Voodoo appears to revert modern- day people to ancient practices. The barbaric tendencies, sacrifices, and additional archaic practices in voodoo promote violence. Furthermore, the principles of ecstatic religions contradict the basic scientific principles that govern the world.While I admire the principles that voodoo promotes such as health and protection of the family, the idea that spirits can enter a human body is dangerous and simply untrue. When the spirit consumes a person, that person is called a horse. It is this animalistic relationship between humans and voodoo that makes it extremely controversial. When should one draw the line during religious ceremonies? I believe that sacrifice and barbaric rituals should never be incorporated into a modern- day religion.
Violence and barbaric sacrifice are crucial elements to voodoo, though violence should never become an essential part of religion. Analyzing history clearly shows the unwanted consequences of this. For example, the Crusades, the wars fought in order to disperse Christian ideas, and the jihad of radical Muslims, which is used to justify violence, both have disastrous consequences. However, I believe that one should defend one’s right to the freedom of religion, because this is a basic human principle that each person needs. Fighting for one’s fundamental rights is more honorable than fighting in order to promote (and force) religion upon others.
http://kunsoo1024.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/bois-caiman.jpg
While violence and religion should never intertwine, the soldiers in wars probably heavily rely on religion to give them security and love when all they witness is hatred and horror. The purpose of religion is to create a belief system that explains one’s world. Therefore, the connection between violence and religion in this case is admirable; the people are bravely fighting for their countries always resort to religion in order to aid them.
Which rituals and ceremonies are socially acceptable and considered civilize in today’s world? When should religion use religion to promote its concepts? Are soldiers’ religious backgrounds admirable or hypocritical?
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "fertility based religion"? I'm not clear about that.
More generally, while it's true that the practices of voodoo are archaic in the strict sense of the word (in that they are derived from traditional practices of "primal" or "indigenous" religions), it seems to me to be an overstatement to say that the "practices in voodoo promote violence." Are Haitians any more violent than people in non-voodoo countries? And to describe it as "barbaric" seems pretty harsh. It's true they sometimes kill animals--but of course, so do Americans (just not for religion, usually). Nor is ecstatic spiritualism limited to voodoo; there is a large charismatic movement in Christianity, for example. Would you have equally critical remarks for the spirituality of Pentacostals, charismatic Catholics, etc.? (The answer could be 'yes' of course--Voltaire certainly would have been scathing in his attacks on all of them.)
I guess that's my way of addressing your first question: it's true that some of what voodoo does would be considered not socially acceptable by some Americans. But I'm always hesitant to use social acceptability as a standard, given the sorts of behaviors that have been considered socially acceptable in the past.
Since the thrust of your post is a critique of mingling religion and politics, I guess I would ask: do you think voodoo is particularly problematic in this regard? Some parts of your post suggest that the answer is yes, other parts suggest no. Where do you come down?
Dr. Korfhage,
ReplyDeleteYes, you raise a lot of interesting questions.
1) Fertility based religions include Christianity and Judaism, while ecstatic religions rely on apparitions and ghosts to explain the people's world.
2) I do believe that voodoo promotes violence, and while there is (of course) other elements to the religion, the focus it has on sacrifice and mental spasms is the issue. However, I do not only criticize voodoo, but also the large charismatic movement in Christianity. Therefore, yes, I would be equally as critical to other religions.
3) Yes, I understand your point about not defining actions by the Americans' idea of what is socially acceptable.
4) I do not have a yes or not answer to whether religion and violence should mingle, because it really depends on the scenario. I believe that people should not fight in order to force their religious ideas on others; however, people should go to war in order to preserve religious freedom (and any freedom for that matter).