Showing posts with label guest post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guest post. Show all posts

Saturday, 31 August 2013

Give it a whirl: Berlin's Long Night of Religions, By Zoe Markillie

Earlier this year, the first Atheist Church was launched in London, with sermons on science by Professor Brian Cox, and Stevie Wonder hits replacing the usual hymns. The underlying principle was that a sense of community and unity in belief is something that need not be limited to the religious but rather should be shared by everyone, including atheists. In an ever-increasingly individualised world, so the theory goes, why not provide an opportunity for the unspiritual to gather every Sunday with like-minded people and discuss the big questions of life?

It’s not the first time that atheists have chosen to take something from religious practices, and I consider it for the most part a healthy attitude – or at least better than a Dawkinsesque ‘you’re all morons’ approach. And it’s a two-way process, with many religious groups becoming more and more open to outsiders. Which is how I ended up spending my Saturday night learning about the complex family tree of the Hindu gods, being hit in the face with the robes of a Whirling Dervish, and watching a Sikh put a book to bed.

As part of its cultural programme, Berlin organises a Long Night of Religions every year – all the places of worship around the city are open to visitors of any (or no) faith between 6pm and midnight, with many providing talks, demonstrations and music. Keen to learn about some of the less well-represented religions – like most Brits, my RE lessons consisted mostly of what Christians and Jews think about various issues – I didn’t bother with any of the churches or synagogues, and I had already visited a mosque during an open day last summer. So instead, the evening’s activities consisted of visits to a Hindu temple, a Sufi centre, a Buddhist temple and a Sikh gurdwara.

The warm welcome I received from all of these places seemed less of a sales ploy than I had expected; the people of the different faiths appeared to be genuinely pleased that I was interested in learning about their religion and not set on converting me. In particular, the Sikhs were openly willing to answer any questions, and insisted on serving us all food, despite the fact that we had guiltily snuck out of the prayer room before the end. And the Sufis not only did not require the female visitors to cover their heads, but also offered the same respectful welcome and ‘salaam alaikum’ to a group of girls who wandered in wearing strappy tops and hotpants.

As well as being educational in the expected sense, I also learned the first rule of watching Dervishes: don’t sit in the front row. But when not ducking out of the way of the spinning robes, I was struck by the elated expressions on their faces. Whatever incredible inner place they were in, I wanted to be there too. Sufism promotes joy and euphoria as a way of connecting with God, but could this be something that atheists can experience too?

As an oriental dancer, I have attended a few dance camps which involved a ritual called the ‘zar’. This is a middle-Eastern tradition which is a form of Dervish whirling for laymen; it is used for prayer, exorcisms, pain relief and general wellbeing. For us, it was a completely secular religious experience – entering a trancelike state of pure elation without the accompanying connection to a higher being.

I was extremely nervous before my first zar; I’ve always been too sceptical even for meditation, and this seemed to be a weirdly pagan, cult-like ritual. We were led into a dimly-lit space and told to move in whatever way felt right; we needn’t worry about safety as there were supervisors to make sure we didn’t hurt ourselves. Zar, unlike Dervish whirling, is not at all a performance; it is not a pretty sight, and the only people who may be present, other than the participants, are there purely for safety reasons.

As the repetitive Sufi drumming began, I felt ludicrous and self-conscious. I had no idea what to do. I sneaked a glance at the others from the corner of my eye and began to follow suit, turning slowly on the spot. At first, the hardest thing was to remember that this was NOT a performance; as I spun, I had to crush my dancer’s instinct to hold my arms in a beautiful pose and to spot in order to avoid dizziness. The dizziness was part of it. Memories of spinning on the school playground until I fell over, just for the fun of it, came flooding back and I began to enjoy myself.

Unlike Dervish whirling, zars are not limited to on-the-spot turning, and whenever I got tired, I would fall to my knees and fling my head and arms from side to side. The wild movements came naturally now, and I could neither see nor care if anyone was watching me. My limbs were loose and felt separate from my body; my hair was in my eyes and mouth but I didn’t feel it; I simply felt a compulsion to move to the heavy drum beats. I was in a trance without drugs or hypnosis, an entirely self-constructed trance.

Finally, the music came to an end and we all lay still on the floor. Once recovered, we were led one at a time from the room and to our beds. Confused and disorientated, I asked one of the supervisors how long I had been in there – it felt like about ten minutes. She smiled and told me I had just thrown myself around in a dark room for an hour.

The zar affects everyone in different ways. Most feel high, dizzy and very relaxed. For some, the feeling of elation is so intense that they laugh hysterically – as I shuffled to my bedroom, I could hear their cackles echoing down the corridor, and a few dancers are well-known for needing at least 45 minutes to stop giggling after a zar. Others cry uncontrollably for no apparent reason. I know one woman who does the zar every year, and afterwards wails for half an hour with huge, racking sobs that seem to come from some deep unimaginable pain; she assures me she’s not crying about anything in particular, and that she finds it rather therapeutic.

Personally, I feel mostly drunk – carefree, uninhibited, but always aware of what I am doing, and with the feeling that I could stop at any time if I wished. I certainly feel relaxed and happy, but I can never quite reach the peaceful place of the Whirling Dervish. The euphoria rises, and I feel like there could be a connection – but there never is. Is this a problem in me, an inability to allow myself to connect to something greater, or simply that there is nothing to connect to at all? And does it matter in any case, if an atheist can have more or less a religious experience without God?

  Some rights reserved by Chadica



Saturday, 24 August 2013

A church wedding for a secular couple. Guest Post by Nick Thorne.


There is something strange about an increasingly common phenomenon: secular couples having church weddings. Of course there’s a certain logic to it – many couples who hold no religious beliefs still feel that a church is the proper place for a wedding. Family expectations of a traditional wedding can exert pressure. For most people in Britain today the church plays no significant role, and more often than not, the desire to have a church wedding stems from a conservative taste in décor and an insistence on tradition, rather than from any religious sentiment. Understandably, churches resent merely being used as a pretty venue, and as they have what the couple wants, they use their advantage to insist on keeping some of the religious formalities. This creates an absurd situation in which just about everyone concerned is obliged to say things that they don’t mean, on an occasion for which honesty is absolutely crucial. 


Attribution Some rights reserved by Eusebius@Commons
It begins with the rule that you have to be a member of the parish in order to be married in that particular church. Many secular couples will not be a part of any parish and have often not been to church for years. In order to be allowed to get married in church, they have to turn up on a Sunday for a certain period before their wedding. That seems fair, but what does it actually achieve? The priest has to pretend to be convinced by the couple’s religious fervour, despite knowing full well that in virtually every case, the couple will never set foot in the church again after their wedding. And the couple know that they are deceiving the priest, an uneasy feeling to have during their wedding preparations.

During the church service itself on the wedding day the priest introduces the party to a short overview of Christian teaching on marriage. There’s a vague allusion of the commitment to have children, but there’s certainly no mention of St Paul’s teachings in the New Testament, that a man should strive for celibacy. While it’s a step forward that such fundamentalist texts have been quietly dropped, you’re left wondering whether there is anything specifically “Christian” in the priest’s preamble at all. And if there isn’t, why bother with the whole charade in the first place?

In the marriage vows, the couple have to repeat after the priest, that they are entering into a union together in the presence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This seems somewhat problematic if the couple in question doesn’t hold a Christian belief. A marriage has to be founded on an honest commitment between two people – a system which forces the couple to begin their life together by professing a belief they do not hold is absurd. 

It will be interesting to see how this phenomenon evolves over the coming decades. As the older generation passes away, the proportion of religious believers and church goers will decrease further, but many will still like the idea of a church wedding. Perhaps churches will become even laxer in the demands they place on secular couples. Perhaps certain Christian denominations or priests will allow their churches to be used for secular weddings, or communities will be able to purchase or take over churches as they become vacant. In any event, it is difficult to see how the strange contradictions of church weddings for secular couples can continue much longer.



Thursday, 6 June 2013

The other friend speaks: Guest Post by Nick Thorne

To clarify my argument in response to the last post, my argument isn’t that we’re all Quakers or that Quakerism is some panacea to which we all unwittingly aspire. I wouldn’t call myself a Quaker. My argument is that in modern Britain, across all Christian denominations you find many people who identify with their Church, but don’t buy into it 100%. How many people who were baptised Catholic really believe in papal infallibility? How many Christians today really believe in the virgin birth, the Immaculate Conception and transubstantiation? Some do, but millions don’t. Similarly, there are many who don’t think of themselves as Christian, but who still believe in some form of higher power. In other words, there are many people who have some kind of spiritual belief, but who can’t fully identify with the church they attend or simply don’t go to any church at all. And the Christian denomination which best accommodates this widely held position is the Quakers.

What makes Quakerism so different from other Christian denominations and so distinctive, is its insistence on total equality. One of the key beliefs of George Fox, who founded Quakerism is that “there is that of God in every man”. The Quakers took this literally, arriving at the logical conclusion that there is no more of God in an aristocrat than there is in a peasant. On that basis the Quakers refused to acknowledge people’s titles, famously even the monarchy: they referred to everyone by their first names, something which they were persecuted and imprisoned for. Since their emergence in the 17th century Quakers have pursued this philosophy of egalitarianism in demanding human rights and social welfare. Thomas Paine, who was instrumental in the American Revolution and the philanthropic Rowntree Family who tackled poverty in England were all Quakers.

At the time of the Reformation the Catholic Church forbade its congregations from owning a Bible or reading it themselves on the basis that the priest must be the mediator between God and man. The Protestant Churches put a greater emphasis on education and participation, but none more so than the Quakers. Quaker meetings are not led by a priest at all. 

I am an atheist but have attended two Quaker meetings out of curiosity. A Quaker meeting is meditative and begins in silence, and the silence may continue for the entire duration of the meeting. There is that of God in every man. Therefore anybody can stand up and make a contribution. At the meeting in Brighton, this took place four or five times within the hour. One man brought up the problematic line in the Bible “no one comes to the father but by me”. He observed that he doesn’t want to go to heaven if his Jewish, Islamic and atheist friends can’t join him there. Another brought up the miraculous plane landing on the Hudson River which had happened recently, asserting her view that close encounters with death can be very instructive. Four years on I can still remember what they said. 

Inevitably some contributions are more interesting than others – I found the meeting in York very dull. But because there is no fixed programme, each meeting is different. Unlike any other Christian denomination, at no point do they say the creed. This has a huge impact in making everyone feel welcome. There is no pretence at homogeneity. Nobody is forced to repeat words they don’t understand or believe. Difference of belief isn’t viewed as a problem. Rather than being convinced that their belief is the one and only truth and that everyone else is going to hell, Quakers seem to be more interested in questioning and exploring their own beliefs and those of others further. 

At the end of the meeting everyone stands up and shakes hands. The guy sitting next to me remarked that he hadn’t seen me before, and we began a very open and frank discussion of each other’s beliefs. I was fascinated to hear that he considered himself a Quaker but not necessarily a Christian. He believed in a God but not a Biblical God, Jesus with caveats and not in the Holy Spirit. So Quakerism doesn’t even demand belief in the trinity. Given that only a couple hundred years ago Europe was torn apart by religious wars in which ‘heretics’ were slaughtered for holding the outrageous belief that Jesus paid for his sandals, this is amazing progress. After no other church service have I ever felt able to discuss religion with other members of the congregation. 

Given its openness it is perhaps surprising that Quakerism isn’t more popular. Why is there a Christian Union at Sussex University, which condemns homosexuality in the gay capital of Britain, and no Quaker society? Perhaps the answer is that unlike other sects, the Quakers weren’t trying to convert everyone else. 

As I said I would not call myself a Quaker and wouldn't want to go to a Quaker meeting every week. But if I had to join a Christian denomination I would chose Quakerism and I think you would too.

Picture by Agnonymous. CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.


Saturday, 27 April 2013

Agnonymous evolved - are you agnonymous too?


Another interlude this week, but so your trip to my humble portion of the interweb is not wasted:

1 - A morsel of bio-politico-satire:

http://www.mikero.com/misc/darwin//

2) A call for guest posts. If you feel you might want to contribute a post or three to the blog, please let me know via facebook, twitter or the comments section.

See you next week!

Creative Commons LicenceThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.