Albany, New York
Albany, New York
Stamford, New York
From a recent visit to the the Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemane in rural Kentucky.
This abbey is set on 2,000 acres of farmland and is now largely sustained by sales of their famous bourbon fudges and fruitcakes manufactured by the resident Trappist monks. Here is a postcard I received that gives a glimpse of their factory:
Made famous by former resident monastic Thomas Merton, the abbey continues to be connected with his name and legacy. A few of his words follow these photos.
“In the end the contemplative suffers the anguish of realizing that he no longer knows what God is. He may or may not mercifully realize that, after all, this is a great gain, because “God is not a what,” not a “thing.” That is precisely one of the essential characteristics of contemplative experience. It sees that there is no “what” that can be called God. There is “no such thing” as God because God is neither a “what” nor a “thing” but a pure “Who.” He is the “Thou” before whom our inmost “I” springs into awareness. HE is the I Am before whom with our own most personal and inalienable voice we echo “I am.” (from Thomas Merton’s New Seeds of Contemplation)
Five synagogues, worldwide, share the unique feature of having floors made of sand. One of these is Shaare Shalom Synagogue in the historic district of Kingston, Jamaica. There, the sands are carefully raked and maintained daily, with special consideration and care preceding days of worship. It’s no small feat.
The provenance of this tradition is debated. One common theory is that the practice resulted from Spanish-Portuguese conversos in Brazil during the 1600s, who wished to resume their Jewish practices but were barred from openly practicing. In order to be discrete, sand was poured on the ground of private gathering spaces, often homes, to obscure the sounds of prayer and activity.
The other synagogues with sand floors are located in Amsterdam, Curacao, Suriname and Saint Thomas. While I don’t have photos of those ones (yet) here are some more views from inside and outside Shaare Shalom in Kingston. Of particular interest to me were the large stone grave covers dating from the 18th century. These have inscriptions in Portuguese and beautiful imagery from the Bible.
The following is a brief response to a perennial question I find in feminist communities, both online and in popular discourse.
The question: : “Is religion patriarchal? Are women ‘kowtowing to patriarchy’ by participating in religion?”
This is a very tricky question, primarily because it assumes all religions can be evaluated as the same and that we even all agree and understand what religion “is.” Religion is not patriarchal because it’s not a thing–it’s a historical concept, a very recent one in fact. If you’re looking at something like the structural authority of a religion, such as Christianity, yes, it’s patriarchal because it reflects the societal organization in which it’s formed. But are male leaders the only ones informing religion? And should they be the only ones we look to when trying to understand a tradition? Absolutely not. Religious activity takes place on many levels, spaces, bodies and objects. Is a woman who prays in her home, wears ritual clothing, recognizes days of special important kowtowing to the patriarchy? I’d say no, at least not in ways more influenced by male control that any other activities one may participate in. If we take the example of Catholicism, which many see as patriarchal, we ignore the spaces in which women have traditionally and contemporarily maintained power and carried forth the tradition on their own terms. The idea of “religion” is the product of European colonial encounters as well as an intellectual discourse that privileges Protestantism as the model of what religion is or should be. It is preoccupied with religion as belief, creed, and social hierarchy when we now understand religion to be far more polyvalent of a concept. This is all to say that if we are to evaluate religion as patriarchal, we need to be very specific with what we mean by religion and whose ideas of that religion we are privileging. Often what I notice most as “kowtowing to the patriarchy” in terms of religion is continuing to forward understandings historically defined by men and fore fronting male experiences/interpretations rather than women’s or marginalized peoples’.
This is all even more important to understand because there is certainly violence, discrimination, and control of women or other marginalized peoples perpetrated by organizations that justify such treatment on account of their “religion.” But the thing is, they are taking advantage of a historically vague concept to veil their own responsibility as individuals. We see this, unfortunately, very clearly in cases such as Hobby Lobby and other pending cases of discrimination against LGBTQ people. So we need to hold PEOPLE accountable for actions that are harmful and discriminatory–not nebulous concepts.
Here a few selections from my postcard collection, which is mainly comprised of the category I refer to as “religious scenes.” Their subjects are varied but they all date from roughly 1950-1980. The first shows a passion play production in South Dakota (a performance that moves to Florida in the summer). The second postcard (one of my favorites) shows a small boy drinking from the La Source Miraculous (The Miraculous Spring) in Sainte Anne de Beaupré, Quebec. The third selected postcard is of a Billy Graham revival meeting at Madison Square Garden, with a pre-generated and signed message from Graham on the reverse side.
See more here.