José Benlliure y Gil, 1858-1937
La Barca De Caronte

With the reported death of the enigmatic Osama Bin Laden there have been expressions of hope for the Muslim World. But we must temper our hope for the inevitable change that must come to Islam. Only change coming from within will be real. And that change will proceed slowly. Reform can never be imposed from without on the cultures of the Middle East. As ancient as that part of the world is, Islam is yet the little brother of the world's important religions. Islam is an immature self-consciouse hothead, like an adolescent who refuses to admit any error or misdeed. The natural progression of any religion is towards flexibility and tolerance.
The stiff-necked religion is ultimately inimical to the spirit of man and will be rejected if it is not altered.
Humans eventually tire of the old and obvious yet effective trickery the masters of oppressive cultures use when they emotionally proclaim:

"You may be miserable but you are so lucky to be favored of [Place name of appropriate god here.] And you are so much better than [Place names of other people, religion, race here.] Now do as we order you to do."

Muslims are about fourteen centuries into their religion. That is around the time Christianity began to reform. And, Judaism began to get flexible (of necessity) about a millenia and a half in. Islam as a religion and a culture  will reform and get away from the strict norms and rules that hold back its people (and need I say it, their women especially). Perhaps a religion needs to get to the point where it stops taking itself so seriously in the sense that it needs to be on a mission to force the world to conform to the message. Would a true religion need to  force itself on people?  If a religion is not freely chosen how successful can it be? To paraphrase a certain guy: By their fruit you will recognize them. Ultimately men are swayed by results, not claims of future reward for donning a metaphysical straight jacket that induces unhappiness and neurosis.

Be careful what you wish for in the Middle East, in the Islamic countries. It is prudent to temper one's enthusiasm here. A popular democratic government in that part of the world will tend to support some policies that will appear very strange to us in the West. However, it is important to understand that changes which may   appear backwards and retrogressive could actually lead to liberalization. Martin Luther was a reformer of Christianity yet he was actually very conservative, turned on the peasants who first supported him, and despised Jews above all others. However, his notion that any man may interpret the Bible for himself sounded the first the death knell of the oppressive Catholic Church and opened the way for liberal Christians. Islam is at  the beginning of a very long process. Christianity has shown that for all the progress it has made from its bloody repressive past, there are still many flaws in its major institutions. Change never evades friction and never travels in a straight upward motion. 

The religion to fear is the next important religion to be born. Babies are beautiful, full of hope and trouble.

As in the United States where there are no good guys running things or wanting to run things, so in Libya there are no good guys on either side of their battle because there are no perfect men walking around today. When we see rebels sending a representative to the World Bank before they have won their rebellion, something is wrong. We should let the natural process take its course. But men with certain evil interests are already forcing that process to their own wills.

It's probably best not to speculate too much about these matters when you don't have all the information at hand. The theme of one of my favorite books, Voltaire's Candide, is  that a certain road to unhappiness is travelled when one is absolutely sure he has all the absolute answers on a meta-scale:

"Cunégonde grows uglier and more disagreeable every day. Cacambo works in the garden of the small farm. He hates the work and curses his fate. Pangloss is unhappy because he has no chance of becoming an important figure in a German university. Martin is patient because he imagines that in any other situation he would be equally unhappy. They all debate philosophy while the misery of the world continues. Pangloss still maintains that everything is for the best but no longer truly believes it. Paquette and Giroflée arrive at the farm, having squandered the money Candide gave them. They are still unhappy, and Paquette is still a prostitute. 
The group consults a famous dervish (Muslim holy man) about questions of good and evil. The dervish rebukes them for caring about such questions and shuts the door in their faces. Later, the group stops at a roadside farm. The farmer kindly invites them to a pleasant dinner. He only has a small farm, but he and his family work hard on it and live a tolerable existence.
Candide finds the farmer’s life appealing. He, Cunégonde, and his friends decide to follow it, and everyone is satisfied by hard work in the garden. Pangloss suggests to Candide once again that this is the best of possible worlds. Candide responds, “That is very well put . . . but we must cultivate our garden.”"

Death Carrying A Child, Stefano della Bella,  1645-1651

Remembering History: Theodosius I and the Nicene Creed


Above: the diademed Theodosius I, looking more lugubrious than saintly

He was the last Emperor to rule both the Eastern and Western Empires. He recruited huge numbers of barbarians to fight in the dwindling legions of Rome, as the newly ascendant Christians showed little interest in defending the Empire.  The influx of barbarians would ultimately prove to be a big mistake when one of Theodosius' former  foederati barbarian leaders, Alaric, King of the Visigoths (an Arian Christian) would invade Italy during the reign of Theodosius' son Arcadius, Western Emperor, in one case taking advantage of the feast of Easter, knowing the Christians would be preoccupied with religion.

When Christians were establishing themselves as a religion they cried for tolerance. Once they were in the position as the establishment's official religion they banned or made it very difficult for all others to practice their faiths, especially other Christians who were skeptical of this new first dogma of the church, the Nicene Creed (Symbolum Nicaenum), and of course, Jews, who were deemed full of impious "madness". And let us not forget also all those insane conservative pagans who were still banging around at the time. Flavius Theodosius ( 11 January 347 – 17 January 395) known as Theodosius I decreed  Nicene Catholic Christianity the official and only state religion in 380. After initially mollifying influential pagans with his tolerance, once he was comfortably in power he issued strict proscriptions against them, such as a penalty of death both  for making sacrifice to the old gods in 381 and the practice of the haruspex  (the ancient Roman art of foretelling the future by the reading of entrails) in 384. The ancient religion of the state that unified and, for centuries pacified the ancient lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea was officially and finally denied by the enervated successors of what was left of the Romans.

The Nicene Creed was first agreed to by a majority of bishops at the first ecumenical council in 325 at Nicaea, hence the name, and finally hammered out as dogma in 381 at Constantinople. The Catholic and the Orthodox churches (as well as Anglican and Lutheran) to this day adhere to the Creed in more or less the same form, including it in their liturgies.  It is an interesting question whether Jesus would recognize this legal statement of Faith as any kind of representation of himself or his goals. The Catholic Church developed a shorter and vaguer Reader's Digest style version of the  Creed deceptively known as as the "Apostles' Creed" or Symbolum Apostolorum, used in some liturgical and non liturgical settings by most Christian denominations today. It appeared around 390 even though all the apostles were some three hundred years dead when it was written. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the matter in this way:

The Apostles' Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles' faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is "the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith".

In other words: the Creed is true because we say so.  The Church has also promulgated a mythology that the Apostles each received a part of the Creed at Pentecost from the Holy Spirit which was handed down in the church as an oral tradition (the church has had an oral tradition ever since, yuk yuk I'll be here all week).


Here is the Catholic Version of the Apostles' Creed:

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.

6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,

9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

10. the forgiveness of sins,

11. the resurrection of the body,

12. and life everlasting.

Amen.

The Nicene Creed did not end the confusion of discordant ideas on the Trinity (a notion first promulgated by Tertullian early in the third century) and Christianity itself. There are plenty of pin spinning angels to be counted in it. To this day the Eastern Church and the Western Church can't agree if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son both, or either. The Creed doesn't say. Don't ask me which side professes what. It makes my head spin.  The Trinity is a very complicated theology, based on vague biblical allusions cobbled together to support a politically ascendant church looking to justify its grasp on power and enforce unity among the faithful by squelching independent thought. Mergers of  Church and State, no matter how well meaning, are an Evil mix harming both or either party. Here is the 1975 ecumenical text of the Creed.

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit

he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

What a curious document from a religion that boasts of its monotheism.
When I was a child I enjoyed the  scary bit in the Apostles' Creed  (being a horror movie fan) about "he descended into Hell" but in the legalistic  Nicene Creed we are told Jesus "suffered death".
Jesus  is now depicted lacking all dynamism,  as "sitting at the right hand of the Father" clearly his successor as President of the Universe performing the same function. This concept at once demeans both the Father and the Son.
There is (are?) the Father and the Son in a sort of tableau vivant (with the invisible Holy Ghost, as (S?)He used to be called, getting to flit around) posing passively for the heavenly choirs in a set piece of theological erotica.
And the Creator (Creatorem caeli et terrae) of the Apostles' Creed is termed the "Maker of Heaven and Earth".(which is an accurate translation of the  Latin: Factórem cæli et terræ,) in the Nicene Creed of 381.

"Creator" is a more magnificent title than the more workmanlike "Maker". The Father is not the architect here; he is a contractor.  They are depicting the Father as equivalent to such a one as the Egyptian god Ptah who was also called the "Maker". He shaped the forms, the worlds, often for the other gods.
They are definitely downplaying the Father. It looks like they are trying to glorify the Son at the expense of the Big Guy. Their Mistake!
At one time I think they may have said they  "await" the "resurrection of the dead" rather than the impatient  "look for the resurrection of the dead". Interesting...Here is the original Latin:
"Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum," Yes the verb expecto (originally exspecto, literally "look out" which is a much different thing than "look for") is usually translated "await"; the verb, quaerere (the Latin root word of our "Inquiry") would be "look for".




Quotes of the Day

Omne enim spectaculum sine concussione spiritus non est. 
There is no public entertainment which does not inflict spiritual damage. (Lit. All public entertainment is not without spiritual damage.)

 Certum est, quia impossibile - It is certain because it is impossible.


Qui fugiebat rursus [sibi] proeliabitur. - He who flees will fight again.

Nec ratio enim sine bonitate ratio est, nec bonitas sine ratione bonitas ...
Reason without goodness is not reason, and goodness without reason is not goodness.
- all from Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, ca. 160 – ca. 220 A.D.)
 

“Do not feed children on maudlin sentimentalism or dogmatic religion; give them nature”-Luther Burbank

Happy Elvisday!

Above: Gladys, Elvis (with distinctive lip positioning already in place), and Vernon 1937

It is January 8, the birthday of the King of Rock and Roll and yours truly, who is also an advocate of making this day a national, yea, a world holiday.

"Elvis was a major hero of mine. I was actually stupid enough to believe that having the same birthday as him actually meant something"-David Bowie

TCB: Things to do on this day....


Contemplate the life and work of Elvis Aaron Presley.
Listen to his music.
Sing along with the music.
Shake your hips.
Make girls scream because of your sexual magnetism.
Watch Blue Hawaii, or any other Elvis movie.

Blue Hawaii, the most esoteric of the Elvis films

Talk like Elvis.
Read my blog.

"Only thing worse than watching a bad movie is being in one"-Elvis Presley

"The first time that I appeared on stage, it scared me to death. I really didn’t know what all the yelling was about. I didn’t realize that my body was moving. It’s a natural thing to me. So to the manager backstage I said ‘What’d I do? What’d I do?’ And he said "Whatever it is, go back and do it again’." -Elvis Presley, 1972

"His kind of music is deplorable, a rancid smelling aphrodisiac...It fosters almost totally negative and destructive reactions in young people."-Frank Sinatra on Elvis ca 1950's

Enlightened Religion Around The World

"Why are the Christians claiming Allah?" asks businessman Rahim Ismail, 47, his face contorted in rage and disbelief. He shakes his head and raises his voice while waiting for a taxi along Jalan Tun Razak, a main thoroughfare in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's capital. "Everybody in the world knows Allah is the Muslim God and belong to Muslims. I cannot understand why the Christians want to claim Allah as their god," Rahim says as passers-by, mostly Muslims, gather around and nod in agreement.
The reason for their anger is a recent judgment by Malaysia's High Court that the word 'Allah' is not exclusive to Muslims. Judge Lau Bee Lan ruled that others, including Catholics who had been prohibited by the Home Ministry from using the word in their publications since 2007, can now use the term. She also rescinded the prohibition order freeing the Malay language-edition of the Catholic monthly The Herald to use Allah to denote the Christian god. After widespread protests, however, the judge granted a stay order on Jan. 7. The same day the government appealed to the higher Court of Appeal to overturn the ruling. The anger seemingly turned violent late Thursday night after masked men on motorcycles firebombed three churches in the city, gutting the ground floor of the Metro Tabernacle Church located in a commercial building in the Desa Melawati suburb of the capital.- The REST at Time.com January 8, 2010

I am amazed at the silly actions of all involved.
Why are Muslims upset at Christians using an old term for god that predates Muhammed?
Maybe the Christians cynically think they can suck in a few Muslims into their churches this way.
Islam is the dominant religion of Indonesia.
As for the Muslims, they only make me shake my head.
Do they really think they worship a different god?
Do they think the Christians' god (granted it is a complicated triune god) is apart from theirs? Why aren't they flattered that the Christians are coming around?
I continue to believe that it might be better for all involved if we adopted a social etiquette of keeping religion to ourselves, as difficult as that may be.
Didn't Jesus pronounce a much violated injunction against flaunting prayier in public? (Matthew 6:5-6:6)
Why not treat religious activities like masturbation?
Most everyone does it.
Most keep their activities in this area to themselves.
Whenever I get the urge to burn down a place of worship,
I just listen to Elvis and I'm sure to lose interest.

Papaver Somniferum, John Bonanno photograph, 2009

Cushing In The Sun, Beth Bonanno photograph, 2009

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."-Karl Marx, Capital

I believe Marx saw the varied phenomena of do-gooders as futile manifestations of a guilt complex. Conservatives usually insist on a similar analysis, which, of course, is a kind of atheistic nihilism.

"The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere."-Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

Marx saw the fallacy of globalism before almost anyone else. Unfortunately his solution (Global Communism confronting Global Capitalism) compounded the problem. Perhaps that was the plan all along. In this case the call to arms of one global movement for battle against another global movement presents little choice at all since the desired result, hidden in plain sight and occult to the many, is Globalism. Communism and Capitalism are irrelevant distractions.

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."-Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction

At the head of this entry, Cushing, my Boston Terrier is contemplating Marx. And so am I. Marx has been so demonized by the prevailing, recently triumphant, but rapidly declining Capitalist mode one can instantly marginalize himself by the mere admission of having perused and analyzed Marx' thinking and writing. As spiritually and functionally dead as Marxism in practice has proven itself to be, one may garner knowledge from the man Karl Marx. I have long stated that Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same materialist coin. And this coin has been absolutely debased and its plated dross desperately attempts to simulate spiritual gold. On reading Karl's famous statement that religion 'is the opium of the people' in context, one is led by him to conclude that religion, in practice, in an oppressed world cannot provide true spirituality. (Whether Marx entertains the possibility that such a thing exists is glossed over.) This passage implies that only in a liberated world may one properly pursue what is the object of religion. I disagree, the object of religion must be attained to liberate the world; but this much repeated, truncated, and mangled quote simplifies in a most banal way Marx' essential argument: organized religion provides comfort in misery by indefinitely delaying a possibly fantastic and certainly untestable reward for the common man's endless struggles and serves the masters of the world in so doing. Opium and religion are both incredibly good at what they do to those who are susceptible. It is error to confound the goals of establishment religion and the longings of men and women for the sublime other.

A case in point:

"A Christian man is the most free lord of all and subject to none"-Martin Luther 1520

"And should the peasants prevail (which God forbid!), -- for all things are possible to God, and we know not but that he is preparing for the judgment day, which cannot be far distant, and may purpose to destroy, by means of the devil, all order and authority and throw the world into wild chaos, -- yet surely they who are found, sword in hand, shall perish in the wreck with clear consciences, leaving to the devil the kingdom of this world and receiving instead the eternal kingdom. For we are come upon such strange times that a prince may more easily win heaven by the shedding of blood than others by prayers."-Martin Luther, Against the Rioting Peasants, retitled by its publisher as Against The Murderous Thieving Hordes of Peasants, 1525

Luther admitted that the goals of his movement were now identical with the interests of those who possessed political power and that the peasants whom he had previously championed and had supported him, were shit out of luck. The peasants had the choice between Rome's Catholicism and the local nobles' Protestantism, both of which would screw them into the ground. It was a false dilemma, not even a modicum of freedom was an option for the masses, and the 'reformed' Protestant nobility of Germany killed at least a hundred thousand revolting peasants. Luther's freedom was only the freedom to be Lutheran instead of Catholic. Political freedom was out of the question.

"--People do not know how dangerous lovesongs can be, the auric egg of Russell warned occultly. The movements which work revolutions in the world are born out of the dreams and visions in a peasant's heart on the hillside. For them the earth is not an exploitable ground but the living mother. The rarefied air of the academy and the arena produce the sixshilling novel, the musichall song. France produces the finest flower of corruption in Mallarme but the desirable life is revealed only to the poor of heart, the life of Homer's Phaeacians."-James Joyce, Ulysses

Coming Soon: Marx and Hegel! The Dialectic!