Brian Setzer did a song called "Sixty Years." Its chorus contains the words "We only got sixty years on the planet (Repeat 3 times) and if you get any more you might wish that you hadn't." It would seem he underestimated just how long most of us have here. Perhaps he meant sixty good years. But in one case at least, he was accurate enough.
Memento mori was a medieval practice, involving reflection on one's mortality. Of course, this was a common practice or discipline long before the Middle Ages. It's easy enough to find the contemplation of death in Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius, for example, and those granted a Roman triumph were told to remember they were mortal by a slave standing behind them in their chariot, holding a crown over their heads.
The death of someone you know, particularly that of a contemporary and a friend, can inspire such contemplation as well. The inspiration for this contemplation increases with age, naturally enough. It's something to get used to.
I met the friend of mine who died recently in college. We were roommates for the better part of four years. He was odd, quiet and shy. I also was odd, though not so quiet and not so shy. We had many things in common in addition to our peculiarity: a fondness for alcohol, literature and music, and the more outlandish forms of wit. He grew excessively fond of alcohol, however, and it may be that fondness together with a love of tobacco, which we also shared, which ultimately brought about his gradual dissipation and ultimately his death. I don't know if alcoholism was eventually diagnosed in his case, but had been drunk with him on many occasions and while my drunkenness became less and less a habit his became habitual. Tobacco I gave up many years ago; I don't think he ever stopped smoking.
Sadly, I hadn't seen him for years when I learned of his death. For years before that, though, we were very good friends indeed and that friendship lasted long after college, continuing after I married and had children, though he never did. He clearly wasn't up to either. The signs of his dissolution were there even in college, when he threw away his chance of doing well by drinking and treating his courses and teachers with contempt. But he returned and ended up graduating years after his classmates did, to his credit. It seemed at the time he was pulling himself together.
Perhaps he was a shooting star, as a song he liked put it. His intelligence and wit could be incandescent, his memory profound, his insight remarkable. But he had no patience for the kind of life available to him now, and refused always to do what was needed to succeed, though I think he could have done so. Later, I think he began to lose his hold on life and perhaps on sanity, preferring some other world he was unable to experience; that would not require work and discipline or the compromises and effort required to make money, marry have children, own property. Medication may have contributed to the disorientation he sometimes displayed
He seemed of a type, in some sense. The frustrated, lonely artist, misunderstood genius. A tragic figure. He could write very well indeed, in my not very humble opinion, when he wanted to. I hope he continued to write, and that somewhere among what's left behind there may be some work of genius. But there was more to him than that. He wasn't merely a poseur. Yet he burned out very quickly. He became homeless for a time, I think. I gave him money, bought him meals, but I was a professional and a father and existed in an entirely different world, and the requests for money became intolerable eventually. I know I could have done more, but did not. I doubt it would have made any difference if I had, but regret it nonetheless.
It seems my great regrets have their beginnings in my college years. What is it about those years that they play such a role? They should not, because they are gone quickly and the rest of life remains and is relentlessly different from those halcyon days. I suppose the same could be said about youth.
A friend, according to Cicero, is like a second self. He was a great friend for a long time, and I often think of him, and miss him, especially during my now sadly solo trips to the friendly and interesting bars and restaurants in downtown Chicago. In this case a friend was not a second self, really, though I saw in him things I think are or at least were in me, but not to the same extent or of the same dangerous power and purity. Ave atque vale, Catullus wrote to his brother on his death. I wrote the same words on the death of my father, and now do so on the death of a friend.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Monday, January 4, 2016
The Money Militia
The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was established by Teddy Roosevelt by Executive Order in 1908. That refuge has now been occupied by a group of disgruntled ranchers supplemented by various and sundry members of self-proclaimed militias.
The purpose of the occupation according to the occupiers is not very clear, and seems to be subject to revision. This vagueness may have several causes. It is possible the occupiers, or their spokesmen, are inarticulate. It's possible that they're being deliberately vague. It's possible that they themselves are not entirely certain why they are there.
My guess would be that all these possible causes are indeed causes of their vagaries. But it seems fairly clear that at the bottom of this is something unremarkable and, perhaps, even ignoble in a sense. That is to say, the desire for money.
The Bundys and others are concerned that their ability to make money is being restricted by the government. Grazing rights, mineral rights are being limited. An armed occupation of a wildlife refuge is pretty weird in and of itself, but an armed occupation motivated by the desire to make more money is less than heroic, to put it kindly.
As a consequence, an effort is being made to characterize this unusual bargaining tactic as something more than it is. So, we hear curious statements to the effect that hunting, fishing and camping rights are at stake. Again, it's unclear why; it seems hunting, fishing and camping is allowed in at least parts of the refuge, and such rights wouldn't seem worth an armed occupation. Naturally, references to the First and Second Amendments are being made. But it would be difficult for anyone to maintain that the occupation is motivated by concerns over the rights granted by these amendments.
Evidently it's also being maintained that this is a protest of the jailing of convicted arsonists, who decided to set fire to land they were leasing from the federal government, presumably without the permission of the lessor. However, their attorney has claimed they don't want this support.
Thus far, the authorities seem to be treating this event with the disinterest it deserves. There are discussions going on, as may be expected. Neither local nor federal law enforcement is on the scene in any strength. People are being urged not to approach those portions of the refuge occupied, but otherwise the government is wisely treating the incursion as no big deal.
I suspect that the occupiers will gradually disperse given the lack of interest in their occupation. It is to be hoped most of them have better things to do than engage in such posturing. Unless the government does something foolish, or the occupiers do so, this will pass without incident. But regardless I think this incident should be seen for what it is; a money-making venture on the part of a relative few who are trying to make it seem something more. They have fooled some already, but it is to be hoped won't fool more of us.
I can understand that dealing with the federal bureaucracy can be frustrating and can cause very real anger. As a lawyer representing private interests and local governments, I've had to deal with it now and then. But to countenance the idea of an armed occupation over what is essentially a financial dispute with the government requires a certain twisted sense of self-importance and even narcissism which can be dangerous.
The purpose of the occupation according to the occupiers is not very clear, and seems to be subject to revision. This vagueness may have several causes. It is possible the occupiers, or their spokesmen, are inarticulate. It's possible that they're being deliberately vague. It's possible that they themselves are not entirely certain why they are there.
My guess would be that all these possible causes are indeed causes of their vagaries. But it seems fairly clear that at the bottom of this is something unremarkable and, perhaps, even ignoble in a sense. That is to say, the desire for money.
The Bundys and others are concerned that their ability to make money is being restricted by the government. Grazing rights, mineral rights are being limited. An armed occupation of a wildlife refuge is pretty weird in and of itself, but an armed occupation motivated by the desire to make more money is less than heroic, to put it kindly.
As a consequence, an effort is being made to characterize this unusual bargaining tactic as something more than it is. So, we hear curious statements to the effect that hunting, fishing and camping rights are at stake. Again, it's unclear why; it seems hunting, fishing and camping is allowed in at least parts of the refuge, and such rights wouldn't seem worth an armed occupation. Naturally, references to the First and Second Amendments are being made. But it would be difficult for anyone to maintain that the occupation is motivated by concerns over the rights granted by these amendments.
Evidently it's also being maintained that this is a protest of the jailing of convicted arsonists, who decided to set fire to land they were leasing from the federal government, presumably without the permission of the lessor. However, their attorney has claimed they don't want this support.
Thus far, the authorities seem to be treating this event with the disinterest it deserves. There are discussions going on, as may be expected. Neither local nor federal law enforcement is on the scene in any strength. People are being urged not to approach those portions of the refuge occupied, but otherwise the government is wisely treating the incursion as no big deal.
I suspect that the occupiers will gradually disperse given the lack of interest in their occupation. It is to be hoped most of them have better things to do than engage in such posturing. Unless the government does something foolish, or the occupiers do so, this will pass without incident. But regardless I think this incident should be seen for what it is; a money-making venture on the part of a relative few who are trying to make it seem something more. They have fooled some already, but it is to be hoped won't fool more of us.
I can understand that dealing with the federal bureaucracy can be frustrating and can cause very real anger. As a lawyer representing private interests and local governments, I've had to deal with it now and then. But to countenance the idea of an armed occupation over what is essentially a financial dispute with the government requires a certain twisted sense of self-importance and even narcissism which can be dangerous.
Monday, December 28, 2015
"The Gun is Good"
Has anyone (else) seen the movie Zardoz? It's title character is an enormous flying head, apparently made from stone, which is God or at least represents God in yet another post-apocalyptic world of the kind we like to envision now and then. Although it has an angry look, it floats about serenely, coming to rest eventually among a crowd of men riding horses and shouting its name. From its mouth it more or less vomits firearms among its worshippers, bellowing "The Gun is Good!" among other things. This is, as I recall, the opening scene.
The movie stars Sean Connery, wearing a very silly costume, and Charlotte Rampling "as a bit of tail" as Monty Python would say, and others. Zardoz provides guns to men who keep slavish serf types in line while they grow food for a group of women and less than virile men (compared to Sean) who rule over them. I forget why, or how, and most of the movie. I am fond of the big stone head, however, which you may find easily enough via Google or some other browser. It appears sad in some way, but very angry because it is sad, and so seems to simultaneously cry and roar ferociously. I sometimes wish I could find a Zardoz mask to wear.
The head sticks in my mind, as does the phrase "The Gun is Good!" It seems to express a sentiment which many hold today in our Great Republic, that Americans should own guns. Why some of us have this sentiment is something I'd like to explore, however briefly, in this post.
I'm the owner of a shotgun, with which I shoot clay pigeons or discs. I enjoy owning and shooting this firearm. I even enjoy cleaning it, more or less. I like the way it looks, feels and handles. Based on these feelings, I suppose it would be appropriate to say that I find it "good" to own and use the gun, in a fairly limited sense. The "good" I would refer to, though, would merely express my pleasure in its ownership and use. It would be "good" in the same sense food would be "good" in my opinion if I enjoyed it.
No doubt other gun owners feel much the same about their firearms. But the sentiment I refer to now is plainly more than that.
Guns in America are not merely enjoyable. Owning a firearm is considered a right, established in the Constitution, of course, but the fact that one has a right to own a firearm doesn't mean one should own one. That, however, is what is now being claimed.
The Second Amendment plays its part in the conception of the gun as good. This is because it's thought that grants us a right which, unlike other rights, is not paired with an obligation or duty to others, but instead is derived from a perceived need. The need is no longer associated with keeping us from hunger, so the gun isn't good because we need it to survive. We need to have a legal right to own firearms in order to protect ourselves, not from others but from the government itself. Owning guns has somehow become essential to our liberty. The gun is good not just to put food on the table as once was the case, or because it may be used in hunting or sport. It is good as laws limiting the power of government are good, to prevent tyranny.
By virtue of this conception of the Second Amendment, the gun has become a kind of totem. It is a peculiarly American emblem of freedom.
Although many of those urging us to buy guns are associated in various respects with gun manufacturers, and so may be considered mere shills and salesmen, the "sales pitch" made isn't typical given the great status of the gun in our society. We're not being told we should buy a gun because we'll enjoy having one as we can engage in sport shooting or hunting. Those doing the urging aren't trying to exploit our sense of pleasure, or that is in any case not the focus of their efforts. They tell us we should have guns to protect ourselves and our families. Of course, we have a duty to protect our families. Having a gun is good as well as it allows us to comply with that duty.
More than this, they tell us we should have them so that we may participate in the effort to stop assorted bad people who would shoot us; terrorists and the mentally ill, and perhaps even common criminals, all of whom have guns themselves. Even certain members of law enforcement now claim that we should have guns, as we cannot rely on law enforcement to protect us fully, or can aid them by using guns before they arrive on the scene.
So, the gun is not a tool it's good to have, or something good to have so that we may use it to enjoy hunting or sport shooting. It's good to have because it is associated with America itself, and the founding of America. It's good to have because it protects our liberties and our families. It's good to have because it will allow us to become active participants in the struggle against evil. For these reasons, we should have guns.
Are they good reasons? As to the Second Amendment, I don't think it can be ignored that at the time of its adoption, the likelihood is that most everyone had guns and most everyone used them. However, it's unlikely that, after the Revolution, they were used for the purpose it's being claimed led to its adoption. They were probably used to hunt, for food, and to kill vermin. They may have been used now and then during duels. They could well have been used to kill Native Americans. They were very useful in ways in which they're for the most part no longer used. Far more useful than they are now.
Everyone having guns, the demand being at least as great if not greater than the supply, I doubt the Second Amendment served the purpose of motivating the acquisition of guns, as it's being used now. To the extent there was a concern over government tyranny, I think the concern was related to the possible confiscation of guns already possessed, not the need to acquire more guns. It was good to have guns, but not necessarily good to get more guns.
As to the need to protect ourselves, our families, and participate in the struggle against evil, one would think that in order to do so effectively something more than the mere possession of guns would be required. We would have to learn something about using them and trained to use them well. Those urging us to get guns don't seem inclined to urge us to do that, though certain of them want us to carry them around with us. The lack of emphasis on responsible and efficient use of firearms is disturbing. There also seems to be a lack of evidence that citizens owning guns, or even carrying them, prevents gun violence or inhibits evildoers.
If the gun is good as claimed, shouldn't there be good reasons for that claim?
The movie stars Sean Connery, wearing a very silly costume, and Charlotte Rampling "as a bit of tail" as Monty Python would say, and others. Zardoz provides guns to men who keep slavish serf types in line while they grow food for a group of women and less than virile men (compared to Sean) who rule over them. I forget why, or how, and most of the movie. I am fond of the big stone head, however, which you may find easily enough via Google or some other browser. It appears sad in some way, but very angry because it is sad, and so seems to simultaneously cry and roar ferociously. I sometimes wish I could find a Zardoz mask to wear.
The head sticks in my mind, as does the phrase "The Gun is Good!" It seems to express a sentiment which many hold today in our Great Republic, that Americans should own guns. Why some of us have this sentiment is something I'd like to explore, however briefly, in this post.
I'm the owner of a shotgun, with which I shoot clay pigeons or discs. I enjoy owning and shooting this firearm. I even enjoy cleaning it, more or less. I like the way it looks, feels and handles. Based on these feelings, I suppose it would be appropriate to say that I find it "good" to own and use the gun, in a fairly limited sense. The "good" I would refer to, though, would merely express my pleasure in its ownership and use. It would be "good" in the same sense food would be "good" in my opinion if I enjoyed it.
No doubt other gun owners feel much the same about their firearms. But the sentiment I refer to now is plainly more than that.
Guns in America are not merely enjoyable. Owning a firearm is considered a right, established in the Constitution, of course, but the fact that one has a right to own a firearm doesn't mean one should own one. That, however, is what is now being claimed.
The Second Amendment plays its part in the conception of the gun as good. This is because it's thought that grants us a right which, unlike other rights, is not paired with an obligation or duty to others, but instead is derived from a perceived need. The need is no longer associated with keeping us from hunger, so the gun isn't good because we need it to survive. We need to have a legal right to own firearms in order to protect ourselves, not from others but from the government itself. Owning guns has somehow become essential to our liberty. The gun is good not just to put food on the table as once was the case, or because it may be used in hunting or sport. It is good as laws limiting the power of government are good, to prevent tyranny.
By virtue of this conception of the Second Amendment, the gun has become a kind of totem. It is a peculiarly American emblem of freedom.
Although many of those urging us to buy guns are associated in various respects with gun manufacturers, and so may be considered mere shills and salesmen, the "sales pitch" made isn't typical given the great status of the gun in our society. We're not being told we should buy a gun because we'll enjoy having one as we can engage in sport shooting or hunting. Those doing the urging aren't trying to exploit our sense of pleasure, or that is in any case not the focus of their efforts. They tell us we should have guns to protect ourselves and our families. Of course, we have a duty to protect our families. Having a gun is good as well as it allows us to comply with that duty.
More than this, they tell us we should have them so that we may participate in the effort to stop assorted bad people who would shoot us; terrorists and the mentally ill, and perhaps even common criminals, all of whom have guns themselves. Even certain members of law enforcement now claim that we should have guns, as we cannot rely on law enforcement to protect us fully, or can aid them by using guns before they arrive on the scene.
So, the gun is not a tool it's good to have, or something good to have so that we may use it to enjoy hunting or sport shooting. It's good to have because it is associated with America itself, and the founding of America. It's good to have because it protects our liberties and our families. It's good to have because it will allow us to become active participants in the struggle against evil. For these reasons, we should have guns.
Are they good reasons? As to the Second Amendment, I don't think it can be ignored that at the time of its adoption, the likelihood is that most everyone had guns and most everyone used them. However, it's unlikely that, after the Revolution, they were used for the purpose it's being claimed led to its adoption. They were probably used to hunt, for food, and to kill vermin. They may have been used now and then during duels. They could well have been used to kill Native Americans. They were very useful in ways in which they're for the most part no longer used. Far more useful than they are now.
Everyone having guns, the demand being at least as great if not greater than the supply, I doubt the Second Amendment served the purpose of motivating the acquisition of guns, as it's being used now. To the extent there was a concern over government tyranny, I think the concern was related to the possible confiscation of guns already possessed, not the need to acquire more guns. It was good to have guns, but not necessarily good to get more guns.
As to the need to protect ourselves, our families, and participate in the struggle against evil, one would think that in order to do so effectively something more than the mere possession of guns would be required. We would have to learn something about using them and trained to use them well. Those urging us to get guns don't seem inclined to urge us to do that, though certain of them want us to carry them around with us. The lack of emphasis on responsible and efficient use of firearms is disturbing. There also seems to be a lack of evidence that citizens owning guns, or even carrying them, prevents gun violence or inhibits evildoers.
If the gun is good as claimed, shouldn't there be good reasons for that claim?
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
The Christmas Conglomerate
Let's escape, however briefly, the vast Fun house of our national politics and the distorted images of human beings (the candidates) lurking there for our amusement and dismay. It's time, once again, to consider--or at least appear to consider, or say we're considering--the True Meaning of Christmas.
Just what the True Meaning of Christmas (TMOC) is may be a subject of some dispute. Generally, though, it's thought to have something to do with Jesus Christ, or Christianity in one form of another, and may actually be about them for that hour or two many of us attend church services. They of course are also subjects of some dispute, and have been from the beginning.
So the popular claim we should "put Christ back in Christmas" provides little guidance to those seeking or saying they seek TMOC. It's unclear, though, that those who demand Christ be "put back" believe they require any guidance in this respect, and it's likely they're unaware of any dispute regarding Christ or Christianity. Arius, Pelagius and the many others disputants are probably unknown to most of them. We may be reasonably certain they've heard of Martin Luther and John Calvin, however, and some even of John Wesley.
Also generally, TMOC is thought to have something to do with peace on earth and good will towards men, possibly even by those who don't think Christ needs to be put back in Christmas or anywhere else. In any case, TMOC is normally believed to have little if anything to do with Santa Claus or anything commercial, as such things, though they may have meaning in themselves and indeed are prevalent, even omnipresent, at this time, nonetheless lack True Meaning. In fact, TMOC is said to be significant because it has nothing to do with them.
But it's hard to ignore what has become increasingly clear regarding Christmas, its celebration, iconography and mythology. That is, that we humans have been involved in celebrating this time of the year for countless thousands of years and were doing so long before Jesus or even Abraham were heard of, and that those celebrations had much in common with what takes place now. Christmas is a relatively new development with very old features. Christmas is in fact a relatively new way of characterizing a very old tradition and celebration; one that was old when Christianity came to exist.
It's doubtful anyone living believes Jesus was actually born on December 25. It was decided his birth should be celebrated on that date long after he died. The early Christians were diligent, even ruthless, in their suppression of pagan beliefs, but could do nothing to alter the arrival of the winter solstice or the fact that it had been celebrated for many, many years as the time at which Light inexorably began its triumph over Dark, and the Sun born or reborn.
The winter solstice had long been considered for obvious reasons a time for celebration of Helios, Sol Invictus, Mithras and other gods associated with the Sun. These gods were worshiped during Christianity's development in the Roman Empire; other Sun gods were worshiped outside the Empire, and before it.
Early Christian leaders and thinkers were no doubt aware of the fact that Mithras was claimed to have been born on December 25th, in the presence of shepherds and three kings. The Church Fathers were disturbed by many things about the worship of Mithras, which included a sacred communal meal of bread and wine, the bread marked with crosses according to certain depictions of the ritual. They were also no doubt aware the winter solstice was a time for gift-giving, for the Saturnalia in fact, when the roles of master and slave were reversed.
I'm not one who thinks that but for an accident or two, Mithras would have become universally worshipped in the West rather than Christ. Males only were allowed to become initiates to his mysteries, and it seems clear women played a significant role in Christianity's triumph over its rivals. I don't think we would be setting up figurines of Mithras and his bull, Helios, Cautes and Cautopates instead of manger scenes if things went a bit differently 1700 years ago.
So I doubt December 25 was chosen as the day of Christ's birth solely because it was the birthday of Mithras. But as the winter solstice was a time for universal celebration in the society in which Christianity was born and, as it were, raised, it made considerable sense for the early Church to choose it as the time at which Christ's birth would be celebrated. It was plainly a major social and cultural event already, with significant religious overtones; it was ideal for the purpose. And like Christianity itself, Christmas took on aspects of pagan worship and culture. In a sense, Christ was put into Christmas, or Christmas-time, long ago. There was a time when Christ was new to the party; a latecomer. The Christmas we know is a conglomerate, as is Christianity.
Helios/Sol Invictus/Mithras/Jesus and their predecessor gods have been part of what we call Christmas-time for thousands of years. The religious tone of the time is well-established and unquestionable. More interesting is the association of Christmas-time with "peace on earth, good will towards men."
That phrase is claimed to have been part of a statement made by angels to duly astonished shepherds during the Annunciation; the announcement of the birth of Jesus. Here there is also a dispute, however. The dispute is over the correct translation of what was said by the angels from the original Greek of the New Testament. Pagans of the time thought the Gospels to have been written by persons whose Greek was very bad, but I don't know if that was truly the case or whether it would make a difference in this case.
It seems that more ancient versions of the text are believed by scholars to be more appropriately translated as "peace to those men with whom God/Jesus is pleased" or words to that effect. Peace, therefore, is bestowed on those who have the good will of God/Jesus. This is a different sentiment of the season than that with which most of us are familiar. If we're to have good will towards men (instead of God having that good will), it may be we shouldn't have good will towards all men at Christmas-time, but only to those men who please God. As the statement is made in connection with the birth of Jesus, it would seem those who please God are those who believe in Jesus as God.
If this is correct, TMOC wouldn't be good will, friendliness towards, or tolerance of all, but only of Christians. A sobering thought for those of us who have believed good will was to be extended to all at this time of the year, but one that may make more sense given the context in which the Gospel was written. Is this in fact the True Meaning?
Merry Christmas to all. Perhaps. But whether the good will we're supposed to feel at this time of the year is towards all or only a portion of humanity, we may be grateful, as the great Tom Lehrer sang regarding National Brotherhood Week, that Christmas-time doesn't last all year.
Just what the True Meaning of Christmas (TMOC) is may be a subject of some dispute. Generally, though, it's thought to have something to do with Jesus Christ, or Christianity in one form of another, and may actually be about them for that hour or two many of us attend church services. They of course are also subjects of some dispute, and have been from the beginning.
So the popular claim we should "put Christ back in Christmas" provides little guidance to those seeking or saying they seek TMOC. It's unclear, though, that those who demand Christ be "put back" believe they require any guidance in this respect, and it's likely they're unaware of any dispute regarding Christ or Christianity. Arius, Pelagius and the many others disputants are probably unknown to most of them. We may be reasonably certain they've heard of Martin Luther and John Calvin, however, and some even of John Wesley.
Also generally, TMOC is thought to have something to do with peace on earth and good will towards men, possibly even by those who don't think Christ needs to be put back in Christmas or anywhere else. In any case, TMOC is normally believed to have little if anything to do with Santa Claus or anything commercial, as such things, though they may have meaning in themselves and indeed are prevalent, even omnipresent, at this time, nonetheless lack True Meaning. In fact, TMOC is said to be significant because it has nothing to do with them.
But it's hard to ignore what has become increasingly clear regarding Christmas, its celebration, iconography and mythology. That is, that we humans have been involved in celebrating this time of the year for countless thousands of years and were doing so long before Jesus or even Abraham were heard of, and that those celebrations had much in common with what takes place now. Christmas is a relatively new development with very old features. Christmas is in fact a relatively new way of characterizing a very old tradition and celebration; one that was old when Christianity came to exist.
It's doubtful anyone living believes Jesus was actually born on December 25. It was decided his birth should be celebrated on that date long after he died. The early Christians were diligent, even ruthless, in their suppression of pagan beliefs, but could do nothing to alter the arrival of the winter solstice or the fact that it had been celebrated for many, many years as the time at which Light inexorably began its triumph over Dark, and the Sun born or reborn.
The winter solstice had long been considered for obvious reasons a time for celebration of Helios, Sol Invictus, Mithras and other gods associated with the Sun. These gods were worshiped during Christianity's development in the Roman Empire; other Sun gods were worshiped outside the Empire, and before it.
Early Christian leaders and thinkers were no doubt aware of the fact that Mithras was claimed to have been born on December 25th, in the presence of shepherds and three kings. The Church Fathers were disturbed by many things about the worship of Mithras, which included a sacred communal meal of bread and wine, the bread marked with crosses according to certain depictions of the ritual. They were also no doubt aware the winter solstice was a time for gift-giving, for the Saturnalia in fact, when the roles of master and slave were reversed.
I'm not one who thinks that but for an accident or two, Mithras would have become universally worshipped in the West rather than Christ. Males only were allowed to become initiates to his mysteries, and it seems clear women played a significant role in Christianity's triumph over its rivals. I don't think we would be setting up figurines of Mithras and his bull, Helios, Cautes and Cautopates instead of manger scenes if things went a bit differently 1700 years ago.
So I doubt December 25 was chosen as the day of Christ's birth solely because it was the birthday of Mithras. But as the winter solstice was a time for universal celebration in the society in which Christianity was born and, as it were, raised, it made considerable sense for the early Church to choose it as the time at which Christ's birth would be celebrated. It was plainly a major social and cultural event already, with significant religious overtones; it was ideal for the purpose. And like Christianity itself, Christmas took on aspects of pagan worship and culture. In a sense, Christ was put into Christmas, or Christmas-time, long ago. There was a time when Christ was new to the party; a latecomer. The Christmas we know is a conglomerate, as is Christianity.
Helios/Sol Invictus/Mithras/Jesus and their predecessor gods have been part of what we call Christmas-time for thousands of years. The religious tone of the time is well-established and unquestionable. More interesting is the association of Christmas-time with "peace on earth, good will towards men."
That phrase is claimed to have been part of a statement made by angels to duly astonished shepherds during the Annunciation; the announcement of the birth of Jesus. Here there is also a dispute, however. The dispute is over the correct translation of what was said by the angels from the original Greek of the New Testament. Pagans of the time thought the Gospels to have been written by persons whose Greek was very bad, but I don't know if that was truly the case or whether it would make a difference in this case.
It seems that more ancient versions of the text are believed by scholars to be more appropriately translated as "peace to those men with whom God/Jesus is pleased" or words to that effect. Peace, therefore, is bestowed on those who have the good will of God/Jesus. This is a different sentiment of the season than that with which most of us are familiar. If we're to have good will towards men (instead of God having that good will), it may be we shouldn't have good will towards all men at Christmas-time, but only to those men who please God. As the statement is made in connection with the birth of Jesus, it would seem those who please God are those who believe in Jesus as God.
If this is correct, TMOC wouldn't be good will, friendliness towards, or tolerance of all, but only of Christians. A sobering thought for those of us who have believed good will was to be extended to all at this time of the year, but one that may make more sense given the context in which the Gospel was written. Is this in fact the True Meaning?
Merry Christmas to all. Perhaps. But whether the good will we're supposed to feel at this time of the year is towards all or only a portion of humanity, we may be grateful, as the great Tom Lehrer sang regarding National Brotherhood Week, that Christmas-time doesn't last all year.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Fear is an Idiot
Fear is much on my mind these days, or I should say the prevalence of fear. More specifically, the prevalence of fear here, in God's favorite country.
I suppose this is to be expected now, as we are in the midst of a seemingly endless political campaign for the presidency. The great Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, noted that it is the goal of practical politics to keep the people alarmed, and our politicians, practical or not, are busy doing so, none so diligently than Mr. Trump. Mencken also knew (and said) that people value security more than liberty. Napoleon commented that the two levers which move mankind are fear and self interest.
One can of course find other quotes about fear with considerable celerity, thanks to the Internet. But one which seems particularly appropriate at this time is the statement by Ambrose Bierce to the effect that fear has no brain, and is an idiot.
Bierce was no stranger to fear, having fought in several battles of the Civil War, including the battle of "Bloody Shiloh." He seems to have been reasonably successful in keeping his wits about him during combat, but there's every reason to believe he was correct in concluding, as I think he did, that those overwhelmed by fear are thereby overwhelmed by stupidity as well.
These are fearful times; quite literally fear-full. The fear seems to arise more and more from the random violence which results from, or is inspired by, terrorism. If the fear is also caused by random violence otherwise inspired, though, it seems that fear is given less attention, particularly if that fear relates to the use of firearms by those who are not terrorists.
The surplus of fear may be due to the fact that in the politics of the moment, simple answers are sought, but not sought as much as simple characterization of problems. Good and bad, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Americans and immigrants. It's desirable to characterize these problems in a simple manner as by doing so our politicians--and media--may better maintain that they may be answered simply as well, and whine when they aren't answered quickly. Simple answers to complex problems are stupid answers, but stupid answers appeal to the fearful, fear being, as Bierce noted, an idiot.
Sadly, among the Republicans, many seem enamored of a man whose political ability and acumen (for all I know he is a very able businessman) seem to me equivalent to that of the know-it-all one may always find at the local bar, and who is likely to respond much as that know-it-all would to questions after perhaps three drinks. That is to say, loudly and without thought. His popularity may be attributable to the fact fear has no brain. It's to be hoped that such an individual won't become president, but fear being an idiot anything is possible. It's disturbing that it seems many understand him to be dangerous, but it doesn't seem to matter. It must be wondered whether Mencken was correct about democracy and that we will, inevitably, eventually elect a moron to the presidency.
That fear is an idiot may work to the advantage of our politicians, but provides us with little hope of resolving the problems we face. It may instead lead to more problems, or rather an increase of problems of the kind we experience. Events such as that which took place in San Bernadino seem to have at least one predictable result; the increase in the sale of firearms.
The possession of firearms isn't, to me, objectionable in itself. But I think when fearful people have firearms, it's likely they will use them and use them ineptly, accepting as I do Bierce's description of fear. I question whether those who buy firearms out of fear will go to the trouble of learning how to use them well and safely. I also think it likely that angry people will use them if and when they can, if they're very angry. Anger may be an idiot as well.
FDR famously noted in those bleak times that we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Sadly, fear itself gives us good cause to fear in these all too interesting times.
I suppose this is to be expected now, as we are in the midst of a seemingly endless political campaign for the presidency. The great Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, noted that it is the goal of practical politics to keep the people alarmed, and our politicians, practical or not, are busy doing so, none so diligently than Mr. Trump. Mencken also knew (and said) that people value security more than liberty. Napoleon commented that the two levers which move mankind are fear and self interest.
One can of course find other quotes about fear with considerable celerity, thanks to the Internet. But one which seems particularly appropriate at this time is the statement by Ambrose Bierce to the effect that fear has no brain, and is an idiot.
Bierce was no stranger to fear, having fought in several battles of the Civil War, including the battle of "Bloody Shiloh." He seems to have been reasonably successful in keeping his wits about him during combat, but there's every reason to believe he was correct in concluding, as I think he did, that those overwhelmed by fear are thereby overwhelmed by stupidity as well.
These are fearful times; quite literally fear-full. The fear seems to arise more and more from the random violence which results from, or is inspired by, terrorism. If the fear is also caused by random violence otherwise inspired, though, it seems that fear is given less attention, particularly if that fear relates to the use of firearms by those who are not terrorists.
The surplus of fear may be due to the fact that in the politics of the moment, simple answers are sought, but not sought as much as simple characterization of problems. Good and bad, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Americans and immigrants. It's desirable to characterize these problems in a simple manner as by doing so our politicians--and media--may better maintain that they may be answered simply as well, and whine when they aren't answered quickly. Simple answers to complex problems are stupid answers, but stupid answers appeal to the fearful, fear being, as Bierce noted, an idiot.
Sadly, among the Republicans, many seem enamored of a man whose political ability and acumen (for all I know he is a very able businessman) seem to me equivalent to that of the know-it-all one may always find at the local bar, and who is likely to respond much as that know-it-all would to questions after perhaps three drinks. That is to say, loudly and without thought. His popularity may be attributable to the fact fear has no brain. It's to be hoped that such an individual won't become president, but fear being an idiot anything is possible. It's disturbing that it seems many understand him to be dangerous, but it doesn't seem to matter. It must be wondered whether Mencken was correct about democracy and that we will, inevitably, eventually elect a moron to the presidency.
That fear is an idiot may work to the advantage of our politicians, but provides us with little hope of resolving the problems we face. It may instead lead to more problems, or rather an increase of problems of the kind we experience. Events such as that which took place in San Bernadino seem to have at least one predictable result; the increase in the sale of firearms.
The possession of firearms isn't, to me, objectionable in itself. But I think when fearful people have firearms, it's likely they will use them and use them ineptly, accepting as I do Bierce's description of fear. I question whether those who buy firearms out of fear will go to the trouble of learning how to use them well and safely. I also think it likely that angry people will use them if and when they can, if they're very angry. Anger may be an idiot as well.
FDR famously noted in those bleak times that we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Sadly, fear itself gives us good cause to fear in these all too interesting times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)