United Martial Artists for Christ

[oftheherd1]

Chris is correct in this aspect. It doesn't matter what you or I think it is a religious Shinto ritual.

What was the bow called before the Japanese established Shintoism as their animistic 'national' religion?

 

[oftheherd1]

The ritual is religious. The practice of it need not be.

That is an interesting concept. In one sense it might be comfortable to believe it.

However, can I really separate the two so easily? Suppose I wanted to study some aspect of someone's religion, and one of the precepts of the aspect I wanted to study was that I was required to dance without clothing, before a large idol, and then afterwards engage in perverted acts with large animals.

Could I as a Christian, whose religion would strictly forbid doing that, do that, saying it was OK because I wasn't practicing the religion?

 

[TSDTexan]

I am curious to know how you would respond if someone told you that they would pray to Allah for you, that he lift the blinders from your eyes so you will see that Islam is the only true path, and all others are false and lead to hell. They are only trying to help you, to save you from your own wrong decisions.

I would thank them for their concern.

If they are open for dialogue and or civil debate.. I would politely ask them to engage with me.

If they were closed, and rude/pushy, I would thank them and be upon my way.

The following bible verse (see picture)
Instructs Christians not to let conversations with people who are against turning to faith in Christ, deteriorate into strife.

If they are bound by the devil, in a false religion, we turn to God ( privately ) in prayer for that person.

There are many who claim to be Christian who by their actions defy Christ, and the bible.

They are mean, rude, hostile and belligerent.

I think they aren't really christians at all.
But are self deceived, having no faith at all, as evidenced by their lack of gentleness.

Christians are obligated to be gentle to all men (or women)

 

[Xue Sheng]

What was the bow called before the Japanese established Shintoism as their animistic 'national' religion?

Shinto is first written about in the 8th century, state Shinto does not come into existence until the late 1800s

 

[Steve]

That is an interesting concept. In one sense it might be comfortable to believe it.

However, can I really separate the two so easily? Suppose I wanted to study some aspect of someone's religion, and one of the precepts of the aspect I wanted to study was that I was required to dance without clothing, before a large idol, and then afterwards engage in perverted acts with large animals.

Could I as a Christian, whose religion would strictly forbid doing that, do that, saying it was OK because I wasn't practicing the religion?

That's an interesting question and I think I get what you mean. It's muddy, though, because you're describing actions which, independent of any religious connotation, would likely be reprehensible to most people. In other words, it's hard to get to the root of your question because the objection to the actions involved are much more universal than culture or religion.

There are a couple of interesting questions here, though. The first is, if something is religious to one person, does that mean it is inherently religious? If I worship by going to a church every sunday, does that mean everyone who goes to church is necessarily religious? The answer could be yes, but as a practical matter, that's not always true. I don't think anyone would argue that whether you are religious or not, going to church is a religious act. But going to church is inherently a manifestation of Christian worship. It's like the bowing ritual Chris describes.

EDIT: To finish the thought, there are other actions that are religious to some and not to others. In other words, some religious acts are not unique to a religion or even inherently religious. When I bow my head I'm not praying, but others are and for them, it is a religious act.

Is training in Karate or Aikido or Jujutsu a manifestation of Shinto worship? It appears that Chris is suggesting that Shintoism infuses everything, so that training Karate or Aikido or what have you, is inherently religious. Yes, I get that the bowing ritual is a Shinto ritual. No one disputes that. but the larger question is, can you learn Aikido and NOT practice Shintoism? Is it possible to decouple the practice of a Japanese martial art and the worship of a Japanese religion? Or does it become, as Chris suggests, an empty shell?

 

[oftheherd1]

Shinto is first written about in the 8th century, state Shinto does not come into existence until the late 1800s

I think it was formalized about 800 years ago, but not 'state Shinto' if I remember correctly.

That was sort of my point. The Chinese have been doing it for a very long time, as well as the Koreans. No doubt many countries influenced willingly or unwillingly have been doing bows as part of their culture, and sometimes as part of some of their religions, for a very long time. There may have been times when culture influenced a religion, and times when religion was able to control culture. But the bow is not unique to Shinto, and I always thought it more of cultural practice that got incorporated into some religions.

 

[oftheherd1]

That's an interesting question and I think I get what you mean. It's muddy, though, because you're describing actions which, independent of any religious connotation, would likely be reprehensible to most people. In other words, it's hard to get to the root of your question because the objection to the actions involved are much more universal than culture or religion.

There are a couple of interesting questions here, though. The first is, if something is religious to one person, does that mean it is inherently religious? If I worship by going to a church every sunday, does that mean everyone who goes to church is necessarily religious? The answer could be yes, but as a practical matter, that's not always true. But, I don't think anyone would argue that whether you are religious or not, going to church is a religious act. But going to church is inherently a manifestation of Christian worship. It's like the bowing ritual Chris describes.

Is training in Karate or Aikido or Jujutsu a manifestation of Shinto worship? It appears that Chris is suggesting that Shintoism infuses everything, so that training Karate or Aikido or what have you, is inherently religious. Yes, I get that the bowing ritual is a Shinto ritual. No one disputes that. but the larger question is, can you learn Aikido and NOT practice Shintoism? Is it possible to decouple the practice of a Japanese martial art and the worship of a Japanese religion? Or does it become, as Chris suggests, an empty shell?

Yes, there is much to think on, and many paths no doubt. But as to your first paragraph, we don't know how big the "Golden Calf" was, but read Exodus chapter 32.

As to the second paragraph, I don't know if going to church is always a religious act. I think I can agree that for some it is intended to appear to be a religious act. I do think you can learn a martial art and not make bowing a religious act. I also think that the bowing in some martial arts is not a religious act. But being a Christian and going to church, or seeking to evaluate Christianity, is not like the bowing Chris Parker describes.

Is training in Karate or Aikido or Jujutsu a manifestation of Shinto worship? It appears that Chris is suggesting that Shintoism infuses everything, so that training Karate or Aikido or what have you, is inherently religious.

I would guess if you do it as Chris Parker apparently does, it might be. I doubt it would be a requirement other than Aikido. But don't take my word for it. I only know what I have seen in programs about Aikido, and I haven't seen that in Karate or Jujutsu, but I guess it could be there as well.

 

[TSDTexan]

A good little excerpt about the Kamiza, that Chris mentioned.

In most cases, that I have seen...
The religious practice was lost in the translation to western culture, with western religious beliefs. References to Buddhism/shintoism were politely swept under the rug.

In place, the substitute of Respect/honor the Lineage was employed.

As I have experienced the same as the pdf states ... I agree with it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think it was formalized about 800 years ago, but not 'state Shinto' if I remember correctly.

That was sort of my point. The Chinese have been doing it for a very long time, as well as the Koreans. No doubt many countries influenced willingly or unwillingly have been doing bows as part of their culture, and sometimes as part of some of their religions, for a very long time. There may have been times when culture influenced a religion, and times when religion was able to control culture. But the bow is not unique to Shinto, and I always thought it more of cultural practice that got incorporated into some religions.

I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.

I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is an interesting concept. In one sense it might be comfortable to believe it.

However, can I really separate the two so easily? Suppose I wanted to study some aspect of someone's religion, and one of the precepts of the aspect I wanted to study was that I was required to dance without clothing, before a large idol, and then afterwards engage in perverted acts with large animals.

Could I as a Christian, whose religion would strictly forbid doing that, do that, saying it was OK because I wasn't practicing the religion?

If you feel you can participate in the ritual without actually doing the worshiping, then you could. However, it would probably feel wrong to you. That's a personal judgment you'd have to make for yourself.

Here's my view. I'm areligious (I don't participate in any religion, nor subscribe to any group beliefs). I can make the sign of the cross without it being religious to me. It feels like an empty act - no real significance to me - but it doesn't mean I'm practicing Catholicism (where I grew up) if I do it. In fact, it's a matter of habit for me when I'm at a Catholic mass (with friends, at a wedding/funeral, etc.). I just do it. There's no meaning behind it for me. Now, in that case, I'm participating in the Catholic ritual in the context of a mass, so that's arguably still religious, though I'm not actually participating in the religion (unless one were to hold that mindless acts are somehow the religion, rather than the mindful purpose behind the acts). If, however, I make the sign of the cross absent the religious context (which I actually do - when a politician says something really stupid), it has no real religious significance. It's like the "bless you" someone mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't actually mean "may God bring blessings upon you so your soul won't leave your body" (the original intention of the act). I am just being polite, in a way that is appropriate for the culture.

The same is true when I bow. I bow to the training space when I enter and leave, as a show of respect for what I and my students do there. I bow to students and instructors (depending upon my role) at the beginning of classes. When in a dojo where they bow to the shrine, I bow to the shrine. I do it because it's what I've always done. In none of those contexts - in my experience - is there any religious intent. The origin of the ritual was religious, and it still is in some contexts, but not in any of the contexts I've been in.

This, admittedly, is a bit different for me than some people. Religion carries no religious significance to me, so the religious rituals are just rituals, and nothing sacred. I respect them because they are important to others. For those with religious views, they may find it unsettling to participate in rituals with foundations in other religions.

I think the issue here is that this becomes a philosophical discussion. It's largely a matter of viewpoint, so there will be no definitive answer (my issue with Chris' definitive stance). Religious rituals are only religious so long as someone intends them to be. Otherwise, every religion would have to be on constant guard that they didn't do any ritual the same as some other religion and accidentally practice that religion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.

I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza

I understand that point. However, a religious item (including the kamidana) doesn't automatically retain its religious aspect when someone uses it. The Buddha I have on my desk downstairs is a reminder of some philosophical concepts. I have a couple of angels for my Christmas tree because they are pretty. I celebrate Christmas as a cultural time. Religious practice is only religious while it maintains a religious context for the individuals involved. If I reference the Christian texts, there's no prohibition (as most Christians interpret it) against having pictures, statues, etc. If one worships those, however, they become idols. Otherwise, they remain art.

 

[TSDTexan]

Religious rituals are only religious so long as someone intends them to be. Otherwise, every religion would have to be on constant guard that they didn't do any ritual the same as some other religion and accidentally practice that religion.

The Intent of an adherent or follower of a system of beliefs does not cause the ritual to be religious.

The same is true for a non-follower performing the identical action in the same setting, sans religious Intent.

It the fact/truth that it a religious rite is "A Priori".

 

[TSDTexan]

The Intent of an adherent or follower of a system of beliefs does not cause the ritual to be religious.

The same is true for a non-follower performing the identical action in the same setting, sans religious Intent.

It the fact/truth that it a religious rite is "A Priori".

Also, a contradiction to your second clause would be the reading aloud of a "sacred writings" to an assembly of believers.

This is a Rite found within countless religious systems. But this common feature doesn't mean everyone is practicing other religions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The Intent of an adherent or follower of a system of beliefs does not cause the ritual to be religious.

The same is true for a non-follower performing the identical action in the same setting, sans religious Intent.

It the fact/truth that it a religious rite is "A Priori".

So, you would hold that all current religious practices were religious from their first moment of use, and are always religious even when those doing them are unaware of the religion? What about practices that predate a given religion. Are they retroactively religious?

 

[Steve]

I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.

I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza

Totally agree that this seems to be one of the points Chris is trying to make, and it's a fair point. I am not sure that's the only point Chris is trying to make.

If you feel you can participate in the ritual without actually doing the worshiping, then you could. However, it would probably feel wrong to you. That's a personal judgment you'd have to make for yourself.

Here's my view. I'm areligious (I don't participate in any religion, nor subscribe to any group beliefs). I can make the sign of the cross without it being religious to me. It feels like an empty act - no real significance to me - but it doesn't mean I'm practicing Catholicism (where I grew up) if I do it. In fact, it's a matter of habit for me when I'm at a Catholic mass (with friends, at a wedding/funeral, etc.). I just do it. There's no meaning behind it for me. Now, in that case, I'm participating in the Catholic ritual in the context of a mass, so that's arguably still religious, though I'm not actually participating in the religion (unless one were to hold that mindless acts are somehow the religion, rather than the mindful purpose behind the acts). If, however, I make the sign of the cross absent the religious context (which I actually do - when a politician says something really stupid), it has no real religious significance. It's like the "bless you" someone mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't actually mean "may God bring blessings upon you so your soul won't leave your body" (the original intention of the act). I am just being polite, in a way that is appropriate for the culture.

The same is true when I bow. I bow to the training space when I enter and leave, as a show of respect for what I and my students do there. I bow to students and instructors (depending upon my role) at the beginning of classes. When in a dojo where they bow to the shrine, I bow to the shrine. I do it because it's what I've always done. In none of those contexts - in my experience - is there any religious intent. The origin of the ritual was religious, and it still is in some contexts, but not in any of the contexts I've been in.

This, admittedly, is a bit different for me than some people. Religion carries no religious significance to me, so the religious rituals are just rituals, and nothing sacred. I respect them because they are important to others. For those with religious views, they may find it unsettling to participate in rituals with foundations in other religions.

I think the issue here is that this becomes a philosophical discussion. It's largely a matter of viewpoint, so there will be no definitive answer (my issue with Chris' definitive stance). Religious rituals are only religious so long as someone intends them to be. Otherwise, every religion would have to be on constant guard that they didn't do any ritual the same as some other religion and accidentally practice that religion.

Yes! I wish I could agree with this post twice and like it, too. As usual, you articulate clearly what I'm trying unsuccessfully to say myself.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I understand that point. However, a religious item (including the kamidana) doesn't automatically retain its religious aspect when someone uses it. The Buddha I have on my desk downstairs is a reminder of some philosophical concepts. I have a couple of angels for my Christmas tree because they are pretty. I celebrate Christmas as a cultural time. Religious practice is only religious while it maintains a religious context for the individuals involved. If I reference the Christian texts, there's no prohibition (as most Christians interpret it) against having pictures, statues, etc. If one worships those, however, they become idols. Otherwise, they remain art.

No it doesn't, but its origin is in Shinto, as is your Buddha status origin is from Buddhism as are the angels from a religious origin and the Christian text you reference have a religious origin as well. None of that makes you a practitioner of those religions, nor does you having any of these, pictures, statues, ornaments, or bowing to a kamiza, or quoting a religious text make you a practitioner of those religions, it is just where they originate from.

Bottom like bowing to a kamiza has it origins in Shinto, it is a Shinto ritual, and it can be a religious act. That does not mean you do it as a religious act or a Shinto ritual, nor does it mean by bowing to a kaiza you are a Shintoist.

 

[TSDTexan]

I have no horse in this race but I believe the point Chris is trying to make is he is not just talking about a bow, he is talking about a bow to a Kamiza which is the location of a small Shinto shrine called a kamidana, which is a miniature household altars provided to enshrine a Shinto kami.

I'm a CMA guy so it does not much matter to me, but that is how I have been reading this as it applies to Japanese Martial Arts who bow to a Kamiza

A subtle point too... is that Karate wasnt Japanese, it was Ryukyu or Okinawan.

In essence it was not influenced by Shinto rituals until it was exported to mainland Japan.

 

[TSDTexan]

A subtle point too... is that Karate wasnt Japanese, it was Ryukyu or Okinawan.

In essence it was not influenced by Shinto rituals until it was exported to mainland Japan.

Assimilation Practices in Okinawa

In looking at Meiji restoration policies in Okinawa one can see major attempts to bring the Okinawan population into both the educational and religious sphere of the Japanese national polity. In terms of education, for example, this meant extending the 1872 Imperial Rescript on Education to the Okinawan population. This proved to be the single most important part of Japan's nationalization policy, for through educational indoctrination, the Japanese government sought to inculcate a strong sense of Japanese national identity in the Okinawan people. Through this process, Japan sought to consciously sever any ties to China that the Okinawan people still held on to, while also ending any associations that the Okinawan people had to the old Ryukyu Kingdom and it's monarchy. This process became absolutely essential for the later introduction of military inscription in 1898, which proved to be an integral part of Japan's expansionist policies.

Despite the desire on the part of the Okinawans to partake of the newly expanded educational system, the promulgation of Japanese literacy proved difficult indeed. On the one hand, the Okinawan people were excited about the opportunity to access an education, as it had always been considered more of a privilege for the upper class. On the other hand, however, the Okinawan peoples were reluctant to send their children to the Japanese schools, to be taught by these Yamatunchu, or mainland, strangers. In many ways, the Okinawan people had good reason to worry, since the educational program sought to consciously eradicate the Okinawan language (Hogen) and culture, indoctrinate the children with Japanese nationalism, and revere the emperor as a god. Yet even though the Japanese sought to educate the Okinawan population, they didn't create a single high school on the island. The failure to create such a high school demonstrates the dual nature of the educational process, in it's push to promote education and learning, but only in order to bring about the inculcation of nationalistic Japanese values.

At this point it is important to recognize the role of language promotion within Okinawa under the education policy and to realize the suppression that the indigenous language underwent. In many ways the question of language became a very important question for Okinawans, since the Japanese government felt that the Japanese language helped express the essence of the Japanese character. For if this viewpoint is taken into consideration, there remains the question of whether or not Hogen represents a separate language or a dialect (albeit far-distant). The answer to this question places a great deal of power in the hands of linguists, in defining the lines between what constitutes a language and what constitutes a dialect. In fact, the answers to this question are varied and subjective, and are usually based on the political viewpoint of the linguist attempting to determine these definitions. The most conclusive statement that any linguist can agree on is that traditional Ryukyuan speech is unintelligible to the Japanese, but unmistakably related to it. Many Japanese linguists see Hogen as a dialect, but that serves to back up the nationalistic attitude that Okinawa is a part of Japan, and always has been. Perhaps, in some sense, the best way to describe the relationship between the two modes of speech is to describe the relationship between the two as "cognate languages," much as Spanish and Italian are cognate languages. In any case the suppression of Hogen became a painful reality in the process of nationalization that served to cut off ties with the ancestral past.

Two other changes proved fundamental along with the shift in education policies, and helped define the process of assimilation. The first involved the introduction of the printing press in 1880 to "facilitate government business." The second involved the setting up of a newspaper, the Ryukyu Shimpo, by the governor of Okinawa. Both of these moves had tremendous impacts on Okinawa especially in terms of promoting Japanese nationalism. In many ways these two moves firmly established Japanese as the official language, and established it's dominance over the Shuri dialect of the Ryukyu Kingdom's court, which had previously been the official language of Ryukyuan discourse. Even further, the development of the newspapers also gave the citizenry a sense of connectedness with their fellow Japanese nationals, since the newspapers reported on national affairs as well. Both of these changes proved extremely important to the growth of a Japanese-oriented national consciousness.

In many ways the assimilation process in the educational system proved closely related to the attempts by the government to bring about religious uniformity as well. This can be seen in the way in which the Ministry of Education placed pictures of the emperor and empress in every school in Okinawa, and treated these pictures as semi-sacred objects. Due to the longstanding and unique nature of Okinawan religious institutions, Okinawan assimilation policies had a particular task in bringing about an alteration of traditional religious practices. To that end it designated traditional Okinawan spiritual sites such as the ancient Gokoku-ji shrine of the Nami-no-ue bluff as a state shrine, controlled by the Japanese government. Later on, this shrine was designated as the center of religious activity for the prefecture. The shrine, which referred to symbols of the ancient Ryukyuan kings, contained a reference to an ancient king named Tametomo, which the Japanese government stated was a descendant of the imperial house of Japan. In this way, the Japanese government sought to encourage Okinawans to think of themselves as directly related to Japan. Even further, these attempts to link indigenous religious sites to Shinto nationalist sites continued throughout the islands. The Japanese government would often place new shrines next to ancient local shrines and sought to transfer indigenous religious allegiances to the new sites. All of this demonstrates how nationalistic influences sought to bring all indigenous religious practices under the control of the state sponsored Shinto religion.

Yet despite these attempts to bring Okinawa into the educational and religious sphere of Japan, it still maintained a vested interest in treating Okinawa as a colony, especially in terms of governmental affairs. For despite the attempts and successes that were achieved in making the Okinawans adopt Japanese cultural norms and allegiances, the local residents were still prevented from participating in governmental politics. In many cases, Japan would use Okinawa as a training ground for governmental administrators, before promoting those people to posts in other parts of the country. While the Meiji Constitution promised wider representation in the National Diet for local control of local affairs, officials continued to state that because of the Okinawan people's adherence to their language, and because Okinawa's economic system had not fully changed to embrace the capitalism of Japan, that Okinawans could not be promoted to official positions in Okinawa. All of these arguments served to hide deeper motivations for keeping Okinawa under Japanese political control, rooted in the abiding prejudice held by many administrators. Most Japanese bureaucratic officials coveted the power that they maintained over Okinawan affairs, and focused on establishing systems of control in the prefecture, in the form of police, judicial, and taxation offices. All of these considerations showed that in most respects, Okinawa remained a colony, and was treated as such.

 

[TSDTexan]

So, you would hold that all current religious practices were religious from their first moment of use, and are always religious even when those doing them are unaware of the religion? What about practices that predate a given religion. Are they retroactively religious?

Clause 1:
"So, you would hold that all current religious practices were religious from their first moment of use"

My response:
Your use of the absolute 'all' makes me inclined to say No.
Because I don't have enough information to say a categorical yes, therefore I will say i dont know.

Clause 2:
and are always religious even when those doing them are unaware of the religion?


My Response:
An action or practice taken from a religion is still a religious action, at least from the viewpoint of the others (in general) who are practicing that system of belief.

If an athiest goes to a liberal Catholic Church, and decides (for giggles) to perform the act of receiving communion, he has performed a religious action in the view of the father/pastor, and the members of that church.

The atheist is able to be ignorant of the knowledge that the Catholic Faith states that he literally ate and drank the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, and still actually do the act.

It was really just wine or grape juice and unleavened bread. But by eating and drinking it he performed a religious action.

Now some religions require intentionality to be present, as well as a measure of informed consent to view the work/act/practice to be viable or valid.

Lets look at the sacrament of marriage.
From the bible-believer christian worldview,
God created this Institution with the creation of Eve for Adam to be able to fulfill the edict "be fruitful and reproduce".

He created them male and female. And God purposed this pairing to be the bedrock of the family unit.

In this worldview, all valid marriages are sacred/religious. And a male-male, or female wedding doesn't actually count as a valid marriage.

To the bible believer, who submits to the authority of scripture every valid marriage is sacred, and holy. Even marriages between atheists, or between Muslims, or a hindi man and woman.

To us, such a thing is holy. A Christian is not to have carnal knowledge a married person (to anyone other to whom they are directly married to), it is very close to blasphemy.

Eg.
Steve is married to Sarah
And Jimmy is either a batchlor or married to Janet.

Jimmy is a Christian. But...
Jimmy looks at Sarah every day at work.

Eventually,
Jimmy has become lustful and desires to have Sarah.

Sarah is married. Therefore, she is off limits.
Every marriage is sacred, even hers.

If Jimmy was a nonbeliever, he could do whatever he liked. Marriage is just paperwork and cohabitation.

But if Jimmy asked a bible savvy pastor for advice... he would be counseled to repent, or change his mind/thoughts about Sarah.

Because every valid marriage is sacred and holy.

 

[Steve]

Whoa. Hold on. I get what you're saying, but you're making some pretty tenuous presumptions.

First, there are countless religions outside of Christianity in the world that hold marriage to be sacred.

Second, there are many non-believers who consider marriage to be a sacred commitment. Being a non-believer doesn't mean being amoral. And even if a non believer is amoral, he/she still can't just do what he/she wants.

Regarding the rest, yes, sure. I don't think anyone disagrees that getting a wafer in a church is a religious act. I think the key here is that performing a religious act doesn't make one religious.