anyone to read the poem from an objective perspective, unlike mine. I've unfortunately been influenced by the works of Chaucer and Chrétien de Troyes and the Chester and York Mystery Cycle Plays, which constantly make subtle remarks about the contradictory state of the Church and of politics as related to religion. I mean, come on people! The bible was t r a n s l a t e d by a man named Jerome who claimed to know three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. He thus translated [which in itself is an act that begs to be scrutinised to the largest degree: who gets to interpret what one word means? Certainly the word translation, which comes from the Latin 'translatio' is an oxymoron or something to that degree. The definition (which is 'the exact copying of one word to another') cannot exist because languages are different by nature. Car is not the same as carro in the fact that they're spelled differently. While this may be a trivial point it extends to further implications on par with the rewriting history (as can be seen with the early tradition of historical writing of Britain)] the 'word of god'. Can you do that according to the bible? No... which becomes a circular question in itself, because the bible is the word of god. That circularity suggests a paradigm that is seriously flawed, if it can't produce any straightforward answers. Simply, it is contradictory.
Overall point here: religion has become a disaster which has blown into indescribably proportions; it is an infestation that has plagued every corner of the planet and has been used as an instrument for evil. Whilst there might exist a religion which is altogether a good idea (which, I think, Kevin Smith, hits straight on in 'Dogma') like zen, daoism, hinduism and such, it has the potential for being twisted by those in power, in a quest for selfish ends.
This journal entry isn't meant to offend any one. Rather, this was my attempt to explore the issue through intellectual, rational and logical means, just as Aristotle, and Plato did. Please respond, if you have something to suggest either for the contrary or for the defence of anti-religionism.
I'm not sure I've gone out of line here, but I welcome any comments. =)
[1:52:37 PM] Juliette Harris says: it's aimee, not juliette
[1:52:57 PM] Juliette Harris says: i'm in juliette's room booking some plane flights, and saw your away message
[1:53:32 PM] Juliette Harris says: just a question for you
[1:53:48 PM] Juliette Harris says: how could a poem ABOUT religion be taken OUT of religious context?
[1:53:54 PM] Juliette Harris says: and another question
[1:54:26 PM] Juliette Harris says: how could a course ABOUT religion ignore religous poems and look at them strictly for medieval critique?
[1:54:32 PM] Juliette Harris says: and another question, while I'm at it
[1:54:45 PM] Juliette Harris says: why would you write something like that on skype? haha
[1:55:12 PM] Juliette Harris says: anyway. thought your comment was a bit weird - you might want to change it or it might come off the wrong way. i don't take offense because i know you :)
[1:55:22 PM] Juliette Harris says: have a good weekend and I'll see you in class next week! bye
in response to my profile message (skype):
scathingly angered at the religious people my age and frustrated that medieval literature is always read in light of religious dogma... UGH
(*Note: I also changed all of the names within this blurb to protect their privacy / identity. They will most likely never find out that I wrote this.)
**************
Now to set this up: I was in a discussion group for my course entitled, "Saints and Sinners: Voicing Belief, Doubt and Dissent in Medieval Literature", the day prior, and we were discussing the 'Pearl' poem, a 14th century poem written in Middle English about a father who has a dream in which he has met his grown up daughter, his 'pearl', who died at age 2. Naturally, she is in heaven, a Queen, married to Christ and the most beautiful woman in the entire universe.
As the discussion progressed and as we were exploring the various themes that recurred, themes that had also been occuring in previous texts, the overall concensus from the class was that the poem was morally didactic. It advocated Christian faith and it was meant to be an instructional text, to those going through spiritual journeys.
Now, of course, me being the anti-religionist that I am, spoke up, quite in a "Rambo" style (as my dear Queen likes to call it). Debate terms and tactics failed to come to my mind and I found it difficult to voice my interpretation of the text. Nonetheless I continued to express my view. The father challenges the views that his daughter holds. Overall, the text to me seemed to be critical of Church dogma; at the heart of the poem seemed to be a question of criticism based on the way the Church views 'faith'. Equally important was the idea of 'perfection': if his daughter was so perfect and 'peerless' does that mean she is better than Mary herself? What determines a person's worth once in heaven, and once absolved and cleaned of all sin? Does that not mean everyone is equal? The text seemed to provoke all these questions and unveil a weakness in Church dogma. It seemed to express disagreement. Moreover, the way in which the father described her daughter was hyperbolic and more strangely, sexualised. How are we supposed to take this? The manner in which the daughter speaks is very bombastic; she exerts her authority and acknowledges her flawlessness, which is a sign of pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Heaven is painted as tremendously opulent, with jewels and shiny crystals lying about everywhere. How are we supposed to take this description of heaven, especially if man has no conception of it? And finally, how far are we supposed to take this dream for reality? Certainly during this period we have texts which follow the genre of the 'dream vision' which allows poets to express usually Christian views, because to contemporaries, dreams were like portals to the higher realm, the divine realm of heaven in particular. None the less, because of its otherworldy nature, can we view the father's dream as strictly religious? Part of what fueled my rage was the fact that we have 3 religious people my age in my class, two of them being very vocal about how these texts advocate faith and the goodness of Christ. PSSHT! As if... The third one is wonderful and funny (So is one of the two who is vocal, but she carries an air and demeanor about her which might suggest pretentiousness).
I responded to the above person through facebook while I was quite inebriated, and it was quite strong. Facebook, for all its cleverness, saved my sent messages which go like this:
Title: response! =)
Message:
heya,
thanks for responding via lydia's skype profile.
one of the reasons why i thought "pearl" took a radical approach is simply because i thought it was following the same tradition as chaucer and the mystery plays. chaucer and the mystery plays certainly toyed and played around with the idea of religion being an oppressing factor in their daily lives. i felt that some people in class simply accepted the fact that the pearl was a play that was solely expounding a straightforward religious agenda; my experience with other poems in medieval lit has led me to believe that there was something seriously wrong with the teachings of the Church. one glaring example is the fact that the pearl was so opulent and wealthy. surely it can be seen as something to be questioned when an audience member read the pearl; how could god be so gluttonous in his heaven while leaving the poor out and cold? i think you're right; i'm biased in that i have many negative and scathing views on the Church and the way it exercises its power. i guess i'm resentful since i used to be in Flora's position, being a catholic. i can't resolve its past, especially in light of the specific literary pieces that professor Salter has pointed us to. ultimately it will be a choice that the people in our class will choose-- whether the pearl is meant to be religiously didactic or whether it takes a jab at the religious institutions (which is clearly my view, in the way the father criticises his daughter). perhaps that is the brilliance of the poem: it allows us to argue both arguments while simultaneously opening itself up to more scrutiny: if it was absolutely a religious text, then why would i, or others, be advocating for its subversive nature? i can go on, and i'd be delighted to discuss it further with you... i'm sorry if i'm being a bit bombastic in any way... perhaps i'm too stubborn and perhaps i've worked too much in medieval lit to have it read in a religious light...
one of the reasons i became a bit frustrated was in the way the poem provoked and perhaps voiced my own opinions of the church: if god is so great, why *isn't* everyone in a good state? that is, why aren't poor people rewarded just as rich people are? i take offense in anyone defending christianity. and i might be a bit sinister for doing so, but i feel that this side needs to be voiced, just as christians voice their own opinions. i'm a firm believer of balance. i mean, for chrissakes, the bible was written by "saint" jerome, a man who claimed to know hebrew, greek and latin. if the bible is meant to represent god's word, why would a man have licence to write it down? i think at the crux of all these questions will forever be a question of testing the facts.
I'm sorry the I might have alienated everyone in the classroom but I can't stand aside and watch yet another literary piece that might be earnestly dissecting and analysing the sillyness of church doctrine get tossed aside as being purely dogmatic or 'righteous'. i was irked by the piece, which attests, i think, to its ability to provoke discussion. i think ultimately, that quality provides a stronger support for it going against the church than anything else.
sorry to bore you! i suppose it is something close to my beliefs that provoked me to write that message.
i'll see you in two weeks! hope all is well... and i hope my thoughts didn't send a message of offense.
xoxox
Message 2 (Yes, another message. o_0 . because i was still inebriated and felt i might not have possibly answered her question), entitled "oops. p.s.":
in response to your question: "how could a course ABOUT religion ignore religous poems and look at them strictly for medieval critique?"
the course is entitled "voicing belief, doubt and dissent in medieval literature": the course then, i think, isn't necessarily about religious issues; rather, it is about how texts explore their identity within a religious context. that is, while texts may speak of religion, it doesn't necessarily mean they advocate for their legitimacy.
i realise that my skype message might have been a bit confusing: i guess what i meant was, "why is medieval lit. always thought of as advocating the legitimacy of christianity?"
many a people i know shun medieval lit because they think it advocates a purely religious, right-wing message. on the contrary, i believe most medieval lit advocates an attack on church paradigms; especially in the pearl: at the heart of the poem is the central question of god's justice, and accountability.
sorry to blabber on.....
o_0...
hope all is well! xoxo
Yes. I'm silly. The last bit about "hope all is well!" attests to my inebriated state. So any opinion folks? I mean, naturally my tone was a bit... how shall we say it? Perhaps 'condescending' or 'strong'. Ha ha...
In any case, I was annoyed. And I'm not particularly known to go towards the extremes of argument because in my head I tend to rationalise it all and balance it and conclude that each side has its point. It's in my existential nature. But somehow this class and this topic and this atmosphere provoked me to speak up. I feel quite bad now because I might have been too harsh. But no regrets. I did what I did and said what I said and I'll gladly accept the consequences. As we all do when we're not sober.
Part of what provoked my anger, I think, was my somewhat daily activity of reading the newspaper. I read in the International Herald Tribune that a prominent reverend with a fan base of over 14,000 people was called a homosexual; apparently the person who spoke out about it was the person the reverend paid for sex. (Search for "reverend" in the site's archive here if you're interested; the article was run November 2nd or so). On that same day was I alerted to so man other issues of today's world. Russia, the U.S. (of course), the U.K., Sri Lanka, the Phillippines (just to name a few all had trouble politically with people dying as a direct result of their policies and of the actions of their so-called 'leaders'. I ask people, to what extent should these leaders be accountable? I maintain, to the full extent. Bush should be tried for murder, along with Rice, Chenney and Rumsfeld. Bush's crusade in the Middle East will be an event that will forever colour my era, my youth. In 20 years I will look back and say, "Wow. How could that have happened?" Now I know I'm speaking on a tangent here, but it all relates because religion was the source of many of these issues. Bush says he prays to god everyday for strenght and 'advice'. How can a leader receive advice from a persona that has been defined in terms of each individual? That is, the definition of god (and yes, I refuse to capitalise that word) is one that declares that 'he' is ephemeral, without shape or form. So then, how is there a concrete definition of 'him'? Certainly a Christian in Russia has a dissimilar image of someone in Kentucky. This leads to a dangerous event in which anyone can use that notion for evil, as a vehicle for sinister activities. This was my impression of the poem. I urge anyone to read the poem from an objective perspective, unlike mine. I've unfortunately been influenced by the works of Chaucer and Chrétien de Troyes and the Chester and York Mystery Cycle Plays, which constantly make subtle remarks about the contradictory state of the Church and of politics as related to religion. I mean, come on people! The bible was t r a n s l a t e d by a man named Jerome who claimed to know three languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. He thus translated [which in itself is an act that begs to be scrutinised to the largest degree: who gets to interpret what one word means? Certainly the word translation, which comes from the Latin 'translatio' is an oxymoron or something to that degree. The definition (which is 'the exact copying of one word to another') cannot exist because languages are different by nature. Car is not the same as carro in the fact that they're spelled differently. While this may be a trivial point it extends to further implications on par with the rewriting history (as can be seen with the early tradition of historical writing of Britain)] the 'word of god'. Can you do that according to the bible? No... which becomes a circular question in itself, because the bible is the word of god. That circularity suggests a paradigm that is seriously flawed, if it can't produce any straightforward answers. Simply, it is contradictory.
Overall point here: religion has become a disaster which has blown into indescribably proportions; it is an infestation that has plagued every corner of the planet and has been used as an instrument for evil. Whilst there might exist a religion which is altogether a good idea (which, I think, Kevin Smith, hits straight on in 'Dogma') like zen, daoism, hinduism and such, it has the potential for being twisted by those in power, in a quest for selfish ends.
This journal entry isn't meant to offend any one. Rather, this was my attempt to explore the issue through intellectual, rational and logical means, just as Aristotle, and Plato did. Please respond, if you have something to suggest either for the contrary or for the defence of anti-religionism.
I'm not sure I've gone out of line here, but I welcome any comments. =)