Satanism

Another information dump post, this time about Satanism.  EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!

Satanism is generally used as the overarching term for any ideology opposed to Western Christian religion and culture, judging it to be both corrupt and hypocritical.  Satan, also called “Set” is used as a figure to promote personal development and egoism and as a symbol of self-interest and individualism; this figure is not perceived as an evil of sinister figure but as an archetypal rebel.  Satanism primarily draws on the rebellious and offensive as opposed to actually worshiping the devil although some adherents do.

Satanism is most recognizable to the general public as the Church of Satan which was founded by Anton Szandor LaVey the self named “Black Pope” and author of the key texts of Satanism: The Satanic Bible (1969) and The Satanic Rituals (1972).  LaVey also formed a group called the Order of the Trapezoid, which would later become the governing body of the Church of Satan. LaVey remained the High Priest of the Church of Satan until his death in 1997 whereupon the position was passed on to Blanche Barton; she in turn ceded the position to long time members Peter H. Gilmore and Peggy Nadramia in 2001.  The Central Office of the Church of Satan was originally in San Francisco but has now moved to New York City’s Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood.  

The Church does not release membership information publically, so it is impossible to know how many members The Church has, however the High Priest has been quoted as saying membership is growing.  There are two types of members of The Church of Satan: Registered Members and Active Members.  A Registered Member is a passive participant in The Church.  They are simply people who have been inducted into the church and there are no requirements to achieve this level of membership.  An Active Member, on the other hand, must be involved with Church business and local members.  Active Membership is divided into five degrees.  Active Members enter at the First Degree after having applied and been approved.  This is the only degree to which one can apply, promotion is by invitation, and the requirements for the higher levels are kept secret.  Members of the Third through Fifth degrees constitute the Priesthood and may be addressed as “Reverend”, although “Magister/Magistra” or “Magus/Maga” are more common for the members of the Fourth and Fifth Degrees respectively.  Members of the Fifth Degree can also be referred to as “Doctor”.  Individuals seeking membership must seek of their own accord, The Church does not solicit membership, and be legally defined as adults; an exception can be made for children of members who demonstrate an understanding of Church practice and philosophy, but this is rare.  Some Active Members are authorized as Agents, who are qualified to represent the Church of Satan and explain their philosophy to the media and interested parties.  

The Church of Satan does not worship the Devil or any other supernatural entity.  High Priest Gilmore defines Satan: “Satan is a model or a mode of behavior.  Satan in Hebrew means ‘adversary’ or ‘opposer’; one who questions”.  The Church of Satan provides the Nine Satanic Statements, The Nine Satanic Sins, and the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.  The Nine Satanic Statements outline what Satan represents in the Church of Satan and are as follows:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of Abstinence
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self deceit
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development”, has become the most vicious animal of all
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years

The Nine Satanic sins are Stupidity, Pretentiousness, Solipsism, Self-Deceit, Herd Conformity, Lack of Perspective, Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies, Counterproductive Pride, and Lack of Aesthetics.  The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth are:

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked
2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them
3. When in another’s lair, show them respect or else do not go there
4. In a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy
5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal
6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved
7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires.  If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will loose all you have obtained
8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself
9. Do not harm Little Children
10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food
11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop.  If they don’t stop, destroy them

The Church of Satan does adhere to these as guidelines on how to live, but they do not view Satanic sins, statements and rules as things that they must go out of their way to do.  Ideally, they are truisms and statements regarding how they actually live their lives.

Pembroke Chapel Visit

Let me start by saying that Pembroke College is absolutely gorgeous.  It is a small-ish campus with absolutely lovely gardens and fantastic architecture.  This may sound silly, but it looks intellectual, like the kind of place where great authors sat and were inspired.  Being wholly unfamiliar with the history of Pembroke, I'm not sure if that's true; but its still nice to think that way.
However, the grounds and architecture were not what brought my Religion and Global Culture class to Pembroke.  It was the chapel.  My class has spent some time church hopping, so it was not simply the fact that it is the college church that brought us there (although it was the first classical chapel in Cambridge and was donated by Christopher Wren) but the dean of the college.  The dean at a Cambridge College Chapel plays a very interesting role.  He joked that he was payed to be religious, but its a lot more than that.  He does conduct services in the chapel, but he also provides advice and comfort (both secular and religious) to the students of the college. In that respect he functions a bit like a school counselor.  However, his primary duties are to the chapel and to the Anglican Church.  At the Pembroke Chapel, one can attend a morning prayer service, commemorative prayers (like the Veterans Day Memorial Service), holiday services (at Christmas, the college crams 300 into their little chapel), weddings, christenings, funerals, and services commemorating the induction of new fellows and students.  At its heart, a college chapel brings the community together to celebrate and commemorate moments of transition.  It is deeply embedded in the traditional structure of the college regardless of the religious affiliation of its students and faculty.
Some of the most interesting points that the Dean made were about modern Anglicanism.  This happens to be a subject that fascinates him, and so we spent a good amount of time talking about it.  In 2001 71.8% of British citizens declared themselves to be Christian and all but 1.5% declared themselves religious.  The firm nonbelievers that make it seem like we are all becoming secularized to the point of making religion obsolete make it seem that way because they are over represented in the media.  Religion is a part of UK society, but not of UK politics.  The Queen is appointed by birth to believe on behalf of the nation, but that is the only way in which politics and religion co-mingle.  It is true that church and state are not necessarily separate in the UK, but any candidate for public office that spoke to strongly about his faith would be totally unelectable in the UK (we're looking at you Sarah Palin; you'd be totally unelectable in the UK).  Conversely, we seem to look for that in a candidate stateside.  Nixon (setting aside the whole impeachment thing) would be totally unelectable in the USA today because he never talked enough about God.  I think this is a really interesting trend.  In the nation in which Church and State are not separate, there is a trend towards secularizing politics; whereas in the nation in which Church and State are separate, there is a trend towards making politics much more about religion.
The dean also made some interesting points about religious education (RE).  Religion should most definitely have a place in the education system as the absence of understanding leads to vulnerability.  In the UK there are a significant number of religious schools (1/3 of primary and 10% of secondary schools are religious), but these are not sufficient.  Children there get a weak dose of comparative study in primary school and almost none in secondary school, which leads to their inoculation - so to speak - against religion itself.  Which is rather unfortunate, because - as the dean believes - people are naturally religious.  Not understanding the differences and the options makes people vulnerable to the first person to come along and provide an explanation.  I definitely agree with this idea.  I think there should be more RE in the states, not as a practice of indoctrination, but as one of information.  Children should know more about the non-Abrahamic religions and more about religions different from their own.  Its important to understand the world through this lens and to inoculate children against the fear of different beliefs.  The "Stranger-Danger" campaign of my childhood created a generation of children terrified of people who look different from them, and the current climate of Islamophobia is creating a generation of children convinced that anyone who believes differently must be evil and wrong.  This is not only sad but dangerous.  I think we need to beef up RE with an emphasis on comparative study; it is important that we create a new generation that is willing to understand different belief systems and accepting of differences while looking for similarities.  Maybe I'm biased given my focus in the Global Scholars program, but I think this is a really important issue that needs to be discussed further.  Perhaps in the comments...

Hinduism

As part of my course requirements, I have to write a short paper every so often.  This is one of those papers.  The assignment was to answer the question "What is Hinduism?" on four pages.  Given the density of this particular religion, this was a very difficult assignment.  Anyway, enjoy the information dump:

Hinduism is one of the world’s oldest and largest religions.  Although Hindus primarily live in India and Nepal, the only officially Hindu nation in the world, the religion has over 900 million adherents worldwide.  Hinduism is very hard to define concretely as it lacks many of the key features of other religions.  There is no definite founder, no singular text, and no central organization.  Practice varies wildly across groups, allowing for Hindus to consider themselves atheists, polytheists, and monotheists.  However, there are certain core values that Hindus do share such as transmigration, the passing of a soul into another body after death; reincarnation, the rebirth of a soul in a new body; and reverence for the Vedas, the most ancient Hindu scriptures containing hymns, philosophy, and guidance on ritual for the priests of Vedic religion, and the Bhagavad-Gita, the sacred text written as a dialogue between the warrior prince Arjuna and his divine charioteer Krishna stressing the importance of doing one's duty and of faith.  Most Hindus avoid eating beef and still subscribe in one form or another to the caste system, the complex, delineated structure defining one’s place in society and with whom one can interact.  But other religious groups in the Indian Subcontinent share these aspects of the faith and these beliefs are not definitive as any Hindu can reject one or more in favor of another.  The word Hindu can be used to describe any one of the many sects that comprise the religion, and, in fact, the names of the sects are more often used than the term “Hindu”.  Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism are sometimes grouped with Hinduism despite the fact that their adherents regard them as separate religions.  It is this diversity of belief that makes Hinduism so tolerant of other belief structures; one of the key tenets of the faith is the recognition of other beliefs coupled with the idea that all religions are essentially one.

It is this widespread confusion that makes the person practicing Hinduism as equally difficult to define as the religion he or she practices.  A Hindu from the Punjab, who is Khatri by caste and a follower of the Arya Samaj, might say she is “Hindu”, “Arya Samaji”, “Hindu Khatri”, or “Hindu Punjab” depending on the situation and the context of the conversation.  By the Indian Government, one is defined as a Hindu by birth.  Caste too is ascribed at birth and acknowledged by other caste members and the government.  One cannot simply stop being a Hindu and one cannot repudiate the faith without conversion.  Outsiders cannot convert to Hinduism but can begin following certain groups that practice key Hindu Beliefs such as the Hare Krishnas, who are mostly western converts who have orthodox practices and beliefs but no caste system and are not recognized by Hindus for certain ritual functions for which a caste definition would be required.  The fluidity of the definition of Hinduism has proved very popular for Hindu youths who take an active role in temple worship and youth organizations while observing their own blend of Hindu beliefs and practices.  In a 2001 survey of Hindus living in Britain found that 93% said they were happy to be Hindu, 81% said that they visited a temple regularly, and 78% said they prayed regularly at home.  One of the traditions that many youths choose to take less seriously is the caste system; traditionally, Hindu society was divided into Brahmins (priests), Ksatryas (nobles), Vaisyas (farmers and merchants), and Sudras (workers), but modern campaigns that regard the caste system as unfair have moved to reduce the importance of one’s caste in everyday life.  Caste is still taken into account regarding marriage, but it is of increasingly less importance for young Hindus, especially those who have moved out of India.

The Hindu belief structure is fascinating and complex.  There is no declaration of faith required or set principles to follow, and much of Hindu thought is based on other forms of understanding such as logic and analytical assessment.  Primarily, the Hindu belief structure is based on key beliefs regarding how the world is and how it should be including the dharma, world order; karma, the idea of actions and their consequences; samsara, transmigration; and moksha or mukti, the release of the soul from the body. The soul, called atman is at the heart of all discussions on Hindu belief.  Most Hindus believe in the existence of the atman (soul), which migrates and is reborn in different bodies; they aim at the moksha (liberation) of the atman from samsara (transmigration) by freeing oneself from one’s actions.  The concept of personal duty, too is central to Hinduism:

It is far better to discharge one’s prescribed duties, even thought faulty, than another’s perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one’s own duty is better than engaging in another’s duties, for to follow another’s path is dangerous. (Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, 3.35)

Fate and destiny are also central to the Hindu faith.  Most Hindus believe in predestination based on karma from previous incarnations and a synthesis of natural justice and god’s will; your destiny can be overwritten by divine intervention or by one’s deeds in life.  Nonviolence (ahimsa) continues to gain centrality in the Hindu belief structure as it was much discussed by Gandhi in the political sense regarding his program of passive resistance; the concept of ahimsa is often interpreted as a nonviolent way of living that includes vegetarianism, a part of Hinduism often wrongly assumed to be central when it is confined mostly to the Brahmins and merchant classes.  The Hindu concept of time and the universe is a cyclical one.  Hindus see time in mahayugas (great eon), which last 4.32 million human years and begins with the creation and ends with the destruction of a given world, that are divided into four yugas (eons).  Finally, the ancient Hindu concept of geography and the universe remains significant even in modern times.  The ancient Hindu view of the universe is that the earth is made of seven concentric islands, each surrounded by one of the seven seas made of different liquids.  Humans live on the innermost island, in the middle of which is Mount Meru on which is the city of Brahma surrounded by the cities of the other gods; the Ganges flows from there to the land of India which is located at the center of the world.  India is also marked as a holy space by the sacred pilgrimage sites known as tirthas which help one cross from the material to the spiritual world; of these the most important are the four dhamas (temples) in the four cardinal directions, the seven sacred cities, and the sacred rivers.  So sacred and pure is India that even today some Hindus will not leave India for fear of crossing the “black water” leading to impurity.  These beliefs are central to many Hindus but by no means absolute nor requisite for worshiping; many Hindus pick and choose.

While it is true that there are many recognized gods in Hinduism, most Hindus do not consider themselves polytheistic nor by any means do they worship all of the gods.  Most Hindus worship one god, an ishtadevata (chosen deity), a couple (such as Lakshmi-Narayana), a trinity (Shiva-Vishnu-Brahma), or a group of gods (such as the five canonical gods Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Surya, and Devi).  In a similar way that Christians argue that The Holy Trinity is one God in three forms, some Hindus argue that the pantheon of Hinduism is really the many forms of one god, making them monotheistic.  Some consider themselves theists and worship a non-specific god, or a god at a certain festival without performing daily devotion.  For the most part, gods have fixed iconographic representations and are usually associated with particular features and symbols, though features such as the number of arms or styles may vary.  The oldest of the sacred texts of Hinduism can date as far back as the second millennium BCE, but they are not usually regarded as containing greater truth than newer interpretations.  Indeed, television interpretations, such as the 1980s version of the story of the live of the incarnation of Vishnu as Rama, are completely accepted as valid interpretations of the myths.  The major texts of Hinduism are the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad-Gita, Vedanta, The Satapatha Brahmana, and Sutras.    These are written originally in the Sanskrit, the sacred language of Hindusim.

In terms of the actual practice of their religion, Hindus are more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy.  In all aspects of Hindu practice, ritual is given significant importance.  Caste is also given significance in ritual. Dalits (previously “Untouchables”, casteless Hindus) are often forbidden from participating in ritual.  The caste distinctions are tied up in purity, with Brahmins at the top as the most pure.  Women too used to be excluded from some rituals as menstruation and childbirth make the body impure; for that reason, women were also often denied access to the sacred texts and knowledge of Sanskrit.  Purity is determined based on what you do with your body and, for that reason, Hindus adhere to the caste rules regarding occupation, commensality, and endogamy.  In Hinduism, worship does not just entail praise but entering into a relationship with the god.  Daily worship consists of puja (paying respects) which involves leaving offerings in the form of sweets or flowers for the gods.  Another term used is seva, or service to a god.  Arti the term used for worship with lamps; the devotee honors the god by placing their hands over the light of the lamp and bringing their hands to their eyes in order to symbolically bring the light and warmth of the god to their eyes. The give-and-take element of this ritual is also visible in the ritual of darshana in which the devotee looks at the image of a god through which the god is understood to look back.  Worship is usually concluded with prayer sometimes involving Sanskrit mantras and Vedic verses, and songs which invoke the god’s deeds and sing his praises.  Festivals are a time of celebration and worship involving feasting and celebration.  The Hindu calendar marks many festivals throughout the year, many of which are tied to the agrarian cycle.  Not all festivals are celebrated throughout all of India and some festivals are celebrated under different names and different gods but the same ideological motive depending on geographic region.  Diwali is one of the most important festivals; marking the New Year in some parts of India, Diwali celebrates the visit of Lakshmi and the return of Rama to Ayodhya after his exile.  Another way in which Hindu’s practice is through pilgrimage.  A pilgrim may visit a sacred river or tirtha in order to purify himself and rid himself of sin.  Pilgrimages are often undertaken during auspicious times or when planetary alignments are significant.  Certain pilgrimage routes have seen an increase in traffic in recent years due to improved transit across India, whereas other remain austere, acetic experiences.  

CamTrad Talk 2: Directing Shakespeare

"People go to the theater as a cultural duty, when really they should be going with the feeling of a hot date."

At least that's what we were told on July 14th (I know I'm behind) and I totally agree.  Yes, the 14th of July, I got to talk to and shake hands with (insert fangirl scream there) Tim Carroll, creative director of the Globe Theater from 1999 - 2005.  Who's cool? I'm cool.  I really enjoyed this talk because I think he had a really unique take on the theater for reasons that will be elaborated further on in the post; I might not necessarily have agreed with everything, but who agrees with everything a speaker says?  WARNING:  I am a Stage Tech.  I do lights and scenery.  I may geek out regarding theater stuff.  Be prepared and forewarned...

One of Mr. Carroll's main points was that you have to understand everything about a line to express the full meaning.  That may seem stupid and obvious, but this guy does Shakespeare; so, of course, there's more to the text than just the words.  You have to use the verse and the meter.  You have to use it to unlock the power and the sense of the passage, otherwise you'll make it nonsensical.  You always have to know what you're saying.  Actors are (surprisingly) very good at acting like they know what they're saying, but they often (at least in Mr. Carroll's experience) don't really understand.  I think that this is really important.  I've been to a lot of Shakespeare (I've 20 out of 32 plays, most 3-4 times) and one thing that really annoys me is when its clear that someone in the production doesn't know what's going on.  Directors and actors need to know what they're saying and performing; which too seems like an obvious statement, but a really important one to make.  Mr. Carroll brought up some interesting points regarding how to do this.  I've already elaborated on his passion for and opinions on the verse and the meter, which happen to be contrary to everything I've ever been taught about Shakespeare and the performance thereof, but he also brought up some good points on SHOUTING SHAKESPEARE and on the idea of the Performance Utterance.  Mr. Carroll is big on the intention as opposed to the motivation of any line of dialogue, which I think is a really interesting idea.  Shakespeare wrote "thick scenes", so if something feels a bit empty, the intention isn't being shown.  Every line expresses a desire and every line should be interesting because every line has intention.  Even something as simple as "Hail good sir" is important because there are so many other ways to greet someone.  Because there are options, there is significance.  That is (kind of) the idea of a Performance Utterance: something you say which is also an action.  Which is pretty cool.  This leads into the idea that, because every word has an intention, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOUT SHAKESPEARE.  In Shakespeare, you believe you're right and if the other person would just listen they would understand why you're right and be more right in their own opinions.  And you don't have to shout to accomplish this.  So please, Shakespearean actors everywhere, please stop shouting.  You don't have to.

So that brings us to Tim Carroll's philosophy on performing Shakespeare.  I know you're thinking "Wait, wasn't that all performance stuff?" but bear with me.  His philosophy can be boiled down to the statement that: Shakespeare wrote for the actors and the audience, so Shakespeare's plays should be performed with the audience.  On the most basic level, that means no lighting.  That's kind of where I disagree with Carroll.  As someone who does stage tech and someone who has done lights, I think that lights, sound, and scenery are really important parts of the theatrical process.  They create an environment for the actor and they can make or break a scene.  But Mr. Carroll has an interesting rebuttal to that idea.  Actors nowadays have been brought up to commune with themselves and talk into the lights when they soliloquize, but really they should be talking to the audience.  The first space he directed in without theatrical lights was The Globe, and The Globe really has no lighting.  There are some overheads for when it gets dark at evening performances, but not proper theatrical lights.  That's not to say he doesn't appreciate lighting, he still directs in spaces where he has the option to play with it, but I think that's a really interesting philosophy regarding lighting.  This idea is brought a really interesting end with The Factory's Hamlet Project.  The audience gets to sit wherever they want, they are encouraged to bring any object, they vote on who will play what part, and the play is performed without any pre-agreed upon sets, props, costumes, lights, or sound effects.  The actors must respond to the audience and every performance is unique.  I really want to see one of these shows.  Like a lot.

All in all, Mr. Carroll told some really interesting stories and I came away with the feeling that I had talked to someone that was genuinely passionate about his work and the theater.  As he says, "no one ever regrets doing theater".

Why Should Anyone Believe in God? The Psychology of Belief

Oddly this is not a post derived from a discussion in my major class.  This is from my Canterbury Trip (one sadly devoid of tale telling on the bus).  While there, each student got to sign up for a short 20-30 minute talk about The Church.  I chose the Psychology of Religious Belief (which was held in the choir of Canterbury Cathedral, thus fulfilling my required blasphemy for the week).

Religious belief can be looked at as "the norm" for two reasons.  One: only 10-15% of people consider themselves non-religious, and two: there is a rational, cognitive reason for believing in things.  Long, Long ago, there was actually an evolutionary advantage to believing.  The supernatural grabs your attention, so, when something bad or unusual happens, the supernatural explanation is often the first that comes to mind. And we need to assign agency to something when something unusual or unexpected happens.  Imagine yourself a Stone Age hunter.  If the bush moves and you assume it's nothing and it's actually something, you're dead.  No more passing on your genetic material to whatever Stone Age female you can club and drag back to your cave that night.  By assigning agency, we protected ourselves.  And when there's no possible explanation, we assigned agency to God.  Nowadays, we have science and such which can assign agency to real, perceivable agents, but it is still ingrained in our Cave Man minds that one must assign agency and one must assign agency to the first thing that pops into your head.  And that became a wild animal or God.
Religion also served to bind communities together and keep order.  In the early days of our first civilizations, communities were bound together by mutual ritual practice and order was kept by the rule of law.  Of course, if no one caught you, you could get away with anything.  That's where God comes in.  He, like Santa Claus, knows if you've been bad or good and punishes you if you are bad.  In that way, ancient civilizations created motivation not to do wrong even when no living people were around you.  The Greeks incorporated this idea into their Shame as opposed to Guilt idea.  Conscience did not exist as an internal concept for the Ancient Greeks; they had Shame instead.  This could be instilled by a God or a God working through a man, but the end result was the same: atonement.  This kept wrong-doers in line and brought people together to worship.  And, in fact, mutual worship also serves to strengthen belief.  If you go to Mass every Sunday (a rather time wasting ordeal), you must be going because you truly believe. This is the principle behind Cognitive Dissonance and it affects the average church goer just as much as it does the Mormon standing at your door trying to convert you to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
Atheism is in fact a very recent, western phenomenon.  The urban, industrial society of today's cities often breeds atheism.  There are fewer unexplained occurrences and agency can be more readily attributed to people or science and technology as opposed to God.  Leisure time and education stimulate deeper thinking, causing people to question their beliefs.  The watching eye of God has been replaced with the watching eye of CCTV.  And people are brought together by Facebook and Twitter as opposed to mutual worship.

So will we start worshiping "Our Ford" instead of "Our Lord"?  I don't think so.  Religion is still a big part of many people's lives and faith isn't going away anytime soon.  We still need to be able to think about things like what happens after we die, and for that reason faith structures are probably going to stick around.

CamTrad Talk 1: The World of Intelligence

So I met someone in MI5.  MI - freaking - 5.  Let that sink in for a bit.

CamTrad (the program I am in) has lined up some really cool lecturers for the duration of the program, and this one was really interesting.  I may not have agreed with everything Christopher Andrew (the speaker) said, but it was all fascinating.  Here are just some of the points he made:

Branding of English Intelligence
Intelligence is the only fictional profession where a fictional character is better known than any real character.  Imagine knowing all the Presidents from 24, but none of the real ones. Imagine knowing Nina Sayers better than Natalie Portman.  Imagine knowing every detail of Wall Street but none of the details behind the 2008 financial collapse.  Now think about the fact that you know James Bond better than any spy.  Yeah.  Of course this makes sense - it wouldn't exactly be in a modern day intelligence professional's best interests to be as well known as James Bond - but even historical intelligence characters are far and away less well known than Bond.  English Intelligence (MI5 and MI6) is the only modern intelligence agency with a positive brand name.  Which is really kind of cool.  Andrew recounted a story of one of his colleagues in which the colleague was assumed to be named "James Bond" by a tribes-man of Papua New Guinea simply by nature of being from British intelligence.  Of course, some British spies are way more bad-ass than James Bond.  The "Mad Major" (so named because he was a major and utterly mad) actually shook hands with the Fürher during World War II and was recruited into Nazi Intelligence.  Of course he asked the British Government first, to which they replied "Absolutely, as long as you figure out who else in our organization is spying for the Germans".  By creating a double agent in the "Mad Major", British Intelligence gained invaluable information and accelerated the downfall of Hitler enormously.  It is for that reason that Berlin is not a nuclear wasteland.

Gender Equality in Intelligence
Intelligence agencies are generally able to innovate in ways that traditional bureaucracies cannot.  For that reason there's a pretty solid history of gender equality in the intelligence agencies of the world.  Stella Rimington was the first female leader of an intelligence agency and she was the head of MI5.  Going farther back, Jane Sissmore was recruited at 16 to the ranks of Her Majesty's Intelligence; she went on to become Britain's leading expert on the Soviets and a fully qualified barrister.  So that's pretty cool.

The USA and Intelligence
Here we go.  Readers you know me, I am not a red-neck, die-hard nationalist for The States, but I do have great affection for my homeland.  And for that reason it bothers me a bit when people needlessly rag on the USA.  Yes, we were the last nation to get on the organized, foreign intelligence band wagon and for that reason we have our flaws, but lets be serious, we've never really had neighbors we've needed to spy on (Canada has always posed such a threat). We took Pearl Harbor as a wake-up call to the fact that we needed better intelligence and we have been working on it ever since (although admittedly not to well).  We took 9/11 as a wake-up call regarding Al Qaeda and foreign terror threats and WE TOOK OUT OSAMA.  So please, Mr. Andrew, do not tell a program full of 53% Americans that our intelligence sucks balls, regardless of the veracity.  It's new and we're working on it.  And we killed Osama.

Hi, can I borrow a minute of your time?

Do you consider yourself religious?

It is amazing how many strange looks you get when you go walking around in Cambridge, England asking people about their religious/spiritual leanings!  Although once they know you're a student, things tend to run much more smoothly.

Last Wednesday, my Global Religion class got to experience the joys of random surveying on the streets of Cambridge in order to discover what an ineffective way to learn things surveying truly is.  One group only got 9 people to talk to them.  My group got 55.  I think it may have helped that my group split in half so that the far less intimidating number of three people would approach interviewees as opposed to the rather frightening six that the other group had to deal with.  My group managed to get pretty good data but we got a much larger spread.  However, by the same token, a larger spread does not translate into good survey data.  Even a the hypothetical perfect, mandatory survey of everyone has its flaws.  Just look at the 2001 English Census.  Because no survey can be perfect and it is impossible to get good lab data as Sociologists of Theology study people, it is really difficult to get good data on people and their religious tendencies.  So that was a fun lesson to learn by walking around for an hour (sarcasm hand not raised).

We actually got to talk to some really interesting people.  If you're interested in the raw data and my weird notes on the experiment here is my spread sheet (with Pie Charts!):

If you have any questions feel free to bring them up in the comments!

Welcome to Cambridge!!

Well, I'm here. Here at the university where Coleridge, Wordsworth, Watson, and Crick (and a whole host of other famous people who aren't nearly as important to me) all studdied and worked. 

This is freaking awesome!!

I just settled in and started going to classes yesterday, so I am completely lacking in bloggable stories, but I feel like it's important to mention the absolutely lovely and amazing setting in which I am currently living.  The Cambridge Tradition program hosts students at Jesus College (and, since I'm a global religion major, do not expect the "finding Jesus" jokes to end any time soon) which is absoultely georgeous and one of the only Cambridge Colleges that allows students to walk on the grass.  That might seem like nothing, but it's a pretty big deal here.  My teachers and classmates all seem like fantastic and amazing people, and I am really excited to start my classes propperly.

Global Religion at first glance seems like an utterly fascinating course.  It's a bit of an overview course (All of the world's religions in a month? I would die), but it seems like a really interesting overview course.  The class structure is very debate and discussion orriented, which is perfect for me, with a good bit of work outside of class.  All in all, I'm glad I signed up for a major that I am so interested in (especially since I have to spend quite a bit of my time here, including saturday mornings, with the same group of people in the same major class).
My minor class is Ancient Greece, which to me could go either way.  On the one hand, we have a legit English professor type; on the other, the course material is almost entirely student driven and all but two of us simply said our interest was "mythology" which doesn't exist in the strict sense they were talking about.  I have high hopes for the class, but that's because I an genuinely interested in learning Classical Greek and in the philosophy and theater of the Ancient Greeks.

On an administrative note to my readers, there will be no picture for my stay here (borring, I know.  Y'all will actually have to read).  I don't have access to Wi-Fi, so I'm working from a public computer.  And that means no uploads from my camera.  Sorry about that.

In any event, get excited for my posts on my class discussions and debates!
Much love to all readers,
Lauren

Another Suitcase in Another Hall...

With this blog post, I mark the last recording of my Argentine adventures as well as absolute proof that I am utterly incapable of blogging in a timely manner.  Saturday morning marked my return to The States, and I can't decide whether or not I was lucky that American Airlines didn't cancel my flight home.  One member of my group did remain stuck in Argentina, but the rest of us made it on to flights out of Buenos Aires.  As of now, I find myself missing Argentina more than I ever did The States.  From little things like the guy in my Subte station from whom I bought my newspaper every morning, the fresh-baked bread in the grocery store on my block, and Monday morning Medialunas at La Academia to big things that define Buenos Aires as a city like the architecture, the people, the food, the music, I miss so many things and people and places that Buenos Aires feels more like a home than my house.  I know it seems silly, but I do miss Argentina that much.

On that note, I close the first hand account of my travels in Argentina (and most likely mark my last reference to the musical Evita in a blog post).  However, I plan on staying up to date on Argentine current events, so there will definitely be re-postings of on-line articles (probably in Spanish, so click on the links at your own discretion).

So what now?  As of the writing of this post, my bags are packed and I am preparing to go to Cambridge University (specifically Jesus College) to study Global Religion and Classical Greek (so be prepared for a lot of jokes about the fact that I will be studying religion at Jesus College).  Yeah..... the posts are about to get way more philosophical and heavy.  I plan on doing my best to blog my classes, but, as you can tell by now, I am not the most regular blogger.  Still, I will keep you up to date with pictures and news from my next adventures!

Until I have news from Cambridge!
-Lauren

El Tigre

This is less of a blog post and more of a slideshow.

This saturday, my group and I all set off for Tigre.  This lovely area of Buenos Aires province is marked by  a number of islands created by the delta of the Tigre River.  Lovely in winter, lovelier (I'm told) in summer, this area is pleasant to walk through on a nice day.  That's really it.  There's a cool market called Puerto de Frutos, which happens to be an area just as romantic and the islands come sundown, but other than that there isn't much else.

All in all, a lovely and relaxing day trip for those of us who needed it.

Picture time:

(Can you spot the random sleeping dude in this picture?)

(President Sarmiento's house.  Encased in glass for posterity)

Evita

I am going to do my best to get through this blog post without referencing the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, but, being the theater nerd that I am, that may be difficult/that's definitely not going to happen/I may actually try to work in as many references as possible.  But seriously, if you haven't at least heard to the sound track, get thyself to YouTube and listen!

Also, I'll have to try to be as apolitical about this as possible.  The Juan and Eva Perón are still controversial figures, and I think we'll all have to agree to be nice in the comments.  Agreed? Good.  Let's continue...


Eva Perón (also Evita) is a fascinating character.  Born out of wedlock in a provincial town, she got her self to Buenos Aires (just how depends on which source you consult; the official story is that she was taken there by her mother to become an actress, but some assert (and by some I mean the biography Tim Rice drew upon to write the book of Evita) that she came to the capital as the mistress of the tango singer Magaldi).  From there, she began her climb to power.  

Role Eva played in politics is undeniably interesting.  Loved by the poor for her socialist ideas and populist airs and despised by the rich for the same reasons, she created a dichotomy that is still hotly debated today. To many she was a whore, but equally to many she was the "spiritual leader of the nation" (source).  Her ladder to power consisted of a series of relationships with increasingly influential men, but she ultimately seemed to care for her people (despite clear ulterior motives (i.e. she really didn't like rich people)).

For me, its hard to pass judgement either way.  She did a lot of good, but with some seriously questionable motives and tactics.  She and Perón worked for their "descamisados", the platform they were elected on, but many of their social foundations and organizations were plundered by other Peronists.

In reality, I encourage you all to read and learn for yourselves (and of course share your opinions in the comments).  I can't force my opinion on you regarding this matter, in spite of the fact that this is my blog about my opinions and experiences.  But in reality, y'all really should form your own opinions.  I've been linking to wikipedia throughout, and there are some great books out there (and of course, the movie with Madonna and Antonio Banderas).  Go forth and learn!

Recommended Reading:

• Santa Evita
• La Razon de mi Vida
• Evita: In My Own Words

El Teatro Colón

This will be a regrettably short and photo-less post on a fantastic location.  


El Teatro Colón is one of the finest opera houses in the world (and I'm not just saying that because I did a project on it for my Spanish class back home).  El Colón is the most modern opera house to be built in the classical style.  As a result, it is a gorgeous example of classical architecture dating from just before the World Wars.  Funny story about the architects, they kept dying.  The first just kind of croaked over after finishing the plans, and the second died in an argument with his wife's lover.  The theater those two were working to build was actually a replacement for an earlier incarnation which was housed in the building that is now the national bank, located across from La Casa Rosada.  The second and present incarnation first opened it's doors on May 25, 1908 with Verdi's Aida.  


The building the opera house now occupies is a testament to a deep love of the opera.  Designed with German, French, and (of course) Italian influences and build with Italian and Portuguese marble, French glass and windows, and English mosaic tiles, the building is truly wondrous.  Highlights of the main building include the entry hallway off Calle Libertad and the Salón Dorado.  


But of course, nothing can compare to the theater space itself.  Able to seat about 3,000 spectators, the space itself is a wonder of acoustics.  A perfect mix of soft and hard materials, the concert hall and stage are about as acoustically perfect as is humanly possible.  Legitimately, everyone can hear everything; even those in the 30 peso seats in the section of the theater called "Paraíso" (Paradise, so named because of the altitude of those seats).  The acoustics alone are enough both to attract preeminent directors, opera singers, and ballerinas and to give El Colón a place in the top 5 opera houses in the world.  Honestly, you have to go see it to understand how beautiful the space is.  I can about the data, but the decor and splendor of the theater itself escape me.


So, yeah.  Go to El Teatro Colón.  It's awesome.  And it practically just reopened after about eight years of restoration, so all that gold and gold leaf are extra shiny.


For season schedule go here: El Teatro Colón Main Site