The Antichristian Phenomenon

Just an interesting thought that could be groundbreaking if the Christians to whom it would apply to would actually share my point of view (hint: they don’t); namely that if god is suppose to promote acceptance and tolerance, then Satan must necessarily be the opposite, no? Meaning that Satan would then represent the very thing many Christians often adhere to, such as being against homosexuality, promoting sexism and so on and so forth. I haven’t been in a religious discussion with a believer in quite some time, but it is definitely a card I would bring up. Seeing that these people quite often already cherrypick what passages to believe in from the bible I doubt it would work as intended (god only likes Christians y’know? Christians like me, since everyone else claiming to be Christian and for example liking homosexuals can’t be Christian), but I guess it is worth a try.

икони*Movement is here used very loosely to include various kind of social groups and movements that all have some kind of anti-religion in common, may it one religious group against another religious group or various forms of atheist movements and the like.

One thing that has recently started to irk just a bit when communicating with people who often express a very strong anti-religious stance is the idea of “free-thinking” or “free-thought”. In particular, “free” is often equaled to that of a free mind, a mind that is not held back by any kind of logical boundaries but is able to expand into the great vastness of human intellectuality. This claim is often not questioned among those who are anti-religious, as it is considered one of the most important goals and is also one of most redeemed values. However, when analyzing the idea of “free-thinking”, the conclusion is unfortunately that “free-thinking” or “free-thought” in the strictest sense of the word cannot exist. Why?

First of all, free-thinking assumes that there cannot be any boundaries or limitations to human thought. If there are, the human mind can truly never be free. Here boundaries and limitations can include various ideas such as free to express one’s opinions without persecution, freedom of information or freedom to think and decide on one’s own without force. Of particular interest is the last example, the ability to decide what to think without having other forces doing it for you, as this is in general the kind of idea expressed in the anti-religious idea of “free-thinking”. To understand this aspect from a behavioral perspective, we must explore the relation between the individual and the society.

Within behavioral studies, it is now well-known that humans are quite capable of changing their minds under pressure. The Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiment is most likely the most common example, where people are told to inflict pain to others under the pressure of authority. A surprisingly high number of people were willing to do this, and a rather recent replication of the experiment shows that the results pretty much remain the same. However, this is far from the only way the human mind can be influenced or persuaded to do something that individual would not do under “normal” circumstances.

The use of subliminal messages in adverts and commercials is another well-known phenomenon, and adverts and commercials are great examples of what I here would like to call “societal pressure” (notice the difference to “social pressure”). Societal pressure is a kind of pressure where certain values are supra-imposed over others by being expressed in mass media. Rarely do individual actors play any larger impact, although fashion icon Twiggy is one noteworthy example among others. The main use of societal pressure is to reinforce certain already existing values and make them “commercial” – the idea that we buy into the adverts and their products that often come with the assumption that we agree with certain values is probably a good way to express it.

Societal pressure is one kind of pressure that is very hard to reveal – because in theory, no one actually forces you to accept these values as truisms. In fact, you will often find that mass media may even fight to win you over to their specific camps of what is true. The way this kind of relation can be described is dominance through consent, you allow yourself to be dominated. We do this every day, may it be with our teacher or our boss, or the police officer we met on the street. We recognize that certain individuals or groups have the right to assert more social authority, and by becoming dominated by these groups we reaffirm this. In fact, many social relations would not function without dominance through consent – imagine the grown-up child still arguing as if he or she is a 3-year-old with his or her parent, the age that is most commonly associated with children rejecting the authority of the parent/caregiver. Another example may include a student who incessantly argues with his or her teacher during a lecture that the teacher is wrong, thus assuming that the student has more authority about the subject than the teacher. What this means in theory is that the society in which we live in impose certain ways of being that we often accept as true. These values are upheld by the people who exist within this society and when someone breaks the norm social sanctions will be carried out such as social exclusion, even if these people may not even agree with the values themselves. What is important is that the values are considered natural, personal agreement is of a lesser issue. Many people may for example disagree with the institution of marriage, yet we expect young couples to marry.

As shown above, a society can therefore have several different contradictive values being promoted at the same time. secularism and theocracy are two examples, or traditional versus liberal gender roles. To expand more on the latter example, I am quite sure that when I write the word “family”, most of you who are reading this will not think of a family consisting of for example, a homosexual couple, or even a so called “freely organized” family which may more properly be recognized as a collective of sorts, no, what you think of is the nuclear family: husband and wife with children. Yet most Western societies often promote a liberal gender view that allows for different family constructions aside the nuclear family – even though this may not be the case in actuality where the nuclear family is de facto still seen as the norm. More relevant to this article, I want to discuss the ideas of anti-religion and religiosity as two opposing values. As opposing values, different groups value them differently; however, they exist within the same society. What I am going with this is that anti-religion can only be allowed if the society itself in which anti-religion exists accepts anti-religion as an existing value. What this means is that the idea of “free-thinking” that anti-religion often promotes is not in fact free at all, it is rather free-thinking with quite some modification involved. Furthermore, the way society allows for this is incredibly subtle: dominance through consent. The reason why dominance through consent is so powerful is that people may not always notice that they are in fact dominated since they agreed to be. The crux then is that society tricks you into believing you are free by dominating you and you agreed to be dominated. Free-thinking as it is understood in anti-religion in general can therefore never be truly free, because the idea of “free” is already limited by the society in which these anti-religious movements exist within.

That individuals who claim they are free-thinkers are limited in their thinking by society becomes even more evident once you leave religion and anti-religion as values and investigate what other values related to religion and anti-religion that are considered of importance. From personal experience, I often find that these so-called free-thinkers indeed only see themselves as free because the society in which they live in allowed them to think that they are, they often hold very contradictive and conservative values in other areas. A recent example includes someone who responded to my entry about Sverigedemokraterna and presented “facts” and “evidence” why Muslims are bad, which to my trained eyes mostly seemed to be the same information regurgitated by others who are strongly anti-Muslim. This reveals a very subtle notion that Western values are considered more important than Muslim ones when it for example comes to gender, creating the contradiction that only Western women are “free” (again, with modification), by removing the freedom of upholding traditional Muslim gender values.

To conclude, free-thinking in the sense that it is mostly understood in anti-religious movements does not exist per se, as it is an illusion granted by the society in which the anti-religious movement exists within. Therefore, would you be one of these people who claim him- or herself to be a free-thinker, think again. Are you truly actually free in mind and spirit? What other values do you have that you deem as natural that may in fact not be natural at all (e.g. the gender division between man and woman)?

Lastly, I do not try to offer the key to break out of the societal shackles imposed by our societies. I cannot and I doubt that it is truly possible to do so. We can share values as we move between societies, something quite well-documented among transnationalists, but we cannot break out of our values creating new ones on our own since the very way we view values is limited by the society itself. Therefore, the only tool I can offer is the awareness that we are affected in numerous ways, often unknowingly so. By understanding that you are affected, you may not necessarily be able to always change your values, but you can at least see the consequences of them and act accordingly.

BBC News reports that “religion may become extinct in nine nations” and it seems to be pretty much in lieu with other studies that I’ve seen about religion – atheism is de facto hegemony, particularly in European countries. Even in USA, atheism is on the rise, as fewer and fewer seem to attend church over the years.

However, these kind of studies completely ignore the rising New Age movement, many with a strong flair of what people would classify as religion. Yes, if religion is defined as social movements that must have some sort of clergy and a holy meeting place such a church, then there is no doubt that religion in many Western countries is in decline (on the contrary, the opposite is happening in many Muslim/ex-Communist countries). But people should not count out the New Age movement. I tell you, in a couple of hundred years people will ask what atheism means, where the norm is to perform some type of yoga (particularly the one with the long and complicated name), suggest that the reason why people are ill is because of bad karma and ki levels and that god cannot be dead, since every man and woman is a god.

So, I finished the book while on my way home. I have very mixed feelings about the book itself. One thing that greatly annoyed moe was the fact that the book is supposed to be the first installment of a trilogy but there is no mentioning of such a thing anywhere. It becomes obvious on the very last page. Now I have a very sour taste in my mouth where I’m not sure if I want to go on or not. Like another reviewer said somewhere, the book could in fact probably be much better if that epic story that is intended for three books might be compressed into a very large one instead. Fantasy books of over 1000 pages are not that uncommon, after all.

From this point onward, the review will contain spoilers. If you are not interested in those, I advice to stop reading.

One thing I found hugely disappointing was the escape from Sanctuary. While the world of Sanctuary was quite well-crafted and in great detail too, the book became incredibly watered down past this point. The main characters reach the town of Memphis and suddenly the book changes style – but for the worse. While I had revelled in the misery of Thomas Cale while he was living in Sanctuary, his life took a rather uninteresting turn once he got out of there and by luck managed to become a part of the upper class of Memphis. Memphis seems to be quite inspired by a European renaissance town and got nothing in common with its American counterpart. Now, there are interesting parts here, but most of them just seem to be completely forgotten. Hoffman is incredibly poor with forshadowing; sometimes he highlights certain events and objects as if they bare any importance to the plot to just be forgotten, and sometimes he doesn’t forshadow at all and then it just comes tumbling down on top of the reader that this was actually important – except we never got to know why it was. A perfect example of this is the event that lead to Cale’s escape. By chance he got to see how one of the Redeemers in Sanctuary was dissecting girls alive, and this randomly lead Cale to kill the Redeemer and escape with the girl who was still alive. Afterwards we are told how Cale’s “protector” at Sanctuary, Redeemer Bosco, steps into the room and picks up an object from one of the girl’s intestines, musing whether this is what the Redeemer Cale murdered might have been after. However, we never get to hear anything of this ever again. Here there is also another issue with Hoffman’s inability to properly use the omniscient narrative – instead of properly developing an internal plot at Sanctuary that tells the reader that “this is really important”, he simply just seems to ignore Sanctuary all together most of the time. When he does use the omniscient narrative properly he has shown great ability to create compelling subplots; why did Bosco murder the High Redeemer? However, the plot is then dropped, there seems to be no why than Bosco’s possible sense of megalomania. While I do not mind to let the reader figure out some things on its own, it is one thing to drop clues and another to not drop any clues at all and then expect the reader to figure things out anyway. I have had enough of stories like RahXephon for quite some time, thank you.

Additionally, to continue from the old post, the feeling of haphazardness gets worse. Hoffman seems to mix and mash fantasy and reality as he seems fit, however, the result is often bad. Very bad. Why do you use name the main protagonist Thomas Cale, but one of his acquaintances IdrisPukke? I kid you not, no spacing there. I don’t even know how I am supposed to pronounce it, so I just read it as if it would be Norwegian with spacing. All this simply gives a sense of lack of imagination. When Hoffman doesn’t know what to do or name something, he just picks something from the real world and puts it into his novel. A perfect example is how Jesus is actually featured, but this time he is known for being in the belly of a whale. It has no relevance whatsoever, and it adds no depth since this Jesus is not the same as the Hanged Redeemer, despite their historical similarities. There is also a serious lack of geography. All this fuzzyness just adds more confusion when I instead would just like clarity. I want to know WHY the Redeemers are at with with the Antagonists, and I would like to have another perspectives of the Antagonists that is not related to the Redeemers. I would also like to know why Thomas Cale is important to Bosco beyond the “I had a vision and I think you are the reborn version of the Antichrist”. Which, of course, could have been dropped much earlier. While it is a powerful way to end a novel, again, there is no indication of this. While there is a description of Cale either appearing as a callous, cold murderer or attempting to learn the social norms of the Materazzi (the name of the people who live in Memphis), the readers get no indication of this. Just because a person says something about another character it does not make it true. And this leads to my third and final gripe with “The Left Hand of God”, that of poor character development. There is some, but barely. If the author wants to say that this person is this or that, show it! Show how Cale is so cold and callous. Instead, we in fact get the opposite – that he can be kind and caring and attempts to be despite his cruel upbringing. That Cale killed a man in a duel is not proof, especially when we are told that he is in fact scared for his life during the first part of the duel. Personally, that is now how I expect someone who is cold and callous to act like. That Cale after the duel ended cut off the opponent’s head in a fit of rage does again not show that he is cold and callous, but rather emphasizes his frustration over being an outcast despite that he clearly got certain abilities that should make him recognized, which the duel in fact was about to begin with. It was a schism between him and one of his oppressors in Materazzi who made sure to take a social advantage of their different social classes. And then there are characters who are given some development to just disappear. Like the assassin who was spying on Cale for several weeks to fall in love with him. I don’t know why, but Hoffman got a thing for love at first sight. Anyway, the assassin got murdered, so the time spent on describing her and her way of life was completely thrown away. And scrap that thing about character development being my last issue, my last issue are gender roles. Women are constantly described as sex objects, and useless too. Arbell Swan-Neck is a disgusting example. Supposedly, her nickname Swan-Neck is meant to symbolize her beauty, but I don’t know about you, but a woman with a swan-neck just gives me images of a woman with an unnaturally tall neck. That is not beautiful. Women are also constantly described as delicate, and while Arbell Swan-Neck is certainly of noble status is thus treated as such, it would be nice if she just didn’t you know, act it out. Everytime. She is the damsel in mistress personified. Awful. I thought we had passed that stage in fantasy where women cannot be protrayed in other ways, and when they do, they get killed… by men. That says a lot about the gender roles in “The Left Hand of God”.

To summarize, it got some very interesting ideas but they are never developed. There is some decent writing down there, but it’s usually tossed away. I have very mixed feelings after finishing it. While I think the underlying story is interesting and I want to see where this is all going, I am not sure the sloppy writing can in fact justify to buy the final installments to find out, especially if the writing does not improve, and there is no indication that it will. It can be noticed that Hoffman is a screenwriter, the novel is very “filmic”, but not in a good sense. If “The Left hand of God” had been a 2 hour long film where Hoffman was forced to compress the story to fit this time format, I think it might be great. But this isn’t “The Left Hand of God”. We get a 500 pages long book where most of the content is bland; uninspired and uninteresting. Pure filler, to be frank. And like any person who is not out of their mind, I do not like fillers. I read another comment somewhere that actually describes my feelings of the book pretty well. I don’t want to read it, I just want to read the summary.

I bought a new book at the bookstore today with the rather in-your-face-name, “The Left Hand of God”. The cover doesn’t really say a lot. It’s a man wearing a black coat and holding a silver sword. Nothing else of his body is seen but his hands. The back cover doesn’t say much either; all we get to know is that Thomas Cale is here to change the world – for better or worse. I thus wasn’t sure what to expect when I bought it, but its mysterious air is rather attracting when you just have to get a book and can’t decide on what you actually want to buy.

I started to read it while on the airplane and the first pages were interesting enough for me to stick around, which is rare nowadays. As the title of the book implies, it’s about religion. Not Christianity however, as we might be lead to believe, but rather a fictuous version of it. The religion of the book is unnamed, but we get a rather thorough description of it. The book starts out with introducing its main character, Thomas Cale, who is a 15-year-or so teenager living at the military training camp/monastery called Sanctuary. Despite its name, Sanctuary is not a sanctuary. It is run by overzealous monks referred to as Redeemers, and they accept abandoned boys to be trained as soldiers that are to be sent into a war against the Antagonists in The East. The boys are referred to as Acolytes, and the monks use any methods they deem necessary in order to keep their Acolytes in check. Torture of all kinds are common, that together with brainwashing is meant to ensure that the boys will stay in check. If they don’t or simply have a mental breakdown, they seem to be taken away from Sanctuary to never return again. Where they are taken is never mentioned this early on, but the book emphasizes that it’s a place of no return – death.

The timeline of the book seems to become more typical of modern fantasy: not quite science fiction placed in the future, but not quite medieval placed in an alternate universe either. My impression is that it’s in fact post-apocalyptic. According to the book, the religion worshipping the Hanged Redeemer (it is called the Hanged Redeemer because the main symbol of faith depicts a main who is being hanged as the perfect example of a man who is being redeemed from sin through pain. It is interesting to note that the Hanged Redeemer changed facial expression over the course of time from being agonized to euophoric – very similar to how Jesus has changed his facial expression) has existed for at least a million years, implying that while it is not Christianity itself, it is a spin-off variant of it. It seems to in particular take inspiration from Catholicism, as there are supposedly more saints than there are days during a year (The Hanged Redemeer’s mother is for example the only woman to be considedered holy – all others are the embodiedment of sin because of their female sexuality of course, and how women’s bodies might tempt men sexually). Another point supporting the idea that the universe in “The Left Hand of God” is post-apocalyptic is that towns like Memphis among other American ones are mentioned, suggesting that the East is most likely Europe and the land in which Sanctuary is situated is a post-apocalyptic variant of USA. This seems a bit odd as the author of “The Left Hand of God”, Paul Hoffman, is British. British English also colors the novel itself; while it is not “too” British, words such as “bloody”, “lardy” among others give the novel a British tone. Hopefully the reason why Hoffman decided to play out “The Left Hand of God” in a future post-apocalyptic USA will be explained, eventually.

The book itself is not the most amazing piece of literature I have read; but it not the worst either. It is certainly passable as easy entertainment, but of course the most striking feature is its anti-religious stance. The Redeemers are often compared to the Inquisition; while the Redemeers themselves often live in wealth, eat good food and live well, their existence stands in stark constrast to the Acolytes who live very miserable lives similar to that of a prison. The book’s target audience lingers somewhere between young and adult fantasy, and can certainly please both age groups. I initially thought it would be more in the veins of Neil Gaiman and/or Robert Jordan, and it is more similar to the latter than the former in terms of style. The backside text seems to actually imply more descriptive violence than what it actually contains, hence also making it passable for a younger audience, even though I think more descriptive violence would be able to give the book a far rawer and brutal undertone which would be more fitting of what the book seems to aim thus far. Something akin to The Sword of Truth might be more appropriate.

The problem with the book however seems to be that it is very haphazard. Sometimes you simply don’t know where it’s trying to take you. The most notable examples are the changes in point of view. The book is written from an omniscient third person perspective, and when it changes point of view it feels very forced and unnatural. Instead I think Hoffman could’ve used other literary tools to explain the same thing without having to change point of view.

I will update with more posts as I continue to read the book to see if I change in opinion or if there’s new information regarding the Redeemers.

As some of my may be aware, there is a Hollywood movie based on the events of Anneliese Michel, a German girl, who supposedly suffered from demon possession and underwent the treatment of exorcism from the Catholic church in the 70s. After several sessions, Anneliese was ultimately found dead in her bed due to dehydration and malnutrition. A legal case was charged against the parents and the priest who agreed to exorcise her, and the court found them guilty of neglect which lead to Anneliese’s death.

Several decades later, Hollywood decides to make a movie out of this historical event. The result is so-so. The main part of the film is reflecting the trial against the priest, who helped to take care of Emily Rose, the American recast of Anneliese Michel. He is defended by Erin, a skilled attorney, and a so-called “agnostic”. This alone starts to ring a bell into my head. Why is it that all women you see in these kinds of movies are always people who are no longer believers or are depicted as to not be sure what to believe? I am sure this might possibly reflect the statistics that most of the churchgoers in USA are women, but regardless, it would be nice to see an unfaithful man who would turn back to his faith, for once.

During the first part of the movie, very little happens at first. The events unfold like a typical court case, and most of the arguments brought up against the priest rely on “scientific” opinions about Emily’s condition: she was possibly suffering from epilepsy that later developed into schizoid epilepsy, which, according to the movie itself, is a term one of the “scientists” made up. As I am no expert in this field, I will not argue whether this is a possibility or not, but one thing I DO know, is that the screenwriters have a terrible knowledge of anthropology in particular. This becomes particularly evident when Erin lets an “anthropologist” testify about demon possession in various cultures, which somehow developed into some New Age mumbo jumbo about some people being more susceptible to possession than others, and this could have a possible biological reason. If the screenwriters would have bothered to actually look up what social and cultural anthropologists do, is that we DO NOT make up theories why some people would become possessed by demons. If anything, WHAT we do is that we make third-person accounts of such events and try to put these events into a cultural/social perspective. So yes, I got a huge axe to dig with that part in particular, and most of the movie and its ability to appear realistic were ruined to me, at that point.

Another point which I strongly disliked is that the movie at first seems to attempt to present how the eyewitness testimonies described the event, which ultimately would make the movie neutral on whether demon possession is a possibility or not, but then suddenly changed position and started to support the idea that demon possession is in fact possible, and that demons exist in this world. It’s not like I can buy that, but the setting for such a storyline was completely wrong. I’d understood if it was something like The Exorcist, The Omen or any other fictional setting that doesn’t try to be scientific (an exception would be the X-Files, but I never liked the few episodes they had that explored Scully’s Catholic faith, anyway) but it’s more about telling a compelling story. Now, the problem is that the compelling story in the Exorcism of Emily Rose is supposed to lie in the court case at hand. As such, the movie utterly and horribly failed. Instead of giving different and varied personal accounts of the event and developing the interpersonal relationships between the characters, which would ultimately had made the movie more into a drama that, in my opinion, would’ve been a perfect choice for this kind of setting, it tries to scare by giving the viewer a sense that demons might exist. Besides creating a tingling sensation, that’s all what it did for me. If I wanted to see something actually scary, The Exorcism of Emily Rose would certainly not be on that list.

Neither did I agree with the final verdict of the jury, since the evidence to support his case was mostly based on eyewitness testimonies and emotional retelling of events, as well as some holes poking in the logic of the “science proponents”. (Spoiler: The priest was found guilty but the verdict was changed into his favor, making it far less severe than it initially was.)

With that said, I do not completely dismiss the movie. It’s worth seeing once but some of the aspects are incredibly hard to overlook (particularly, if you study anthropology…) to make it really enjoyable, especially as an unbeliever. It does raise some interesting questions about ethics and philosophy, such as whether it was more humane to let Emily die by her own choice than strapping her to a machine or put her into a psychiatric ward, where she, no doubt, would not have been much better off. However, these things do not make up for the major flaws that ruined the movie to me. If this movie had been a drama, if it had been interested to explore these questions in more detail, if it had been interested to portray an objective stance on the matter, then yes, I think it might have been an outstanding movie.

However, as it is, it did not and thus it is mediocre but works a Saturday night entertainment when you’re bored. I should also mention one more thing which really put the nail into the coffin though, and that was the post scriptum they added when the case was closed. Instead of saying that the events presented in the movie are fiction and that the real person behind Emily was Anneliese Michel, they wrote EMILY, which made it sound like the whole thing happened in USA. Furthermore, the final note added that Erin’s case was based upon information provided by someone who knew Emily from that time. I don’t exactly remember the details. As you can see, however, the implications remain clear: Emily existed for real and so did Erin and this case. Despite that this is all fiction and a retelling of events.

This movie is so incredibly unprofessional I’m surprised it passed the screenwriting status. If I were Anneliese’s parents, I would be terribly offended by the fact that the filmmakers somehow claim that the events Anneliese went through was based on a girl in USA. I mean, give her the proper credit. The girl suffered terribly, after all. If you are going to write a movie about her life, then at least make sure that it doesn’t omit the fact that it was HER and not somebody else.

As the only person who seems actively interested in social science beyond the layman perspective, I’ve come to realize that even though this site is about religion (and the lack thereof); we have written nothing about what we mean by religion and how it’s possible to study various religious groups and organizations. One of the reasons why could possibly be because religion is a very troublesome term in and by itself. It is not constructed with a scientific perspective in mind, so when people refer to religion it can have vastly different meanings, especially within the academia. As a social anthropologist, it is not possible for me to attempt to frame in all these different definitions within social science, but I can at least start by referring to the most common definitions used in anthropology.

The broadest definition in anthropology of what a religion is “is a belief in Spiritual Beings” (Bowie, 2006). This seems to agree with the more common and general definition of religion in everyday language. When someone says that he or she is religious, it is most likely a reference to a belief in a spiritual being, for example the Christian God. From a philosophical perspective, spiritual can be replaced with metaphysical, and it becomes possible to understand this being as existing beyond or after the physical (world) . What is implied here is that this spiritual being is more often than not a single substance on its own residing outside the universe as we know it. The problem with this definition is that there are religions that can be classified as atheistic in nature. A classical example includes Hinduism while more modern examples are modern Satanism and thelema. Pantheistic religions are not necessarily included in this definition either, especially the naturalistic strain. So while Bowie’s definition is useful especially when studying more classical religions, it also leaves something more to be desired.

Clifford Geertz offers another which doesn’t refer to the actual belief system itself, but rather the social meaning a religion can carry to those who practice it. To him, religion is

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.

The positive side of this definition is that religion certainly fulfils such a social role in different societies. Christianity wasn’t really that questioned as an authentic and realistic belief system until the Enlightenment which led to such beliefs that the earth was indeed flat and in the center of the universe. Atheistic religions such as modern Satanism and thelema are also safely encompassed because they too function in such a manner to the practitioners. The biggest critique against this definition is how it is possible to basically take any system of symbols and make it seem like a religion. Is it a religion to be a vegetarian? To be a vegetarian usually includes following specific norms and ethics which are felt as true to those who are professed vegetarians.

Same problems arise when attempting to refer to how the word religion is described in a dictionary:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow .

It is possible to ignore point 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. So instead I will start by addressing the first point. The biggest problem with this definition is that superhuman agencies should preferably be involved, and as discussed against Bowie’s definition, same critique applies here. It also assumes that religious practice must contain some kind of rites of rituals. In this day and age where individual spirituality is becoming increasingly popular , it is questionable whether it is needed for a person to be classified as religious. A deist is a very typical and good example of this. A deist is not necessarily a part of any organization, does not necessarily perform and rites and rituals in his or her worship and a deist might even follow a typical scientific approach when it comes to the creation of the physical universe. It is therefore highly questionable whether these beliefs can actually be called “beliefs” except for the actual belief in a spiritual being, in this case a deity of unknown properties. Pantheists also fall short in this definition since there’s nothing that says that a pantheist cannot follow a typical scientific description of the universe, and the most common interpretation of pantheism usually excludes any form of spiritual being. It becomes even more troublesome when studying modern Satanism which falls short on everything but on a moral code that dictates how people should attempt to live, but even then there is such a large difference between individual practitioners even this point can be questioned.

A fault of this definition therefore lies in its assumption that a person must be a member of a religious institution or organization and how it presupposes a belief in a spiritual being in order to be classified as religious.

2 is very similar to Geertz’ definition and same critique applies there. Don’t members of the Weightwatchers agree on certain fundamental beliefs and practices of how to lose weight? Here I mean that it is actually a belief to consider it better and healthier to lose weight than not to, as there are plenty of serious studies showing that the relationship between obesity and unhealth are not as crystal clear as have been previously believed.

3 is not very different from 2 except that it attempts to frame in a more global and general perspective, so same critique again applies. Even if the way of how to lose weight may be different among those who attempt to eat according to different diets, they all seem to share and espouse similar ideas why overweight is bad and what general methods to use to lose weight.
To sum it up, there is no real good definition of what a religion is as all of them got some major critique against them for not being inclusive enough or for being too vague and broad. It is however possible to attempt to find suitable definitions depending on what kind of definitions one is looking for, and then have an open discussion why that definition would be better over the other.

I have uploaded my thesis about Satanism in black metal on Academia.edu and it will thus be fully viewable for everyone as an online resource. The file conversion didn’t seem to like some format editing in the original version, but it should not distract the reading experience too much. I have changed the file  from .doc (mostly because it felt too public and easy to access and change the content) into .pdf. Now the online version will appear as it does in the original paper.

No one is allowed to reproduce my thesis without my permission. Any attempts to claim authorship and profit out of my thesis will be strictly forbidden.

Abstract for those too lazy to read it on Academia.edu:
Satanism and antichristianity have always had prominent roles in black metal. While most musicians and fans would claim that true evil is organized religion and even more so Christianity, black metal also appears as a new religious movement, making this statement highly paradoxical. One way to understand this is the constant search for an authentic masculine identity, and how the modern consumerist society is perceived to create a social climate that make some groups within the society feel alienated. Such a group includes heterosexual, working class men that made up most of the early black metal scene.
With the help of the anti-aesthetic, which can take such expressions as self-mutilations and in the forms of opinions that it is good for humans to suffer instead of being happy, black metal men attempt to find their True Selves by separating that which they find masculine from the feminine – where Satanism and antichristianity become tools to do this. By idolizing and revering Satan as the perfect man, black metal men have started a war against Christianity to conquer which they think always belonged to them – namely their masculine identity from the on-going “feminization”.

Not sure how many who actually like to cook around here, or bake bread, but I was doing exactly that at my aunt’s place. As some of you may know, baking bread requires the dough to rest for a certain amount of time, usually thirty minutes or more, so I had nothing to do and joined my cousin who was zapping on the TV. Then this movie shows up and the whole premise sounds very exaggerated and bound to fail: Christian girl attending a Christian school leading her perfect (Christian) teenage life gets to know that not only is her boyfriend actually homosexual, but he also made her pregnant. Now, I am certain most people would go “Ewww!” over that, and I certainly did as well. However, my cousin decided to give this very convoluted plot a go, and I decided that at least I can laugh over how ridiculous it could turn out. The movie does start out decently with an ironical tint in the eye. It would possibly trick you to believe its general message would be religion sucks, but not quite. First we get to follow the main character, ironically named Mary, as she introduces us into what would seem to be the perfect teenage life. Then the scenery changes where Mary and her boyfriend Dean are telling each other secrets while under water in a swimming pool, and Dean tells her that he thinks he is gay. The events that follow are actually pretty genuinely funny, not because it sucks so much. Mary hits her head in shock, she gets a revelation that Jesus is trying to tell her that the only way to save Dean is to sacrifice her virginity to him, so so she does. Of course how Dean could even possibly be physically attracted to her so he can actually bang her is an interesting question, but she became pregnant nevertheless. The first half of the movie then revolves around how Mary is trying to avoid getting caught up and exposed by her more radical Christian friends as well as her mother and how Dean was sent to a place called Mercy Camp that “treats” homosexuals. In the second half, we are introduced to Roland and Cassandra, two students who both attend this Christian school without really being Christians themselves but really got no other choices left unless they would want homeschooling. Cassandra is depicted as your typical troublemaker – but this doesn’t bother you because in a way she is portrayed as an antihero and an antithesis to that which is Hilary Faye, the super-ultra conservative Christian girl who’s the also of course the most popular at the school they both attend. Now the movie tries less to be a comedy and more a drama, and the result is pretty much so-so. What is mostly lacking is character depth. Take for example Roland, who I don’t know who he is and where he came from and what motivates him. It might be that I missed some background introduction scenes while I had to run away to attend the dough, but obviously being wheelchair-bound would still warrant more character development than what he is doing in this very moment, which is basically following Cassandra around (they later become a couple). Roland and Cassandra befriend Mary, because they aren’t as bothered by her pregnancy as others and they support her in her choice to rather keep the baby than aborting it. So what happens at this point is that a war breaks out between Cassandra and Hilary Faye which is slightly over-the-top and unrealistic. It ends up with Hilary Faye spraying cuss words and other offensive statements (to Christians) all over the school walls and then tries to blame Cassandra for it since Cassandra is the trouble-maker. Then there’s the guy called Patrick who has a crush on Mary and also the principal’s son. All of this of course accumulating with the prom as the climax. The problem I had was that Hilary Faye was portrayed as single-minded. There was a mention of how she looked like before she took her diet pills and facial makeup and how that was suppose to fit her inside, with the movie hinting that maybe she really is so aggressive as she is because she’s really insecure and scared deep down, but she doesn’t get more development than that. And same unfortunately applies to the rest of the characters. Tagged along with a liberal message of being accepting and not judgmental, the second half felt cliché and trite. It kind of felt like the movie itself didn’t quite know whether it wanted to be a more light-spirited comedy or a deep drama, and it was really saved by Cassandra’s actor, Eva Amurri. She just stole all the light whenever she was around, because unfortunately, she was actually the really decent actor in this movie, and she carried her character well. Think of Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean, and you should get an idea how it felt like whenever she was on the screen. That she lied, stole, smoked and basically did every other immoral thing a teenager can do didn’t bother you so much because you could sense her rebel spirit. It should be noted that Cassandra was also portrayed as a Jew.

Anyway, my conclusion of “Saved!” as a movie is that it’s half-decent high school stuff if one can bother to overlook the extreme Christian overtones. On the other hand, I do like how it tries to approach young Christians (obviously this movie has a very peculiar target audience which didn’t really include me) and tell them that being caring and loving is more important than judging others because they don’t fit into your particular worldview. There’s actually a quite nice quote uttered by Mary which goes; “If God wants us all to be similar, then why are all we so different?”.

This paper will be a copied version of my exam which deals with Hare Krishna. It should be noted it is lengthy, and can be considered an extension of my previous study visit about Hare Krishna.

Historical and ideological background
Hare Krishna, or also formerly known as ISKCON – International Society for Krishna Consciousness, was formed by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in New York, USA 1966. (Frisk, 2007) The religion’s focal point is the worship of Krishna, an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu. A follower of Hare Krishna is an adherent of the Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas discipline; and it has its roots in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Vaishnavism refers to the worship of Vishnu, and the most important scripture is to be the Bhagavad Gita. (Frisk, 2007, Studiehäfte 2) What differentiates a member of Hare Krishna to other branches of Hinduism is that a member of Hare Krishna considers Krishna to be the supreme god, not Vishnu, and that it is Krishna who is the source of all the other avatars and incarnations, the creation of the world etc. (Study visit 1) Hare Krishna thus seems far more monotheistic its approach than the other polytheistic variants of Hinduism.
Although Hare Krishna appears in a new modern iteration in the West, Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas is far from a new discipline and has its roots all the way back to the 15th century with the Hindu saint Sri Krishna Chaitanya, who was considered a reincarnation of Krishna. (Frisk, 2007) What was new and modern with Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas was that it had been heavily influenced by Islam, and proposed the idea that anyone could become spiritually exalted regardless of caste and emphasized an individual relationship with god rather than the holistic view found in other branches of Hinduism. (Frisk, 2007) Such ideas were quite revolutionary for their time, as Chaitanya considered that the essence of Krishna was reached when singing and repeating the Hare Krishna mantra, not depending on which caste your parents belonged to. (Frisk 2007) The interest in this branch of Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas faded however, until it was born again in the 19th century thanks to Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Bhaktivinoda Thakur thought that spiritual leadership did not have to be passed onto the next generation within one’s own family, but anyone could become a spiritual leader since spiritual quality was not directly linked to physical body. (Frisk, 2007) This idea would become persistent throughout Hare Krishna philosophy, where the thought that we are spiritually equal would later be strongly emphasized. (Frisk, 2007)
Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s son, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur, would take over his father’s work and create Gaudiya Math, a form of temple that quickly spread over India. Gaudiya Math accepted all kind of peoples who lived as monks and nuns, and some were initiated as Brahmin, the highest social class in India that mostly consists of priests, doctors, teachers, preachers and law makers. (Frisk, 2007) Since the idea that anyone could become a Brahmin, would one possess the proper spiritual abilities, was prevalent in the Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas philosophy, it instantly created a lot of controversy. Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur started to initiate people as Brahmins, among those by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, whom Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur also taught as a guru. (Frisk, 2007)
To spread the religion further, by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada travelled to USA. This was also controversial as it is believed that casteless peoples, such as Americans and Europeans, cannot be taught about Krishna. They are, according to social standards, tainted since they are casteless, and do not thus possess a soul or a spiritual entity. (Frisk, 2007) However, since the primary philosophical idea in this variant of Gaudiya Bhagavata Vaishnavas is that the physical body is merely a shell and that we are all spiritually equal, this posed not to be a problem to spread the words of Krishna to the Americans. Well in America, by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada encountered the back then, prevalent hippie culture, and eventually created International Society for Krishna Consciousness. It became highly popular and spread quickly. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada made sure to spread it to other parts of the world as well, and initiated what would be formerly called CGC – Governing Body Comission – which would function as the primary decision-making organ. (Frisk, 2007) Before his death, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada also initiated eleven different gurus that would control one part of the world each and aggressively recruit more members. This would turn out to be a fatal mistake as many of the members of ISKCON were all young and naïve, and instead of cooperating with each other, they fought over the leadership position. Eventually GBC had to ban many of the gurus whom would succeed A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and the movement shifted from being very controlled and conservative, to secularized and democratic. (Frisk, 2007)
During the most recent years, the tension between ISKCON and the rest of the society has more or less completely disappeared, and ideas stemming from India and Hinduism are now often daily practiced and/or accepted, such as the use of yoga and meditation.

The study of ISKCON from an anthropological gender-perspective
While ISKCON’s ideas may have appeared as very controversial and liberal in India, it does not mean all of its ideas were. In fact, a closer look at the religious group seems to tell the complete opposite. It is important to understand that A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada came from a very conservative time, were the values and the view of women was different than today or even sixty years ago, and there’s no doubt that he carried these ideas with him when he would later form ISCKON. (Frisk, 2007) The early years of ISCKON consisted of a lot of dos and don’ts, such as the four principles:

• No eating of meat, fish, onion, garlic and eggs
• No illicit sex
• No gambling
• No intoxication (including alcohol, caffeine, tobacco and drugs) (Frisk, 2007, Studiehäfte 2)

The people who lived at the temples as monks and nuns had to follow other strict rules such as getting up early in the morning to chant the Hare Krishna mantra, and whom to socially interact with. (Studiehäfte 2) This is especially important when looking at the women’s situation in Hare Krishna. An important note is that India has been and still is a patriarchal society where men had and still have a greater social status than women. Women and men were for example supposed to perform different roles in society, where men typically were workers while the women took care of the family. While this idea is not particularly new in any way, it became controversial because women had fought against exactly those ideas not too long before A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada arrived in America. There was thus a stark difference between the liberal ideas found in the hippie culture to the more conservative ones found in Hare Krishna; and it’s speculated that it is exactly this difference that made it so popular during its time. Not only was it exotic because it represented a different culture, but it also gave a sense of worldly order because of the plenty dos and don’ts. (Studiehäfte 2) Unfortunately, it wouldn’t take long until problems would arise. From free-spirited to strictly controlled, many of the young people who became initiated into ISKCON had their lives turned upside down. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada made clear that women and men should be separated, and while women and men are not difference in spirit, they are different in flesh and should thus perform different roles in the society. (Frisk, 2007) It was also made clear that women were inferior to men in such a sense that not only were women less spiritually pure because of their sexuality and ability to reproduce, they were also right-out dangerous to the spirituality of men. (Frisk, 2007) Lotta, a former follower of Hare Krishna, tells us that she wasn’t for example allowed to look a man into his eyes, and she was forced to cover her hair. (Studiehäfte 2) Frisk also mentions how one of her interviewees told her that she (the interviewee) felt verbally abused during her membership, where one of the men once said that the only thing she thought of was of the men’s genital organs. (Frisk, 2007) Other less apparent but social rules particularly pertaining women and women’s sexuality revolve around that they were not allowed to visit others while having their periods, or for the matter cook or be in the kitchen because of the risk of spiritual contamination. At the same time, there is also the idea that women are physically and mentally fragile and must be protected by the men from other men who may potentially harm them. (Studiehäfte 2) A woman cannot for example make decisions of her own, only a man, preferably her husband, can do that for her. This is because a woman is also considered more emotionally driven than men, and she cannot be considered to make rational decisions. The view of women is thus highly paradoxical in that women are considered weak but dangerous at the same time. (Frisk, 2007)
These ideas are far from unique and are commonly found in other patriarchal societies. In Veiled Sentiments, Lila Abu-Lughod argues that female fertility is often considered dangerous and tainted because it poses a threat to men. (Abu-Lughod, 1999) Women are considered to be more sexually driven than men, and their presence among men may thus entice men to engage in sexual activity against their wills. Therefore the only way to prevent women from creating harm is to control them through various means, even if it just means superficially. (Abu-Lughod, 1999) This means that men must control the actions of women, including their emotional and rational decisions. Since it is believed that women are so sexually aggressive to the point where they cannot control it themselves, this explains why women are considered to be less rational than men. (Frisk, 2007) All a woman can and will think about is how to entice a man to engage in sexual activity with her. This also explains why Frisk’s interviewee reported the incident of what she experienced as a form of verbal abuse and why this man said this to her at all to begin with. (Frisk, 2007) Furthermore, since a woman cannot think in terms of rationality and all her actions stem out of her sexual needs and desires, this means she must also be protected from herself, so she will not rush into a sexual relationship with a man who may potentially physically and/or verbally hurt her, against her better knowing. (Frisk, 2007) It is to be understood that the complexity of this idea lies in that it is still the woman at fault for enticing a man, not the man being unable to control himself. This may appear as highly confusing to a Westerner, where the idea that it is the man who suffers the lack of sexual control, is deeply rooted in our minds. The female fertility is thus the exact opposite of the male spirituality, and it is considered a hindrance towards spiritual enlightenment. The female fertility bonds the woman and the man she is engaging in sexuality activity with to the physical realm, the very thing most religions work against. Since asceticism is the only real way to reach spiritual enlightenment and meet Vishnu in the afterlife in the Hare Krishna philosophy, it is also natural that the woman is dangerous and considered more of an obstacle than of a help towards that goal.(Frisk, 2007)
It thus becomes clear that the view of women generally found within the Hare Krishna movement is highly negative, conservative and with patriarchal roots that bear no relevance in a post-modern society that has been striving for equality between men and women for centuries. Not only is it conservative, it is an extreme form of backwards-thinking which could potentially endanger a society that requires men and women to work in order for the society itself to function. It is also damaging to the women who are active within the movement, as the example Frisk brought up. In Studiehäfte 2, Lotta also tells us about an incident she had when one of her friends who also were a Hare Krishna member tells us that it was not allowed to talk about one’s own unhappiness or emotional distress. In a conversation between the two, Lotta’s friend suddenly bursts out in anger when Lotta tries to comfort her by touching her hair, because she finds herself and her own body so disgusting. Because of the idea that women are more strongly connected to their physical bodies than men, it is also not unlikely that women like Lotta’s friend might have suffered more because of this.
With that said, it should be noted that Hare Krishna is also a movement that has spread very quickly throughout the Western world, and it is unavoidable it too will become affected by the locality in which it is to be founded in. The Swedish movement has for example been noted for the lack of child abuse found within the gurukulas, private schools made for the children of Hare Krishna members, as well as sexual and/or verbal harassment towards the women. An example is how the view of women within ISKCON seems to correlate with the family organizing and marriage. Frisk notes that A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada seemed to encourage women to hold ceremonies, kirtan (the gathering of people who chant the Hare Krishna mantra at least 1728 times in a row) and a community for women living in celibate. It was also common of the young people who were members at the time to marry each other, and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada also encouraged it to an extent. However, the situation became too uncontrolled and hard to manage, as the couples who married started to have children which cost the movement a lot of money, as well as ending in divorces. (Frisk, 2007) Here the problem, which I previously analyzed in how the women were considered more earthly, becomes apparent, as the dichotomy of the women as family supporters and the virtuous monks will separate the movement in two. The women became an obstacle for the movement once they were divorced from their husbands as they not only cost money since a woman who must support a child cannot work, but they had to demand additional money to feed their children as well. Furthermore, many of the male apprentices were very young, and understandably driven by their sexual desires. Since only men could become a sannyasa, a renouncer, they started to complain about the women enticing them sexually (a sannyasa must live a celibate life).
However, as the movement shifted from being very centralized to decentralized and the focus with a focus on part-time membership rather than full-time, the view of women also changed towards a more positive light. It was no longer possible for married couples with children to participate in ISKCON’s full-time activities, and the economical crisis ISKCON went through also forced many women and men to look for secular jobs outside the movement. This also put a focus on the importance of part-time membership, and the acceptance of having a secular life outside the religious practices. This in turn most likely improved the women’s status within the group as the group needed these part-time members in order to survive. (Frisk, 2007) Since the part-time members don’t live as virtuous lives as the monks and nuns, a greater acceptance thus developed towards women and women’s sexuality since sexual activity for pleasure rather than child-making is something that is kept private between wife and husband and is nothing the religious group should become involved with. Even though an ascetic lifestyle is to be preferred in order to meet Vishna in the afterlife, it is no longer as important as long you adhere to the basics such as repeating the Hare Krishna mantra and not breaking the four principles.