This past Sunday, I attended the TCNJ Jewish Student Union’s Passover seder in Decker Hall. The ritual feast, as I would come to learn, can be hosted on any of the eight nights of Passover and is effectively a remembrence of the Jewish exodus from Egypt. Being non-Jewish, showing up to the meal was a bit intimidating. However, the members of Hillel were greatly accepting and even a little elated at my arrival. Sitting down to the meal, I found out how intricate and rich this ritual was. Throughout the meal, students around me were reading aloud the Haggadah, or the story of the exodus. Additionally, time was taken to eat ceremonial foods, such as horseradish, parsley, matzah and others. Each of these foods represented some aspect of the Jewish experience during the exodus. For example, the horseradish on a piece of matzah was eaten to represent the “bitter years” under which they struggled.

On the whole, I found this event to be exceptionally enjoyable. The students in Hillel were very kind to me and welcoming of my interest in their practices. Beyond that, I was excited to be able to actually partake in a ritual practice outside of my own religion. Granted, anything said in Hebrew I could not follow nor understand, I still found myself enjoying just being a part of their religion, even for just a brief moment.

Spirituality Dialogues: Race and Religion

 

Dr. Kim Pearson led the final Spirituality Dialogues for the year entitled Race and Religion.  She successfully highlighted current events that have spurred on discussions about the relationship between race and religion.    I really enjoyed the discussion and I wanted to include some of the lessons that I learned.

 

-Dr Pearson talked about Jeremiah Wright and described him as a Jeremiad.  I had never heard the term used before, and to be honest, it really intrigued me.  A Jeremiad, taken from the prophet Jeremiah in the Bible, is a person who bitterly laments the state of society while also prophetically proclaiming its imminent downfall. Rev. Wright used the pulpit to voice his opinions about race relations in the United States; but he is not just complaining, he is actually calling the country to repentance.  It is here that his prophetic speech unites race, social justice, and religion.

 

-We also discussed Jeremiah Wright as both a politician and preacher.  It seems that in Rev. Wright these two identities are inextricably linked.  I’d like to dig a bit deeper; to what degree are all Black preachers politicians?  Is it even a matter of race?  Many White evangelical preachers also stress their politics in their preaching.  I also enjoyed briefly discussing the history of Black Christianity.  Dr. Pearson discussed the church as the first organization for Blacks run by Blacks during slavery in America.  She even drew parallels between the village chief and the preacher, which helped me to better understand Wright’s influence over Trinity United and the larger African American community.      

 

-During the dialogue, we also discussed the particular type of Christianity preached at Trinity United Church of Christ.  We discussed the difference between worldly salvation and other worldly salvation, as well as the prosperity gospel and liberation theology.  I think in order to understand Jeremiah Wright, it is imperative to first understand Black Liberation Theology.  Essentially, liberation theology is the belief that Jesus preached a message of hope and freedom; He desires us to be set free from the injustices of society.  This puts emphasis on worldly salvation, or salvation from our current tribulations, especially racism and sexism.  This worldly salvation is contrasted by theology which places emphasis on other worldly salvation, which is primarily concerned with being set free from sin and entering into an eternal and other worldly covenant. 

 

Okay! Well—those were just a few of my initial reactions. Hope it’s food for thought!

-Ashley

The lecture by Dr. Rebecca Alpert of Temple University on the topic of “Reconsidering Solitary Sex from a Jewish Perspective” was interesting.  I had not realized what the lecture we were attending was about, so I was a bit caught off guard at first. Dr. Alpert makes good use of Biblical stories to back up her claims about masturbation.  I give her a lot of credit for talking about a topic many would consider to be “uncomfortable.” I do agree that sex needs to be talked about more openly and examined in light of religion. I do think that some of her arguments were a bit of a stretch, but she did have some interesting points. she was a very good speaker, too, so she conveyed her arguments well.

I walked into Dr. Alpert’s lecture without knowing the title of her lecture…and boy, was I surprised!  I thought to myself, “solitary sex…that can’t be….?”  My immediate assumption was right; Dr. Alpert gave a lecture on her interpretation of early Judaism and masturbation.  Firstly, I’m glad that she gave the lecture.  I can’t say that I agree with her interpretation of scriptures, but I do agree that sexuality does need to be examined through the lens of religion. Humans are sexual beings—and I think it’s fair to say that humans are also religious beings.  I’m interested in how sexuality and religion are intertwined and how various religions view human sexuality. 

 

At the end of her lecture, Dr. Alpert opened the floor to questions and comments.  I was interested in how she used the philosopher Maimonides to essentially say… “Hey, if it’s good for you, do it!”  My question: I understand how some would say that there are certain physical benefits to solitary sex, but what about emotional and psychological consequences?  Dr. Alpert responded that the guilt and shame associated with this private act are a result of socialization.  Society teaches adolescents to feel badly about it.  I then asked how she knew this guilt was a product of socialization and not associated with the human conscience.  She then replied, “Well, how do we know anything?”  I was frustrated by her response because I think it’s an interesting question that needs to be explored. Is this act shameful because God has written His law on our hearts and we know that it is sin, or is this act shameful because society has made it so?

 

All in all, I appreciated her boldness to tackle such a taboo issue and found the lecture intriguing.

 

-Ashley

I wanted to post this earlier, but, I forgot.  So please forgive me if you have trouble remembering the lecture and are unable to comment owing to the blog’s tardiness.

Starhawk came to the College of New Jersey and presented a less than satisfactory lecture on her thoughts on why humans should care about the environment and how that relates to sexuality.  As Will pointed out, she seemed to insert “purpose” or a teleology into and Darwinian view of the cosmos.  I thought this was strange and disagreed with much of what she said.  Most in the class did not appreciate or understand what she was saying, but I did take away an important lesson from the lecture.

I learned that my own faith, Christianity, can answer the same questions that Starhawk is trying to answer from a Wicken and Evolutionary worldview.  I also think that Christianity presents answers that better mirror reality than the one presented by Starhawk.  But that discussion will have to be reserved for a much longer paper.

The point that I want to address here, is Starhawk’s concern for the environment.  I want to suggest that one need not be and environmentalist to or hold a naturalistic worldview in order to care about the environment.  In the Christian worldview, human responsibility to care for the earth is laid down in Genesis where God gives Adam and Eve stewardship over the earth.  I think that this is a great word for how a Christian should understand his or her relation to the environment.  It is not one of wasteful domination, but it also is not one of worship.  So, in the sense of stewardship, Christians can care about the environment, honor God by doing so, and not replace their high reverence for God with a high reverence for nature.

While I didn’t agree with Starhawk, she helped me to see how my own faith addresses real issues in the world.  And for that, I thank her.

Matt

I watched Deepa Mehta’s 1998 film, Earth, this past Tuesday.  I watched it in high school and thought the film was great.  We had been focusing on the British involvement in India and my history teacher had us watch the film in class to understand the story from a non-Western perspective.  The film, then, helped me to understand that there are many different perspectives in the world and that different people experience the world differently from each other.

The setting of the film is Lahore in 1947.  Lahore would become a part of Pakistan after the British left and divided India.  The film focuses on the division between religious and ethnic groups that the partition created.  In the story, a community of Hindus, Muslims, and Parsis lived in harmony until the partition.  After the partition, the community collapsed as riots between the various group broke out.  The movie adds a bit of drama by having two Muslim men fall in love with a Hindu woman.

This time, the film helped, in a sense, to bring me back to earth.  In all honesty, Tuesday was the first time that I have actually sat down and watched a movie in quite a while.  I have been very busy with my class work, senior thesis, and many other activities.  Watching this film, though, helped me to realize that there is a world going on outside of academia; a world where people live, fight, love, and die.  With my business, I forgot that there is a war going on in Iraq.  This film caused me to wonder what is going to happen when the United States decides to pull out of that country.  As the British man in the film said regarding the religious groups in India and Pakistan, I fear that the different religious groups in Iraq are going to tear each other apart when the United States leaves.  I could launch into a discussion of how we should approach Iraq, but I just want to leave this blog by saying that the film seems incredible relevant to today’s situation in Iraq and that it helped me to pull my nose out of the books to remember that there is a world outside of the College of New Jersey.

Matt

In the Religion, Culture, and Identity learning community, we have read, discussed, and had lecturers speak on some of the most personal, some would even say embarrassing, topics in human life.  In Walter Burkert’s Creation of the Sacred, we learned how involuntary defecation and beavers biting their testicles off relate to religion.  At the Symposium on The Creation and Contestation of Sacred Space, Jodi Magnessdiscussed the Essenes, a Jewish sect in the Second Temple period, and how their toilet practices relate to ritual purity.  The latest “embarrassing” issue addressed by the learning community was nothing less than…masturbation.

Dr. Rebecca Alpert of Temple University spoke on “Reconsidering Solitary Sex from a Jewish Perspective.”  I must admit on the outset that I disagreed with much of what Dr. Alpert had to say on the subject, especially since she transitioned from an historical approach to a normative view of “solitary sex.”  Her argument went from the Biblical story of Onan, to a discussion of solitary sex in the Talmud (which said that it was wrong because it was bad for one’s health), to the Medieval understanding of onanism, to modern medical science saying that masturbation is healthy, to declaring that masturbation per Judaism is not an immoral, but a beneficial and good practice.  For one, if you read my last blog, this kind of argument seems less “academic” than she demands of academicians.  Additionally, in what field would this argument fit: history or theology or another?

I do believe, however, that she is correct in saying that issues of sexuality need to be discussed and that we should stop treating sex like it doesn’t exist; it must be addressed academically, religiously, and in our everyday lives.  Perhaps this is not an “academic” questions, but at least it is interesting, but I think that we all must to try and understand the purpose of sexuality/marriage/etc within our own worldviews.  Maybe “purpose” can only be addressed within particular worldviews, but I think that an understanding of “what is the purpose of sexuality” within any worldview would benefit any individual.  I am not willing to make any normative claim here as Dr. Alpert has, but I do think that understanding sexuality begins with understanding it within your own belief system/worldview/faith/religion.

Matt

Two events this week got me thinking about faith and academics.  The first event came after Rebecca Alpert’s lecture on solitary sex from the Jewish perspective.  Following the lecture, I was given the opportunity to go out to dinner with Dr. Alpert and several TCNJ professors.  After dinner, Dr. Alpert said something like “students must leave their faith at the door in order to do academic work in the classroom.”  The comment spawned a debate of sorts between the professors.  Some of the professors thought that such a separation between faith (or worldview) from academics was not possible while the others seemed to suggest that apart from this separation, academic work becomes impossible.

The second event was New Jersey Christian Fellowship’s “Can a Scientist Believe in God?” lecture by Dr. Kaita from the Princeton Plasma Physics lab.  In the lecture, Dr. Kaita defended his position that being a scientist while believing in God (specifically the Christian God) is a rational position.  After the lecture, Dr. Kaita answered a few questions.  One student asked something like “Doesn’t belief in God stop scientific inquiry?”  Dr. Kaita’s position, obviously, was no.  His answer was a little difficult to sort out, so I have had to do some of my own thinking on the issue.  What’s interesting about the student’s question, though, is that the same question was the central issue in the after dinner discussion with Dr. Alpert and the TCNJ professors.  Does belief in God stop or hinder scientific (or social scientific) inquiry?

I have four questions.  First, is it possible for one to separate their ‘faith’ or their worldview from their academic work?  The second question is the same question that Dr. Aplert and Dr. Kaita disagree upon: Does belief in God stop academic inquiry?  Third, what makes something academic; is theology not an academic subject?  Lastly, I have heard one professor at TCNJ say that “religious studies” assumes that all religions are social constructions.  Is this not an expression of a particular worldview; how do academicians reconcile this particular approach to religious studies with the supposed necessity to leave one’s faith (or worldview) at the door?  I don’t think a simple yes or a simple no can answer can address any of these questions.

Here are my initial thoughts:

1. I think that it is not possible for an individual to isolate themselves from their religious worldview.  (See Clouser, Roy. 1991. The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Role of Religious Belief in Theories. University of Notre Dame Press.)  In other words, leaving one’s faith or worldview at the door is not possible.
2. I do not think that belief in God stops inquiry, though, I wonder if this depends upon the nature of the God.
3. I am not sure how “academics” is defined, so I cannot address this question at present.
4. I think that academicians would say that assuming that all religions are social constructions makes the “academic” study of religions possible.  But saying that religions are social constructions from the start is an expression of a particular worldview (secular/areligious); it is not neutral.  It is certainly a position by which to analyze various religions.  But a researcher can study religions from a Buddhist perspective, can’t they?  How is the “religious studies” starting point more “academic” than the Buddhist’s?

Just to reiterate, these are only my initial thoughts and I am very open to change.  Please comment.

Matt

[Spring 2008 - TCNJ]

To say the least, this conversation was interesting…

This talk and ensuing conversation was, for me, less of an informative presentation on the Reformist view on masturbation, than an opening up of a topic that is so necessary to discuss, especially in terms of religion. More specifically, it helped me critically examine what i’ve been taught in the religion i was brought up with and how they dealed with sex—quite evasively. Although the lecture was quite embarassing and awward, it was necessary, and a courageous topic for the rabbi to have expressed. I only wish our leaders could approach such subjects with a similar attitude or perspective.

When I first heard the title of Dr. Alpert’s talk, “Jewish Views on Solitary Sex”, I (perhaps quite naively) thought that it was about the isolation of a gender or something around this topic. Much to my surprise (and horror), Dr. Alpert quickly corrected this misassumption as she began to extrapolate upon the Jewish ideas of masturbation. The shock quickly wore away as Dr. Alpert explained how she believes that masturbation is a healthy practice that goes along with many Jewish ideas. I particularly liked how she related it to cleanliness, a tenet of the Jewish faith. While I am still not sure how solitary sex can be considered an act of cleansing, it was an interesting idea.

I also found it interesting that women were allowed to “check” themselves because they were considered unable to receive sexual pleasure from the act. To me, this highlighted one failure of Dr. Alpert’s argument - how can she use the Talmud and the Jewish Bible as a position of authority on the idea of solitary sex when it has such a skewed and incorrect view of female solitary sex? Another issue I had with her lecture was that she seemed to gloss over the medical aspects of the benefits of masturbation, which I believe would have greatly augmented her argument.

Regardless of whether her argument was sound, Dr. Alpert definitely gave a thought-provoking and interesting lecture. I think that by realizing our own shock and discomfort with the idea of masturbation, Alpert made us realize our position as a part of the general, politically correct public.

-Ramya Natarajan