Reading 6, Question 2
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Rolph Recto
Feb 8, 2011, 5:54:14 PM2/8/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
In "Church," Henry Dobbins told Kiowa of his previous dream of
becoming a minister. He gives a curious reason: "The thing is, I
believed in God and all that, but it wans't the religious part that
interested me. Just being nice to people, that's all. Being
decent" (O'Brien 121). In fact, he goes on to say that he hates going
to church. What does Dobbins mean when he differentiates the
"religious" part and the "being decent" part of religion? Is he
mistaken in making a distinction between the two? If there is a
distinction, can you name examples in the book where people practice
either being "religious" or "being decent" but not the other?
becoming a minister. He gives a curious reason: "The thing is, I
believed in God and all that, but it wans't the religious part that
interested me. Just being nice to people, that's all. Being
decent" (O'Brien 121). In fact, he goes on to say that he hates going
to church. What does Dobbins mean when he differentiates the
"religious" part and the "being decent" part of religion? Is he
mistaken in making a distinction between the two? If there is a
distinction, can you name examples in the book where people practice
either being "religious" or "being decent" but not the other?
Maeha Karlow
Feb 9, 2011, 6:37:21 PM2/9/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Rolph, this is an engaging query. Since I am not of any religious
denomination, I relate to Dobbins. He refers to "religious" as being
devoted to God and the church. This devotion includes obeying the
commandments or other edicts. Being "religious" also pertains to the
minister's task of "explain[ing] some hard stuff, like why people die,
or why God invented pneumonia" (O'Brien 121). The "being decent" part
of religion is simply a duty to be kind, caring, and convivial. There
is no mistaken distinction. There are explicit differences between the
two terms. For example, in the reading, "On The River," Elroy Berdahl
is being decent by reciprocating O'Brien for his work and settling the
payments fairly at the end of his stay- more than fairly by paying him
two hundred dollars. Elroy does not do this because of religious
beliefs. I assume that he feels an amity with O'Brien, and this
payment is his way of expressing his concern for O'Brien's health.
Kiowa, on the other hand, is a religious man. He is a "devout Babtist,
[who] carrie[s] an illustrated New Testament" (3). Now, there is a
plentitude of reasons for this; he feels it brings good luck, uses it
as a pillow, etc. The most profound reason is the essence of the book,
the trust he has in his religion to protect him. This is a "religious"
based act, in my perspective.
denomination, I relate to Dobbins. He refers to "religious" as being
devoted to God and the church. This devotion includes obeying the
commandments or other edicts. Being "religious" also pertains to the
minister's task of "explain[ing] some hard stuff, like why people die,
or why God invented pneumonia" (O'Brien 121). The "being decent" part
of religion is simply a duty to be kind, caring, and convivial. There
is no mistaken distinction. There are explicit differences between the
two terms. For example, in the reading, "On The River," Elroy Berdahl
is being decent by reciprocating O'Brien for his work and settling the
payments fairly at the end of his stay- more than fairly by paying him
two hundred dollars. Elroy does not do this because of religious
beliefs. I assume that he feels an amity with O'Brien, and this
payment is his way of expressing his concern for O'Brien's health.
Kiowa, on the other hand, is a religious man. He is a "devout Babtist,
[who] carrie[s] an illustrated New Testament" (3). Now, there is a
plentitude of reasons for this; he feels it brings good luck, uses it
as a pillow, etc. The most profound reason is the essence of the book,
the trust he has in his religion to protect him. This is a "religious"
based act, in my perspective.
Rolph Recto
Feb 9, 2011, 9:36:16 PM2/9/11
to tttc20...@googlegroups.com
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought too. But what strikes me as odd is that Dobbins thinks that one can remove the "religious" - the "God part," if you will - in religion and be left with ethical principles which one can apply in life. With this viewpoint, one can be an atheist or an agnostic yet still profess to be a Christian (because one abides by Christian principles), or a Muslim (because one abides by Islamic principles), or a Jew (because one abides by Judaic principles), and so on. What do you guys make of this?--
Rolph Recto
Rolph Recto
Louisa County High School
"And when your sorrow is comforted (time soothes all sorrows) you will be content that you have known me. You will always be my friend. You will want to laugh with me. And you will sometimes open your window, so, for that pleasure... and your friends will be properly astonished to see you laughing as you look up at the sky! Then you will say to them, 'Yes, the stars always make me laugh!' And they will think you are crazy. It will be a very shabby trick that I shall have played on you..."
Maeha Karlow
Feb 9, 2011, 10:27:01 PM2/9/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Well, I think that a person can live by the moral taught by these
religions, but I am not sure if one claim to be a Muslim, for example,
if he/she does not believe in Allah. So, there are several ways to go
about this. We could conclude that one who does not conform to all
aspects of a religion can not claim to be of that religion. Perhaps
they could affiliate themselves with the group though, through a
practice of some aspects. Personaly, I consider myslef Jewish and
Christian through tradition, but follow no specifics (make my own
morals, belive in "I don't know" concept of a greater power and after-
life, so on and so forth). So I celebrate hollidays pertaining to
things I want to embrace. Religion is such a tricky philosophy, in my
perspective. See, it really depends on the individual. When I
celebrate Hannuka and Christmas, for example, I celebrate the same
thing: light. During the winter it is dark, and cold. I celebrate not
the son of God, nor the lasting of sacred lamp oil, but the sun, which
gives me warmth and life. In this aspect, one can be spiritually
affiliated, although he/she is atheist. I would like to point out
another holliday I celebrate in terms of spirituality- Easter. On this
day, I celebrate spring, new life, and summer. So, who is to judge if
a person doesn't "follow the rules" of their religion if they don't
even want to attend the church? Like I said, its a personal choice.
One can be whatever he/she wants, even if the church or temple rejects
him/her for not fully conforming. The debate will forver vacilate; the
question is, "does it depend on the individual's choice, or the
religious group's acceptance?"
On Feb 9, 9:36 pm, Rolph Recto <rro...@brvgs.k12.va.us> wrote:
> Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought too. But what strikes me as odd is
> that Dobbins thinks that one can remove the "religious" - the "God part," if
> you will - in religion and be left with ethical principles which one can
> apply in life. With this viewpoint, one can be an atheist or an agnostic yet
> still profess to be a Christian (because one abides by Christian
> principles), or a Muslim (because one abides by Islamic principles), or a
> Jew (because one abides by Judaic principles), and so on. What do you guys
> make of this?
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Maeha Karlow
> <karlo...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>wrote:
religions, but I am not sure if one claim to be a Muslim, for example,
if he/she does not believe in Allah. So, there are several ways to go
about this. We could conclude that one who does not conform to all
aspects of a religion can not claim to be of that religion. Perhaps
they could affiliate themselves with the group though, through a
practice of some aspects. Personaly, I consider myslef Jewish and
Christian through tradition, but follow no specifics (make my own
morals, belive in "I don't know" concept of a greater power and after-
life, so on and so forth). So I celebrate hollidays pertaining to
things I want to embrace. Religion is such a tricky philosophy, in my
perspective. See, it really depends on the individual. When I
celebrate Hannuka and Christmas, for example, I celebrate the same
thing: light. During the winter it is dark, and cold. I celebrate not
the son of God, nor the lasting of sacred lamp oil, but the sun, which
gives me warmth and life. In this aspect, one can be spiritually
affiliated, although he/she is atheist. I would like to point out
another holliday I celebrate in terms of spirituality- Easter. On this
day, I celebrate spring, new life, and summer. So, who is to judge if
a person doesn't "follow the rules" of their religion if they don't
even want to attend the church? Like I said, its a personal choice.
One can be whatever he/she wants, even if the church or temple rejects
him/her for not fully conforming. The debate will forver vacilate; the
question is, "does it depend on the individual's choice, or the
religious group's acceptance?"
On Feb 9, 9:36 pm, Rolph Recto <rro...@brvgs.k12.va.us> wrote:
> Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought too. But what strikes me as odd is
> that Dobbins thinks that one can remove the "religious" - the "God part," if
> you will - in religion and be left with ethical principles which one can
> apply in life. With this viewpoint, one can be an atheist or an agnostic yet
> still profess to be a Christian (because one abides by Christian
> principles), or a Muslim (because one abides by Islamic principles), or a
> Jew (because one abides by Judaic principles), and so on. What do you guys
> make of this?
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Maeha Karlow
Maeha Karlow
Feb 9, 2011, 10:32:11 PM2/9/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I am not sure if that answered your question. Did I answer it or
ramble?
On Feb 9, 9:36 pm, Rolph Recto <rro...@brvgs.k12.va.us> wrote:
> Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought too. But what strikes me as odd is
> that Dobbins thinks that one can remove the "religious" - the "God part," if
> you will - in religion and be left with ethical principles which one can
> apply in life. With this viewpoint, one can be an atheist or an agnostic yet
> still profess to be a Christian (because one abides by Christian
> principles), or a Muslim (because one abides by Islamic principles), or a
> Jew (because one abides by Judaic principles), and so on. What do you guys
> make of this?
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Maeha Karlow
> <karlo...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>wrote:
ramble?
On Feb 9, 9:36 pm, Rolph Recto <rro...@brvgs.k12.va.us> wrote:
> Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought too. But what strikes me as odd is
> that Dobbins thinks that one can remove the "religious" - the "God part," if
> you will - in religion and be left with ethical principles which one can
> apply in life. With this viewpoint, one can be an atheist or an agnostic yet
> still profess to be a Christian (because one abides by Christian
> principles), or a Muslim (because one abides by Islamic principles), or a
> Jew (because one abides by Judaic principles), and so on. What do you guys
> make of this?
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Maeha Karlow
Emily Barnes
Feb 11, 2011, 4:49:24 PM2/11/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I have to disagree, Maeha. I was raised Baptist, and I feel that to
truly celebrate a holiday, you have to beleve and accept the
implications of that holiday. Christmas, for example, has to do with
Christ, not light, hence the 'Christ' part of Christmas. I'm not going
to argue with another's beliefs, though, that is not why I logged on.
To answer your question, Rolph, I think that Dobbins differentiated
'religion' with 'being decent' because he wanted to be seen as a good
person without having to go through the tumoil of believing in
religion, such as going through periods of doubt, fighting temptation
and taking God for granted. I think that one can make being religious
and being decent different, but you can't say you're a Christian and
only have morals. Good works follow your faith. Many times you can
tell a person has a relationship with God by the way they talk about
the relationship. I know that there are those who say that they are
Christian and perform good works, but works do not get you the rewards
of Christianity such as going to heaven to be with Christ. In summary,
I think that one can do good works without being Christian, but I
don't think that you can say you're a Christian and do good works
without actually believing and trusting in the Son of God as your
Savior and Lord.
On Feb 9, 10:32 pm, Maeha Karlow <karlo...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>
wrote:
> > trick that I shall have played on you..."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
truly celebrate a holiday, you have to beleve and accept the
implications of that holiday. Christmas, for example, has to do with
Christ, not light, hence the 'Christ' part of Christmas. I'm not going
to argue with another's beliefs, though, that is not why I logged on.
To answer your question, Rolph, I think that Dobbins differentiated
'religion' with 'being decent' because he wanted to be seen as a good
person without having to go through the tumoil of believing in
religion, such as going through periods of doubt, fighting temptation
and taking God for granted. I think that one can make being religious
and being decent different, but you can't say you're a Christian and
only have morals. Good works follow your faith. Many times you can
tell a person has a relationship with God by the way they talk about
the relationship. I know that there are those who say that they are
Christian and perform good works, but works do not get you the rewards
of Christianity such as going to heaven to be with Christ. In summary,
I think that one can do good works without being Christian, but I
don't think that you can say you're a Christian and do good works
without actually believing and trusting in the Son of God as your
Savior and Lord.
On Feb 9, 10:32 pm, Maeha Karlow <karlo...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maeha Karlow
Feb 11, 2011, 5:07:41 PM2/11/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Ah, yes Emily, I knew this would strike classmates as a false
interpretation of religion and hollidays. It is okay for you to
disagree because you believe in one thing, where as I am open minded
to any individual's preferences and practices. Once Baptism was
instilled in you, it is hard to believe anything else, right? Well, I
was raised Catholic on my mom's side and Jewish on my father's. This
style of being raised had the affect on me to question everything, as
well as being open to it. As for the holidays, I suppose I am not
celebrating them at all. I am simply celebrating my own holidays,
while I engage with people who are celebrating the said holidays. In
this way, I am neither outright opposing the holidays, nor am I
conforming to beliefs I don't have. It is a way to comply passively
with everyone, even if we are not celebrating the same thing. Does
this explanation clarify my statements?
interpretation of religion and hollidays. It is okay for you to
disagree because you believe in one thing, where as I am open minded
to any individual's preferences and practices. Once Baptism was
instilled in you, it is hard to believe anything else, right? Well, I
was raised Catholic on my mom's side and Jewish on my father's. This
style of being raised had the affect on me to question everything, as
well as being open to it. As for the holidays, I suppose I am not
celebrating them at all. I am simply celebrating my own holidays,
while I engage with people who are celebrating the said holidays. In
this way, I am neither outright opposing the holidays, nor am I
conforming to beliefs I don't have. It is a way to comply passively
with everyone, even if we are not celebrating the same thing. Does
this explanation clarify my statements?
Conley
Feb 12, 2011, 2:39:39 PM2/12/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Emily and Maeha, you both have very good points. I strongly agree with
Emily's points. Dobbins is trying to say he wants to abide by all the
rules of being a good christian without being attached to a god. He
wants to just be a decent person that helps anyone he can. Being
strongly attached to a religion can be stressful because it feels like
one has to abide by rules and regulations which surround every aspect
of your life. Dobbins just wanted to be a decent human being instead
of a slob without the stress of a religion. Dobbins used the example;
"Visit sick people, stuff like that" (O'Brien 121). To him, visiting
sick people and comforting them is being decent without being in a
religion. Christians can visit sick people but I see it as being
decent instead of being religious. It is possible to differentiate
between being 'decent' and being 'religious.' It's all about how
someone views it.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Emily's points. Dobbins is trying to say he wants to abide by all the
rules of being a good christian without being attached to a god. He
wants to just be a decent person that helps anyone he can. Being
strongly attached to a religion can be stressful because it feels like
one has to abide by rules and regulations which surround every aspect
of your life. Dobbins just wanted to be a decent human being instead
of a slob without the stress of a religion. Dobbins used the example;
"Visit sick people, stuff like that" (O'Brien 121). To him, visiting
sick people and comforting them is being decent without being in a
religion. Christians can visit sick people but I see it as being
decent instead of being religious. It is possible to differentiate
between being 'decent' and being 'religious.' It's all about how
someone views it.
Robin B.
Feb 12, 2011, 2:49:26 PM2/12/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Maeha, you raise a nice argument and I have to say I agree with you.
Each and every person has different ways they show their religion. I
believe in following the Bible, but God is a forgiving individual and
if one may make a mistake, they can still call themselves a Christian,
that is why we can be saved. A person doesn't have to go to church to
worship as long as they keep their faith. Sorry Rolph, I get so caught
up in our own little argument, I forgot what you asked. Being religous
is how the soldiers pray and look up to God to watch over them, and
being decent is how one treats another. A person should do their best
to help the other in any way possible. I think that being decent is a
part of being religous, no matter how one may look at it.Religion is
about doing the right deed and being decent is a good deed. I don't
think Dobbins is wrong in making his distinction, I believe he is
basing his decision on how religious a person is. If someone can't be
religious all the time, "All you can do it be nice. Treat them decent,
you know?" (O'Brien, 123). In the novel, I believe the soldiers that
go on search and destroy missions and choose not to kill people are
being decent with the influence of God and their religion. If they
didn't believe it was wrong to kill innocent people, they would do it
without hesitation. Something holds them back, and it may be religion.
On Feb 11, 5:07 pm, Maeha Karlow <karlo...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Each and every person has different ways they show their religion. I
believe in following the Bible, but God is a forgiving individual and
if one may make a mistake, they can still call themselves a Christian,
that is why we can be saved. A person doesn't have to go to church to
worship as long as they keep their faith. Sorry Rolph, I get so caught
up in our own little argument, I forgot what you asked. Being religous
is how the soldiers pray and look up to God to watch over them, and
being decent is how one treats another. A person should do their best
to help the other in any way possible. I think that being decent is a
part of being religous, no matter how one may look at it.Religion is
about doing the right deed and being decent is a good deed. I don't
think Dobbins is wrong in making his distinction, I believe he is
basing his decision on how religious a person is. If someone can't be
religious all the time, "All you can do it be nice. Treat them decent,
you know?" (O'Brien, 123). In the novel, I believe the soldiers that
go on search and destroy missions and choose not to kill people are
being decent with the influence of God and their religion. If they
didn't believe it was wrong to kill innocent people, they would do it
without hesitation. Something holds them back, and it may be religion.
On Feb 11, 5:07 pm, Maeha Karlow <karlo...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>
Rolph Recto
Feb 12, 2011, 2:55:23 PM2/12/11
to tttc20...@googlegroups.com
Exactly, Jacob: I picked this question precisely because there is no real "answer" for it; I wanted you guys to take a stand and back it up with good points. It's proving to be quite successful, no?
I see that you guys responded very passionately and very personally, and that's fine. However, I really did not intend to incite a personal response; I intended for you guys to analyze why Dobbins sees religion as he does. I might have worded my question poorly, so I apologize. O'Brien certainly paints him as a simple character with a big heart - the quintessential American. Do you guys think that Dobbin's simplicity is the reason why he would make a distinction between the "religious" part and the "being decent" part of religion?
Maeha Karlow
Feb 12, 2011, 3:52:39 PM2/12/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Sorry about the personal response; I just felt it helped prove my
point. Aside from that I think Dobbins' distinction between the two
terms may have something to do with him being simple. I think the main
cause is he is inspired by religion to be kind, like the monks are to
the soldiers and the ministers are to the members of the church. He
doesn't really care for the "religious" part. Dobbins picks up on the
"decency," and it intrigues him. That's why he separates the two
entities.
point. Aside from that I think Dobbins' distinction between the two
terms may have something to do with him being simple. I think the main
cause is he is inspired by religion to be kind, like the monks are to
the soldiers and the ministers are to the members of the church. He
doesn't really care for the "religious" part. Dobbins picks up on the
"decency," and it intrigues him. That's why he separates the two
entities.
Casey
Feb 12, 2011, 4:20:59 PM2/12/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
You all make very good points and this is an interesting question to
ask because it really allows us to incorporate our backgrounds into
the discussion. For me this is interesting, because I grew up with my
Dad being a pastor and being decent and religious go hand in hand. I
think it is interesting that Dobbins enjoys the social part of being a
minister and I think it's smart that he makes a distinction between
the two. As a pastor's daughter, I know that people need both aspects
to feel complete. When Dobbins differentiates between the two, he sees
that being a leader of a church, "It takes brains. You have to explain
hard stuff..." (O'Brien 121). This also shows that Dobbins probably
grew up in an environment where the pastor was very involved; he knows
that the social part is fun, but the spiritual end is tetious. Anyone
can be friendly, but it takes a lot more to be wise in religion.
Dobbins is a smart man, because he knows that a pastor is not just the
handshake on Sunday morning, but the heart and soul of the
congregation and what they desire.
ask because it really allows us to incorporate our backgrounds into
the discussion. For me this is interesting, because I grew up with my
Dad being a pastor and being decent and religious go hand in hand. I
think it is interesting that Dobbins enjoys the social part of being a
minister and I think it's smart that he makes a distinction between
the two. As a pastor's daughter, I know that people need both aspects
to feel complete. When Dobbins differentiates between the two, he sees
that being a leader of a church, "It takes brains. You have to explain
hard stuff..." (O'Brien 121). This also shows that Dobbins probably
grew up in an environment where the pastor was very involved; he knows
that the social part is fun, but the spiritual end is tetious. Anyone
can be friendly, but it takes a lot more to be wise in religion.
Dobbins is a smart man, because he knows that a pastor is not just the
handshake on Sunday morning, but the heart and soul of the
congregation and what they desire.
Andre
Feb 12, 2011, 6:26:15 PM2/12/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I have to disagree with you Casey. It is possible to be decent without
having religious beliefs. Almost every kid is raised and taught right
from wrong. These rights and wrongs do not vary drastically between
the several different religious. For example, all kids are usually
raised to respect others, use proper manners, and to obey authority,
just to name a few. Henry Dobbins wasn't an overly religious person
but he understood how to treat people, "...it wasn't the religious
part that interested me. Just being nice to people, thats all. Being
decent" (O'Brien 121). Dobbins is of a religious denomonation but that
doesn't compel him to treat others with kindness it is just what is
right.
When Elroy helps O'Brien make his mind up after O'Brien attempts
to flee to Canada, Elroy doesn't preach or push religion upon him,
instead Elroy "comforts" him, in so many words. Elroy doesn't pry into
O'Brien's business, he simply offers him place to get away and clear
his head. By being a "decent" person Elroy influences O'Brien to make
a sound moral decision that benefitted him in the long run.
having religious beliefs. Almost every kid is raised and taught right
from wrong. These rights and wrongs do not vary drastically between
the several different religious. For example, all kids are usually
raised to respect others, use proper manners, and to obey authority,
just to name a few. Henry Dobbins wasn't an overly religious person
but he understood how to treat people, "...it wasn't the religious
part that interested me. Just being nice to people, thats all. Being
decent" (O'Brien 121). Dobbins is of a religious denomonation but that
doesn't compel him to treat others with kindness it is just what is
right.
When Elroy helps O'Brien make his mind up after O'Brien attempts
to flee to Canada, Elroy doesn't preach or push religion upon him,
instead Elroy "comforts" him, in so many words. Elroy doesn't pry into
O'Brien's business, he simply offers him place to get away and clear
his head. By being a "decent" person Elroy influences O'Brien to make
a sound moral decision that benefitted him in the long run.
Maeha Karlow
Feb 12, 2011, 6:36:15 PM2/12/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I agree with Andre without omission.
Rolph Recto
Feb 12, 2011, 7:42:22 PM2/12/11
to tttc20...@googlegroups.com
Maeha: no need to apologize. We don't live in Stalin's USSR; feel free to exercise your 1st amendment rights.
Nicole
Mar 5, 2011, 2:17:39 PM3/5/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Being nice to people is way to feel good not only about yourself, but
gives you a feeling that maybe the world can be nice at times. Dobbins
may not care too much for God, but he does care for goodness in the
world. He is not mistaken between the two because religion is not only
just God, but being good to people. I am a religious person, but I do
feel that "being decent" is a major factor that the world needs now-a-
days.
gives you a feeling that maybe the world can be nice at times. Dobbins
may not care too much for God, but he does care for goodness in the
world. He is not mistaken between the two because religion is not only
just God, but being good to people. I am a religious person, but I do
feel that "being decent" is a major factor that the world needs now-a-
days.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages