I have no words apart from "A la lanterne!" for this. Apparently Michael Gove has had a go at historians and TV for the "Blackadder myths" about the First World War, saying it was not really that bad. (I won't share the link because it is from the Daily Mail.) No, Gove, the First World War really was that bad. The mud that sucked men down to their deaths, the trench-foot, the lice that made men's clothes move on their own, the endless pounding of the shells, the gas ("if in dreams you too could pace behind the wagon that we flung him in, and watch him guttering, choking drowning"), the death and maiming of comrades, the utter waste of life, the incomprehensible slaughter of thousands in a single day for a tiny piece of land. The horrific carnage of Gallipoli. So do NOT repeat to us the old lie, "Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori". It is neither sweet nor meet, it is death, too early, and in horrific ways that an idiot like Gove probably can't even imagine.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Friday, January 03, 2014
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Friday, April 23, 2010
Happy St George's Day
There's quite a bit of interesting folklore about St George. In Russia, apparently, women leave clothes under bushes on St George's Day. If a leaf falls on their item of clothing, they believe they will get pregnant. George is also (possibly) associated with Khizr or Khidr, the Sufi saint and inner Friend in Islam. So George is a symbol of verdant renewal.
In Orthodox Christianity, George's title is Holy Glorious Great Martyr, Victorybearer and Wonderworker George - now that's what I call a proper title.
The patron saint of England was originally Edmund Martyr, who was murdered by Vikings. They chopped off his head, which was then guarded by a wolf until some Christians came to bury him (at Bury St Edmund's).
The next patron saint of England was Edward the Confessor, who married a Norman lady and thereby paved the way for the Norman Conquest. The Normans presided over the increasing Catholicisation of the English church, which had been doing liturgy in a unique Saxon style. Obviously the Synod of Whitby had scuppered the Orthodox date of Easter and the Celtic tonsure, but there were still some differences in liturgy which may have been more similar to Orthodoxy.
George only got made patron saint of England during the reign of Edward III.
In Orthodox Christianity, George's title is Holy Glorious Great Martyr, Victorybearer and Wonderworker George - now that's what I call a proper title.
The patron saint of England was originally Edmund Martyr, who was murdered by Vikings. They chopped off his head, which was then guarded by a wolf until some Christians came to bury him (at Bury St Edmund's).
The next patron saint of England was Edward the Confessor, who married a Norman lady and thereby paved the way for the Norman Conquest. The Normans presided over the increasing Catholicisation of the English church, which had been doing liturgy in a unique Saxon style. Obviously the Synod of Whitby had scuppered the Orthodox date of Easter and the Celtic tonsure, but there were still some differences in liturgy which may have been more similar to Orthodoxy.
George only got made patron saint of England during the reign of Edward III.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
A Short History of Medicine
"Doctor, I have an ear ache."
2000 B.C. - "Here, eat this root."
1000 A.D. - "That root is heathen, say this prayer."
1850 A.D. - "That prayer is superstition, drink this potion."
1940 A.D. - "That potion is snake oil, swallow this pill."
1985 A.D. - "That pill is ineffective, take this antibiotic."
2000 A.D. - "That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root!"
(just received via email)
Monday, August 10, 2009
The problem of historicity
Regarding the historicity of Pagan traditions. Given that we know next to nothing about what ancient druids (if they were really as described by the Romans) got up to or believed, or what medieval witches (who, even if they existed, were probably not pagans) got up to, or what early medieval heathens got up to (a bit more data, but a lot of it written down by Christians), the people who claim that they're doing something because their ancient forerunners did it, and not because they feel it to be the right way for them to be a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan in the here and now - that is what is irritating to the academically-minded.
You can be a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan because you feel you are one because it fits the image you have in your mind of what a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan is (and I affirm your right to do so).
But what happens when someone else with a completely different idea about what a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan is, does the same? Then we have confusion...
What is the solution to this dilemma? I'm not sure that I know. I know that we do need to have discussions about our theology, our values, our worldview, our ethics, and what is distinctly Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan about them. We don't want to establish a creed or an orthodoxy, because that could lead to persecution of dissenters. But that does not mean we can dodge the issue and just not talk about it.
As far as historicity is concerned, the rest of us could learn a lot from Heathens and reconstructionists, who have gone to the effort of reading as much of the available source material as possible, and comparing it with experiences and ideas of present-day Heathens, and creating a synthesis of historical and present-day insights. They are lucky because early medieval heathenry lasted a lot longer and was better-documented than other traditions. They also have a well-worked-out and widely publicised set of Heathen virtues. Wicca also has a set of virtues, but this is not so well-known.
Personally, I feel that we are also the heirs of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, and Romanticism, and we cannot just ignore the intervening centuries and pretend they didn't happen. This is one of the reasons why I am interested in Unitarianism.
You can be a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan because you feel you are one because it fits the image you have in your mind of what a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan is (and I affirm your right to do so).
But what happens when someone else with a completely different idea about what a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan is, does the same? Then we have confusion...
What is the solution to this dilemma? I'm not sure that I know. I know that we do need to have discussions about our theology, our values, our worldview, our ethics, and what is distinctly Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan about them. We don't want to establish a creed or an orthodoxy, because that could lead to persecution of dissenters. But that does not mean we can dodge the issue and just not talk about it.
As far as historicity is concerned, the rest of us could learn a lot from Heathens and reconstructionists, who have gone to the effort of reading as much of the available source material as possible, and comparing it with experiences and ideas of present-day Heathens, and creating a synthesis of historical and present-day insights. They are lucky because early medieval heathenry lasted a lot longer and was better-documented than other traditions. They also have a well-worked-out and widely publicised set of Heathen virtues. Wicca also has a set of virtues, but this is not so well-known.
Personally, I feel that we are also the heirs of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, and Romanticism, and we cannot just ignore the intervening centuries and pretend they didn't happen. This is one of the reasons why I am interested in Unitarianism.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Police raid gay bar on anniversary of Stonewall
This is terrible.
Source: Soulforce newsletter, 1 July 2009.Police Raid Gay Bar in Fort Worth, Texas
on the 40th Anniversary of StonewallLate last Saturday night, June 27, Fort Worth Police Officers and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) officers entered the Rainbow Lounge in Fort Worth and arrested seven (7) people. One was critically injured during the raid.
The story quickly spread to major news outlets such as the Metroplex, CNN, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Michaelangelo Signorile Show, The Daily KOSS, and The Huffington Post.
Video of the raid.
Our friends at Equality Texas are encouraging LGBTQ supporters to contact Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief to demand a full investigation.
This raid is yet another stark reminder that there is still so much work to be done to end bigotry and prejudice in America and around the world. Soulforce remains committed in our efforts to end the political and religious oppression of LGBTQ people that leads to such violence.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Religion, privacy and democracy
A guest post from Shlomoh Sherman (and very good it is too):
Religion, privacy, and democracy
By Shlomoh Sherman
May 8, 2008
Several disquieting stories have come to my attention recently; they all concern academia. I found out a long time ago that academia is about the worst set of professions that you can get into. It attracts the worst types, and the decent ones who find their way into the professions usually wind up getting eaten by the sociopathic sharks.
Several friends of mine who are teachers have found themselves being harassed and forced to resign for no other reason than that the administrator took a personal dislike to them. There is the story of a young female teacher who went on a vacation to a resort where the parents of one of her students also were vacationing that year. The parents noticed that the teacher was wearing a bikini and a belly button ring. Upon her return to work, she was notified that she was fired for wearing a bikini and belly button ring on her vacation, something which the school administrators felt was unbecoming behavior for their staff.
There is also the story of a teacher and her husband who recently appeared on the HOWARD STERN SHOW. Someone at the school must be a Stern listener because several days later she was fired for appearing on the Stern Show. By the way, in case you are wondering, neither she nor her husband did anything on the show that could be considered improper behavior.
You would think that Americans, or anyone for that matter, are entitled to their privacy. Don't we claim privacy as our "God given" right? For the moment, we can forget that God does not give us ANY rights; He gives us rules, or so they say. But He especially does not give us the right to privacy! We HAVE no privacy in front of God. He watches our every move like some celestial Peeping Tom. He spies on us. He snoops. He sticks His enormous nose into our [private] business. Well, if snooping is good enough for the Overseer in the sky, it's good enough for His worshippers. And don't His clerics tell us that it is good to confess? What is it that we need to confess? What I do in private is none of your business. But is that so? The fact is that "privacy" is a relatively new concept. It did not exist in the pre-modern world. Both in the ancient world and the medieval world, the idea of the "private individual" was unthinkable. The individual person was only thought of as a member of a group, - either a family, a church, a community, a town. No person was ALLOWED to be an isolate. There was no such thing as individual responsibility except to the group to which one belonged. There were even societies in our primitive past in which an individual's crime was seen as the crime of his group. If someone killed a person belonging to another family, for example, he and his entire family might be put to death.
Although we like to think that we live in a modern society, especially in America, the fact is that most Americans have carried the pre-modern past into the present. The pre-modern past existing in the present always seems to express itself in religious communities, especially in those communities which are known as Biblical communities, namely Jews and Christians. But these communities and their beliefs and standards have a major impact on the national community as a whole. In this century so far, the impact has been greater than the impact of the secular humanist community - because the majority of Americans identify themselves as "Christian", and it is from their ranks that many of our elected officials come to office. It is from their ranks that many of our lawmakers get into power. It is then that America finds itself at the mercy of the pre-modern mindset.
Our social and empirical scientists have discovered a lot during the past 200 years. Much of what they have learned has benefited society in no small measure. And yet, in this unhappy century, their gains and achievements are being minimized by the INTRUSIVE mentality of those who wish to return us to an earlier, unhappier time. The pre-modern mentality seeks to undo the work of the creators of democracy.
In a democracy, we are supposed to have a right both to our privacy and to our opinions. Neither of these rights was given to us by God. They were given to us by Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and their comrades, men who were able to see the oppressiveness of communities where there was a lack of rights, communities in which mindless, illogical, mean-spirited rules deprived individuals of privacy and freedom.
The men who made our country wanted us to live in a place where you and I are ENTITLED to think for ourselves. Hence they created a nation free of gods and clerics, so they believed.
However if you look at the philosophical state of our country today, you can see the betrayal of the Founders' dream. The overwhelming majority of Americans actually believe that the United States is, or should be, run as a theocracy. They may not use that word but it comes down to the same thing. Example: It is constitutionally illegal to require a "religion" test to anyone seeking political office. Yet the case de facto, if not de jure, is that anyone declaring him/herself an agnostic, atheist, secularist, or humanist will not be elected to public office in most places, and certainly not to the high federal offices such as president. The whole issue of personal belief ought to be a private affair. If I run for office, what I believe or disbelieve is none of your business, and I ought to be allowed my so-called "god-given" right to privacy in matters of personal conviction. However, because the majority of my fellow Americans are addicted to the premises of the so-called "great monotheistic religions", I have to put up with the public's scrutiny, or to be blunt, snooping into my head. Amazingly, even the Press sees nothing wrong with this. In most of Europe and the civilized modern Western world, this invasion of privacy would be an outrage!
It's bad enough that the average citizen has this attitude. It's worse when our lawmakers have it. Several years ago, in a town in Texas, the police broke into the home of a homosexual, without a warrant, and arrested him and the other man with whom he was having sex, on the charge of sodomy.
The idea that there are even laws on our books against certain sexual acts committed by consenting adults in the PRIVACY of their own homes is bad enough. What's worse is that the laws of states such as Texas allow the breaking into your home and mine to actually arrest and try citizens who are not harming anyone or causing any trouble.
Our religious culture causes people to be wrapped up and emotionally involved in the private pleasure of their neighbors. It's absolutely Orwellian. Our century betrays the fact that we have never quite gotten away from the Puritanism of the days of Salem. Four hundred years ago, people in Salem were not allowed to think for themselves. Their private thoughts and acts were unquestionably public domain. Many in this century feel they ought still be public domain. More and more, our country is intruding into our private lives and diminishing what privacy we think should be ours.
I can understand, in the age of terrorism against the West, that cameras are now everywhere. I can even understand the government tapping telephones in order to catch criminals. I understand that after 9/11, I have to give up some of YOUR civil rights so that I will be safer. What I don't understand is that the majority of Americans sanction ideas that are similar to those of the Taliban. I understand that in certain countries there is government scrutiny into every aspect of life. But this is America, not Afghanistan. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are our promises. Dude, where is my Liberty? I know that I don't have the liberty to steal from you. But at least, give me the liberty to express my beliefs and live my life as I see fit so long as I don't hurt anyone.
Don't fire me from my job just because I wear a belly button ring on my vacation, or appear on a radio show that you don't happen to like or whose philosophy is not about mom's apple pie or Jesus' benevolence.
Democracy, as understood by any intelligent, philosophically minded American, implies a degree of privacy. Yet an amazing percentage of Americans who
consider themselves the MOST American, believe that they and their government have the right to impose their standards of belief on you and thereby deprive you of what you think and do in private, and that belief is motivated by pre-modern ideas of group guilt and group snooping, behaviors condoned and approved of by a deity. What I don't get is how these people reconcile their inappropriate moralistic behavior and attitudes with their belief in the democracy of America.
I've thought about this for many decades and I have come to some conclusions. Americans who claim to believe that America is great because of its freedom and democracy and yet, at the same time, say that they believe that our American society ought to be forcefully run by Biblical imperatives, are hypocrites, knowingly or not. Religion, especially Biblical religion, expressed as Christianity and Judaism, is incompatible with real democracy.
Biblical religion militates against free expression. It opposes what we think and do in private, mainly because it opposes our private pleasures. It posits that people are sinful by nature and that they are "born in sin". Anyone born in sin is a slave, not a free person, and he who is born in sin does not deserve freedom or pleasure; at least he should be closely watched! If need be, what little freedom and privacy he has left should be taken away from him.
Believing Christians and Jews who say they are for democracy are hypocrites. Jews are somewhat less hypocritical than Christians. Fundamentalist Jews will tell you that the TORAH is a fascistic document. Some ultra-Orthodox individual actually once used that expression with me. As far as I am concerned, if you are less of a hypocrite than someone else, you are still a hypocrite. And in my book, religious hypocrites are the worst kind because they believe themselves to be morally superior to me.
I confess, I do have my faults. But among them are not the desire to snoop on someone else's bedroom activities, nor the desire to prevent people most in need of condoms from having access to them, nor the desire to tell a female how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, nor the desire to have Harry Potter removed from the public library, nor the desire to engage in the prevention of scientific and medical research which might benefit mankind, nor the desire to tell you how to live your life philosophically, nor the desire to kill diversity of opinion in my country.
What is the supreme proof that fundamentalist Biblical religion is antithetical to our democracy? The answer is the belief in the Messiah. One cannot call himself a Christian if he does not believe in the coming of the Christ, nor can one call himself an Orthodox Jew if he denies that God will one day raise up a Messiah for the People of Israel.
About 16 years ago, when the Internet was still new, I participated in an Internet discussion group on Religion. A Christian lady wrote to me and said that she understood what would happen when Christ came back: "[He] shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain." What an incredibly wonderful vision. What the lady wanted to know is what do Jews believe will happen when the Jewish messiah comes at last. Unfortunately I do not have the original response that I sent her. But I can repeat the basic answer I gave to her.
I said: "Regarding the messiah that our religion has taught us, when he comes, a new age will be initiated on earth. Israel will be gathered to the Promised Land and the third Temple will be rebuilt. Nations will not go to war any longer since all people will love their neighbors as they love themselves. Whatever sinful nature man may possess, that is, his YETSER HARA, will be subdued. There will be no crime, no sickness, no hunger, and no poverty. All people will speak and think with one accord. "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." What an incredibly wonderful vision. However, I do not believe that there is any such thing as a free lunch, not even in messianic times.
Here is the side of the coin that the wonderful folks who wrote the Bible left out.
When the Messiah shows up [either the Jewish or the Christian One], the first thing to go will be the Constitution of the United States which "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution." The document which came into being as a result of the shedding of American blood will be shredded. Remember, this is the document which ensures that people can come to this country if and when their own countries deny them freedom of religion or freedom of conscience. It guarantees them the right to privacy which the Bible somehow overlooked. It gives them the right to wear a belly button ring and to appear on the Howard Stern Show unmolested.
But remember one important thing. The Messiah is a king; he is the ultimate king. He is the king of kings. As such, he requires no constitution to govern. He IS the constitution. The articles of his divine constitution are WHATEVER HE SAYS, and you had better "observe to do according to the Divine Law; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left hand". So we won't need no STEENKING Constitution. In your home, you will not have the privacy to be on YOUR Internet, watch YOUR videos, read YOUR books, practice YOUR sex, and think YOUR thoughts. He is the Messiah; they will be HIS Internet, video, book, sex, thoughts. If he says that Howard Stern and belly button rings are out, they are out, no matter what YOU think. In fact, don't think! The Messiah will do your thinking for you. All you'll have to do is live your life as though you were on Aldous Huxley's dream-inducing drug, Soma. Only it will be called Dwelling in the Presence of the Lord, or some such meaningless phrase. Enjoy! To paraphrase Henny Youngman, "Take my MESHIACH, please!" I'll take my freedom and privacy, and whatever pleasure I enjoy that hurts no one.
Here's the rub. Americans fought and died long ago in order to get rid of a king, in order that WE would not have to live under the tyranny of a king.
Paul, the prophet of the Christians, told his followers to be good little servants and follow the DICTATES of the king. And the king often dictated that his followers be food for lions. When his followers became kings themselves, they made those who thought for themselves food for flames.
Like any sensible person, I too want what a messiah is supposed to bring. I want to see an end to war, and end to crime, to sickness, to want. But I am not willing to sell my soul for those things. I believe we can be our own messiah. If we wish to end war then we will have to heavily persuade those who fly airplanes into buildings to stop doing it. If we wish to end crime, we will have to get to the point where we can weed out the sociopaths among us. If we wish to end sickness, we will have to allow our scientists to proceed with work that can lead to "miracle" cures. And lastly, if we truly want to put an end to want, we will need to stop being greedy, and those of us who own over 90 percent of the wealth and resources will need to start loving their neighbors with fewer resources, and allow them at least the basic necessities of life.
Once we stop worrying about what others are thinking and doing in private; once we allow other people liberty and the pursuit of their own vision of happiness, we won't have to worry about them intruding on our liberty and happiness. In order to do that, we will have to subordinate allegiance to kings and clerics, towards working for the greatest good for ourselves. Before the modern era, many nations existed which believed they were "under God". They were no more under any deity than our nation is. Any nation which professes itself better than other nations because it is more under God, expresses the height of arrogance "for after all these things do the Gentiles seek".
Some may find comfort in their churches. That is their business and their constitutionally given right. But they will not find ultimate answers for our problems in the pews. Thomas Paine, a great American patriot, once said, "My mind is my own church." We should follow his sound example.
POSTSCRIPT:
Religion, privacy, and democracy
By Shlomoh Sherman
May 8, 2008
Several disquieting stories have come to my attention recently; they all concern academia. I found out a long time ago that academia is about the worst set of professions that you can get into. It attracts the worst types, and the decent ones who find their way into the professions usually wind up getting eaten by the sociopathic sharks.
Several friends of mine who are teachers have found themselves being harassed and forced to resign for no other reason than that the administrator took a personal dislike to them. There is the story of a young female teacher who went on a vacation to a resort where the parents of one of her students also were vacationing that year. The parents noticed that the teacher was wearing a bikini and a belly button ring. Upon her return to work, she was notified that she was fired for wearing a bikini and belly button ring on her vacation, something which the school administrators felt was unbecoming behavior for their staff.
There is also the story of a teacher and her husband who recently appeared on the HOWARD STERN SHOW. Someone at the school must be a Stern listener because several days later she was fired for appearing on the Stern Show. By the way, in case you are wondering, neither she nor her husband did anything on the show that could be considered improper behavior.
You would think that Americans, or anyone for that matter, are entitled to their privacy. Don't we claim privacy as our "God given" right? For the moment, we can forget that God does not give us ANY rights; He gives us rules, or so they say. But He especially does not give us the right to privacy! We HAVE no privacy in front of God. He watches our every move like some celestial Peeping Tom. He spies on us. He snoops. He sticks His enormous nose into our [private] business. Well, if snooping is good enough for the Overseer in the sky, it's good enough for His worshippers. And don't His clerics tell us that it is good to confess? What is it that we need to confess? What I do in private is none of your business. But is that so? The fact is that "privacy" is a relatively new concept. It did not exist in the pre-modern world. Both in the ancient world and the medieval world, the idea of the "private individual" was unthinkable. The individual person was only thought of as a member of a group, - either a family, a church, a community, a town. No person was ALLOWED to be an isolate. There was no such thing as individual responsibility except to the group to which one belonged. There were even societies in our primitive past in which an individual's crime was seen as the crime of his group. If someone killed a person belonging to another family, for example, he and his entire family might be put to death.
Although we like to think that we live in a modern society, especially in America, the fact is that most Americans have carried the pre-modern past into the present. The pre-modern past existing in the present always seems to express itself in religious communities, especially in those communities which are known as Biblical communities, namely Jews and Christians. But these communities and their beliefs and standards have a major impact on the national community as a whole. In this century so far, the impact has been greater than the impact of the secular humanist community - because the majority of Americans identify themselves as "Christian", and it is from their ranks that many of our elected officials come to office. It is from their ranks that many of our lawmakers get into power. It is then that America finds itself at the mercy of the pre-modern mindset.
Our social and empirical scientists have discovered a lot during the past 200 years. Much of what they have learned has benefited society in no small measure. And yet, in this unhappy century, their gains and achievements are being minimized by the INTRUSIVE mentality of those who wish to return us to an earlier, unhappier time. The pre-modern mentality seeks to undo the work of the creators of democracy.
In a democracy, we are supposed to have a right both to our privacy and to our opinions. Neither of these rights was given to us by God. They were given to us by Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and their comrades, men who were able to see the oppressiveness of communities where there was a lack of rights, communities in which mindless, illogical, mean-spirited rules deprived individuals of privacy and freedom.
The men who made our country wanted us to live in a place where you and I are ENTITLED to think for ourselves. Hence they created a nation free of gods and clerics, so they believed.
However if you look at the philosophical state of our country today, you can see the betrayal of the Founders' dream. The overwhelming majority of Americans actually believe that the United States is, or should be, run as a theocracy. They may not use that word but it comes down to the same thing. Example: It is constitutionally illegal to require a "religion" test to anyone seeking political office. Yet the case de facto, if not de jure, is that anyone declaring him/herself an agnostic, atheist, secularist, or humanist will not be elected to public office in most places, and certainly not to the high federal offices such as president. The whole issue of personal belief ought to be a private affair. If I run for office, what I believe or disbelieve is none of your business, and I ought to be allowed my so-called "god-given" right to privacy in matters of personal conviction. However, because the majority of my fellow Americans are addicted to the premises of the so-called "great monotheistic religions", I have to put up with the public's scrutiny, or to be blunt, snooping into my head. Amazingly, even the Press sees nothing wrong with this. In most of Europe and the civilized modern Western world, this invasion of privacy would be an outrage!
It's bad enough that the average citizen has this attitude. It's worse when our lawmakers have it. Several years ago, in a town in Texas, the police broke into the home of a homosexual, without a warrant, and arrested him and the other man with whom he was having sex, on the charge of sodomy.
The idea that there are even laws on our books against certain sexual acts committed by consenting adults in the PRIVACY of their own homes is bad enough. What's worse is that the laws of states such as Texas allow the breaking into your home and mine to actually arrest and try citizens who are not harming anyone or causing any trouble.
Our religious culture causes people to be wrapped up and emotionally involved in the private pleasure of their neighbors. It's absolutely Orwellian. Our century betrays the fact that we have never quite gotten away from the Puritanism of the days of Salem. Four hundred years ago, people in Salem were not allowed to think for themselves. Their private thoughts and acts were unquestionably public domain. Many in this century feel they ought still be public domain. More and more, our country is intruding into our private lives and diminishing what privacy we think should be ours.
I can understand, in the age of terrorism against the West, that cameras are now everywhere. I can even understand the government tapping telephones in order to catch criminals. I understand that after 9/11, I have to give up some of YOUR civil rights so that I will be safer. What I don't understand is that the majority of Americans sanction ideas that are similar to those of the Taliban. I understand that in certain countries there is government scrutiny into every aspect of life. But this is America, not Afghanistan. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are our promises. Dude, where is my Liberty? I know that I don't have the liberty to steal from you. But at least, give me the liberty to express my beliefs and live my life as I see fit so long as I don't hurt anyone.
Don't fire me from my job just because I wear a belly button ring on my vacation, or appear on a radio show that you don't happen to like or whose philosophy is not about mom's apple pie or Jesus' benevolence.
Democracy, as understood by any intelligent, philosophically minded American, implies a degree of privacy. Yet an amazing percentage of Americans who
consider themselves the MOST American, believe that they and their government have the right to impose their standards of belief on you and thereby deprive you of what you think and do in private, and that belief is motivated by pre-modern ideas of group guilt and group snooping, behaviors condoned and approved of by a deity. What I don't get is how these people reconcile their inappropriate moralistic behavior and attitudes with their belief in the democracy of America.
I've thought about this for many decades and I have come to some conclusions. Americans who claim to believe that America is great because of its freedom and democracy and yet, at the same time, say that they believe that our American society ought to be forcefully run by Biblical imperatives, are hypocrites, knowingly or not. Religion, especially Biblical religion, expressed as Christianity and Judaism, is incompatible with real democracy.
Biblical religion militates against free expression. It opposes what we think and do in private, mainly because it opposes our private pleasures. It posits that people are sinful by nature and that they are "born in sin". Anyone born in sin is a slave, not a free person, and he who is born in sin does not deserve freedom or pleasure; at least he should be closely watched! If need be, what little freedom and privacy he has left should be taken away from him.
Believing Christians and Jews who say they are for democracy are hypocrites. Jews are somewhat less hypocritical than Christians. Fundamentalist Jews will tell you that the TORAH is a fascistic document. Some ultra-Orthodox individual actually once used that expression with me. As far as I am concerned, if you are less of a hypocrite than someone else, you are still a hypocrite. And in my book, religious hypocrites are the worst kind because they believe themselves to be morally superior to me.
I confess, I do have my faults. But among them are not the desire to snoop on someone else's bedroom activities, nor the desire to prevent people most in need of condoms from having access to them, nor the desire to tell a female how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, nor the desire to have Harry Potter removed from the public library, nor the desire to engage in the prevention of scientific and medical research which might benefit mankind, nor the desire to tell you how to live your life philosophically, nor the desire to kill diversity of opinion in my country.
What is the supreme proof that fundamentalist Biblical religion is antithetical to our democracy? The answer is the belief in the Messiah. One cannot call himself a Christian if he does not believe in the coming of the Christ, nor can one call himself an Orthodox Jew if he denies that God will one day raise up a Messiah for the People of Israel.
About 16 years ago, when the Internet was still new, I participated in an Internet discussion group on Religion. A Christian lady wrote to me and said that she understood what would happen when Christ came back: "[He] shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain." What an incredibly wonderful vision. What the lady wanted to know is what do Jews believe will happen when the Jewish messiah comes at last. Unfortunately I do not have the original response that I sent her. But I can repeat the basic answer I gave to her.
I said: "Regarding the messiah that our religion has taught us, when he comes, a new age will be initiated on earth. Israel will be gathered to the Promised Land and the third Temple will be rebuilt. Nations will not go to war any longer since all people will love their neighbors as they love themselves. Whatever sinful nature man may possess, that is, his YETSER HARA, will be subdued. There will be no crime, no sickness, no hunger, and no poverty. All people will speak and think with one accord. "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." What an incredibly wonderful vision. However, I do not believe that there is any such thing as a free lunch, not even in messianic times.
Here is the side of the coin that the wonderful folks who wrote the Bible left out.
When the Messiah shows up [either the Jewish or the Christian One], the first thing to go will be the Constitution of the United States which "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution." The document which came into being as a result of the shedding of American blood will be shredded. Remember, this is the document which ensures that people can come to this country if and when their own countries deny them freedom of religion or freedom of conscience. It guarantees them the right to privacy which the Bible somehow overlooked. It gives them the right to wear a belly button ring and to appear on the Howard Stern Show unmolested.
But remember one important thing. The Messiah is a king; he is the ultimate king. He is the king of kings. As such, he requires no constitution to govern. He IS the constitution. The articles of his divine constitution are WHATEVER HE SAYS, and you had better "observe to do according to the Divine Law; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left hand". So we won't need no STEENKING Constitution. In your home, you will not have the privacy to be on YOUR Internet, watch YOUR videos, read YOUR books, practice YOUR sex, and think YOUR thoughts. He is the Messiah; they will be HIS Internet, video, book, sex, thoughts. If he says that Howard Stern and belly button rings are out, they are out, no matter what YOU think. In fact, don't think! The Messiah will do your thinking for you. All you'll have to do is live your life as though you were on Aldous Huxley's dream-inducing drug, Soma. Only it will be called Dwelling in the Presence of the Lord, or some such meaningless phrase. Enjoy! To paraphrase Henny Youngman, "Take my MESHIACH, please!" I'll take my freedom and privacy, and whatever pleasure I enjoy that hurts no one.
Here's the rub. Americans fought and died long ago in order to get rid of a king, in order that WE would not have to live under the tyranny of a king.
Paul, the prophet of the Christians, told his followers to be good little servants and follow the DICTATES of the king. And the king often dictated that his followers be food for lions. When his followers became kings themselves, they made those who thought for themselves food for flames.
Like any sensible person, I too want what a messiah is supposed to bring. I want to see an end to war, and end to crime, to sickness, to want. But I am not willing to sell my soul for those things. I believe we can be our own messiah. If we wish to end war then we will have to heavily persuade those who fly airplanes into buildings to stop doing it. If we wish to end crime, we will have to get to the point where we can weed out the sociopaths among us. If we wish to end sickness, we will have to allow our scientists to proceed with work that can lead to "miracle" cures. And lastly, if we truly want to put an end to want, we will need to stop being greedy, and those of us who own over 90 percent of the wealth and resources will need to start loving their neighbors with fewer resources, and allow them at least the basic necessities of life.
Once we stop worrying about what others are thinking and doing in private; once we allow other people liberty and the pursuit of their own vision of happiness, we won't have to worry about them intruding on our liberty and happiness. In order to do that, we will have to subordinate allegiance to kings and clerics, towards working for the greatest good for ourselves. Before the modern era, many nations existed which believed they were "under God". They were no more under any deity than our nation is. Any nation which professes itself better than other nations because it is more under God, expresses the height of arrogance "for after all these things do the Gentiles seek".
Some may find comfort in their churches. That is their business and their constitutionally given right. But they will not find ultimate answers for our problems in the pews. Thomas Paine, a great American patriot, once said, "My mind is my own church." We should follow his sound example.
POSTSCRIPT:
"A notable event was the recent emergence from the non-theistic closet of a public official, Congressman Pete Stark of Fremont, California, announced that he did not believe in a supreme being. Will other public officials do likewise?
It will be fascinating to see if Dawkins can make significant inroads on the American religious scene. Recently, there has been an outpouring of books by prominent authors aggressively challenging the dominant role of religion in American life. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Richard Joyce, Lee Silver, Victor Stenger, and Christopher Hitchens. Is change in the air?"
From A DARWINIAN VIEW OF A HOSTILE ATHEIST
By Irwin Tessman
Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
January - February, 2008
Monday, November 26, 2007
LGBT heritage
It's interesting to see how the existence of LGBT heritage is increasingly being highlighted - mainly by the LGBT community:
Gay History - A Trail Exploring LGBT Heritage In London
The elegantly titled House of Homosexual Culture is another new project allowing Londoners to discover, discuss and enjoy gay cultural heritage.
Intercom: LGBT Heritage Project & LGBT History Month
LGBT Heritage Project. Heritage project across the South West Peninsula.
Manchester Pride LGBT Heritage Trail
LGBT Black History (alas, still suppressed)
Artifacts & Disclosures: Michigan's LGBT Heritage
Ellen Galford on Edinubrgh's LGBT heritage
Collecting Blackpool’s LGBT Heritage – the Rainbow Project seeks to preserve and safeguard the experiences of Blackpool’s LGBT community
LGBT History Month (February 2008) celebrates the lives and achievements of the LGBT community.
Queer History Links - a comprehensive listing of links to sites about LGBT history.
LGBT Religious Archives Network
Coordinates identification, collection and preservation of personal papers and organizational records from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender religious archives.
Stonewall LGBT history
Gay History - A Trail Exploring LGBT Heritage In London
The elegantly titled House of Homosexual Culture is another new project allowing Londoners to discover, discuss and enjoy gay cultural heritage.
Intercom: LGBT Heritage Project & LGBT History Month
LGBT Heritage Project. Heritage project across the South West Peninsula.
Manchester Pride LGBT Heritage Trail
LGBT Black History (alas, still suppressed)
Artifacts & Disclosures: Michigan's LGBT Heritage
Ellen Galford on Edinubrgh's LGBT heritage
“The Scottish capital, once a byword for a particularly narrow and hard-hearted Puritanism--has undergone an incredible transformation into a vibrant, diverse and cosmopolitan city.The Rainbow Project – Blackpool’s LGBT heritage
“Edinburgh's LGBT communities have played a significant part in making this happen. This project is a unique historic record of our lives, our political struggles, and our cultural contributions not just to the city, but to society as a whole.”
Collecting Blackpool’s LGBT Heritage – the Rainbow Project seeks to preserve and safeguard the experiences of Blackpool’s LGBT community
LGBT History Month (February 2008) celebrates the lives and achievements of the LGBT community.
Queer History Links - a comprehensive listing of links to sites about LGBT history.
LGBT Religious Archives Network
Coordinates identification, collection and preservation of personal papers and organizational records from lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender religious archives.
Stonewall LGBT history
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
witches in history
I was reading a book on Wicca last night and got quite irritated to note that there was still someone claiming wildly erroneous stuff about the history of the witch persecutions and witchcraft in general, in an otherwise very good book with articles by lots of different authors. So, let's get this straight.
The main witch persecutions that resulted in actual deaths started in the 16th century, mainly due to economic and social pressures resulting from the Reformation. (See Religion and the Decline of Magic by Keith Thomas). People had previously relied on the charity provided by the monasteries; once these were dissolved in England, there were a lot more poor old people around asking for handouts. People felt guilty for not helping them, so when the old women went away mumbling, they assumed that they had been bewitched when they got psychosomatic symptoms resulting from their feelings of guilt. Also the Catholic Church had provided oodles of protection against sorcery, in the form of holy water, amulets etc., whereas the Protestants just told people to pray. Great.
The Inquisition was more interested in persecuting heretics, especially conversos (Jews and Muslims forcibly converted to Catholicism) in Spain. The majority of people judicially killed for witchcraft were in Protestant areas.
The witch persecutions in England differed in character from those in the rest of Europe. The things people were accused of were different. In Europe, witches were accused of flying to Sabbats and having intercourse with the devil; frequently, midwives were accused of performing abortions and stealing children (source: numerous broadsheets in German). In England, they were accused of having witches' teats to give suck to their familiars; bewitching cattle etc. In Europe and Scotland, witchcraft was a heresy, and therefore subject to ecclesiastical law, with the penalty of being burnt. In England, witchcraft was a felony, subject to criminal law, and the penalty was hanging.
There is no unbroken line of witch religion stretching back into the mists of time. The foundation date of modern Wicca appears to have been sometime in the 1920s, according to the latest research by Philip Heselton in Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration (an excellent book, as was its predecessor, Wiccan Roots). During the nineteenth century (and possibly the eighteenth century), there were various people who either self-identified as cunning folk or witches, or were labelled as such by their neighbours. However there was no organised movement of witchcraft, only isolated groups 'reinventing the wheel' - and they weren't necessarily pagan either - much of their magic was based on Christian symbolism (cf the story Marklake Witches by Rudyard Kipling). Note that the cunning folk were not witches - during the period of persecution they had often accused women of being witches and handed them over to the authorities.
In England, small snippets of Pagan belief and practice had survived and been incorporated into folk belief and practice - but again there was no large-scale survival of ancient Paganism. In some of the more remote corners of Europe (e.g. Scandinavia and Lithuania), ancient Paganisms survived much longer, and so when they were revived, the revivals were much closer to the original forms. There were also traditional practitioners of magic in Finland, particularly among the Sami people.
People really should be forced to read Triumph of the Moon: a history of modern pagan witchcraft by Ronald Hutton before they are allowed to make pronouncements about the history of witchcraft.
There's also an excellent article by Jenny Gibbons, Recent developments in the study of the Great European Witch Hunt (originally published in The Pomegranate, the journal of Pagan Studies).
The main witch persecutions that resulted in actual deaths started in the 16th century, mainly due to economic and social pressures resulting from the Reformation. (See Religion and the Decline of Magic by Keith Thomas). People had previously relied on the charity provided by the monasteries; once these were dissolved in England, there were a lot more poor old people around asking for handouts. People felt guilty for not helping them, so when the old women went away mumbling, they assumed that they had been bewitched when they got psychosomatic symptoms resulting from their feelings of guilt. Also the Catholic Church had provided oodles of protection against sorcery, in the form of holy water, amulets etc., whereas the Protestants just told people to pray. Great.
The Inquisition was more interested in persecuting heretics, especially conversos (Jews and Muslims forcibly converted to Catholicism) in Spain. The majority of people judicially killed for witchcraft were in Protestant areas.
The witch persecutions in England differed in character from those in the rest of Europe. The things people were accused of were different. In Europe, witches were accused of flying to Sabbats and having intercourse with the devil; frequently, midwives were accused of performing abortions and stealing children (source: numerous broadsheets in German). In England, they were accused of having witches' teats to give suck to their familiars; bewitching cattle etc. In Europe and Scotland, witchcraft was a heresy, and therefore subject to ecclesiastical law, with the penalty of being burnt. In England, witchcraft was a felony, subject to criminal law, and the penalty was hanging.
There is no unbroken line of witch religion stretching back into the mists of time. The foundation date of modern Wicca appears to have been sometime in the 1920s, according to the latest research by Philip Heselton in Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration (an excellent book, as was its predecessor, Wiccan Roots). During the nineteenth century (and possibly the eighteenth century), there were various people who either self-identified as cunning folk or witches, or were labelled as such by their neighbours. However there was no organised movement of witchcraft, only isolated groups 'reinventing the wheel' - and they weren't necessarily pagan either - much of their magic was based on Christian symbolism (cf the story Marklake Witches by Rudyard Kipling). Note that the cunning folk were not witches - during the period of persecution they had often accused women of being witches and handed them over to the authorities.
In England, small snippets of Pagan belief and practice had survived and been incorporated into folk belief and practice - but again there was no large-scale survival of ancient Paganism. In some of the more remote corners of Europe (e.g. Scandinavia and Lithuania), ancient Paganisms survived much longer, and so when they were revived, the revivals were much closer to the original forms. There were also traditional practitioners of magic in Finland, particularly among the Sami people.
People really should be forced to read Triumph of the Moon: a history of modern pagan witchcraft by Ronald Hutton before they are allowed to make pronouncements about the history of witchcraft.
There's also an excellent article by Jenny Gibbons, Recent developments in the study of the Great European Witch Hunt (originally published in The Pomegranate, the journal of Pagan Studies).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)