Once we move to the first Homo sapiens sapiens, the evidence becomes a bit clearer. Tens of thousands of years ago, our most distant ancestors painted the bones of their dead with red ochre—something that clearly had no practical purpose, and indicated some level of symbolic thinking typical of religion. But even cooler is the fact that they left behind complex cave paintings, which give us a window inside their heads. What is that they loved to paint? Animals, animals and more animals. The vast majority of cave paintings depict animals being hunted or animals having sex. If you are wondering what a couple of mammoths humping have to do with religion, hang on. I’m getting there.
It seems that in many cases, these paintings were located in those parts of the caves that had the best acoustic qualities. Add to this the fact that the floor facing the paintings often bore the prints of many feet whose repetitive motions left in the sands what look like complex dance patterns. These clues have convinced some archaeologists that the paintings were not just art for art's sake, but rather props in rituals involving music and dancing. When we consider that most tribal cultures hold dances as their prime forms of religious ritual, this hypothesis is not as farfetched as it may seem at first.
How can animal sex, hunting, and dancing mix to give us religion? It goes something like this. Reports from around the world tell us that even in historical times many hunting and gathering cultures would stage religious dances featuring all of these elements. Success in the hunt to them was the key to survival. So they would often perform elaborate rituals and prayers to gain the favor of powerful spirits who would facilitate the hunt. The belief was that no matter how skillful the hunters were, if the spirits were not pleased, they would drive the animals away. Gaining their cooperation was therefore essential. The paintings and dances simulating hunting were then but elements in a ritual to enlist the spirits’ help. Assuming that the hunt was successful, more rituals were needed. The killing of some animals, in fact, meant that there were less of them in the world, so it was crucial to make sure that the surviving animals would be horny enough to get down to business and make more animals, keeping the cycle going. How to accomplish this? With more paintings and ritual dances this time simulating not hunting but sex, in order to inspire the animals to do the same. So, there you have it, according to some archaeologists religion began with groups of sweaty cavemen and cavewomen moaning and grinding away in dances that looked like the great-grandmother of hip hop.
12 WE LOVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION … EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF THOSE STUPID RELIGIONS WE DON’T LIKE
A common myth about American history holds that the first British colonists came to North America for freedom of religion. As it's often the case, myth is much prettier than reality. It is true that the early Puritans very much resented being persecuted by other Protestants back in England, but this didn't mean they had anything against persecuting others. They just didn't like their place in the persecution-game, not the game itself. This is why when they had power they happily cracked down on Quakers, and on any other religious dissidents. When early Puritanism began to lose its drive, a general acceptance of other forms of Protestantism spread. Many, many decades later, Catholicism was added to the list of tolerated religions, and eventually little by little other religions trickled in as well.
But despite this pleasant trajectory away from its intolerant beginnings, American history sometimes offers sober reminders that the old Puritan spirit is not quite dead. What happened to American Indian religions after all the tribes had been conquered by the United States serves as a perfect example of this. Between the last couple of decades of the 1800s and the first few of the 20th century, in the good old US of A, it was official policy to send American Indians to jail for practicing the wrong religion!
Technically speaking, Congress never passed a federal law prohibiting the practice of Native ceremonies. This, however, didn't stop generations of secretaries of the Interior working in conjunction with other branches of the government from waging war against traditional Native beliefs. “Their stupid heathen ideas are preventing Indians from becoming civilized—these gentlemen argued—So, it's our duty to ban their rituals and change their culture. Once they are civilized, they'll thank us for what we did.” Viewing themselves as parents to senseless children, they honestly believed that criminalizing American Indian traditions was in the Natives’ best interest. Sending offenders to jail was—in their minds—a charitable act of love (incidentally, this is a great reminder that when people want to do something that goes against your will “for your own good” it's time to start running for your life).
This crackdown on Native religions was not an isolated event, but part of a full-scale program of cultural warfare. The same logic was at work behind the policy of making Indian parents to send their children to boarding schools, where the kids were routinely beat up by the teachers for speaking their tribal languages. Forcibly changing their religious beliefs went hand in hand with pushing them to cut their hair, eliminating communal ownership of land, prohibiting their traditional dances, and dozens of other repressive measures. In other words, short of taking a Michael Jackson pill that makes you white overnight, American Indians were legally required to give up every aspect of their cultures and become like whites. In order to survive, American Indian religions had to go underground, being practiced in secret away from the prying eyes of the police. Many of their traditions didn't survive the pressure and went extinct.
I’m confused. Wasn't freedom of religion a constitutional right in the United States? It was. But as far as Native Americans were concerned, freedom of religion hung out with Santa and the Easter Bunny in fairy tale land—a nice idea, but not one applicable to their reality. It wasn't until the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act that Natives could again practice all of their ceremonies without fear of legal persecution.
Yeah, you read right, 1978 … this very recent, often forgotten chapter of religious persecution within the United States was not a mysterious aberration, but the logical side effect of the nation's Puritan heritage. The day we'll fully free ourselves from it can't come soon enough.
13 TO BEAT OR NOT TO BEAT (YOUR WOMEN): THAT IS THE QUESTION
Sometimes, in my history of religions courses, I feel like the bad guy. Here are enthusiastic, sweet students who suddenly look so confused and tortured whenever I highlight the problem areas in their faith of choice. They generally don't give a rat's ass as long as I’m picking on other faiths, but everything changes when they find out that their own cherished tradition includes less than pleasant ideas. When they look at me with their big sad eyes, I feel like I just killed Santa for them, and I’m sure killing Santa is bad karma. But as John Wayne says, “A man's got to do what a man's got to do.”
One of my most recent Santa-killing moments sparked a very enlightening exchange over the following few weeks. It involved a Muslim student of mine who is as much of a good-hearted nice guy as anyone can hope to be. For privacy reasons, we'll call him Sayid (in case you are wondering, yes, I’ve been watching a Lost marathon, and that's why he'll get this name).
Well, good old Sayid has been taking the topic of women in Islam to heart. Being a gentleman who holds fairly progressive ideas about gender roles, he is deeply disturbed by the bad rap Islam gets when it comes to women. When in class we discussed what the Koran has to say about women, he twitched uncomfortably, and brought up the classic objection that the Koran actually improved living conditions for women in 7th century Arabia. So far, so good. Life for women in 7th century Arabia was indeed crap, and the Koran helped making it considerably less crappy. Sayid also argues that the Koran gave women some rights that Christian women would not enjoy until many centuries later. This may not be saying much considering the horrendously low status of women in Judeo-Christian scriptures, but, yes, he is right again.
All this, however, doesn't cancel the fact that the Koran contains some seriously scary examples of patriarchy. When I bring up Sura 4.34, Sayid has to rais
e the white flag and ask for a timeout, since that's not an easy one to defend. Being a nice guy is a complicated thing to reconcile with Sura 4.34. Here, in fact, Allah seems to tell good Muslims that it's ok to beat your wives if they rebel against the authority of the husband. Incidentally, this is one of the passages of the Koran used by filmmaker Theo Van Gogh and screenwriter Ayaan Hirsi Ali in their very controversial short film Submission. Demonstrating the level-headed, civil response for which fundamentalists in general, and Islamic fundamentalists in particular, are known, an angry Muslim named Mohammed Bouyeri responded to the film's criticism of Islam by shooting and stabbing Van Gogh to death in the streets of Amsterdam.
Unlike Bouyeri, Sayid is a hell of a nice guy who honestly wants to follow the Koran cover to cover as well as being good to everyone. Sura 4.34 is making his job difficult. But he doesn't give up that easy. A few days later he is back after having dutifully done his homework to find a better spin on that passage. He shows me a commentary on the Koran explaining how Sura 4.34 is really a prohibition against wife beating … which is great, except for the fact that it encourages wife beating.
“You misunderstand”—Sayid counters—“Allah here is using subtle psychology.” Come again? Rather than flat out prohibiting beating your wife to a pulp—Sayid explains—Allah invites you to deal with rebellion by talking with your wife first, and sleeping apart from her if talking doesn't work. The fact that hitting her is only allowed as a last resort really means that Allah doesn't want you to hit her at all, and is encouraging you to solve the problems in other ways first. Outlawing hitting would only make you do it more out of rebelliousness, but allowing it only after all other options have been tried will prevent you from doing it without you even noticing.
Weeks after the conversation, my thought remains the same, “Sayid, I like you and all, but what the hell are you talking about? Is it really so bad to take the good out of whatever sacred book you love and reject what's outdated or flat out weird?” Judging from the way many good-hearted believers like Sayid torture logic for the sake of justifying even the most disturbing passages, the answer is apparently a resounding yes.
14 THE DAY GOD STOPPED BEING A RACIST
On September 30, 1978, God got out of bed and decided racism was no longer cool. Evidently, the civil rights movement had convinced not only millions of Americans but even God Himself to kick the habit of virulent racism. So, on that day, God promptly sent a message below to his faithful servant Spencer Kimball, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, the most popular Mormon denomination). In his role as living prophet for LDS, Kimball heard the message loud and clear: racism was to be expelled from Mormon temples, and black skin could no longer prevent people from being eligible for the priesthood.
God had not always being so mellow about racial issues. The 1978 revelation was a complete turnaround from the policies LDS had been embracing as divinely inspired for well over a century. The Book of Mormon, for example—the key Mormon scripture—told the story of a people who had rebelled against God and were forever afterwards punished with dark skin. According to the tale, their descendants would also inherit this curse. If they were to repent, however, the curse could be lifted and their skin could become white again! It's good to remember that the Book of Mormon came out in the early 1800s, so God was very much in tune with the times.
Whereas—despite the passage just mentioned—Mormon founder Joseph Smith had been ambivalent about race (and even ended up supporting the abolition of slavery), his successor Brigham Young made it very clear that neither he nor God was a big fan of African Americans. Young told his followers he had received a memo from God stating that black people should be banned from priesthood, and that interracial marriages were an abomination. In the 1800s, this hardly raised an eyebrow. In the early 1900s, this wasn't a problem either. After all, still in the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan was popular enough to attract five million members. And it wasn't until the 1960s that the last laws against interracial marriages were struck down in the United States. So, Young's pronouncements were not nearly as controversial as they would seem today.
But in the post-civil rights movement, this kind of theology was becoming increasingly more embarrassing and difficult to defend. When in 1960 Spencer Kimball—the same guy who'll later receive the order to scratch racism from the books—openly argued that American Indian Mormons were turning white since God was removing the curse of dark skin from them, non-Mormons couldn't help cracking up. This whole “dark skin equals curse” idea no longer had the enthusiastic support it it once enjoyed in the 1800s. And so in 1978, God worked His magic and changed the rules. Only some splinter groups of fundamentalist Mormons—who must have not heard God's message—kept arguing that black people were the devil's minions. Mainstream Mormons gave racism a goodbye kiss and were done with it for good.
Cynics noted that the timing of the divine revelation opening the priesthood to dark skinned peoples was curious at best. Not only did it happen when the overwhelming majority of Americans frowned on open racism, but it also happened right before LDS began expanding in Brazil, where dark skin and intermarriages are the norm. But such cynical criticisms are obviously unwarranted. Clearly, God is not moved to change His mind by such petty reasons as not wanting to look like a bigot and increasing church membership. Rather, he changes His mind because … He does.
15 PISS-DRINKING, DRUGGIE PRIESTS CREATED HINDUISM
Ok, perhaps I’m exaggerating. Perhaps, piss-drinking, druggie priests didn't create Hinduism. They just greatly contributed to it. This is the honest truth, at least according to R. Gordon Wasson, a banker who got bored of making money and developed instead a rather curious passion for mushrooms. What began as a weird hobby eventually turned into an obsession that sent the man on a quest to unlock one of Hinduism's greatest mysteries.
Some of the most ancient Hindu texts refer repeatedly with the deepest reverence to the trinity of Soma. Unlike the Father-Son-Holy Ghost Trinity proposed by some Christians, the trinity of Soma is god-plant-sacred drink. The term soma in fact, is equally applied to a god, a plant that is the body of said god, and the sacred drink that is obtained by extracting juice from the stalk of the plant and brewing it. During the very early days of Hinduism, the drink was ritually consumed by priests and initiates in an effort to commune with gods and goddesses. Apparently, Soma had some mind-expanding, consciousness-altering properties that allowed believers to achieve deep religious experiences. As the sacred text of the RgVeda poetically describes, “We have drank Soma and become immortal. We have arrived at the light, we have found the gods.” And to emphasize just how important Soma was in the development of Hinduism, the RgVeda even calls Soma the “creator of the gods”—no less.
So what's the mystery that Wasson tried to solve? Over the centuries, the secret to Soma's preparation and botanic identity was lost. Part of the problem had to do with the fact that the Soma plant only grew at high altitudes. So, supplies were limited particularly as Hinduism expanded south into India. But some scholars suggest another reason for the disappearance of Soma. It seems that too many people were more interested in the “high” offered by the plant than in its sacred properties, so some priests decided to let knowledge of the plant's preparation fade away and be forgotten rather than being misused.
Thousands of years later, believers and scholars alike could do little but make educated guesses about what this most important plant/drink/god was. And this is where Gordon Wasson enters the story. Pouring over all the references to Soma found in ancient Hindu texts, Wasson used his botanic expertise trying to gain clues to Soma's identity. In perfect detective fashion, he gathered up all the evidence to come up with a likely “suspect.” Piecing together the puzzle, Wasson began to think Soma might have been a hallucinogenic mushroom. Soma, after all, seemed to produce a psychedelic effect. Plus, its description included stems and caps, but no seeds, flowers, fruits, roots or any of the other features normally associated
with plants. But the one piece of evidence that convinced Wasson was … well … just disgusting.
Apparently, Soma could produce some nasty side effects including heavy nausea. The only way to avoid this was to filter it three times—the last one of these filters being a “human filter.” Puzzled by what this could mean, Wasson remembered a story about Siberian shamans using the highly hallucinogenic mushroom Amanita muscaria. In order to avoid side effects, these guys apparently would drink the urine of someone who had eaten the mushrooms, since the urine was still hallucinogenic but didn't cause any of the side effects: exactly the same as some Hindu priests apparently did with Soma. So, there you have it, piss-drinking, druggie priests shaped early Hinduism.
50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know: Religion Page 4
