We all know the statement appearing in what is called the Gospel of Matthew "judge not lest ye be judged." No doubt this particular unqualified admonishment (there are so many others in the Bible) is now rendered differently. Something along the lines of "you should not judge other people because then they'll judge you too and you wouldn't like that" would be my guess; something earnest, simple, plain and uninteresting.
But however it is stated, I find it a curious bit of advice, if advice it is meant to be. I also think it's advice we've taken far too seriously.
Why is it wrong to judge? Why is it undesirable to be judged? It is of course unfortunate to judge poorly and offensive to be poorly judged, but what we're being reproached for or warned against is judging, not doing so stupidly or unfairly. Did Matthew or whatever person or persons who wrote these words simply take it for granted that when we judge we do so ineptly or maliciously? Or did they object to judging itself--like throwing the first stone? Is judging something that's peculiarly the purview of God, like vengeance?
Departing ever so sadly from exclusively biblical considerations, I'm uncomfortable with the implication that judging itself is objectionable in some manner. Judging intelligently would be useful, I would guess, like thinking. "Think not lest others think of you"--could that be intended? It seems oddly defensive, as if we fear being thought about. What do we have to hide?
The fact is we make judgments all the time, and must do so as living creatures in an environment with other living creatures and limited resources and opportunities. Provided we judge well, there's nothing wrong with judging, but if we judge poorly then there may be problems.
There's a short article in Philosophy Now by Terri Murray which prompted this post, entitled "Is Judging Islamic Culture Possible?" She seems to believe it is possible to do so, and even to judge other things. As she is an academic, I find this comforting. I get the impression from the article that others in the academy may object, however. This would confirm certain suspicions I have received second-hand (from college students of my acquaintance) who have told me that judging is wrong or that they're being taught that judging is wrong.
Judging is apparently most wrong in connection with people or things who are not people just like us or are not things that we have and know. Not only is it wrong, but it is impossible. We just can't know what it's like to be someone who is not just like us, and have no business treating them as if they were just like us, at least for purposes of judging them or what they do or think. If it seems odd to you that something which cannot be done is wrong, it seems odd to me as well. But it serves us right, because in considering it odd we are making a judgment.
This is a point of view which would seem to radically discount the worth of education or learning of most kinds, so it's rather strange to learn that it is apparently one that is espoused by certain educators. Indeed, the claim that we cannot or should not judge would seem to be one that requires a judgment. Further, if the claim that we should not judge is valid, it would have to be considered a good judgment and have to be acknowledged that good judgments can be made and have value (they are at least better than bad judgments). Thus those who make such claims again ride the merry-go-round they seem to enjoy riding so much, despite the fact others point out that is what they do.
But once we get on the merry-go-round it doesn't stop, unfortunately. If we can't or shouldn't make judgments about others, we excuse the very many others who make judgments; their judgments cannot be judged good or bad, whatever else they may be. So if a person makes judgments that certain other people are evil or inferior, or should not be tolerated, it's not possible for us to say they do wrong. There's no way to question their judgments. What do we say in response to their judgments? That they shouldn't make judgments just as we shouldn't? But why shouldn't they?
One of the quirks of being human is that we actually contrive every now and then to be stupid and self-destructive. What is truly remarkable, though, is that we not only are diligent in finding ways not to make sense, but consider ourselves to be most profound or insightful when we don't make sense regarding matters we think of as extraordinary--beyond the normal, dull world where actual problems arise and may be addressed and make judgments as a matter of course and necessity. We seem so righteous when telling ourselves we are incapable of judging or should not judge others, it's difficult to believe we're not right. It is of course an added benefit that nobody can maintain that we're wrong.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
The Greatest Show on Earth
I'm afraid it's time for the grotesque circus of American politics to pull into town once more. Mid-term elections loom and the presidential election is coming, as unavoidable as death but not so reassuringly final. It's altogether fitting that Godzilla has arisen again to flatten our cities. He's a precursor of sorts. The freak show of our politics has monsters of its own to display which, though not so large as those on the Silver Screen, may be more destructive in the long run.
Already it seems as if Ms. Clinton is to be the Democratic nominee, or would be if the Republicans have their way. I personally dread the possibility of what Christopher Hitchens called the Clinton-family drama playing out yet again in the White House. Doubtless she's more clever than her obnoxious lecher of a husband, but she appears equally venal and ambitious. All of our politicians may have those characteristics, of course, of necessity here in the land where money is protected speech. But one longs for variety, even in a freak show. Surely there are newcomers to the political scene, ready to be bought and to take their places on stage.
Comments regarding her age and health are not unexpected, though it seems early to begin such attacks and they come ill from the pudgy pundit Karl Rove. But her husband relentlessly commented regarding the age of Bob Dole all those years ago, and it's difficult for the Clintons to complain greatly as a result. The Republicans may want to give this a rest until their nominee is chosen, though.
Just who will be the Republican nominee is unknown. Those strikingly strange individuals we've heard of already may not last. However, it can't be doubted that whoever is chosen will be at least as odd. What sane, reasonable person would want to be President of the United States? Who could put up with the miserable hypocrisy, posturing, buying and selling; the wretched kowtowing to virtually anyone with money and influence, without feeling such a loathing of self and others as to make suicide seem the only dignified option? Only a monster. Only a freak.
It's difficult to believe that we've managed to create a system which requires the election of those lacking in either principle or intelligence, but we've done just that. We can't claim to have done so intentionally, but may as well have thought to do so all along given the near-perfection of the system in obtaining such a result. At best our politicians are confused, dull figures, likely to say whatever they think will please those they're speaking to at any given time, then to forget what was said and to whom. Perhaps it is not the wise but the opportunistic who truly live in the moment.
Of course every circus requires its carnies, its shills, but we've seen to that as well. These inhabit our media, or are consultants to the stars of the show or the media, or are party functionaries or lackeys. We listen to them, as they're as much part of the show as the politicians.
It's indeed a great show, and a most important one, and the seeming inevitability of it makes me wonder whether the opponents of democracy have been right. But there must be some option other than totalitarianism or a dictatorship or oligarchy, and these are what it seems those who oppose democracy generally conclude is required. Something a bit closer to a democracy.
The corruption inherent in the system could perhaps be limited by the imposition of restrictions on the extent to which money can be used to influence politicians and elections, but our Supreme Court has seen to it that such restrictions cannot be imposed, at least until such time as a majority of them have died. Term limits might help. Viable parties in addition to the Democrats and Republicans might do so as well.
Perhaps our best option is to limit the powers available to our politicians. The less able they are to regulate us for the benefit of those who do what is required to get them elected and keep them in power the better off we are.
What is the likelihood of any real change occurring, however? Given our tendency to avoid change something remarkable would be required, and what would be remarkable in these times and at the same time possible is likely to be dramatically harmful as well. So it's on with the show for now. This is it, as Bugs and his friends would say.
Already it seems as if Ms. Clinton is to be the Democratic nominee, or would be if the Republicans have their way. I personally dread the possibility of what Christopher Hitchens called the Clinton-family drama playing out yet again in the White House. Doubtless she's more clever than her obnoxious lecher of a husband, but she appears equally venal and ambitious. All of our politicians may have those characteristics, of course, of necessity here in the land where money is protected speech. But one longs for variety, even in a freak show. Surely there are newcomers to the political scene, ready to be bought and to take their places on stage.
Comments regarding her age and health are not unexpected, though it seems early to begin such attacks and they come ill from the pudgy pundit Karl Rove. But her husband relentlessly commented regarding the age of Bob Dole all those years ago, and it's difficult for the Clintons to complain greatly as a result. The Republicans may want to give this a rest until their nominee is chosen, though.
Just who will be the Republican nominee is unknown. Those strikingly strange individuals we've heard of already may not last. However, it can't be doubted that whoever is chosen will be at least as odd. What sane, reasonable person would want to be President of the United States? Who could put up with the miserable hypocrisy, posturing, buying and selling; the wretched kowtowing to virtually anyone with money and influence, without feeling such a loathing of self and others as to make suicide seem the only dignified option? Only a monster. Only a freak.
It's difficult to believe that we've managed to create a system which requires the election of those lacking in either principle or intelligence, but we've done just that. We can't claim to have done so intentionally, but may as well have thought to do so all along given the near-perfection of the system in obtaining such a result. At best our politicians are confused, dull figures, likely to say whatever they think will please those they're speaking to at any given time, then to forget what was said and to whom. Perhaps it is not the wise but the opportunistic who truly live in the moment.
Of course every circus requires its carnies, its shills, but we've seen to that as well. These inhabit our media, or are consultants to the stars of the show or the media, or are party functionaries or lackeys. We listen to them, as they're as much part of the show as the politicians.
It's indeed a great show, and a most important one, and the seeming inevitability of it makes me wonder whether the opponents of democracy have been right. But there must be some option other than totalitarianism or a dictatorship or oligarchy, and these are what it seems those who oppose democracy generally conclude is required. Something a bit closer to a democracy.
The corruption inherent in the system could perhaps be limited by the imposition of restrictions on the extent to which money can be used to influence politicians and elections, but our Supreme Court has seen to it that such restrictions cannot be imposed, at least until such time as a majority of them have died. Term limits might help. Viable parties in addition to the Democrats and Republicans might do so as well.
Perhaps our best option is to limit the powers available to our politicians. The less able they are to regulate us for the benefit of those who do what is required to get them elected and keep them in power the better off we are.
What is the likelihood of any real change occurring, however? Given our tendency to avoid change something remarkable would be required, and what would be remarkable in these times and at the same time possible is likely to be dramatically harmful as well. So it's on with the show for now. This is it, as Bugs and his friends would say.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Angry Gods
The man we know as Lucius Apuleius wrote the only entire Latin novel to survive the fall of the ancient word, The Golden Ass also known as the Metamorphoses (the Satyricon of Petronius has come to us with sections missing). It is perhaps the first picaresque novel, its hero suffering through all kinds of discomforts at the hands of many, both as a human and while transformed into an ass.
At the end of the novel, however, there is a seemingly very serious and interesting description of ceremonial in the worship of Isis and her consort, Osiris, as that goddess was worshipped in Roman times. Apuleius is initiated into the mysteries of Isis, the Queen of Heaven, Regina Caeli. Also included in the novel is a description of ecstatic dancing and blood-letting (flagellation) by eunuchs in the worship of what is referred to as "the Syrian goddess." I assume that is Cybele, given the role played by eunuchs in her worship.
Older Catholics like me will find the title Regina Caeli familiar as one given to the Virgin Mary, which could be heard in a hymn to her sung back in the old days of the Latin mass and Novenas. As for flagellation, and even ecstatic dancing, Christianity has had its proponents of both. These are reminders of the debt (if one can call it that) owed by Christianity to the ancient pagan past.
But there is one sense at least in which Christianity differs from the religion of the ancient pagans (amusingly called Gentiles by Christians). It isn't monotheism either, assuming "monotheism" is properly used to describe the three gods in one said to be the Christian God. There were monotheists among the pagans, or at least those who could claim to be monotheists as appropriately as could Christians of the time. It is instead Christianity's pretension to being the only true religion, the one path to heaven, the sole truth; that is to say its exclusivity, and its often violent intolerance of that which is not Christian.
Christianity isn't alone in this remarkable conceit of course. So are the other major religions said to derive from Abraham, Judaism and Islam, which have been equally exclusive, equally intolerant. Their gods are angry, jealous gods; we are sinners in their hands, though some sinners are worse than others. I know little of the religions of the East, but it seems to me that they have at least been less intolerant than those of the West.
The pagan religions from which Christianity borrowed so much had no such pretensions in the sense that they were generally not exclusive and not intolerant. One could, and did, worship many gods. One could be admitted to the mysteries of Isis and those of Mithras. Admission to the Eleusinian mysteries was open to all, after they ceased being purely local; several emperors were initiates.
Religion was essential to Greco-Roman society; there were temples everywhere, rituals were to be performed with great frequency. The worship of some gods or goddesses was considered silly or barbaric or contrary to social order from time to time. Christianity was indeed thought to be anti-social and was persecuted because its followers refused to participate in the ceremonies believed to be essential to the welfare of the Roman state and its people. However there was no insistence that only one god should be worshipped, no claims that worshipping other gods was evil, no crusades as in Christianity, no religious conquests as took place as was the case in Islam and Christianity, no Inquisitions.
It's interesting to consider just how it came about that the Abrahamic religions became exclusive and intolerant. If it wasn't the influence of pagan religion, what could it be? Judaism was certainly exclusive and intolerant, and there was a long tradition that Jews alone were the favorites of the one God. There were occassions as in Alexandria where fights would break out between Jews and pagans--riots, really. There was frequent tension, but nothing quite like the virtual warfare with pagans and heretics resulting from the triumph of Christianity and later Islam. Perhaps the Jews' belief in their own sanctity and righteousness didn't result in the extermination of other religions and beliefs and those who followed or held them on a larger scale because they never obtained political and military power as did Christianity and Islam.
It's likely that such intolerance derives from the belief not just in a single God but in a single truth, a single way of living that is the only way. We see the same intolerance in Nazism, fascism, Stalinism, Maoism. This intolerance seems to be associated with a figure divine or semi-divine who issues commandments to be followed or interprets those given by some other figure.
Sheep and Shepard seems an all too accurate analogy for humans and our relationship to power of all kinds. But it's curious that this kind of religious absolutism didn't develop during the time of polytheism. There was political absolutism enough in the Roman Empire, of course, but the emperors didn't begin to demand the closing of the temples and the schools of philosophy and the acceptance of a particular version of Christianity until the reign of Theodosius (he also banned the Olympic games).
An all-powerful, all-knowing god who is jealous, demanding and angry. What does this reveal about those who worship such a being and were induced to do so at the end of antiquity, and the state of the culture and society which saw the triumph of such a religion?
At the end of the novel, however, there is a seemingly very serious and interesting description of ceremonial in the worship of Isis and her consort, Osiris, as that goddess was worshipped in Roman times. Apuleius is initiated into the mysteries of Isis, the Queen of Heaven, Regina Caeli. Also included in the novel is a description of ecstatic dancing and blood-letting (flagellation) by eunuchs in the worship of what is referred to as "the Syrian goddess." I assume that is Cybele, given the role played by eunuchs in her worship.
Older Catholics like me will find the title Regina Caeli familiar as one given to the Virgin Mary, which could be heard in a hymn to her sung back in the old days of the Latin mass and Novenas. As for flagellation, and even ecstatic dancing, Christianity has had its proponents of both. These are reminders of the debt (if one can call it that) owed by Christianity to the ancient pagan past.
But there is one sense at least in which Christianity differs from the religion of the ancient pagans (amusingly called Gentiles by Christians). It isn't monotheism either, assuming "monotheism" is properly used to describe the three gods in one said to be the Christian God. There were monotheists among the pagans, or at least those who could claim to be monotheists as appropriately as could Christians of the time. It is instead Christianity's pretension to being the only true religion, the one path to heaven, the sole truth; that is to say its exclusivity, and its often violent intolerance of that which is not Christian.
Christianity isn't alone in this remarkable conceit of course. So are the other major religions said to derive from Abraham, Judaism and Islam, which have been equally exclusive, equally intolerant. Their gods are angry, jealous gods; we are sinners in their hands, though some sinners are worse than others. I know little of the religions of the East, but it seems to me that they have at least been less intolerant than those of the West.
The pagan religions from which Christianity borrowed so much had no such pretensions in the sense that they were generally not exclusive and not intolerant. One could, and did, worship many gods. One could be admitted to the mysteries of Isis and those of Mithras. Admission to the Eleusinian mysteries was open to all, after they ceased being purely local; several emperors were initiates.
Religion was essential to Greco-Roman society; there were temples everywhere, rituals were to be performed with great frequency. The worship of some gods or goddesses was considered silly or barbaric or contrary to social order from time to time. Christianity was indeed thought to be anti-social and was persecuted because its followers refused to participate in the ceremonies believed to be essential to the welfare of the Roman state and its people. However there was no insistence that only one god should be worshipped, no claims that worshipping other gods was evil, no crusades as in Christianity, no religious conquests as took place as was the case in Islam and Christianity, no Inquisitions.
It's interesting to consider just how it came about that the Abrahamic religions became exclusive and intolerant. If it wasn't the influence of pagan religion, what could it be? Judaism was certainly exclusive and intolerant, and there was a long tradition that Jews alone were the favorites of the one God. There were occassions as in Alexandria where fights would break out between Jews and pagans--riots, really. There was frequent tension, but nothing quite like the virtual warfare with pagans and heretics resulting from the triumph of Christianity and later Islam. Perhaps the Jews' belief in their own sanctity and righteousness didn't result in the extermination of other religions and beliefs and those who followed or held them on a larger scale because they never obtained political and military power as did Christianity and Islam.
It's likely that such intolerance derives from the belief not just in a single God but in a single truth, a single way of living that is the only way. We see the same intolerance in Nazism, fascism, Stalinism, Maoism. This intolerance seems to be associated with a figure divine or semi-divine who issues commandments to be followed or interprets those given by some other figure.
Sheep and Shepard seems an all too accurate analogy for humans and our relationship to power of all kinds. But it's curious that this kind of religious absolutism didn't develop during the time of polytheism. There was political absolutism enough in the Roman Empire, of course, but the emperors didn't begin to demand the closing of the temples and the schools of philosophy and the acceptance of a particular version of Christianity until the reign of Theodosius (he also banned the Olympic games).
An all-powerful, all-knowing god who is jealous, demanding and angry. What does this reveal about those who worship such a being and were induced to do so at the end of antiquity, and the state of the culture and society which saw the triumph of such a religion?
Monday, May 5, 2014
Not a Prayer
It shouldn't be a surprise, really, that the Supremes sanctioned the practice of the Town of Greece (a rather amusing name under the circumstances) in summoning the local clergy to drone prayers at the commencement of town board meetings. It may surprise some, however, that it has been the law for some time in our Glorious Republic that such prayers may be made at meetings of governmental bodies, and that the practice is not all that unusual.
True, the rule has been that such prayers should not be overtly preferential towards particular religions. I don't see this latest decision as changing that rule, but for the fact that the governing bodies of most municipalities in our merry old land govern municipalities the residents of which are (nominally at least) largely Christian as are most of the clergy. It seems that the Supremes find it not unnatural for prayers that local governments act wisely at their meetings be for the most part Christian in those circumstances, and consider it burdensome for them to be required to import the clergy of other faiths to perform the seemingly thankless task of begging for God's blessing.
I confess that it doesn't matter to me in the least whether prayers are or are not said when our local (or other) leaders gather to govern us, nor do I care what kind of prayers are said, provided that they are not blatantly stupid, clumsy, grandiose or judgmental. I take it as unquestionable that such prayers have no effect, and think they have no purpose. They may be said to be needless as a result, but that is not to say they are illegal. I attend such meetings in a professional capacity on a regular basis and ignore them, when they are said, as a matter of course. I think it more than likely that most everyone present ignores them as well--just as they do at Church. As for the Pledge of Allegiance, I've been reciting it for a very long time and don't care that the word "God" appears in it; at this point I'd be confused if it did not.
So perhaps I'm not the most appropriate person to address this decision, as it means so little to me. I'd find it interesting, at least, if the Hymn of Cleanthes was said before a meeting. Substitute "God" for "Zeus" and it could be intoned without causing a raised eyebrow anywhere in these United States. All prayers are the same for the most part, at least those that would be said by anyone at the meeting of a governmental body. This is significant, I think; or perhaps "insignificant" is a better word.
As prayer is needless, though, so was this litigation. Given the absurd expense of legal action, I find it absurd this action was brought to begin with, let alone brought before the Supreme Court. One should pick one's legal battles wisely, and I think it unwise to spend the huge sums which no doubt were spent (one way or another) and the lost time which was devoted to the hoped for eradication of a kind of chant recited at the commencement of a board meeting.
What, indeed, could have been accomplished even if the suit was successful? There was no reasonable chance that prayer would have been forbidden, especially by this court. At best, the Town of Greece would have been put to the expense of summoning non-Christian prayer-sayers to say a prayer now and then. This cannot be considered a mighty achievement by any reasonable person. If one doesn't want prayer, it presumably is no victory to assure that there will be different prayers by different people.
Simply put, we have better things to do with our time and money and so does the law. There comes a point where matters of principle generate nothing but trouble, particularly when it comes to litigation.
True, the rule has been that such prayers should not be overtly preferential towards particular religions. I don't see this latest decision as changing that rule, but for the fact that the governing bodies of most municipalities in our merry old land govern municipalities the residents of which are (nominally at least) largely Christian as are most of the clergy. It seems that the Supremes find it not unnatural for prayers that local governments act wisely at their meetings be for the most part Christian in those circumstances, and consider it burdensome for them to be required to import the clergy of other faiths to perform the seemingly thankless task of begging for God's blessing.
I confess that it doesn't matter to me in the least whether prayers are or are not said when our local (or other) leaders gather to govern us, nor do I care what kind of prayers are said, provided that they are not blatantly stupid, clumsy, grandiose or judgmental. I take it as unquestionable that such prayers have no effect, and think they have no purpose. They may be said to be needless as a result, but that is not to say they are illegal. I attend such meetings in a professional capacity on a regular basis and ignore them, when they are said, as a matter of course. I think it more than likely that most everyone present ignores them as well--just as they do at Church. As for the Pledge of Allegiance, I've been reciting it for a very long time and don't care that the word "God" appears in it; at this point I'd be confused if it did not.
So perhaps I'm not the most appropriate person to address this decision, as it means so little to me. I'd find it interesting, at least, if the Hymn of Cleanthes was said before a meeting. Substitute "God" for "Zeus" and it could be intoned without causing a raised eyebrow anywhere in these United States. All prayers are the same for the most part, at least those that would be said by anyone at the meeting of a governmental body. This is significant, I think; or perhaps "insignificant" is a better word.
As prayer is needless, though, so was this litigation. Given the absurd expense of legal action, I find it absurd this action was brought to begin with, let alone brought before the Supreme Court. One should pick one's legal battles wisely, and I think it unwise to spend the huge sums which no doubt were spent (one way or another) and the lost time which was devoted to the hoped for eradication of a kind of chant recited at the commencement of a board meeting.
What, indeed, could have been accomplished even if the suit was successful? There was no reasonable chance that prayer would have been forbidden, especially by this court. At best, the Town of Greece would have been put to the expense of summoning non-Christian prayer-sayers to say a prayer now and then. This cannot be considered a mighty achievement by any reasonable person. If one doesn't want prayer, it presumably is no victory to assure that there will be different prayers by different people.
Simply put, we have better things to do with our time and money and so does the law. There comes a point where matters of principle generate nothing but trouble, particularly when it comes to litigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)