Unit One: Freedom 5/20

Jonathan Edwards' sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is filled with extreme rhetoric and perhaps even more extreme threats. Edwards presents religion to his audience as though he's trying to scare them into believing what he wants them to believe. By citing tales of death and destruction from the bible, he preaches almost as if he is speaking for God himself. He does not present his ideas as something to consider, but rather as a matter of fact. There is no shortage of extreme language throughout this sermon, used probably to grasp the attention of the audience and to create a tone that establishes the author as almost God-like.

Edwards also uses reason throughout the sermon, but not the same sense of reason that exists today. This was obviously a time before the internet and the availability of information, and Edwards uses reason to compare and contrast between scenarios that he presents to the audience. Reason in the 21st century is entirely different than reason in the 18th century. I think that Edwards is "playing God" again here, but allowing the audience to decide, but limiting their focus to the options he presents.

I'm not religious, so I don't attend too many church services these days. Does this type of rhetoric and threatening language still exist or work today? It seems to me like this type of approach would be dismissed by most people, but that's just my analysis.

Sunday Morning by Wallace Stevens is very different from Jonathan Edwards' presentation of religion in America. In my interpretation, the author is suggesting that there is so much to appreciate on this planet, why should we live like monks in the hopes that some kind of Heaven exists. Further, why submit to the social pressures created by the church when "the green freedom of a cockatoo" is everywhere around us. On a Sunday morning as beautiful as the author describes, the subject is content with her oranges and coffee, representative of what the Earth has to offer, but is suddenly overcome with thought about Jesus' crucifixion. The author contrasts the oranges and coffee with 'blood and sepulchre', reference to wine/the last supper and the church where Jesus was resurrected. All of this symbolism suggests that this is not any Sunday, but Easter Sunday. This conflict between Earth and Religion is representative of the subject's desire to be free of the social pressure of the church, to live according to her own morale code and amongst the natural world, but even when she skips church service she finds herself doubting her decision.

I think this poem is indicative of religion in society today. Without being too specific, I know a lot of people who are simply not religious, but feel pressured from their family, their peers, politicians, and other sources to attend church services. They have the freedom to believe whatever they want to, but ultimately still feel guilty for not following the pack. Ultimately, Americans have the right to choose their beliefs even though they may be judged if their ideas don't conform to societal "standards".

Young Goodman Brown by Nathaniel Hawthorne, in my eyes, is more about good vs. evil than any sort of religious conflict. Goodman Brown is put in a position to accept evil, but even though he resists because of his better half (Faith, his wife) he ultimately gives in because he finds out that everyone, including Faith, have betrayed him. I believe this story is about a hallucination, or some type of dream, rather than an actual physical journey. Goodman's description of the cane as a snake provokes the reader to consider the story of Adam and Eve, but also the description of the cane seems surreal.

After Goodman Brown's intriguing experience in the woods, he cannot face the people he (thinks) he saw in the woods that night. It is unclear whether or not he has actually witnessed the ceremony or it is just his imagination, but either way it has permanently affected him. Does anyone else have any insight to what happens immediately after the ceremony?

This story actually reminds me of some contemporary issues. Some very prominent figures have recently been exposed for the despicable characters that they actually are. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared to be a respectable, decent Governor of California after his career in acting. It has come to light that he is certainly not who anyone thought he was, and the people he lied to will never be able to see him the same way again. A similar, current topic is the ongoing case with Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I will spare the details of the former IMF president's alleged crimes, but it is just one more example of how seemingly trustworthy and respectable people can be simply putting on a facade.