If Humans Were Gods

The premise of Rael's book Intelligent Design is that Earth was a scientific experiment created by an alien species that remarkably resembled highly advanced humans. The ensuing creation narrative that Rael is told by these aliens is a series of scientific explanations for biblical verses, an explanation so inherently tied to human experiences and understandings that it no longer felt spiritual. If the claims that the creators, Elohim, are aliens is ignored, the story is quite simply how human understanding of science could explain the existence of life. Using scientific logic to reason through the biblical creation narrative is perhaps the most human explanation that could possibly be given, as it does not allow for the divine to have knowledge that could never be attained by humans. Rael consistently says, in fact, that humans can gain the scientific knowledge their creators have, that the only thing making the Elohim divine is more knowledge because of a longer span of existence. Essentially this means that the Elohim and humans are the same, they created humans but they are not really divine. So, although the fact that they're aliens is meant to make you think they are like gods, this creation story is more or less a story of humanity creating humanity, or if humans were gods.

Intelligent Design is not linked with Raelians

I was completely dumbfounded when reading, “Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers” by Rael. The foreword of Rael’s book begins with revealing information “of the greatest magnitude and importance of humanity by linking UFO’s and aliens to the creation of the world. To sum it up, according to Rael, aliens replace God in the Bible. How did Rael come to this conclusion? Well a alien messenger came to Rael with these important messages. To make matters worse, Rael then continues by associating the intelligent design with realianism. One of my favorite parts was when George W. Bush was mentioned because Bush had “declared that ‘intelligent design’ is as likely an explanation as evolution theory” (Rael xx). He continues writing, “Does this mean that President Bush has taken the first step on his way to becoming a Realian? Perhaps, perhaps not” (Rael xx).  Rael is completely stretching the definition and theory of Intelligent Design and morphing it into his Raelian Movement.

I was very curious to how people received this—also with what Rael’s appearance. Therefore, I found this very intriguing video of Rael speaking of how his encounters with the aliens went. The audience that was there could not stop laughing at Rael when he begins to talk about the UFO’s.  According to the raelpress.org, in 2008 there are over 70,000 Raelians in the world. Honestly, the number of people who are following this movement astounds me.

In case anyone wants to watch the video here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5nEuWVU07I

New Religions? New Gods?

(Posted on behalf of Marissa Battle)

UFO enthusiasts have a pretty bad rap. Most people think their ideas are too out there to believe- how
could there be these alternate beings surrounding us without having any true sightings or interactions? In theory it makes sense. Isn’t God also an alternate being surrounding us, and do we not also lack any provable evidence of his existence? In Intelligent Design, all the basic bases are covered. Why no one else had the same interaction, why we cannot see these beings, why they are here, our creation story. The most interesting was the biblical interpretation, going verse by verse explaining how each line is meant to tell the origin of life on earth through alien DNA experimentation. For the most part, in his context, I could place most of it into context. However, some of it was still a stretch to me. The bible, Rael believes, is meant to try and explain the history of how mankind and all living things on earth were made in succession. Adding the known history of the bible to the mix, there are a good many reasons supporting is claims. The origin of the words for Elohim and God, Jerusalem being the first major establishment, the Garden of Eden being where the best scientists made the most beautiful creatures, and also how we as experiments were angry at our creators for not giving us full knowledge. Even Lucifer as a fallen angel can be explained by the scientist who gave the knowledge in the first place. Looking at the bigger picture, many of the claims made by Rael are no more far-fetched than believing that there in a singular omnipotent omnipresent God who created all and rules over all. Could it be that the only reason this ladder notion is not construed and ridiculed by popular culture, as is belief in extraterrestrials, is because it is simply not popular culture? Let us say for a moment that Rael is correct, and that the majority of the world is wrong in its beliefs. One day, an encounter happens just as Rael describes, but instead of only one man as a witness, let us say that it was a whole city, or even a worldwide broadcast. What is the popular belief now? Who is actually God? Let us consider another hypothetical situation where Rael’s beliefs are the more widely celebrated traditions on the planet. Would not the minority who believes in a singular all powerful being not be ridiculed and chastised for believing something so outrageous and far-fetched?

Real New Religion

            The tale of a man claiming to have been given secret information by extraterrestrial beings, who have telepathically chosen him and lead him to a specific meeting spot sounds like the plot of an X Files episode. However, as much as Scully would shake her head in disbelief, this is not a story for entertainment purposes.  This is what Claude Vorilhon, known now as the prophet Raёl, experienced.  These aliens, the Elohim, bestowed upon him the knowledge that they, in fact, had crated the human race and had inspired the Bible.  Unfortunately, they had created humans unable to understand science, thus leading to many problems in the future.

            While this story seems far-fetched and unbelievable, it is not so strange that Raёl has not had success in developing a following.  The idea that a person could be visited by powerful beings and be given sacred, secret knowledge not a new concept by far. Prophets are a staple in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all of them claiming divine intervention.  Raёl ties himself to these prophets by equating his experience with Ezekiel’s and claiming to have the same father as Jesus Christ.  When faced with declarations such as these, the initial reactions for most people consist of shock, disbelief, possibly scorn.   While these are the general reactions to outlandish claims, I would argue that the real issue here is not the fantastic nature of the claims, but the newness and unfamiliarity of the claims.  In the Bible, there are many-eyed angels, beasts with multiple heads and talking horns, and quite a few people who claim divine knowledge.  These are all accepted as religious truths that do their own work, and they are old enough to have gained a sort of gravitas; they are not seen as frivolous hoaxes, as new religions and prophets are.

            This is all to say that new religions, biblically based or otherwise, have a place in the sea of ancient religions.  They may be outlandish to be introduced to, but they can be just as genuine and inspirational as any ancient text or group.  Their newness alone is no reason to be dismissive.

Faith and Flying Objects

The UFO religion of Raëlism claims that humankind was created by a scientifically advanced group of beings from outer space, a theory that is discussed at length in Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers. Journalist and believer Anthony Grey contributed a forward that introduces this text and advocates for its veracity.

In this preface, Grey argues that Raëlism presents a more logical explanation for the creation and development of life on earth than the major world religions or Darwin’s theory of evolution. He claims that Raël “emphasiz[es] that all faiths and their historical traditions and cultures still deserve our respect” but that “they have become outdated” and in fact “testify obscurely to this newly revealed scientific reality” (xii). By describing the ideas of Raëlism as “scientific reality,” Grey already assumes their truth. Furthermore, he goes on to say that the “book sets out our past, present and future on a firm scientific basis” and creates a “new common-sense spirituality” (xii). With these claims, he again seems to be implying that this theory is based in fact and common sense when this does not really appear to be the case throughout the rest of the introduction. Grey later says, “As far as providing proof is concerned, however, Raël quotes the Elohim as saying that they are deliberately withholding any outright physical evidence that would support their revelations” (xvi). While this dictum from the Elohim would explain the lack of evidence for Raël’s assertions, it also seems a particularly convenient way to dismiss the absence of proof. Grey reports that the Elohim also say that “it is very important…that we consider all their final information without proof—the logic and rationality of what they have revealed effectively contains its own hallmark of truth” (xvi).

With this kind of directive, supposedly from the Elohim, I can’t help but think of Hebrews 11:1 and 3.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

[…]

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”

Hebrews 11:1, 3 (NRSV)

This New Testament passage asserts the importance of faith, which, in the Christian faith, essentially acts as the believer’s proof of God’s existence and influence on the world. The request of Raëlism to consider the ideas “without proof” ultimately asks the same leap of faith of its followers. Thus, despite its claims of logic, science, and common sense, Raëlism is as without evidence as many other religious beliefs. With these considerations, can Grey really argue for Raëlism’s “firm scientific basis”?

Which Commandments?

As I reflect on this class, I am faced with the hypothetical question: Will people ever get tired of reinventing the Bible? Is there a limit to be reached? Looking at all the topics we have covered this semester, it seems that there is no limit to how the Bible can be reinterpreted and reworked. The Bible undoubtedly will continue to be influential in one way or another, whether it be content, themes, style, or something else. Until this week we have covered topics that have mostly stayed within the realm of Christianity and Judaism. I had not really considered how New Religious Movements (NRMs) also use the Bible, though it seems somewhat obvious after reading about them. Eugene V. Gallagher’s book Reading and Writing Scripture in New Religious Movements provided me with some insight into how NRMs draw from the Bible in many different ways. One way that stuck out to me was how the ten commandments found in the Bible inspired NRMs to adopt similar commandment style lists.

Gallagher goes into details about two different texts that utilize the style of the ten commandments: The Holy Piby and The White Man’s Bible. The Holy Piby was produced in 1924 and aimed to “reconnect Africans in the diaspora with their true heritage and their own God” (113). The White Man’s Bible was created in 1984 and also speaks to a specific racial group. Both saw merit in a biblical ten commandments style list for telling their community members what was required of them based on their ideology. Rogers, the author of The Holy Piby, even claims the same God as the Bible and is meant to be seen as a prophet like Moses. Interestingly, Klassen, the author of The White Man’s Bible, rejects the Bible and its God, though still borrows the style of authoritative commandments. This borrowing of the ten commandments does not seem to be uncommon. This Wikipedia article gives us a glance at other lists of commandments that people have come up with on their own.

Looking at these various lists of commandments from the wikipedia article, it is clear that the biblical ten commandments have an incredible cultural impact. People see them and desire to define their own personal codes of conduct and belief. Even Richard Dawkins lays out his ten commandments in his book The God Delusion. Ten commandment style lists are not just unique to religion, but are also utilized by individuals. As long as the Bible remains culturally relevant, it is clear that people will continue to reinvent.

God's Caring Words

The idea of an omnipotent God has been around forever. Our cultural belief of an absent father is the only way we can explain “our creator’s” lack of interference in our lives. But it seems hard for most people to live without the comforting idea that we have a creator that watches over us, guards us, and guide us. Even in Buddhism, the world is created by an almighty being, though it differs in the sense time is irrelevant as the world has been created many times over. There is a sense of fear generated in response to loneliness that we really aren’t that special. No higher being picked us out of all other creations to grant us consciousness and knowledge and it makes people feel just a little less special about themselves.

Many people have linked biblical stories to current events, raising the status of biblical stories to prophetic. This happens most often with the end of the world. The Bible by no means is a specific texts, it’s poetic rhetoric allows anyone to place their own interpretation on it. Using a random Bible verse generator, I stumbled upon Proverbs 12:1.

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,but he who hates reproof is stupid.

An interpretation can be defining discipline as bodily punishment, thus making pain is knowledge and you must embrace disapproval. This type of thinking is valued by the Opus Dei, a subgroup of Roman Catholics that believe self-mutilation is to reenact Jesus Christ’s suffering, bringing them closer to the Son of God, ascending them to a higher being. But the verse can be interpreted in a completely different way. Place the subject in the position of a student and it is a new picture. In order to learn and gain knowledge, you must discipline yourself and keep an open mind to take advice or you will gain no knowledge and be stupid. It’s really not hard to shove personal interpretations onto an old text that has gone through a shredder’s equivalent of translations and rewritings. It's one thing to seek comfort in religion, it's another to push interpretations onto a dead text, don't read too much into it.

The Power of Thou

I am convinced that if you write anything with enough “thous,” people will believe it. The prophet Raël, for example, founder of the Raëlian movement, author of Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers, and favored earthling of the alien Elohim made use of the King James Bible in his books and in his dealings with extraterrestrials. Big deal, you might say, everyone knows or uses the KJV at some time, why not the guy with the aliens? And that’s just the point: everyone knows or uses the KJV at some time, so of course the guy with the aliens would. It’s one of the best (and only) ways for someone with a message like his to demonstrate some kind of authority and relate to “sane, responsible Frenchmen.”

Anyone can say “we were made by aliens,” and most anyone could write a book about it as well. But believers have found the message of Raël so convincing because of its basis in an accepted, classic piece of literature. Claiming Biblical relevance was what secured an interested audience for him, and the choice of the KJV brought the whole concept together. There is, after all, something very authoritative about the words “ye” and “shall.” Just ask Monty Python – in goes outdated English and out comes something like scripture.

You’ve seen the language of the KJV in multiple contexts, from dramatic to comedic, and even in formats similar to the one used by Raël. It always does its job, making a text sound older and more authoritative than it is, and the writers who employ it then take that effect in the direction they will whether it be serious or ironically humorous. Across new religious movements like Raëlianism, the language, formatting, and tone of the Bible, particularly classic and wider known editions like the KJV, adds weight to the voice of the writer. That kind of authority goes a long way towards anchoring the new and often incredible messages of Raël and similar writers, thus giving a kind of stability to radical new ideas.

Could I Create Scripture??? Pt. 2, The Creation of Hartungism

Raëlism is a religion, created by a guy named Rael. Rael claims that extraterrestrials (that we call Elohim) created the world through scientific means and that the Bible is evidence of their creation and influence on the world. In Intelligent Design, Message from the Designers Raël lists the Bible verses that are important, claiming the rest is "merely poetic babblings of which I will say nothing" (11). Well, following Raël's format, I present to you The Book of Hartungism, an adaptation of Raëlism showing that I too, can create scripture by using the same lines from the Book of Genesis that are used by Raël.

Starting from the beginning...

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Similar to Raëlism, I too rely heavily on a Hebrew translation of the name Elohim, meaning "those who came from the sky". However, "those" who came from above are not just any aliens of higher intellegence, but actually members of the Jedi Counsil, who came to Earth from a Galaxy Far, Far Away. They were attempting to create a new civilization sheltered from the perversions of the Dark Side: they believed that the greatest way to bring balance to the force, was to create a society of individuals who were not force sensative, individuals who through their very nature would strive for balance (this balance, is what we now call morality). By not having the force be overtly known to the Earthlings, they hoped to acheive balance. 

And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2

Actually, Raël was pretty close to right here. The Jedi Order did reconnaissance flights to study the Earth in an attempt to find any evidence of medichlorians, in order to establish whether this new world would be capable of acting as host to a world without force sensative indivuduals. 

And Elohim saw the light, that it was good. Genesis 1:4

The "light" found was just good news. The Jedi were pleased, becauase at this point the world showed no sign of holding any force sensative life. 

Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear. Genesis 1:9

After conducting an examination, both physically and through medatation, the Jedi Order decided this planet on the outer reaches of the known galaxy, would be a fine host for their new society. Using their combined powers, they raised the land from the waters in order to create the land and the sea as we know it today.

Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth. Genesis 1:11

This verse is just an account showing the ways that the Jedi continued to transform the Earth into a life sustaining planet. Fruit, grass and seed are just some of the many food and water sources that the Jedi created to help bring life to their new society.

Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens. Genesis 1:20

Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing adn beast of the earth, each according to its kind. Genesis 1:24

The Woman's Bible: A New Religious Movement?

            "Reading and Writing Scripture in New Religious Movements" by Eugene Gallagher serves to explain how New Religious Movements use and abuse the words of the Bible to convince readers that the Bible fits in to the grander scheme of their new religion. While reading the explanation that new religions tend to use the Bible with an interpretive strategy that acknowledges "that's what (you think) it says, but this is what is (really) means," I couldn't help but be reminded of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's The Woman's Bible. In her preface, Stanton acknowledges that her version of the Bible was constructed to revise the texts and chapters that directly referred to women and the ones where women are made prominent by exclusion. In doing so, Stanton and her team wanted to change how the canon and civil law, church and state, priests and legislators, all political parties and religious denominations view and teach women as being "made after man, of man, and for man, an inferior being, subject to man." 
           Though Stanton and her team claim Christian roots, I wonder if her reach for feminism in the Bible could be considered a new religious movement as explained by Gallagher. Because Stanton's Bible alters texts and reinterprets the roles of women in order to show powerful roles of women, I believe her Bible could be considered the beginning of a Feminist Religion. Lastly, Gallagher says "in he shared view of the biblical interpreters in these chapters any intelligent, aware, or open person who reads the Bible will potentially come to read it their (the new religion) way" which was quite literally the goal of the Woman's Bible.

What's So Hard About Inclusion?

The numerous examples within Dr. Chancey's writing of biblical studies in current public school curriculum leave little doubt in my mind that what's being taught is always biased, and frequently unabashedly so. What I wonder is why, if the Bible needs to come into the classroom, it can't be accompanied by other religious texts such as the Qur'an and Talmud/Torah. I understand the argument that religion plays an important social role, and studying religion is absolutely viable for public schools, but to specifically study the Bible shows inherent bias. In order for a public school to talk about religion, namely the Bible, I think the rule should be that other religions are examined with equal thoroughness and from an academic standpoint. Instead of masquerading Bible classes as English or Social Studies, public schools could, much like higher education, offer religion courses that examined religious claims from a non-theological standpoint. The inclusion of specifically Christian theological beliefs in public schooling is, to me, shockingly wrong.

Why hasn't this solution been accepted by school districts? To me, the obvious solution to one group demanding their scripture be involved in schooling is to offer a course where multiple scriptures are involved and viewed impartially. Chancey notes that in school districts with educators who have more education in religion tend to have less biased curriculum, but they're still only speaking about one scripture, one religion, so even these educated attempts are biased essentially. If the Bible needs to be in schools, then so do other religious scriptures, plain and simple.

Teaching the Literary Bible

As someone who attended public school in Texas for grades K through 12, it’s interesting to learn about the state mandate to include the Bible in high school education. My district must have been one of those that interpreted this bill by including information about the Bible in existing courses as I can remember, thinking back, learning about events in United States history such as the Great Awakening and comparing the Biblical flood account to that in The Epic of Gilgamesh in world history.

The idea of having elective classes on the Bible or religion in high schools is intriguing, and the potential difficulties and complications these classes could present in regard to the separation of church and state appear endless. However, an aspect of these classes that stuck out to me is how some might be taught as English/language arts electives, focusing on “literary features such as plot, themes, characterization and genre” (6). It could be beneficial to view this text as a piece of literature rather than strictly as a factual account, but at the same time, reading the Bible essentially as a piece of fiction struck me as strange as it seems to have a vastly different function as a text. Compared to the normal subjects of literary studies, the Bible seems to be rather lacking in some literary features, such as characterization. The figures of the Bible may be characterized through their actions, but the text generally doesn’t devote much space to the description of people beyond what they do, making it very plot-heavy.

Although such a class has the potential to explore the Bible in new and interesting ways, it is hard to imagine an entire class focused on these elements—much less a large enough group of high schoolers interested in the topic to make it a worthwhile use of the district’s budget. However, despite the difficulties school districts in Texas have faced in fitting these classes to the secular standards of the state law, it would likely be very beneficial to provide students with an unbiased learning experience over religion and thus worth providing more precise specifications and training for this kind of course.

Proselytism Problems

In Reading, Writing & Religion II, Mark Chancey details the struggles which Texas public schools have faced in attempts to introduce courses on the Bible. From lack of established curriculum requirements to untrained and biased teachers, the problems are many and have proved difficult to address. And as expected from a southern American area, any bias has pointed in the direction of Protestant Christianity while tending to minimize or erase the beliefs of other traditions like Catholicism, Judaism, or Eastern Orthodoxy. Such bias raises obvious problems with alienating non-religious and minority religious students, and while improvements have been made, the state still have a ways to go before its Bible courses are largely unproblematic.

This tendency toward bias makes me wonder, however, if courses on other religions would be taught differently, particularly because of Protestant Christianity’s emphasis on conversion. That is, many of the biased courses which Chancey describes are taught by Christian teachers trying to push Christian agendas on students. But what about the possibility of another class taught by an instructor of another faith? Imagine, for example, a Jewish teacher offering a course on the Hebrew Bible in a Texas public school. Even if she used the phrase “we believe” in her lessons, odds are her class would be less like a Sunday school than many which Chancey tells us of simply because Judaism is not concerned with conversion in the way that Christianity is. Such a course would be less like sermons and more like history and culture lessons from an insider.

I do not mean to say here that Christians shouldn’t be teaching courses on Christianity, but in a religion which values conversion, instructors in public schools would do well to stay on secular side of the line between informing and proselytizing. An interesting experiment, though certainly not the most practical to implement, would be offering courses on multiple world religions and observing how their instruction unfolded, especially if by teachers who identified with the faith traditions they taught. Offering such courses could give us data on how world religions compare in presenting themselves in public, scholastic sphere, and it could give us a more nuanced idea of how best to present religion as academia to young people of varied backgrounds.

Bible Course Without Bias?

Bias abounds as we have learned in class. Basically everything written has a bias so it is not surprising that, whether the schools meant to or not, they are teaching Bible texts with religious perspectives.

Can public school Bible courses be taught with out bias? Can any bible course be taught with out bias?

The offering of courses on Abrahamic texts famously known as religious texts with out offering courses on other religious texts is a form of bias in its own way.

While many questions stand unanswered, some bible courses taught in Texas school districts are less biased than others. Those that are more inclusive also tend to be more academically rigorous.

Texas has laws concerning Bible education in Texas public schools. One of these laws allows schools to offer courses on the New Testament and the Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures (House Bill 1287) Bible courses are allowed in schools as long as they are not taught as religious instruction or display religious bias. Also the bible courses should not attempt to convert or indoctrinate. But this is largely not what is going on. Bill 1287 also mandates that Bible course teachers receive special training for the course, but for reasons not stated funds were never allotted to these efforts. More than half of the bible courses taught in Texas teach the Bible with a Christian theological perspective.

What Happens When Public Schools Mimick Private?

Mark Chancey, in the beginning of his Section II: Pseudoscience and the Bible, begins by stating that, "Courts have repeatedly ruled that advocating creation science in public school science courses is unconstitutional" (51). While pondering this statement, I thought back to my own high school experience in Kingwood, Tx (a North Houston Suburb). My thinking goes as followed:

Private schools are able to teach to specific religions or reprimand students in a different manner than public schools are able to because they rely on independent funding, typically in the form of tuition or grants from parents and alumni. Keeping with this idea, what happens if public schools move towards a similar model? If a public school begins to receive a majority of funding from outside, non-governmental entities, does and should the clear line between church and state continue to be so concrete? If a public school receives 65% of its funding from property taxes and thus, a public school is 65% funded directly from the pockets of parents within that district, should the public school reflect the majority decision of those parents who a provide the school with a majority of its funding? The gut answer is probably not: mostly because if the KKK gathers in one district, this could result in a KKKHS. It seems that because public schools are a public good that is free to all, they therefore should strive to not alienate a group of people for the satisfaction of another.

However, it seems that this may be exactly what is occurring in many public schools throughout the south: not KKKHS, but a blurring between church and state. In Texas, during the 2011-2012 school year, property taxes accounted for 41.9% of all public school funding, at just under $20,766,669,000. This is the largest sum accounted for, with all state funding coming in a close second at $20,341,491,000 (41.1%). If 65% is not the appropriate percentage to override the separation of church and state, what about 83%? At least in Texas, 83% seems to be the magic number. Over the last decade or so, the line between church and state in Texas has been attacked on a multitude of fronts (link). If the state and the individuals who fund the school through property taxes (it is important to note, 77% of Texans associate as some form of Christian) both believe a Christian based education system is the best form of education for their public school, can and should the school consent in this request and begin teaching creationism?

If this is the case (as it appears it is), what does this mean for the teaching of religions in primary and secondary education? It genuinly scares me that many public schools throughout the south are so completely controlled by parents and political parties that they can mold early minds to be biased towards one ideology. While this is innevitable in some households, it seems this molding is now extending beyond the home and into the school. If students are pre-disposed to think towards or in favor of one religion, what is likely to happen in 30 years when the 5-12 year olds in Texas elementary schools become the scholars of tomorrow? This intensional warping of facts and biased mentality against religions (hint hint, Islam) can have long-reaching and incredibly harmful ramifications for religious studies in the future.