# data[].attributes.body
sldkjfl

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of people may claim that religious and/or philosophical issues aren't "relevant" to the non-religious. However, as I stated in the first assignment, EVERYONE adheres to a religion or a belief. Whether it be in a god, a celebrity, a nation, or even themselves, we all have the innate need to trust and rely on something. Moreover, while you may not be "religious", what about your fellow students? Your grandma? Or even your best friend? Whether you like it or not, your own world is unavoidably influenced by the people around you. A great example of this occurs in voting; most notably with the recent election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SO WHAT? WHO CARES? Storyboard by audreysebang

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IUHS WH Final Capstone Project // AGHHH! I'm so sick of this assignment. Urgh. I'm just gonna submit it.﻿ I'm sorry to hear that. But honestly, I think

# data[].attributes.body
There are probably hundreds of modern religiously significant events to choose from-- however, I've decided to discuss the terrorist attacks (ex: 9/11). I won't analyze a single event, as I'd like to "debunk" the numerous myths surrounding various religions.
On that note: one must keep in mind that acts of terror are not solely inflicted by Muslim extremists. In fact, the article linked below states: "over the past year in parts of Asia, it is friction between Buddhism and Islam that has killed hundreds, mostly Muslims. The violence is being fanned by extremist Buddhist monks, who preach a dangerous form of religious chauvinism to their followers". Obviously, anyone who is even a little acquainted with Buddhism knows that Siddhartha Gautama's doctrine was one of compassion, peace, and love. However, it is so-called "radicals" (really not Muslims or Buddhists at all) who perform these treacherous deeds.

Religion and belief systems usually provide their followers with various rules and methods to better themselves and therefore achieve some kind of 'reward' (heaven, nirvana, wisdom, etc). However, it is the context regarding these rules that often becomes an issue. Take, for example, the following verses:
"This is what the Lord Almighty says ... 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' "
---1 Samuel 15:3, the Bible
“When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.”
---47:4, the Quran
“Do not allow a sorceress to live.”
---Exodus 22:18, the Bible
... and so on and so forth. Clearly, focusing on solely these sections paints Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as bloodthirsty religions with no other purpose than to inflict harm and pain onto those who don't conform to their own lifestyle(s). In a sense, this would also supposedly "justify" the actions of terrorists such as Scott Roeder, a member of the "Christian" Patriot movement group, or Osama Bin Laden, founder of "Muslim" terrorist group Al-Qaeda. But what does the rest of these Holy Texts have to say?
“With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
--- Ephesians 4:2-3, the Bible
“Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man."
--- Proverbs 3:3-4, the Bible
“God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.”
--- Surat al-Mumtahana, 8, the Quran
“God does not love corruption”.
--- Surat al-Baqara, 205, the Quran
Are these verses contradictory? Maybe, if you aren't considering the historical and/or literary context. But that's beside the point. These verses prove that only the ignorant would claim that "ten percent of the world's Muslims are terrorist", or even that "all Christians hate gays", and etc.
Now, I know what you're thinking-- “you said yourself that terrorist attacks don't truly represent *insert religion/belief system here*". However, I believe that it's necessary to discuss such events, as they represent what happens when religion & belief systems are manipulated and abused. Without a proper understanding of the whole Christian religion, for example, we risk painting a picture of a religion in extremes: either a "love-Jesus-and-everything-will-be-all-happy-and-rainbows" doctrine (which it's not) or a message screeching "you'd-better-be-perfect-or-you'll-burn-in-Hell" on top of a soapbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photograph by Adam Dean / Panos for Time

The fault lines of conflict are often spiritual, one religion chafing against another and kindling bloodletting contrary to the values girding each faith. Over the past year in parts of Asia, it is friction between Buddhism and Islam that has killed hundreds, mostly Muslims. The violence is being fanned by extremist Buddhist monks, who preach a dangerous form of religious chauvinism to their followers.

Yet as this week's TIME International cover story notes, Buddhism has tended to avoid a linkage in our minds to sectarian strife:

"In the reckoning of religious extremism - Hindu nationalists, Muslim militants, fundamentalist Christians, ultra-Orthodox Jews - Buddhism has largely escaped trial. To much of the world, it is synonymous with nonviolence and loving kindness, concepts propagated by Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, 2,500 years ago. But like adherents of any religion, Buddhists and their holy men are not immune to politics and, on occasion, the lure of sectarian chauvinism.

When Asia rose up against empire and oppression, Buddhist monks, with their moral command and plentiful numbers, led anticolonial movements. Some starved themselves for their cause, their sunken flesh and protruding ribs underlining their sacrifice for the laity. Perhaps most iconic is the image of Thich Quang Duc, a Vietnamese monk sitting in the lotus position, wrapped in flames, as he burned to death in Saigon while protesting the repressive South Vietnamese regime 50 years ago. In 2007, Buddhist monks led a foiled democratic uprising in Burma: images of columns of clerics bearing upturned alms bowls, marching peacefully in protest against the junta, earned sympathy around the world, if not from the soldiers who slaughtered them. But where does social activism end and political militancy begin? Every religion can be twisted into a destructive force poisoned by ideas that are antithetical to its foundations. Now it's Buddhism's turn."

( PHOTOS: In Burma, Religious Riots Flare Up Again)

Over the past year in Buddhist-majority Burma, scores, if not hundreds, have been killed in communal clashes, with Muslims suffering the most casualties. Burmese monks were seen goading on Buddhist mobs, while some suspect the authorities of having stoked the violence - a charge the country's new quasi-civilian government denies. In Sri Lanka, where a conservative, pro-Buddhist government reigns, Buddhist nationalist groups are operating with apparent impunity, looting Muslim and Christian establishments and calling for restrictions to be placed on the 9% of the country that is Muslim. Meanwhile in Thailand's deep south, where a Muslim insurgency has claimed some 5,000 lives since 2004, desperate Buddhist clerics are retreating into their temples with Thai soldiers at their side. Their fear is understandable. But the close relationship between temple and state is further dividing this already anxious region.

As the violence mounts, will Buddhists draw inspiration from their faith's sutras of compassion and peace to counter religious chauvinism? Or will they succumb to the hate speech of radical monks like Burma's Wirathu, who goads his followers to "rise up" against Islam? The world's judgment awaits.
Click here to read Hannah Beech's full story on the violence between Buddhism and Islam in Asian countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Straying From the Middle Way: Extremist Buddhist Monks Target Religious Minorities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The fault lines of conflict are often spiritual, one religion chafing against another and kindling bloodletting contrary to the values girding each faith. Over the past year in parts of Asia, it is friction between Buddhism and Islam that has killed hundreds, mostly Muslims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Final Capstone WORLD HISTORY Storyboard by audreysebang

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rough Draft OK. Fine. So maybe those events were religious and all, but that's totally irrelevant. Well, that stuff happened ages ago! I mean, it's history

# data[].attributes.body
"You have modestly expressed a desire to know whether those who have recently died in war, fighting in defence of the church of God and for the preservation of the Christian religion and of the state, or those who may in 'he future fall in the same cause, may obtain indulgence for their sins. We confidently reply that those who, out of love to the Christian religion, shall die in battle fighting bravely against pagans or unbelievers, shall receive eternal life." - Pope John VIII
If any historical event is a symbol of religion and beliefs, it's the Crusades. And while John Green points out that they weren't initially a holy war (as in not necessarily Christians VS Muslims), they were most certainly "driven by religious faith".
The Middle Ages was a fantastic period--- for the church and nobles, that is. Not only did religious leaders have great authority over the people, but they also had arguable influence on the crown! This is especially evident from the astonishing reaction to Pope Urban II's call to action (for the first Crusade). Both men and women, nobles and serfs were more than willing to participate. This is due to numerous reasons: not only did he portray the battle as a pilgrimage with a "touch" of warring on the side, but numerous figures also promised the granting of indulgences ("remission of part or all of the temporal and especially purgatorial punishment that according to Roman Catholicism is due for sins whose eternal punishment has been remitted and whose guilt has been pardoned (as through the sacrament of reconciliation)"). Obviously, neither of these factors would hold any significance, save for the incredible influence of the church at the time.

How does this represent my theme?
The Crusades are an amazing representation of the potential power and significance of any religion/belief, not just the Catholic church.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Crusades - Pilgrimage or Holy War?: Crash Course World History #15

# data[].attributes.body
Overview:
- Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion in the world.
- Jews believe in a "fierce desert god" named Yahweh.
- They adhere to the Torah, a holy book which recounts the conversion of figures such as Abraham and David while also describing the history of the Kingdom of Israel.

As you may have noticed, the image below (click here for its source) is not solely an image of Judaism--- rather, it presents all three symbols of three religions: Christianity, Islam, and, obviously, Judaism itself. This image, as simple as it may seem, expresses why I feel that the latter perfectly represents my historical theme...
Judaism was (is) the first monotheistic religion in the world. As simple as that statement may seem today, in ancient times, the idea of a single deity was rather odd. Most people believed in a wide array of gods and goddesses; in fact, even Abraham himself (the "father" of the three Abrahamic religions, as pictured below) was descended from a family of idol-makers!
"He was the son of Terach, an idol merchant, but from his early childhood, he questioned the faith of his father and sought the truth. He came to believe that the entire universe was the work of a single Creator, and he began to teach this belief to others" --- Jewish Virtual Library
Judaism opened a 'gateway' for monotheistic religions; most notably, Christianity and Islam. It may be more accurate to say that the latter two are the figurative and literal offspring of the former, as it is believed that we all are descendants of Abraham (through either through Isaac or Ishmael). Namely, without Judaism, the other two religions would not exist! The significance of this statement increases dramatically when one realizes that there are 6.5 million Jews, 1.5 billion Muslims, and 2.2 billion Christians in the world today. That makes up over half of the population! The followers of these three religions have greatly contributed to (and participated in) numerous conflicts and issues throughout history. Take, for example, extremist acts of terror such as 9/11 or the Holocaust.
Who'd have thought that such a tiny nation would so gravely impact the rest of the world?
I quote author Thomas Cahill,  former director of religious publishing at Doubleday: “The Jews started it all—and by ‘it’ I mean so many of the things we care about, the underlying values that make all of us, Jew and Gentile, believer and aethiest, tick. Without the Jews, we would see the world through different eyes, hear with different ears, even feel with different feelings ... We would think with a different mind, interpret all our experiences differently, draw different conclusions from the things that befall us. And we would set a different course for our lives.”

How does this represent my theme?
I admit, I was initially hesitant to use the religion of Judaism for this assignment. I didn't want any issues of bias or "favoritism", in a sense, to arise. However, I feel confident that although it's a single religion, it has greatly impacted other people of different beliefs around the world. In addition (and most obviously), Judaism represents my theme because it itself is a religion.

# data[].attributes.body
Overview:
- The Neolithic period was the last of the Stone Age (last out of 3: Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic).
- This period is especially significant due to the spread of agriculture, ex: animal domestication, and the development of stone tools.
- The Neolithic period was less of a "revolution" and more of a gradual change.

The Neolithic Period may not be something you immediately associate with religion and beliefs, but believe it or not, it is. As Adam Benton's "Evoanth-dot-net" article explains, the "revolution" was related to so much more than simply agriculture and technology. He states that while the idea of religion itself was "...not amongst the package of new ideas and inventions which emerged during this (Neolithic) period", the period did mark the beginning of organized religion. Benton goes on to explain that this was the birth of "inceptions" of common religious institutions today, such as temples, priests, holy wars, and even an increase in “high moral-giving gods". He provides various reasons for such significant changes; however, there is only one which is "pretty definitive": perhaps increasingly complex societies (complex as in increased population, "economic complexity", and "the advent of agriculture") required and therefore promoted a more organized religion with more 'demanding' gods, so to speak, which motivated the people to co-operate.

How does this represent my theme?:
Not only did the Neolithic period form the root of religious tradition and ideas as we know it, but it also showed how religion & beliefs affect and are affected by technological and agricultural (seemingly 'non-religious') events and factors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Neolithic Revolution (and the few thousand years before/after it) was the most important period in the history of human civilisation. From ~9,000 - ~3,000 years ago our species invented writing, metalworking, cities, armies, farming, money and much more. In essence, the foundation of our modern culture was laid during this relatively brief period. Our species went from hunter-gatherers to the Roman Empire in less than 10,000 years even though we'd spent over 100,000 years as the former. Mesopotamia 's nickname as the "cradle of civilisation" is one well justified.

However, religious beliefs were not amongst the package of new ideas and inventions which emerged during this period. People have had supernatural ideologies of one form or another for ~100,000 years. That said, organised religion did start to appear around the time of the Neolithic Revolution. This period marks the first examples of temples, priests, religious institutions, holy wars and an increase prevalence of "high" moral-giving gods. Indeed, some even suggest that the first cities were run by religious institutions and "secular" kings were a later invention. Although the Neolithic Revolution may not have been the genesis of religious ideas it was certainly the inceptions of the religious institutions so common in our world today.

New research shows that belief in such "high" gods is fostered in more complex societies where it promotes the co-operation needed for them to flourish. Large societies, economically complex ones and those dependent upon resources which require significant group effort to manage (such as agriculture) all fit the bill of circumstances that can foster belief in such a deity(s). Given how the Neolithic Revolution included increase population size, increased economic complexity and the advent of agriculture it seems that this explanation provides a pretty definitive reason for why the Neolithic Revolution also included a "Religious Revolution."

Of course, society is a tricky beast and identifying the precise causal relationships can be tricky. As I mentioned in my discussion of the aforementioned research, what if agriculture is only associated with belief in a "high" god because it leads to larger populations and it is that which is the true cause. Or - as a commenter noted - what if belief in a "high" god promoted the various technological, sociological and economic advances associated with the Neolithic Revolution? The former alternate idea seems to be challenged by the fact that pastoralists have to work together intensively to maintain their herd but typically have small(ish) populations, yet still have high levels of belief in a "high" god. Population size and subsistence method appear to be two potential circumstances which foster belief in such a god.

The second alternate hypothesis could be tested if we could find the temporal relationship between the "Religious Revolution" and the other components of the Neolithic Revolution. Were there evidence complex religious beliefs (acting as a proxy for a "high" god since the belief itself will not preserve) before the population grew, subsistence which demanded co-operation or the culture became more complex then it would be a firm strike against the researchers' theory. Fortunately the Near East lends itself nicely to such a test.

A lot of early sites in the " Fertile Crescent " are Tells. These are made of people creating clay houses, knocking them down when they fall into disrepair and then building a new house on-top of the old one. Over hundreds of years this creates large hill structures which exquisitely preserve the older layers in chronological order. So it becomes very easy to work out whether it was religious changes or societal changes which came first, which is why it should be no surprise that archaeologists have done these investigations. And they consistently conclude that the sociological/economic/technical changes preceded the religious ones.

Jericho, for example, is a particularly famous early Near East site with a gap in the chronology. By 7,300 BC the citizens had a grain surplus but it wasn't until after the record starts again (6,500 BC) that they start to bury their dead with functional gravegoods. This is important because burying the dead with useful artefacts implies a belief that they will have some use for them, i.e. a belief in the afterlife. Although this is not a certain link - there are other possible explanations - it is one of the most plausible. And this trend does not only exist in Jericho but everywhere. No site without a grain surplus buries their dead with functional gravegoods. Even the presence of non-functional gravegoods increases by 20% and the prevalence of animal figurines increases by >30% when a grain surplus occurs!

Other groups from the period also undergo changes in religious artefact assemblages after they acquire large herds of animals. Since there is often little overlap between those with herds and those with a grain surplus this effectively acts as an independent line of evidence reaching the same conclusion, strengthening it. Further, this is not similarly a case of people with more resources making more artefacts. The grain surplus populations, for example, also make fewer human figurines after they get lots of food. There is a very definite and distinct change in their religion occurring and it is happening after they've got a food surplus.

Now, this isn't definitive evidence that the belief in a "high" god was caused by societal changes since these artefacts can only act as a proxy for belief. However, that doesn't change the fact it is still evidence for that position. For alternate ideas to remain plausible in light of this then they too must provide evidence - which is currently lacking.

Fuller J, Grandjean B (2001). Economy and Religion in the Neolithic Revolution: Material Surplus and the Proto-Religious Ethic Cross-Cultural Research, 35 (4), 370-399 DOI: 10.1177/106939710103500402

This supplementary Sunday is no way an attempt to game the popularity of the previous post. I am totally not writing this because #1 became my most viewed article in just 3 days.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How "god" evolved #2: the religious revolution - Filthy Monkey Men

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Part one came before The Neolithic Revolution (and the few thousand years before/after it) was the most important period in the history of human civilisation. From ~9,000 - ~3,000 years ago our species invented writing, metalworking, cities, armies, farming, money and much more. In

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
INTRODUCTION - THE BEGINNING Storyboard by audreysebang

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IUHS WH AUUUUUUGHHHHH!!!﻿ How in heck am I supposed to finish this stupid assignment????﻿! Well, what's it about?﻿ It's all about religion & beliefs--