United Martial Artists for Christ

[drop bear]

Of course I can just talk about my personal way of living my faith.



Not in the technical sense, but neither was Jesus.

My point was that in his philosophy (Omoto-kyô sect) he followed principles that are in line with what Jesus taught his disciples. Actually, any human being who is caring and kind to others is following those same principles and even if they choose a different "way" I believe that they are heading to the same goal as I as a Christian. I consider them brothers, even though I can disagree with them about the dogma. The Christ himself was not that big about labels so why should I?



I was not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, nor at Christian Kenpo, I was just pointing out the fact that labeling yourself as Christian or taking part to activities that are labeled as Christian does not magically make you a better person. You have to follow the principles.

There are people who go to church every Sunday, follow the form and the dogma to the letter and even preach about Christianity but who are jerks to others in their daily lives. On the other hand, there are Muslims, Jews, atheists or Buddhists that live their lives in a loving and caring way, which is in line with Christian principles. And I firmly believe that, in order to think that the former follow the Word of God better than the latter just because of dogma, one must not think that highly of God. Jesus himself often admonished the Zealots and Pharisians for prioritizing the form over what really matters: the love of neighbour.




Here is kind of an illustration of my point above.

The issue becomes if you apply morality without empathy.

 

[TSDTexan]

There is that babies with cancer issue. And a god who can fix that and chooses not to.

The argument is that there is an all powerful god and at the same time an all moral one.

And you basically can't have both.

You fail to grasp the whole story on why an all powerful God allows suffering and misery to exist.

And it really is just a very old objection offered by a Greek Philosopher.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

My answer to Epicurus, and you Dropbear is:

Who are you to judge God?
Can you give life, and give it back again after death?
Can you make a universe?

If so, do it and worry not about how He runs his.

If you cannot create a universe, then you are I'll prepared to critique Him.

Much like a mother-in-law who has no license, nor has ever driven, offering to tell me how to drive my car.

God is able, and selectively willing to heal and baby with cancer.

But He is not malevolent.

Or alternatively, at the Promised resurrection day, He give a brand new life to all children who have died with bodies that cannot become I'll or diseased.

Time will reveal, that He was Just, even in the allowing of children to become I'll.

I will say again, it takes a lot of hubris to judge God, and call Him unjust.

If you had all knowledge, perhaps you would be able to objectively judge Him, but we don't.

We only have a superficial understanding to make a subjective charge against Him, and to do so is premature.

 

[jks9199]

Folks,
This is drifting away from the role of religion in martial arts and getting kind of close to evangelizing and proselytizing. Maybe we can work our way closer to the target?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Juany118]

Folks,
This is drifting away from the role of religion in martial arts and getting kind of close to evangelizing and proselytizing. Maybe we can work our way closer to the target?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Getting back to the point noted above I think the point is this. It depends of whether one is pedantic or not. Martial Arts, ultimately are about physics. Also, as much as some people may say this is wrong, in our increasingly secular society, how many people know the details of origins of the rituals that surround the martial arts. As an example many types of Karate studied in the US are Okinawan and not Japanese in origin yet have bowing. Is that Shinto? Is it Buddhist or Taoist? Is it the animistic religions of Okinawa or is it just respect?

I really think to, an extent, the argument is one that is so lost in perspective, how deep into history one wants to delve (which is likely determined, at least in part, by a personal bias) that it is basically an argument doomed to get lost in the weeds.

 

[oftheherd1]

Morality as defined as If you could cure a baby with cancer. Is it moral to refuse to do so?

If you could create any system you want. Is it moral to create one where a baby has cancer?

And of course the bible does have an opinion on helping people.

Can I correctly say if I can help a person save their soul, is it moral for me to refuse to do so? Most people here seem to think I should not.

But you are skirting around a much bigger question. Why does God allow us to suffer and die from disease? Why does God permit some to be so poor they have problems getting enough to eat? Why can't we get anything here on earth we want? My answer - ready for it? - I don't know for sure.

I am dismayed by televangelists who preach that the Bible says basically, all you have to do is pray for something you want, and God will give it to you. Oh, by the way, give some of it to the televangelist while you are at it. I believe that creates false expectations, which when they aren't fulfilled, causes people to lose faith.

But what I think I have observed from reading the Bible is this: I don't know why, but it seems obvious that the devil has been given some power here on earth. He is allowed to tempt us. And he even had the power to tempt Jesus. He can inflict pain and suffering. God can restrain the devil any time he chooses to do so. He does not restrain the devil on a constant basis. There will be a time when the devil is completely restrained, and will be locked away in the lake of fire. God answers prayer, but sometimes his answer is no (Paul asked for cure from a 'thorn in his side' but God answered that God's grace was sufficient for him). He will always choose a time and place of His choosing to answer prayer. We ourselves are often the cause of prayer not being answered because we wrongly ask.

All that said, if God created a perfect place for man to be, there might never have been any problems, but for the intervention of the devil.

 

[Steve]

Good eye. But the real question is do you want to join in the United Martial Artist for Christ?

There are questions that Chris raised, that are interesting (I think).

Let's say I am a student at this school. If I were to join the United Martial Artist for Christ school, would I be participating in Christian rituals?

If yes, would participating in these rituals make me a Christian?

Would choosing not to participate in Christian aspects of this art mean that I am training in a shell of an art?

And the larger, implied questions. Is there a necessary, spiritual element to training in a martial art? And if so, must this spiritual component be Shinto if the art originated in Japan, or can it be replaced by, say a Christian spiritual element like at the United Martial Artists for Christ?

 

[oftheherd1]

Folks,
This is drifting away from the role of religion in martial arts and getting kind of close to evangelizing and proselytizing. Maybe we can work our way closer to the target?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Point taken. I would say that some MA seem to have religious facets. If that is what that MA wants, so be it.

I would also say that some MA do not, including the eastern MA. I don't agree that the bow is a guaranteed religious facet of a MA. It may be but isn't an irrevocable fact. The bow has been around for so long, I don't think its existence in MA makes it religious, in and of itself.

Just my belief. No one is required to agree or disagree.

 

[John Brewer]

Frankly the idea that these thirteen pages of posts has been anything about the original message is laughable. The original post was a question about a specific organization.

Folks,
This is drifting away from the role of religion in martial arts and getting kind of close to evangelizing and proselytizing. Maybe we can work our way closer to the target?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Paul_D]

Frankly the idea that these thirteen pages of posts has been anything about the original message is laughable. The original post was a question about a specific organization.

I doubt there are many threads on this or any other forum that stayed on topic from start to finish.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, I think thread drift is an interesting and natural progression of a discussion. What I commented on earlier, and possibly what JKS9199 referred to, was a shift from discussing the intersection of martial arts and religion, to a thread discussing the theology of Christianity, strategies for converting non-believers, and active proselytizing.

I like thread drift, but I think that there are more appropriate places for spreading the word.

 

[TSDTexan]

I will be opening a topic over in the tavern for martial talk folks who would like to keep the dialog going, that way this thread doesn't get further thread jacked.

/bow

 

[Tames D]

That said, to be fair, O'Sensei's philosophy of working for peace and loving and respecting others is pretty much in line with the gist of Jesus's message. Ironically, it might even make him a better Christian than a guy who, although he does Christian Kenpo and goes to church every Sunday, is a complete jerk to others in his daily life.

Bob Mitchell heads up the UMAC organization, and my research has shown me that he is a practitioner of Christian Kenpo, but quite the opposite of a complete jerk. I've been told by highly respected men like Bob White and Raul Ries that Mr. Mitchell is the real deal in terms of martial arts and Christianity. He's a good man.

 

[O'Malley]

Ok I understand how my post would have looked like I was dissing on Mr Mitchell. I had no intention to do so as I do not know the man. Of course he might be a good fella!

I wanted to point out the fact that you do not need your martial art and your religion to intertwine like this and that joining such an organization (in the abstract sense, I can not speak about UMAC in particular) does not necessarily mean that you will become a better Christian that you would have been had you kept martial arts and religion separate.

However, if you are looking for this kind of thing by all means go for it! It is just that "Christian karate " sounds weird to me, like vegan banjo. I just do not see the point of it. Might be a cultural thing though, I've searched for "Christian martial arts" in French and I've found nothing.

 

[drop bear]

Ok I understand how my post would have looked like I was dissing on Mr Mitchell. I had no intention to do so as I do not know the man. Of course he might be a good fella!

I wanted to point out the fact that you do not need your martial art and your religion to intertwine like this and that joining such an organization (in the abstract sense, I can not speak about UMAC in particular) does not necessarily mean that you will become a better Christian that you would have been had you kept martial arts and religion separate.

However, if you are looking for this kind of thing by all means go for it! It is just that "Christian karate " sounds weird to me, like vegan banjo. I just do not see the point of it. Might be a cultural thing though, I've searched for "Christian martial arts" in French and I've found nothing.

Another weird Christian thing is it is not just doing decent stuff. There is a major component in that you have to accept jesus.

So if you get two people and one is a decent guy by christian standards and the other is a bit of a duche. If the duche accepts jesus then he goes to heaven and it s quite simply tough bananas for the other bloke.

So in that vein they may need to be cristian when they martial art.

 

[John Brewer]

As far as false idols I know my heart and what my intentions are. Not sure how the sabath would come into play.

Fair enough. How do you console that with Christianity?

Say if someone suggests it is the worship of a false idol. Or work on a sabbith or something.

 

[John Brewer]

You are welcome to your opinion but as noted in my reply to the first post UMAFC is an outreach not a karate program. Why is it a problem if I want my martial arts to encompass my relationship with God?

Ok I understand how my post would have looked like I was dissing on Mr Mitchell. I had no intention to do so as I do not know the man. Of course he might be a good fella!

I wanted to point out the fact that you do not need your martial art and your religion to intertwine like this and that joining such an organization (in the abstract sense, I can not speak about UMAC in particular) does not necessarily mean that you will become a better Christian that you would have been had you kept martial arts and religion separate.

However, if you are looking for this kind of thing by all means go for it! It is just that "Christian karate " sounds weird to me, like vegan banjo. I just do not see the point of it. Might be a cultural thing though, I've searched for "Christian martial arts" in French and I've found nothing.

 

[O'Malley]

It is not, per se.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh boy...

Look, there's a lot to clarify and cover, so this'll take a fair bit... but I'll try to keep each response short... well, as short as I can, anyway. Anyone who sees their name might want to just skip through to those areas... as there'll be a lot of doubling up here.

Just as a basic preface, though... you're all thinking in terms of Western religion (well, maybe not Xue...), which means that you're looking at things with a rather inaccurate and incomplete grasp of the concepts... so I heartily recommend to keep that in mind.

Okay, you're ignoring the points I'm making. I'll just disagree with you and leave it at that.

Look, you can disagree all you want... but I haven't been discussing preferences, opinions, theories, or anything else... I've simply reported facts. Disagree if you want, but the reality is that I've simply told you what the reality is. What you do with that information is up to you. I'm not ignoring your points, your points are ignoring the reality.

Chris, if you were simply saying that this particular ritual is a Shinto ritual and if you are doing it, you are doing a Shinto ritual, there would be a lot less reaction to your posts. This is pretty straightforward: "The bowing ceremony is a Shinto ritual. That's it. It doesn't matter if you call it something else, if you acknowledge it or not, or anything else... it's still a Shinto ritual." When I went to a Lutheran Church for service, there is no question that I'm participating in Lutheran rituals.

Which is, pretty much, exactly what I'm saying.

When you extend that pretty straightforward point further, suggesting that, by removing the Shinto worship from the training, you are studying a shell of a system, it suggests you are making a larger point. You say things like, "[if] you genuinely remove all of the religious influences from the practice of Japanese martial arts, you end up with a shell of the actual system... as it permeates and influences far more of the system than most realize."

And here is where the viewing through a Western religious lens comes into it... I have never, at any point, said anything about "worship". I have also never suggested that, by engaging in the ritual, or by attending a class, you are now a fully indoctrinated Shinto-ist... what I have said is that rituals themselves are a Shinto ritual (as well as quite a lot of other aspects being taken from Japanese religious concepts), and that, if your religion forbids you from participating in the rituals of other religions, you have to come to some understanding of that. You can ignore the religious aspects, and make peace with it that way... you can make it mean something else in your mind... you can refuse to participate (which can mean you are not part of that school/art)... or whatever. But that's up to the individual.

With the comment on the religious influences, honestly, it's so ingrained in (particularly Japanese classical arts) so many aspects of the art that, yes, if you were to remove all religious aspects from a Japanese martial art, you'd have very little left... you wouldn't have your dojo to train in, for one thing... you wouldn't have the architecture of it either... you wouldn't have a number of aspects of the clothing... you'd be missing a lot of the terminology... and many of the techniques would be removed as well.

Yep, you'd be missing the actual martial art techniques in many cases. No, I'm not kidding. Welcome to Japanese martial arts.

I'll give an example... I was teaching a Hanbo (three foot staff) technique last night... it's a fairly simple technique against a low strike to the body (which could also be a knife thrust, by the way), and the response is to strike down on top of the hand/wrist, then pull the staff back horizontally, in order to strike horizontally around to the side/back of the opponent. Okay, fairly simple... but, if it's a punch, is the arm still there for your strike down? And why a horizontal strike, when a thrust is right there, and easier to do? Well, it comes down to esoteric Shinto-ism.

The technique is from a branch of the Kukishin Ryu... who are famous for having, not just martial arts, but a family transmitted form of Shinto, called Nakatomi Shinto (not uncommon in Japanese arts). Within Shinto, there are concepts of protective spells and so forth, the best known being Kuji Kiri (nine syllable cutting), with the next level being Juji Kiri (ten syllable cutting)... with the "tenth syllable/character" being the spell being locked in in the first place. As a result, the striking method of the weapon is a vertical strike down, followed by a horizontal strike across... in Japanese, the character for "ten" (Ju - 十) is a cross... a vertical and horizontal line intersecting... which means that the technique is, not only a powerful way to strike, but a way of invoking a protective spell for your own well being when engaging in combat.

And, just in case you think this is an isolated case, the first kata in many sword systems, particularly Iai methods, follow the same idea... a horizontal cut, then a vertical one (sometimes multiples) with the same concept... the Iai methods of a number of arts (such as Katori Shinto Ryu) can also be used as a ritual for things like exorcism (Japanese, not Western), and so on. The footwork patterns of the kata of karate, TKD, and Chinese forms (such as Ba-gua) are also based in the same ideas... such as the trigrams used in both Korean and Chinese systems, linked with the I-ching (itself highly religious in it's base)... the use of particular fists has a similar idea behind it...

So, you understand, when I say that much of the art is removed once you remove all religious influence and aspects from these systems, and you're losing most of the art... leaving you with a shell...

I think there's room to distinguish between tradition and religion, largely to do with intent. There are karate dojos all over the USA and Europe that have removed Shinto worship entirely from their schools, even if they honor the traditional trappings of the religion.

In most cases, they aren't aware of what they would need to remove... they've taken out some of the overt symbolic aspects, but actually kept the parts that make it a Shinto influence/ritual... and simply deny what it is (either through lack of knowledge, or through arrogance that they even know what it is in the first place...). And I'm not making any kind of case for anything being "traditional"... I'm talking about the actual practice today. Now. Whether it's recognised or not.

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

That is a decision the individual needs to make... but nothing changes the fact that the ritual is a religious act and action. And again, if your religion forbids partaking in the practice of other religious rituals/behaviours, it's useful to be aware of it when you walk in.

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

I think you're getting it all backwards, there... a bow is used within Shinto, a bow is not Shinto... as far as names, different bows have different names, but really, that's fairly different...

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.

Yep, agreed.

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.

Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs, are you going to suggest that a Church is not a religious building except for Christians? A religious building is a religious building... maybe not your personal one, but it still is. You'd be hard pressed to not describe a synagogue, a mosque, a Buddhist Temple, a Shinto shrine, a Catholic Church, an abbey, a cathedral, a chapel as not being religious buildings, no matter what religion you particularly subscribe to (or not).

From there, it becomes a question of what the act of going to that religious building is for the individual... and that comes down to the internal belief system of the individual... but, nothing that the individual believes, thinks, feels, or understands changes the fact that the building is a religious structure, the activities that take place in that building are religious, and so on. In other words, you don't go to Church for a service, and expect it to be completely secular.

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.

If you're not praying, you're not praying... so... okay... on the other hand, if you are taking part in communion, regardless of your thoughts, you are taking part in communion... a religious act is a religious act. Not praying is not partaking in it... not making it non-religious for you.

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?

Again, I've never said anything about worship... you're thinking too "Western"... but yeah, many aspects of these arts are manifestations of Shinto (and Buddhist) concepts, ideas, teachings, and so on.

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.

Going to the dojo is like going to Church... quite literally. It's a Buddhist word, after all... a Buddhist concept... a Buddhist location...

As to much of this, you're conflating your own beliefs and desires with what actually is. That's fine... it's common, really... but it doesn't change the reality of it all.

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.

It has nothing to do with the way I "apparently (do it)", it has to do with what it actually is...

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.

To deal with the PDF excerpt first... honestly, I don't agree with it. It's largely an apologetic piece working to deny the reality of the situation in order to make engaging in the actions more palatable for Westerners who were concerned about such issues.

That said, yeah, much of the religious aspects were not made clear at the least to Westerners training in the early days... whether that's it being "swept under the rug", or just not felt like it was required to be explained, as the influence was pretty obvious to all who grew up in the culture, is another question.

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

Yep, precisely. Although, I will say that I have been focusing on that for two reasons... one, it was the example given early in the thread of an example of potential religious action within the class, and two, it's a rather overt example, whereas much of the remainder is highly embedded, to the point that it's not noticed by large numbers of practitioners (such as my techniques examples earlier).

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

The rituals structure and symbolism, as well as various esoteria associated, are what makes them religious. Not the follower themselves. It's an important distinction to keep in mind.

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

Again, no. The religious ritual is a religious ritual regardless of who is performing it, and why.

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

I'm not sure what you're saying there... I feel some of those words should be "if", or "is".... but I'm not confident on your meaning. Can you clarify?

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.

Well, yeah... that's what I was meaning when I kept saying that, no, I wasn't really talking about karate... that said, there is an amount of Shinto involved... as well as Taoism, Confucianism, and more...

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.

While not taking much issue with many of that, I would ask if that is a rather long copy-paste from another (uncredited) source... if so, you may want to check the "fair use" clause on the TOS... this might not pass muster.

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.

So here's the question, Steve (and Gerry... and, well, most here)... how are you agreeing that the religious act of engaging in taking communion, which can be stripped down to having a drink and a bite to eat, is something that is definitely a religious act, yet a specifically Shinto ritual, taking place in a building whose purpose is for the study of religious ways and methods, is not necessarily one just because you don't automatically conflate it with a religious ritual or location you're familiar with?

In the system I train in, we have a specific protocol we follow to start and end class.

We don't have a Shinto (or any other religious shrine in the dojo (nor any other Seido dojo I've seen). At our shinzen, we have our organization's kanji and a few things students and our CI have brought in over the years. There's a picture of our founder (Tadashi Nakamura), and his son who he's officially named his successor.

We're usually in seiza (kneeling position) when we line up to start. Followed by:

Shinzen ni rei (bow to shinzen)
Kaicho ni rei (bow to kaicho Nakamura)
Nidaime ni rei (how to his successor)
Makuso (eyes close, quick meditation)
Makuso (eyes open)
Then bowing to the instructor, and either dan ranks individually
Otegani rei (bowing together to everyone)

I could see how someone might take this as religious. Thinking they're bowing to a shrine, idols, etc.

Yep, well... it's adapted, but it's certainly showing all the hallmarks of Shinto, so... yeah. It is. I might point out that a kamidana itself is not necessary for it to be Shinto, although it does make a central focal point, as well as basically screaming it out... by bowing to the front of the dojo (the kamiza... where the spirits [kami] sit), whether or not a shinzen or kamidana is present, it's still the same concept and idea.

I'd also point out that the very name of your system seems rather steeped in Buddhist thought... Seido - which refers to the "way of sincerity", or "the way of the true heart" is very much Buddhist in both the characters chosen and the intent behind each... which also matches the stated mission intent of the system, so you know...

I look at it as intent. I personally look at it as a sign of respect, no different than a handshake, military salute, etc.

Military people salute the flag, which is not religiously objectionable (that I know of); I look at bowing to shinzen (which has our kanji) as pretty much the same thing.

I don't know if military people salute a picture of the president (perhaps they do under specific terms/conditions?), but bowing to our founder's picture is no different in my mind.

Okay... but the point is that this is not the same thing at all... you're equating an action of Western respect for symbolic representations (the flag or president representing the country) with a Japanese action of religious reverence, and religious observance... they're not the same thing, despite some basic similarities.

I look at meditation as a way to quiet my mind and focus. Close my eyes, empty my thoughts of the outside distractions, bring my breathing and tension down to a normal level. I don't see how that goes against anything I've learned from my religion (orthodox Christian).

Okay, not a problem with that either. Again, meditation, other than zazen with Zen Buddhism, can be religious or secular... so it's up to you what way you want to approach it. And that's been the whole point... even when the acts and rituals are religious, it doesn't mean you have to subscribe to the belief systems, just be aware of them when engaging in them... then choose how you want to partake.

Oh, but it's "mokuso" for mediation, for the record... meaning, quite literally, to "silence your thoughts"... so you're actually staying in exact lock-step with the intention there.

Even if every single person in the organization had a different interpretation and intent of our protocol, it has no bearing on mine. I couldn't control what anyone feels, interprets, intends, etc. if I wanted to (which I don't anyway), so why get worked up about what they do? All I can control is what I think and do.

If you interpret this stuff as religious and counter to what you're supposed to do, don't do it, simple as that. If you don't interpret it as such, keep on truckin.'

There's a difference here between something being interpreted as religious (in personal expression and involvement), and it being a specifically religious act.

I have difficulty seeing how an art could be so tightly tied to Shintoism that it couldn't be separated. As far as I know, there has never been a deep tie between NGA and Shintoism. We bow just once to start a class - instructor facing students, students facing the shrine area. We do refer to it as a shrine, and recognize the Shinto background to it, but in the US (the only expansion from the original dojo in Hokkaido) it has always been taught as a moment to recognize the contribution of the person represented there (some keep their senior instructor's photo there, some the person who brought it to the US, some few have a photo of the founder) and to each other. We only rarely bow other than start/end of class (when it's the next person's turn in a whole-class exercise, for instance).

You're only seeing one (overt) representation of the influence of Shinto, though... honestly, there's going to be a lot more than you think... as well as a fair bit from Buddhism as well (even more in Ueshiba's Aikido, obviously).

I don't think so, bowing because that's the etiquette of the class doesn't mean I'm required to have an imaginary friend who lives in the sky.

You're using a Western interpretation of religion there... not what is meant in a Japanese sense...

It's all about intent. Religious rituals are symbolic, not literal. Think about it - the bread isn't truly Christ's body, the wine isn't truly his blood. It's the practitioner's acceptance of the symbolism that makes it religious. A non-Christian could eat/drink it purely out of respect for where he/she was and it not have any bearing on them.

Sounds like heresey, but I'm trying to flip the script on what I experienced - I've been to a synagogue once. I was asked to wear a yamika, and did so out of respect. That didn't make me Jewish, nor did it make me question my faith in the least bit.

Yes, wearing a yamika and taking communion aren't the same, but I'm trying here. Communion only becomes communion if you accept it s such. Bowing to someone or a picture only becomes worship if you intend it as such.

Just my opinions. I'm sure others will disagree.

This is the point, though... the religious ceremony (Shinto) at the beginning of a class (and end), as well as the religious aspect of the building, the location, the original meanings, the terminology, and more, are there, whether you acknowledge them, partake in them, follow the beliefs, or not. You can partake in the ritual, and not have your heart in it... or you can have your heart in it... but that doesn't change what you're taking part in.

Similarly, wearing a yarmulke, whether you observe the religious significance or not, maintains it's religious significance... if it didn't, you wouldn't have put it on.

To be fair I don't know a lot about Shinto (I actually have a book on it in my to be read pile, it may have to move up a couple spots), so I'm unsure how someone who practices it would feel about aspects of their religion being used outside their religious context. But bowing is something that seems to be ingrained in Japanese culture beyond religion. My guess is that it may be closer to the yamika situation then the communion one. Bowing towards picture even if you are not actually worshiping your ancestors would be preferable as simply a sign of respect to them, then not bowing. Someone who knows more about Shinto would probably be able to answer better. But my point in general is that while using a certain practice from a religion doesn't automatically have religious significance to you, we should remember it still that it still has religious significance to someone and we should think about how those people would feel about their practice being used outside the context of their religion.

Bowing itself is very Japanese (and most of Asia, really)... not specifically Shinto... but Shinto bowing rituals are very much Shinto... obviously. As far as the aspects being used outside of their religious context, well, that's not really how it would be seen...

Shinto is in everything, in a Japanese sense... it's the oldest native religion in Japan, and was always very personalised (typically to a family, or group, hence the Kuki family having their own family line of Nakatomi Ryu Shinto mentioned above). It was only when Buddhism began to be introduced, and picked up momentum, that Shinto started to be somewhat formalised, with specific shrines being erected, and the addition of small shrines in peoples homes were added (as a reminder of Shinto in the face of the new imported religion). What that meant was that both Shinto and Buddhism were suddenly sitting side-by-side in people's homes and in the community, so the idea of observing both at the same time was just accepted without any problems...

At the end of the day, from a Japanese Shinto practice point of view, everything is Shinto... there is no "outside of the religious context", as the religious context is the entire world, and everyone (and everything) in it.

I would not join such an organization. I think that religion is a private, intimate matter and should stay so (I share my faith openly with those who are interested but I do not impose it on others nor do I see the need to "show it off" constantly).

Yep, that's valid... but being aware of what is actually religious or not is important if such things are important to you, and your religious beliefs.

I am both a Christian (Roman Catholic) and a martial artist and I see no need to make my faith pervade my training, and the Muslim guys at my dojo practice in the same manner. When we train, we are just aikidoka.

It's actually the other way around... the Japanese religious ideologies pervade the training... in more ways than people recognise...

The bowing thing, albeit being a religious ritual, does not mean giving up on my faith. O'Sensei himself used to say that you did not need to share his beliefs to practice aikido. Bowing has more to do with respecting the art (sensu lato, thus including the people who practice it, the cultural and religious components, etc.).

Yes, again, that's one way to look at it... for Ueshiba, I feel that was more about being inclusive and spreading his art... but, at his heart, there was a lot of religious aspects throughout everything he did.

That said, to be fair, O'Sensei's philosophy of working for peace and loving and respecting others is pretty much in line with the gist of Jesus's message. Ironically, it might even make him a better Christian than a guy who, although he does Christian Kenpo and goes to church every Sunday, is a complete jerk to others in his daily life.

It's in line with many religious doctrines and teachings, frankly. And the idea that it's a purely Christian one is potentially a rather arrogant one, to my mind... after all, Ueshiba himself modelled much of his approach on his contact and immersion in the Omoto-kyo sect of Buddhism... and, when meeting the members of the Kukishin Ryu, with their practice firmly embedded in their Nakatomi Ryu Shinto, announced to the head of the system that his martial arts (spiritually) was that of the Kuki family (Shinto)...

Certainly there has been some drift, most recently due to comments by and in response to, Mr. Chris Parker. He has made his usual well segmented replies generally picking apart other's posts. I sometimes find them informative, sometimes humorous, sometimes I wonder what it was all about.

Hmm... I'm not sure if I'm flattered or insulted by that... ha!

Getting back to the point noted above I think the point is this. It depends of whether one is pedantic or not. Martial Arts, ultimately are about physics.

Yeah... no, they're not. You could argue that the basis of the physical techniques is primarily in body mechanics, as well as some aspects of physics, but that's it... and that's not what martial arts are about. Honestly, to me, reducing martial arts to a series of physical actions is to reduce a great meal to a few of it's ingredients...

At their heart, martial arts (talking specifically of Japanese here, as that's been the core of the comments I've been making... and is what is informing the religious aspects being discussed) are both political entities and religious observances. Many, if not the vast majority, of classical systems were set up around religious shrines and temples... they were as much religious offerings to the shrines as anything else (even to today... martial demonstrations in Japan are set up around being religious offerings presented to shrines and temples)... many arts techniques are based in religious ideas and concepts... so, in a very real way, many (most... almost all) martial arts are, ultimately, about religion. So you know.

Also, as much as some people may say this is wrong, in our increasingly secular society, how many people know the details of origins of the rituals that surround the martial arts. As an example many types of Karate studied in the US are Okinawan and not Japanese in origin yet have bowing. Is that Shinto? Is it Buddhist or Taoist? Is it the animistic religions of Okinawa or is it just respect?

That depends on the bow... but more importantly, that has been a big part of the point. It doesn't matter if they don't know the Shinto origin/meaning of the action, it is still Shinto... just unobserved as such.

I really think to, an extent, the argument is one that is so lost in perspective, how deep into history one wants to delve (which is likely determined, at least in part, by a personal bias) that it is basically an argument doomed to get lost in the weeds.

We're not talking about history, though... we're talking about current martial arts, in current dojo, in the modern world... it's just that people don't understand much of what they're doing. By a similar token, performing a karate kata with no sense of the applications (bunkai, or any other term used) doesn't change the fact that the kata is still from whichever form of karate... but the person who is aware of it's applications (meanings, intent, history, breakdown etc) will get so much more out of it than someone who simply moves around in the same sequence.

There are questions that Chris raised, that are interesting (I think).

Let's say I am a student at this school. If I were to join the United Martial Artist for Christ school, would I be participating in Christian rituals?

Speaking hypothetically, based on the information given, probably not... to be honest, there seems to be little Christian added in... more the perceived aspects of Japanese religion, whether understood, recognised, or anything else, have been minimalised or removed. At most, there may be some prayer involved... which would be a yes on that count (obviously I haven't been to the class, so that is speculation).

If yes, would participating in these rituals make me a Christian?

It would mean that you were participating in Christian rituals... but that's about it. Actually being a Christian, if it's to mean anything, must mean that you are one even outside of the dojo, and when not training/engaging in the rituals. Same with the Shinto aspect... you would be participating in a Shinto ritual... to actually be an observer of Shinto is something much further down the trail.

Would choosing not to participate in Christian aspects of this art mean that I am training in a shell of an art?

If you're training in a specifically Christian school, where the tenets and beliefs of the school are based around the doctrine and beliefs held within that branch or sect of Christianity, and large parts of the syllabus/structure/organisation are geared up to be formally Christian... yet you leave off all the Christian aspects, the ritual, the influenced aspects of the training, then yeah, you'd probably only join in a small part of the actual school... which would be training in a shell of the art.

And the larger, implied questions. Is there a necessary, spiritual element to training in a martial art? And if so, must this spiritual component be Shinto if the art originated in Japan, or can it be replaced by, say a Christian spiritual element like at the United Martial Artists for Christ?

Ah, now this is interesting... must there be? Honestly, to my mind, yes, there must. Otherwise it's just violence. All warriorship cultures have had spirituality go hand in hand with the training of their warriors, whether it be the Massai of Africa with their manhood ritual and more, or the ancient Knights of Europe, most exemplified by the Brotherhood of the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon... or, to give the more common name, the Knights Templar... and so on and so forth. And the reason is pretty simple... the business of a warrior is to face their own potential death every day... as well as facing the idea of taking the life of another. That type of training and lifestyle must, if there's any sense of morality and human cost, spark a question of what happens at the onset of death... leading to a necessary spiritual introspection and questioning.

So, must it be Shinto if it came from Japan? Well, no... but then again, with the way Shinto is a part of much of everyday life, and is ever present, even at home, it's hard to avoid... is it the biggest influence on a particular system? Maybe, maybe not... Shorinji Kempo has it's spiritual core based in Buddhism (an interpretation of Shaolin teachings), from Doshin So (for the record, Shorinji Kempo is another modern art that is entirely based around religious teachings and spirituality).

Can it be replaced with, say, Christianity? Well, maybe... but you'll lose the whole idea of it being a Japanese art at that point... and it would require actually being able to identify the Shinto aspects in the first place... and, frankly, that's where it would fall down, I feel.

 

[Juany118]

Yep, agreed.



Regardless of anyone's personal religious beliefs, are you going to suggest that a Church is not a religious building except for Christians? A religious building is a religious building... maybe not your personal one, but it still is. You'd be hard pressed to not describe a synagogue, a mosque, a Buddhist Temple, a Shinto shrine, a Catholic Church, an abbey, a cathedral, a chapel as not being religious buildings, no matter what religion you particularly subscribe to (or not).

We aren't talking about a building though but a ritual and they are VERY different. A building with a big cross on it, a stature of the Buddha inside, ancestral totems, what ever. Rituals, traditions, they evolve and change, they absorb influences from other cultures and faiths, they even sometimes, in the view of society at large, lose the religious context and become a secular tradition in main stream societies.

-We kiss under the mistletoe but it's origin regarding kissing goes back to Norse Mythology. Mistletoe was the only thing that could kill Baldur. Loki used it to do just that. in a "happier" version of the myth however the gods were able to resurrect Baldur from the dead. Overjoyed, Frigg then oddly declared mistletoe a symbol of love and vowed to plant a kiss on all those who passed beneath it. The people kissing under it today are not however practicing modern Odinism.

-We use the infinity symbol in modern mathematics, in some forms of Buddhism it means perfection and the union of male and female akin to Yin-Yang.

-The modern medical profession uses as one of it's symbols the Caduceus. They aren't worshipping Hermes.

If we look at bowing, as I said earlier, it predates all religions known today. It started, as far as we can tell, from servants/subjects/slaves showing obedience to the master... it then evolved into religious contexts and then evolved out side them. When it comes to society, nothing is static.

Sure you can say "in Karate specifically it had this origin" BUT if you are looking to the past you have to ask, if we wish to be logically consistent, how did the Shinto faith get that tradition, because nothing comes from nothing. Everything evolves and comes from something before. Perhaps just as important this means that the way things are is not going to stay the same, it will become something else. To draw an arbitrary line and say "well this is the origin of the tradition mere hundreds of years ago, but don't look any further into the past than that and do not look at how it may have evolved since that point of origin" misses one of the glorious things about being human.

 

[O'Malley]

Yep, that's valid... but being aware of what is actually religious or not is important if such things are important to you, and your religious beliefs.

It's actually the other way around... the Japanese religious ideologies pervade the training... in more ways than people recognise...

I understand your point and agree with you. To clarify my thought, I think that it is possible to study a martial art and to partake in (at least some of) its religious rites out of respect without having to give up on one's own faith.

Yes, again, that's one way to look at it... for Ueshiba, I feel that was more about being inclusive and spreading his art... but, at his heart, there was a lot of religious aspects throughout everything he did.

Of course, he was a very religious man himself and some exercises come directly from his faith (Furitama undo is a most striking example) but I do not think that practicing those exercises would mean converting to Omoto-kyo, even if they were entirely religious in nature. He had students who did not share his beliefs at all, even after decades of "Furitama".

It's in line with many religious doctrines and teachings, frankly. And the idea that it's a purely Christian one is potentially a rather arrogant one, to my mind... after all, Ueshiba himself modelled much of his approach on his contact and immersion in the Omoto-kyo sect of Buddhism... and, when meeting the members of the Kukishin Ryu, with their practice firmly embedded in their Nakatomi Ryu Shinto, announced to the head of the system that his martial arts (spiritually) was that of the Kuki family (Shinto)...

Of course, I agree with what you said but you seem to have misunderstood my post. I have never said that it was a purely Christian way of life. I just stated that O'Sensei's philosophy shared common fundamental principles with Christianity and that practicing his martial art does not prevent one from sticking to one's belief system, as I said before:

"My point was that in his philosophy (Omoto-kyô sect) he followed principles that are in line with what Jesus taught his disciples. Actually, any human being who is caring and kind to others is following those same principles and even if they choose a different "way" I believe that they are heading to the same goal as I as a Christian. I consider them brothers, even though I can disagree with them about the dogma."

But again, that's just my way of seeing things.