Week 2, post 2

One thing that was discussed in class this week that really stuck out to me was the relationship between religion and hierarchy. It is certainly true that a social hierarchy can be an integral component of a religion- with a shaman or priest carrying a lot of power as the intermediary between the lay-people and the divine being, though usually seen as possessing less power than the divine being itself. These hierarchies are seen in many religions, and may be simple or vastly complicated, such as those seen in the Catholic Church. What is interesting about these hierarchies is whether they are a necessary product of religion, or if they are imposed on religion by certain cultures or societies. In fact, it seems like strict hierarchy may be a relatively modern component of religion- something coming from the time and place the religion is practiced, rather than by the religion itself. This relates to an idea described in depth by Rupert Ross in his book, "Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice." Ross describes how the original religion and culture of the Ojibway was based on a system of dependencies, rather than hierarchy. Things were important in their relationship to one another, which meant that all things were equally important, though in different ways. Their society was organized in a similar fashion. When Europeans settlers met these people, they were perplexed at this method of organization, and insisted that the people pick a leader for them to converse with. As the Europeans came to power, the hierarchy became more enforced. Ross credits the imposition of a forced hierarchy with the destruction of many Native American cultures.