Miguel A. de la Torre

I read this back in 2005. Here are my brief notes from my journal:

>>I found it to be a well balanced survey of the religion written in an interesting and engaging style. The book not only discusses the religion and its concepts but also history, background, and context. It clarifies differences between Santeria and Voodoo for instance, and it also discusses how the religion continues to grow and evolve. De La Torre grew up in the religion, raised by santeros, but does not practice actively now. The insights from his experience are a strength of the book as well, from being able to look at it as an insider to childhood memories. Overall, an excellent effort at creating a good resource on a religion with close to 1 million followers in the U.S.… (plus d'informations)

My interpretation of this book's central premise was that the work toward reconciling oppressed people with their oppressors is the responsibility of the oppressed. Honestly I wasn't convinced. I don't agree that the wronged parties should have to initiate any efforts towards reconciliation.

I thought the author's perspective on the book of Jonah was interesting, but his attempts to apply its principles to modern (specifically US) society were vague and unsatisfying. His dismissal of existing work to address inequality and injustice stuck me as callous.

Though thought-provoking, I didn't particularly appreciate the author's writing style. I think it was often dryer and more academic than it had to be. There was also far too much repitition of the same points without significant clarification or elaboration.… (plus d'informations)

I don't think I'm quite the target audience for this book; it comes from a course for conservative Midwestern Christians who think there's only one "right" interpretation of any given Bible passage. That said, many of the perspectives discussed are interesting and new to me. The author sometimes tries to back up his statements with reasoning/logic, and this is where the book feels weakest -- unsurprisingly, it's hard to have airtight logic around the interpretation of religious texts.

Also, the sections discussing LGBT perspectives are a bit equivocating. I can't tell if the author is religiously uncomfortable with LGBT people, or if he just thinks his audience is. Then again, it might just be that I've read those particular interpretations repeatedly.… (plus d'informations)