I'd love to have a dinner party with that group! Sounds like a lot of fun!:
Printable View
I'd love to have a dinner party with that group! Sounds like a lot of fun!:
There is an article in the latest issue of New Scientist about religion and morality that I thought was interesting.
:
What good is God?
01 September 2007
Helen Phillips
RELIGION occupies a strange position in the world today. Religious belief is as powerful as ever, yet religion is under attack, challenged by science and Enlightenment thought as never before. Critics like Richard Dawkins would have us believe that it is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that. He is one of many thinkers who are challenging the traditional view of religion as a source of morality. Instead, they argue that it provides a means for justifying immoral acts.
Their views have recently been bolstered by evidence that morality appears to be hard-wired into our brains. It seems we are born with a sense of right and wrong, and that no amount of religious indoctrination will change our most basic moral instincts.
Many biologists are not convinced by such radical views, however. Recent years have seen a flurry of activity by researchers who want to assess the effects of religion on human behaviour. It is a fiendishly difficult area for science, but they are starting to address the issue by looking at how religion might have evolved, what purpose it has served, and whether it really can make you a moral person - or an immoral one.
As a result of this work a new view is emerging that challenges simplistic ideas about the link between religion and morality. Instead of religion being a source of morality or immorality, some researchers now believe that morality and religion are both deep-rooted aspects of human nature. We do not need religion to live moral lives, but without it morality might never have evolved. This kind of thinking could explain the complex and apparently contradictory relationship between religious beliefs and moral behaviour that is being demonstrated. It could also make some sense of religion's remarkable staying power, as well as highlighting the futility of attempts to persuade believers to abandon their faith by rational argument.
There is no shortage of research supporting the case for religion as a force for good. In the late 1970s and 1980s sociologists Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, then at the University of Washington in Seattle, forcefully argued the line that religious beliefs correlated with moral behaviour. Their studies showed that church attendance and religiosity increase the collective understanding of moral norms and make people less likely to turn to crime. More recently, various surveys have suggested that moderate religious people are happier, more caring, just and compassionate, and give more money to charity. Other studies show that religion can help people quit smoking, drugs and alcohol. Religion can also affect people's sexual morality. Recent research by RAND Health, a US non-profit policy research group, has found that people with HIV who professed religious beliefs had fewer sexual partners than those who were not religious (Journal of Sex Research, vol 44, p 49).
However, religious belief is not the only moral guide, even for believers. The RAND study also found that HIV-positive Catholics were more likely to use condoms than other groups despite their church's prohibition on birth control. "Catholics increasingly are inclined to consider their individual consciences as sources of moral authority," says David Kanouse, one of the study's authors. The work certainly doesn't contradict the view that moral values come from within (see "Born to be moral"), suggesting instead that religion can provide an additional source of rationalisation to help us interpret our innate sense of right and wrong.
How does this square with claims that religion makes for bad people and bad societies? Dawkins and others point to many examples of the use of religious beliefs to rationalise acts of hatred or war. They also cite morally reprehensible acts endorsed in religious scripture - stoning adulterers, heretics and homosexuals, beating or killing disobedient children, acceptance of slavery, even prostituting one's own daughter. They argue that religion is just a by-product of other cognitive processes and has nothing to do with our underlying morality. Besides, many atheists manage to be good without God - and religious believers are not necessarily better at following their own moral codes than non-believers. Philosopher Dan Dennett from Tufts University in Boston points out that the prison population - at least in the US - has the same religious structure as the rest of society, and that divorce rates among Christians are if anything higher than among non-religious Americans.
“Many atheists manage to be good without God”
In 2005, Greg Paul, an independent researcher from Baltimore, Maryland, published a study that attempted to quantify negative effects of religion (Journal of Religion and Society, vol 7, p 1). He compared levels of religiosity with various indicators of social dysfunction in 18 developed nations. He concluded that countries with higher rates of belief and worship had higher rates of homicide, death among children and young adults, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy and abortion. Paul now believes that morality does not stem from religion, and that religion arises from insecurity within society. "Mass belief in gods is primarily a fear and anxiety-based response to insufficiently secure financial circumstances, and does not have a deep neurobiological, genetic or other basis," he says.
His study has not been without critics, however. Some researchers have argued that his choice of nations and indicators of moral health were selective. In an attempt to provide a more rigorous test, sociologist Gary Jensen from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, conducted a more detailed analysis of just one of Paul's indicators, homicide, to see how it correlated with various religious beliefs. He found that homicide rates were indeed linked with passionate beliefs, though the strongest correlation occurred in societies with prominent dualist beliefs in good and evil, God and the devil. The highest rates were seen in the US - where as many as 96 per cent of the population claim to believe in God and 76 per cent in the devil - along with the Philippines, the Dominican Republic and South Africa. The correlation was much weaker in societies with a belief in God, but no strong beliefs in the devil, such as Sweden, where only 18 per cent claim to believe in both. "Gods do matter," Jensen says, "but in a far more complex manner than proposed." (Journal of Religion and Society, vol 8, p 1).
A similarly complex picture has emerged about the role of religion as a force for good. Daniel Batson, a social psychologist from the University of Kansas in Lawrence, looked at two categories: "intrinsic" religiosity - belief in God and a motivation to attend church as an end in itself - and "extrinsic" religiosity - where religion and churchgoing are seen primarily as social activities, often undertaken for personal gain. He found some correlation between intrinsic religious beliefs and compassion or reduced prejudice. By contrast, extrinsic religiosity is linked to increased prejudice - people in this group tend to be less helpful to others, and when they do assist it is only for people they see as the "right" sort.
Batson also identifies a third category he calls "quest" religiosity - a more questioning form of spirituality. His experiments reveal that while people in this category show intolerance of behaviour that violates their own values, they are nevertheless the most tolerant and helpful towards people who exhibit such behaviour.
Such studies lend some support to the idea that religion influences moral behaviour. Yet they also raise the question of whether it does this primarily within a believer's own social group, or whether it engenders a more universal compassion and altruism. Peter Richerson, a specialist in cultural evolution, and human ecologist Brian Paciotti, both from the University of California, Davis, used economic games to examine this distinction.
The dictator game tests people's altruism and sense of fair play. One person gets $10 and is told to offer some of it to another, anonymous player - the amount offered is due to the first player. The recipient can either accept the offered amount, in which case both parties keep their share, or punish perceived unfairness by rejecting the offer so that nobody gets a payout. In the trust game, a person is given $10 and can hand any amount to another unknown person, but this time the sum they give is doubled, and the recipient then chooses how much to return. Here the best strategy is to hand over all the money - provided that the recipient reciprocates your trust. Finally, in the public goods game, people contribute to a public fund that is then doubled by the organisers and shared out equally. The game is played anonymously and tests all kinds of morality, including the amount of altruism and cheating. The group does best if everyone donates the maximum, but generally lots of people cheat.
Richerson and Paciotti conducted all three games both in a secular university and with churchgoers who had just attended a service. They found that secular and religious people did behave differently. "There are weak and subtle effects where people who [say they are] highly religious give more," Paciotti says. This might suggest that religion fosters universal cooperation. However, like Batson, the team found that only people with intrinsic or questing religiosity were more generous and trusting, and less likely to punish unfairly. Extrinsically religious people were actually less altruistic than the non-religious. These results will please no one, says Richerson, as they show that religion is neither vital for morality nor always has a negative effect. Paciotti believes the findings support the idea that humans are hard-wired to be moral and cooperative, with religion serving to define the nature and scope of that moral behaviour and influence with whom we cooperate.
Another reason that the effects of religiosity on morality have been hard to tease apart is highlighted by a new study that also uses the dictator game. Psychologists Azim Shariff and Ara Norenzayan from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, found that by presenting people first with a word game unscrambling either religious or non-religious phrases, even atheists could be primed to be more generous to an anonymous partner by exposure to the religious words (Psychological Science, in press). People did not notice when the game had a particularly religious theme, say the researchers, suggesting that the priming effect is unconscious. Likewise, psychologist Brad Bushman from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, found that both Christian and non-religious people were more aggressive towards an anonymous person after reading a religious text describing how a husband took revenge for the torture and murder of his wife - but only if they had been told that the story came from the Bible or if it contained an additional verse in which God seemed to sanction the husband's violence (Psychological Science, vol 18, p 204).
You are being watched
So why do religious concepts provoke moral behaviour even in non-believers? It's because both religion and morality are evolutionary adaptations, says Jesse Bering, who heads the Institute of Cognition and Culture at Queen's University, Belfast, UK. Morality does not stem from religion, as is often argued, he suggests: they evolved separately, albeit in response to the same forces in our social environment. Once our ancestors acquired language and theory of mind - the ability to understand what others are thinking - news of any individual's reputation could spread far beyond their immediate group. Anyone with tendencies to behave pro-socially would then have been at an advantage, Bering says: "What we're concerned about in terms of our moral behaviour is what other people think about us." So morality became adaptive.
At the same time the capacity for religious belief would also have emerged. Our reputation-conscious ancestors would have experienced a pervasive feeling of being watched and judged, he says, which they would readily have attributed to supernatural sources since the cognitive system underlying theory of mind also seeks to attribute intentionality and meaning, even where there is none. So the same adaptations that led to morality could also have driven the evolution of religion.
Meanwhile, evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson of the State University of New York argues that religious practices are also important for group cohesion and are therefore subject to group selection. As humans have become ever more social over the past 100,000 years, and especially from 10,000 years ago, when agriculture led to huge division of labour in societies, religion and morality would have co-evolved as ways to promote social cohesion. "Religion did play a crucial role in giving us our moral nature, at least evolutionarily speaking," says psychologist Jonathan Haidt from the University of Virginia.
Nowadays, adds Bering, whether we believe in a God or not, the brain architecture that causes us to behave as though we might get caught behaving badly is still present. As a result, atheists are no more likely to be immoral than believers. Indeed, his own experiments show that, regardless of whether people believe in supernatural beings, both adults and children cheat less when performing a task in private if Bering has first primed them with the idea that there may be a "god" or a "ghost" watching.
Cultural and technological advances have also changed the way we live, making western liberal societies poor models for understanding the link between religion and morality, according to Haidt. He argues that we are now far more individualistic than our ancestors. "Technology has changed our lives so we can live in new ways. We can now be moral without religion. We have developed other means of social control," he says, such as laws, police forces and CCTV cameras.
Yet religion does still have the power to galvanise individuals in any society. Brain-imaging experiments by Andrew Newberg at the University of Pennsylvania indicate that people in religious or meditative states show a transient decrease in brain activity in regions representing our map of the body and our sense of self. Religious feelings do seem to be quite literally self-less, which may be one of religion's biggest draws. Many human activities - from music festivals to military service - tap into our powerful urge for group bonding. Haidt believes that we also have an evolved desire to elevate ourselves beyond our own selfish interests to a more helpful, group-oriented and selfless plane.
Haidt says this sense of elevation is mediated through a physiological response in the release of a hormone called oxytocin, which makes us feel happy and good about ourselves. Elevation can come in many forms: we might get it from pursuing a noble goal, doing good, reading great prose, witnessing something skilful, experiencing awe or empathising with someone else who is feeling good. Still, religious people have an extra source of elevation that many atheists lack - and scientists like Dawkins may do well to realise that even the most logical and articulate argument against religion will never eradicate this evolutionary sense of meaning.
Even if many no longer need religion for social cohesion or moral guidance, and think that atheism is the only rational route, we should nevertheless recognise that religion has had a pivotal role in our evolutionary history. It can still reinforce moral values and work with our innate moral sense. It can also be used to justify immoral behaviour towards those who do not embrace our beliefs. Like it or not, religion remains an important part of what we are.
From issue 2619 of New Scientist magazine, 01 September 2007, page 32-36
Born to be moral
The idea that we have an innate sense of right and wrong has been brought to prominence again by the Harvard University cognitive psychologist Marc Hauser, with the publication of his book Moral Minds. He likens morality to language and its innate core to our innate sense of grammar. In other words, at the heart of human moral codes lie common rules and features that come hard-wired at birth.
Hauser suggests that each culture and generation learns to interpret the moral grammar slightly differently, but the rules, fixed in the biology of the brain, remain the same.
One reason he believes this is that the origins of morality, altruism and fair play can be seen in our group-living primate cousins, in behaviours such as loyalty to kin, intolerance of theft and punishment of cheats.
Another reason is that moral decisions are made intuitively, rather than consciously or rationally. People come up with similar answers when faced with a particular moral dilemma, yet Hauser and his colleagues have shown that their reasoning to justify their answers is variable and inconsistent, suggesting it is done after the choice has already been made.
They also find no difference in fundamental moral choices made by thousands of people of different faiths and none in answer to questionnaires posing moral dilemmas. This suggests that inbuilt morality is independent of learned religious codes.
Undeniably, there are differences over time and cultures in attitudes towards issues such as slavery, racism, capital punishment and abortion. Even so, Hauser argues, the innate sense remains the same; it is the interpretation that changes.
So how is morality hard-wired into our brains? The consensus among brain scientists is that emotions such as fear, guilt and pride are vitally important.
Jonathan Haidt from the University of Virginia used a hypnosis experiment to show how important emotions are. Under hypnosis, he induced people to feel disgust when they heard a couple of arbitrary words. When these words later came up in connection with moral dilemmas, the subjects judged certain scenarios to be wrong when people who had not been hypnotised did not. When asked to justify their choices, they could not do so to the researchers' satisfaction. Without knowing how or why, their emotions had altered their sense of right and wrong.
Brain-scanning studies have shown a link between damage to the brain regions that house the social emotions and a tendency to make aberrant moral choices. Still, there is more to morality than emotion. Most researchers now think that emotions influence the way our moral decisions are turned into actions or choices, rather than how the decisions are made in the first place. Other brain regions involved in empathy and attributing beliefs about intentions are important too.
Very interesting reading Dachlostar. Thanks for that.
We covered religion as a part of society in my uni lectures on Saturday. The text stated that organised religion contributes to community development, social justice and charitable works. It went over the three classical approaches to understanding the role of religion:
1. Karl Marx - religion is a means by which the most powerful in society could suppress human suffering and unhappiness. God is a construction.
2. Max Weber - religion is closely linked to social and political ideas, religious beliefs are paralleled in social ideologies and developments.
3. Emile Durkheim - religion emerges from the needs of society, it reflects a social need by creating rules and boundaries for human existence, etc (ie humans developed religion to explain things).
Personally, I think they neglected to mention a fourth possibility:
4. There is actually a God/gods and religion is something that is was given to us, we have a spiritual need.
Regardless of whether you believe in God/gods/religious ideas, it surely should be recognised that no 4 is just as valid a theory as the first 3.
Why does everyone else think we have organised religion?
Hmm you're right Jennifer, I found that at uni as well - you are supposed to cover all options and theories, yet the option of God as an explanation is totally ignored! Because some people don't believe in God!! I don't believe in/support the beliefs of many theorists, but I'd never get away with just pretending their arguments didn't exist!
Good point Jennifer! I agree with number 4. obviously, lol.
I can't believe that man could have made up christianity! There is just soooooo many details, it's so intricate, no one could have made it up! And all the prophecies and everything... That's what I think anyway.
Oh my goodness.....I've just had to catch up on 18 freakin pages! Thought it would never end!
First - great topic. Can't believe you've reached 18 pages with such good behaviour!
Yep, Mere Christianity is one of my favourites too (I try to read it at least once a year). C.S.Lewis & Tolkien were mates, were in the same bookclub etc.
If NKJ version is too hard for you to read, try the New King James Version. A lot easier to understand. I personally prefer the New American Standard as it's more literal than others and I like that.
As for atrocities, baby killing etc. in the OT - well, it's mostly historical books. Go read about the other people who lived during those times and you'll find they're doing worse stuff. C.S.Lewis actually didn't believe in the imprecatory psalms which is interesting but anyway.
About someone's in-laws being pushy born again'ers....I think you'll find that if they weren't Christians they'd probably still be pushy people! Just cos I have a chocolate addiction and I'm a Chrsitian doens't mean all Chrsitians have chocolate addictions, iygwim? Or if I'm short on tact, doesn't mean all xains are tactless...
Nowhere in the Bible does it talk abotu Mohammad. Or the Qur'an (sp). I finished my Bach of Theology a few years ago and never once heard of that???
I reakon we should have a religion thread too....I suggested it in my BB survey a while ago but I guess there weren't enough comments? It's such a can of worms though...
Aaaah. Can't remember anything else. Love this thread though.
Hi all, just found this thread and decided to contribute, even though the thread's a little old now. Consider this a bump :)
Like Sharon, I'm Pagan, but not in exactly the same way. Pagan is a term that really brings together a whole range of earth-based spiritualities. Basically, Wicca, Asatru, Shamanism, all of these spiritualities that worship the earth, nature, and give equal reverence to the male and female aspects, can be called Pagan.
My own kind of Paganism is kind of undefined. I see the divine in nature, in everything around me, and everyone. I don't have altars in my home, but I have what I call 'special places' where I can go and feel particularly close to the divine. In Asatru (which is also called the Northern Tradition, basically the old Norse religion of the Vikings of Scandinavia) there is the concept of land spirits, and this is something which has helped define my beliefs. There are places where I can feel 'spirits' or the divine..it's just a sense of wonderment, something bigger than myself. I suppose the same kind of feeling the Christians or Muslims or Buddhists, etc, have when going to church, or praying or worshipping, and feeling close to the divine being of their faith. For me, this feeling is the spirits of the place. They may be friendly or unfriendly, recent or ancient, human, animal, etc.
When I lived in the UK, Dh and I went to Stonehenge, and for me this was a disappointing experience. It felt 'dead'. It could have been because of the walkway now built around it, or the amount of people there, or the general disrespect shown by most visitors, but it felt as though no spirits were there. Perhaps it got too busy for them and they left. But it felt dead to me, and Dh said the same kind of thing.
The places I most feel a closeness with the divine is a particular place at the river running behind our house (we had a small ritual there on the due date of the first baby I m/ced), and a lot of the area around the Scottish Highlands and northern England. Not too sure why, the feeling was just there. It's kind of hard to explain, lol. Sorry if this is not making much sense.
Essentially, the earth is what is divine to me, and the special days I follow are the 8 sabbats on the wheel of the year. These are Yule (Christmastime, generally Dec 21st), this was the midwinter feast, to cheer oneself up and get the family together, and in the Norse Tradition, mention is made of Odin (the 'head god') travelling through the cold winter night in disguise, and calling on people to let him in, give him shelter and food. He would leave rewards for those who were welcoming and kind (Santa Claus anyone?). Another of significance to non-Pagans is Ostara. This is held in spring, and is a celebration of the new fertility of the earth, and the return of life after the winter. It is celebrated with eggs, planting of new crops and is named after the Celtic fertility goddess Eostre. Sound familiar? :) A third of interest is Samhein. This occurs at the end of October/start of November as the cold northern hemisphere winter is beginning to close in, and is the time when the 'barrier' between the living world and the 'other' is thinnest. It is a time to kill off the old stock animals, or others who won't survive the winter, and make stores of food and supplies in preparation for winter. it is also the time when we remember our ancestors and loved ones who have passed on. It was adopted by the Christian faith as halloween, and the tradition of remembering the dead at this time is the reason behind the ghostly and ghoulish connotations of modern Halloween.
There are five others, and all 8 are evenly spaced through the year. Generally they celebrate and recognise the natural cycles of the earth. I've been a little lax in my celebrations of late -_- I still celebrate Christmas and Easter with my family, as they coincide with my pagan version of these special days. Dh and I both identify as Pagan in the census, and when we have kids (which is hopefully soon) we intend to raise our kids with an awareness of all the religions on offer, and will encourage them to choose whatever they feel suits them best. From our own religion we will hopefully be able to instill two things in them. Firstly, to do whatever makes them happy, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Secondly, a deep respect for the earth and nature. Hopefully this way we can raise them to be ecologically aware and proactive, as well as being kind, thoughtful and respectful members of society.
I'm always happy to answer any questions people have, as I know Pagans aren't always that easy to find ;) I do not claim that my spiritiuality is the same as all Pagans, and would not try to speak for all Pagans, but I can offer some insight into this form of Paganism. If I had to choose one 'strand' of Paganism to identify with, it would be the Northern Tradition. In it, Samhein is the new year, the gods exist in a different realm to our earth, and are unable to have much bearing on our lives. After death, we go to hall of the god or goddess we have been closest to, there is no real idea of heaven or hell. Interestingly though, there is a goddess called Hel, and her Hall is said to be a very dull and humourless afterlife. My own hope is to go to the Hall of Freya - Sessrunner Hall, full of golden fields and families.
Would love to enter into any further discussion, and answer questions :)
Lisa xx
Hi Lisa
Thanks for sharing the rituals you follow. It's no surprise that a lot of Christian traditions have their roots in pagan rituals, but great to have it explained in detail. The spiritual feelings you speak of sound reverential in themselves.
Not meaning to go off on a tangent, but I wondered if anyone could share the origins, meaning and current traditions associated with Ramadan? I know it involves not drinking or eating during sunlight hours (although I believe there are people who are given some leeway here - such as pregnant women or sick people or children?), but nothing much else. It starts in a couple of weeks and I thought I'd like to hear from Muslims, especially if you're observing Ramadan yourself. What does it involve for you? 'Scuse my ignorance!
Jennifer, Ramadan starts tomorrow - dependent on the sighting of the cresent moon tonight (the Islamic calender is a lunar one). Although there is some disagreement about that because some people follow the tradition of starting Ramadan when the cresent moon is sighted locally, others follow the calender regardless of the moon and others follow sighting in Mecca. I prefer to follow the local sighting - I'm just waiting on an SMS from people less lazy than myself who have gone to the park to look for it - failing that if it's sighted in Perth that's local enough for me lol.
During Ramadan we fast from dusk to dawn - on a physical level that involves not eating, drinking, smoking but on the spiritual level it's also supposed to be a time of extra reflection and prayer and so on. Lots of Muslims also use this time to reckon up and pay thier zakaat (which is the donation of 2.5% of your wealth accumulated over the year to charity) but I don't because I prefer to sponsor a child and give monthly donations to Save the Children rather than be hit with a lump sum once a year.
Because I'm lazy I just cut and pasted an article for you - feel free to ask any questions :)
:
Explaining Ramadan
Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic Lunar calendar and the holiest of the four holy months. It begins with the sighting of the new moon after which all physically mature and healthy Muslims are obliged to abstain from all food, drink, gum chewing, any kind of tobacco use, and any kind of sexual contact between dawn and sunset. However, that is merely the physical component of the fast; the spiritual aspects of the fast include refraining from gossiping, lying, slandering and all traits of bad character. All obscene and irreligious sights and sounds are to be avoided. Purity of thought and action is paramount. Ordained in the Quran, the fast is an exacting act of deeply personal worship in which Muslims seek a raised level of God-consciousness. The act of fasting redirects the hearts away from worldly activities, towards The Divine.
The month of Ramadan is a time for spiritual reflection, prayer, doing good deeds and spending time with family and friends. The fasting is intended to help teach Muslims self-discipline, self-restraint and generosity. It also reminds them of the suffering of the poor, who may rarely get to eat well. It is common to have one meal (known as the Suhoor), just before sunrise and another (known as the Iftar), directly after sunset. This meal will commonly consist of dates, following the example of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him. Because Ramadan is a time to spend with friends and family, the fast will often be broken by different Muslim families coming together to share in an evening meal.
Ramadan derives from the Arabic root: ramida or ar-ramad, meaning scorching heat or dryness. Since Muslims are commanded to fast during the month of Ramadan, it is believed that the month's name may refer to the heat of thirst and hunger, or because fasting burns away one's past sins. Muslims believe that God began revealing the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammad during Ramadan (in the year 610 C.E.). The Qur'an commands: "O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that ye may (learn) self-restraint...Ramadan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, also clear (Signs) for guidance and judgment (between right and wrong). So every one of you who is present (at his home) during that month should spend it in fasting..." (Chapter 2, verses 183 and 185). Fasting during Ramadan did not become an obligation for Muslims until 624 C.E., at which point it became the third of the Five Pillars of Islam. The others are faith (Shahadah); prayer (Salah); charitable giving (Zakah); and the pilgrimage to Makkah (Hajj).
Another aspect of Ramadan is that it is believed that one of the last few odd-numbered nights of the month is the Laylat ul-Qadr, the "Night of Power" or "Night of Destiny." It is the holiest night of the holiest month; it is believed to be the night on which God first began revealing the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammad through the angel Jibril (Gabriel). This is a time for especially fervent and devoted prayer, and the rewards and blessings associated with such are manifold. Muslims are told in the Qur'an that praying throughout this one night is better than a thousand months of prayer. No one knows exactly which night it is; it is one of God's mysteries. Additionally, Muslims are urged to read the entire Qur'an during the month of Ramadan, and its 114 chapters have been divided into 30 equal parts for this purpose.
When the first crescent of the new moon has been officially sighted by a reliable source, the month of Ramadan is declared over, and the month of Shawwal begins. The end of Ramadan is marked by a three-day period known as Eid ul-Fitr, the "Festival of Fast-breaking." It is a joyous time beginning with a special prayer, and accompanied by celebration, socializing, festive meals and sometimes very modest gift-giving, especially to children.
When Ramadan ends, Muslims give charity in a locally prescribed amount, calculated to feed one poor person in that region for one day. This is known as fitra, and is meant as another reminder of the suffering endured by many. Many Muslims also take this occasion to pay the annual alms which are due to the poor and needy, known as Zakah (2.5% of assets).
At the beginning of Ramadan, it is appropriate to wish Muslims "Ramadan Mubarak" which means "Blessed Ramadan." At its conclusion, you may say "Eid Mubarak.
Once, a few years ago, all the Muslims in our building at work invited us to join them for one day of Ramadan. It was VERY hard, and that was when it fell in November (short days here in Scotland) and they were kind to us and said we should sip water if we wanted to. I didn't but it was seriously really hard. The thirst was the worst. I do think the prayers make a difference to those making them as it is a part of the day which you can look forward to, which breaks up the hungry/thirtsy hours a bit more. Us one-dayers just sat around working slowly and saying how thirsty we were... LOL. The most wonderful part was, at the end of the day, we all went to the conference room (sunset was at 4.40pm) and broke fast together with dates and then a really wonderful meal cooked for us by those women and their mothers and MILs and brought in. It really showed me so much about Islam, about the sense of community and love within the Faith. As an outsider if you asked me what Islam was about i would say peace, light, brotherhood (or sisterhood) and love. I'm possibly way off! LOL
Bec
Enjoyed reading your post Lisa, thankyou :) Thanks to Chloe for pasting that article too... Ramadan is noted on my calendar and I was going to ask about it.
Hi girls
Chloe - just wondered at what age Muslims start observing Ramadan? Is it a personal choice and is there an average age most start at? I would imagine small children and babies don't fast all day, am I right? What about for pg women and those who are elderly or sick? Do they adopt a less restrictive fasting regime?
Sorry about all the qns, just curious! And is it okay for non-Muslims to wish Muslims 'Ramadan Mubarak'?
Jennifer, I think most Muslims start fasting some time in thier teens. Yasin was quite grumpy yesterday because he asked for juice and I told him that it's Ramadan so he could only have water. I don't expect him to fast for a long time but I'd like to start teaching him about Ramadan sooner rather than later.
You don't have to fast if you're elderley, sick, pregnant, have recently given birth, have your period, are travelling or a child. If you're breastfeeding it's at your discretion. I fasted yesterday but since Imran is feeding and I felt quite dizzy at the end of the day I decided against fasting today. I can either fast or I can breastfeed but I can't do both and I just need to accept my limitations :(
Bec, I think your understanding of Islam is pretty accurate :)
Oh Chloe, I so agree with you that it's about teaching our children, and it's more about the principle than the action. I guess you could also teach them (on the spiritual side) that it means a month without fighting with your siblings or calling them names, something like that?:
Ramadan reminds me a bit of the Catholic Lent, although they don't fast from everything or for the set period of the day. But I'm not Catholic, so perhaps someone else could pitch in with what it actually stipulates??
Oops I didn't even think of that? Was it ok Chloe?:
Yes it is - thankyou :)
I see it in the same way as a non-Christain wishing a Christain a Happy Christmas.
Phew ;) As I like to be correct in my salutations for my friends religious holidays ;) But only if it is of course respectful to do so.
P.S. I checked my inbox and my invite hasn't arrived yet :P
I believe it's also Jewish New Year at the moment too? Anyone know what is the protocol/tradition around this celebration?
Goodness me, I feel like I'm only contributing via qns these days!!