The Devil’s Music

I have such a love/exasperated (can’t say ‘hate’- I ‘d never hate them) relationship with U2.  They have made some of my favourite music.  Seriously.  So many of their songs figure prominently in the continually developing soundtrack that is my life.  But man, some of the stuff that comes out of Bono’s mouth these days…

The other day Pete Yorn- a fabulous singer-songwriter who I follow on the Facebook (seriously, check him out.  Great stuff)- was asking people to name their fave U2 song.  It got me thinking.  There are a whole lot of great ones to choose from.  As I say, they are a formative/foundational band in the development of my youthful love of music.

This one is near the top:

‘Don’t believe the Devil, I don’t believe his book’

Sure, the song is (at least partly) about the unauthorized biography/biographer of John Lennon, but the imagery of the devil and ‘his’ book is just tootoo apt, in my humble opinion.  The creators/recorders/redactors of the mythology, theodicy, rules and rituals of diverse and often-disparate biblical literature assigned a whole load of culpability to one figure- and those minions who chose to follow him in rebellion.

‘But the truth is not the same without the lies he made up.’

We use the devil to illustrate the opposite of what is ‘right’ and proper.  Without him- and the many ‘wrongs’ he manages to consistently and continually tempt us to execute- we have a great deal of difficulty determining proper course.

It isn’t enough that we have long lists of things we are supposed to be doing- whether those things are mandated by religious command or communal laws and consensus- we are, apparently, so easily influenced that we require constant and ever-changing (these things are culturally relative, after all) examples of ways not to behave.

These bad things are fluid to a ridiculous degree.  Unlike the larger prohibitions that are written into our legal systems- the big stuff like murder, theft, property damage (although even these things can be ‘condoned’ in specific- generally politicized- circumstances)- elements of our morality are subject to change according to the times and the ideology that holds the most power at any given time.

These actions are most often associated with that Devil Dude.  If a particular group of people decides that, say, a type of music is the result of the persuasive intervention of an external entity messing with the ‘proper’ order of things, and if that group has money and power and the means to communicate this message of ‘evil’ to a community of followers… the Devil receives all credit for culpability of origin.  The behaviour comes to be associated with him- and as something that is directly in opposition to his ‘good’ counterpart.

And if that type of music can also be associated with a marginalized group of people, then those people are also lumped in with the horned one and his disruption of all things good and ‘godly’.  As mores and tastes change and evolve, the music might eventually come to be regarded as ‘mainstream’- and acceptable to those who hold true to ‘strong values’- yet the stigma of association with the Big Baddy remains.

Labeling something as ‘evil’ or ‘against god’ gives its negative association an unreasonably long shelf life.  Those things that his detractors claim belong to the Devil are incredibly tenacious in their resonance across time and generations.

U2’s God Part 2 is an appreciative echo of John Lennon’s God.  In it, John deconstructed a whole passel of beliefs and constructs that he saw no need to hold onto as he remade himself as ‘John’- no longer the Dreamweaver, or the Walrus, or 1/4 of the Beatles.  Just John.  With Yoko.  Believing in the two of them- but not in the idols (religious and secular) he listed after declaring that ‘god is a concept by which we measure our pain’.

‘I don’t believe in magic
I don’t believe in I Ching
I don’t believe in Bible
I don’t believe in Tarot
I don’t believe in Hitler
I don’t believe in Jesus
I don’t believe in Kennedy
I don’t believe in Buddha
I don’t believe in Mantra
I don’t believe in Gita
I don’t believe in Yoga
I don’t believe in Kings
I don’t believe in Elvis
I don’t believe in Zimmerman
I don’t believe in Beatles‘

The song marked his new beginning as he let go of the trappings of the past to move in a new direction- one that would eventually lead to Imagine– and its beautiful vision of a world without religion, heaven or hell.  A world focused on this life- that we spend here together on this big ol’ rock in that we call ‘Earth’ for the duration of our lifetimes.  The song remains timeless in its simple beauty- both for its music and its message.

That guy knew.

(Short aside here- again with the links and connections that I keep harping on… As I write I have Forrest Gump on in the background- 20th anniversary of that movie.  How did THAT happen?  Where has the time gone?- and it’s just at the scene where Forrest is on Dick Cavett’s show with John- ‘inspiring’ him to write Imagine.  Weird).

And then there’s this:

‘I believe we’re not alone
I believe in Beatles
I believe my little soul has grown
And I’m still so afraid…

What made my life so wonderful?
What made me feel so bad?
I used to wake up the ocean
I used to walk on clouds
If I put faith in medication
If I can smile a crooked smile
If I can talk on television
If I can walk an empty mile
Then I won’t feel afraid
No, I won’t feel afraid
I won’t be Be afraid
Anymore’

Bowie recorded that song for his 2002 album, Heathens.  Since much of it was written and produced after the attacks of September 11, 2001, most of the album illustrates the pervasive anxiety felt across the country and around the world in the immediacy of the aftermath of the terror.

He has said that the album in its entirety is one of deep questioning- hence its title and the subject matter of many of its songs.  He stated in interviews that it was reflective of our collective trauma but that he wasn’t seeking to resolve the trauma.

Great songwriters do that- as they play the Devil’s Music.  They reflect and comment upon our experiences and sometimes even posit new directions that might make a difference to our overarching existence as human beings.

Gods and devils are both concepts which we use to measure our pain.  As metaphorical markers they have value.  Our earliest attempts to understand our world use story and metaphor.  We learn- and teach- using universal concepts that resonate with us because of their apparent immutability and simplicity.

‘Good’ is better than ‘Evil’.

Pretty easy, right?

Too bad the simplicity is always complicated by greed and politics and power plays.  This inevitability is part and parcel of our human nature.

So.  If John Lennon, David Bowie and U2- and all those who came before and after them- are playing the Devil’s Music there’s even more reason to appreciate the Horned One, if you ask me.  He obviously wields some mighty influence leading to incredible songs that are also expressions of our human nature.

Sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.  Unfortunately just what fits into which designation isn’t always all that easy to discern.

Musicians contribute their voices to the battle for the maintenance of the goodness and rightness of our humanity, often speaking out against governmental and other power-based inequities and wrong-doing.

I’ve said it before.  I’ll likely say it again.

Music.  And Science.  Both associated with the Devil.  Both often running counter to the accepted traditions/norms that fight change in favour of clinging to obsolete ways of viewing our world.

I think there are patterns forming hereabouts…

 

Pots and Kettles

‘Kay- I’m more than a little swamped at the mo’- between the thank you cards and starting the new job and all. But I’ve been looking back over some of my earlier (earliest) posts (dating from before I realized that all posts should have a musical interlude or two) that had to do with this whole conceptualization/personification of evil as an external force.

This one was one of the things that had me hitting the books anew- searching for origins of this propensity we have to blame all the bad stuff on ‘something’ outside of ourselves. So, since time is at something of a premium for me right now, here’s a bit of a revisit of the subject of the tension between the idea of a ‘god of goodness’ and the way in which the character(s) is/are actually described in the stories.

People are as good- or as bad- as we grow them to be.  We need to be addressing that rather than looking for outside sources to blame.

colemining

“Evil, they said, was brought into the world by the rebel angels.  Oh really?  God sees and foresees all, and he didn’t know the rebel angels were going to rebel?  Why did he create them if he knew they were going to rebel?  That’s like somebody making car tires that he knows will blow out after two kilometers.  He’d be a prick.  But no, he went ahead and created them, and afterward he was happy as a clam, look how clever I am, I can even make angels… Then he waited for them to rebel (no doubt drooling in anticipation of their first false step) and then hurled them down into hell.  If that’s the case he’s a monster.”

Umberto Eco- The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana (pg. 349)

No one writes like Umberto Eco.  His language- even as translated from Italian- is beautiful beyond belief.  He seems to see…

View original post 1,372 more words

Much Ado About Nothing

I don’t know about you, but I don’t really find this illustration particularly helpful in explaining why it’s SO FREAKIN COLD OUTSIDE.  And the typo is making me nuts, but I’m too chilly to search for another image.

Well there I was all hunkered down against the c-c-c-cold of the polar vortex- or whatever they’re calling it- getting ready to kill an evening watching some tv or something equally mindless.

Decided to check the WP Reader before turning off the laptop for the night and, what’s there?  A wee little goad by my friend OM- over there at Harsh Reality.

It’s one of the fun things he does- he gets conversations started.  I actually saw the link about the Baphomet statue earlier today.  I read the article, smiled a little and then forgot about it.

Jeepers.  People really don’t have larger concerns?

The constant negative back-and-forth between the atheist and non-atheist groups out there nowadays is inexplicable to me.  I don’t get it at all.  The defensiveness- on both sides- is astonishing.

Back when I had the time- and the interest- to be producing academic articles about new religious movements (including early Christianity- in an historical perspective, and the Church of Satan as a contemporary movement), a sociologist friend and I set the stage for some research into the phenomenon that seems to be overtaking some atheist movements out there.  The atheists are becoming as institutionalized as the institutions they seek to deride at every given opportunity.

I’ve talked about this a bit in passing before.  Our freedoms are supposed to allow us to express the manifestations of our faith- or complete lack thereof- without fear of reprisal or threat.  Regardless of whether they are sourced in a 1st century CE Nazarene carpenter or a horned figure that is assumed (by those unwilling to do a little homework) to be the antithesis of said Nazarene carpenter.

Before y’all go leaping to conclusions about my potential adherence to the Lord of Flies, let me remind you (or let you know if you’re visiting for the first time- a big ‘welcome’, if so) that I don’t believe in the existence of any deity- be it many-armed and elephant-headed; a complicated triumverate that is at once father, son and spirit; a one-eyed, raven-loving northerner; a creator Grandmother Spider; and/or the source of all evil and temptation who is set against the perceived originator of the world.

But I do like, and respect, them all.  I appreciate them as the manifestations of our human need to answer the unanswerable questions and I celebrate the variety and the beauty of these manifestations as representations of both the best and worst that we people can come up with in the recesses of our imaginations and ways of viewing our world and the one(s) that may exist beyond this one we know.

I’ve written about that Devil Dude here at colemining a time or two and it’s therefore unlikely to be a surprise that I personally feel that the guy(s) has gotten a very bad rap.  For lots of politically, sociologically and theologically motivated reasons.  I like him.  He’s an interesting character that has contributed significantly in Western art, culture and literature.

It can even, possibly, be safely said that he is my favourite mythological character.  I do hate to choose- it’s like picking my favourite book or song.  How can you fairly choose with so very many wonderful inventions that span millennia?

I don’t worship him, though.  Or believe in him- as such.

I’m not a satanist.  I don’t worship the flip-side of the coin that is the Christian deity.

You know what?  Neither do Satanists.  Not those folks who want to build the statue, anyway.  One would have to subscribe to the beliefs about the nature, theology and theodicy of the Christian deity in order to revere its opposite.  And they don’t.

They use the terminology based in its foundation: satan as ‘adversary’- and as found in the Hebrew scriptures.  Satanism is mainly an ideological social movement- opposed to things like herd mentality, stupidity, pretentiousness and lack of perspective (okay, maybe I AM a little bit of a satanist…)- and the movement developed its precepts and beliefs based on the examination of human nature and the ‘laws of the jungle’.

Anton LaVey based its core beliefs on things like secular humanism, individualism, religious skepticism and an eye-for-an-eye mentality that is positively Old Testament in flavour.

No sacrificing of babies or virgins to the Devil.  No desecration of Christian churches or symbols.  No black masses.

While some off-shoots of LaVeyan Satanism do envision a deity, it is one that is much more associated with older iterations of the satan/Lucifer/fallen angel who was responsible for bringing wisdom and technology to humanity.  For our benefit.  Like Prometheus.  I talked about that guy before too.

And poor old Baphomet.  Symbol of a doomed Knighthood that was brought down by a corrupt king, jealous of their wealth, power and influence.

His origins are hazy, but he maintains a presence- his likeness is representative of the Devil in many Tarot decks to this day.

Various theories (and accusations, at the time) suggested that the Templars brought the worship of Baphomet back from their adventures (on behalf of Church and Crown) as they attempted to ‘reclaim’ the Holy Land from the ‘infidels’.  Some suggest that Baphomet is a derivation of Mohamet- and that the assumption was that the Muslim infidels worshiped their Prophet as a deity.

That novel about Leonardo and a supposed ‘code’ played with the idea that Baphomet was a creation of a substitution cipher, and meant ‘wisdom’- but arcane- anti-Church and anti-King- wisdom that flew in the face of the social mores of the day.  Hence both the destruction of the Templars, and the equally-heinous development of the cult of Dan Brown.

So we’re back to the symbol of the satanists being all about the imparting of wisdom– that was outside the control of the ruling authorities- and therefore verboten.

How is any of that bad?  Let alone the embodiment of evil?

I say again, ‘Jeepers.’

Baphomet, Satan, Lucifer, Church of Satan?  All victims of bad PR (although, in the case of the Church of Satan, they aren’t all that interested in what others think these days- now that the era of ‘Satanic Panic’ has thankfully passed into sordid memory), nothing more.

Anyhoo.

The intent of OM’s post was to start a discussion about ‘tolerance’ and whether or not people expect tolerance of their worldviews yet remain quick to condemn those of others.

I commented that the statue would bother me not at all.  Just as statues of Jesus or Buddha bother me not at all.  (Although if they are erected in public spaces using public funds… there’s a different argument to be found.  I touched on that here).

I don’t understand the impulse to defensiveness that comes with belief.  I really don’t get the reactionary fall-out of being challenged in belief that causes people to malign the beliefs of others.

We all have things to teach- and we definitely all need a little more learning about certain things in this wide world of ours.  If such lessons can be gleaned by the placement of a statue- representative of the beliefs of a portion of humanity- in close proximity to another statue- also representative of the beliefs of a portion of humanity- where, exactly, is the harm?

That’s not simple rhetoric.  In my own search to understand us people-type-people I welcome all differences of opinion and perspective that are open to discussing such things.

Might help keep us all warm on this chillychilly night.

PS- I have to take issue with the creators of those myths about Hell- much as I do enjoy them.  If they had ever spent any time in a polar vortex, they’d know that such a place- if it existed would be COLD, not hot.  Warming trend can arrive any time now…

Pots and Kettles

“Evil, they said, was brought into the world by the rebel angels.  Oh really?  God sees and foresees all, and he didn’t know the rebel angels were going to rebel?  Why did he create them if he knew they were going to rebel?  That’s like somebody making car tires that he knows will blow out after two kilometers.  He’d be a prick.  But no, he went ahead and created them, and afterward he was happy as a clam, look how clever I am, I can even make angels… Then he waited for them to rebel (no doubt drooling in anticipation of their first false step) and then hurled them down into hell.  If that’s the case he’s a monster.”

Umberto Eco- The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana (pg. 349)

No one writes like Umberto Eco.  His language- even as translated from Italian- is beautiful beyond belief.  He seems to see words as symbols- and as a semiotician (not a ‘symbologist’- hear that Dan Brown?  No such thing) he maintains that all cultural phenomenon can be viewed as communication.

He is one of my heroes.

I will likely wax philosophic and play the super-fan about him at some point, but the focus here is meant to be what he has to say about god and the fall of the angels in Queen Loana.

(after one more quick aside… It’s a beautiful book- about memory, and the loss of memory, and how it is tied to our definitions of self and the construction of personality.  You should read it).

So… God is a prick.  And a monster.

What else can you say about a deity who sets its creation up to fail?  And to Fall?  That particular point of theology/theodicy has always been a big sticking point for me.

‘Look at all these super-cool trees.  You can eat from any of them.  Oh.  Except that one.  The best looking one of all.”  There seems to be a whole bunch of unreasonable and unjustified ‘testing’ going on throughout the biblical mythology.  It’s like Yahweh was playing The Game with an entire Nation of unsuspecting suitors.

Of course it’s not a new thing- questioning the theodicy of the god of Israel.  Reconciling a supposedly benevolent and omniscient singular deity (the ‘mono’ in monotheism) with the evil that is an apparently dominant presence in the world was something that the Ancients also wrestled with.  Some of the greatest Wisdom literature examines this tension in great detail- and to differing degrees of success.

For polytheists, this was less of an issue.  There were all kinds of gods- and not all of them had the good of humanity as one of their major points of concern.

Evil (or chaos- going back to that foundational Ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian dichotomy) was easily explained as the influence of malignant beings- gods or demons- as they messed with humanity- either for their own ascendency or just for something to do.  Apparently, being a god could get boring.  This godly need to ‘interfere’ with humans is a functional component of most world mythologies and religion.

Interference can take the positive form of divine inspiration or communication (through such interesting media as burning bushes, voices in the thunder, taking human form on earth, and etc.) or the less-than-holy ‘temptation’- persuasion and inducement to join the dark side of the force.

And sometimes they just showed up to get their rocks off.  Zeus, for example, had a thing for animal disguises and tendency toward rape.  Even the god of the New Testament wasn’t above impregnating unsuspecting Palestinian maidens.

All this is pretty ‘hands on’ involvement in the lives of us human creatures as we crawled about on the face of the earth back in the day (it doesn’t seem to happen as much lately).  Many of the oldest stories feature humans as little more than playthings of the gods- pawns in some incomprehensible game of Twister.

(And as I wrote that line this popped into my head :

The gods may throw the dice, their hearts as cold as ice

And someone way down here loses someone dear

Ah, Abba.  Benny and Bjorn can be connected to anything!)

The biblical stories- canonical and non-canonical- demonstrate this propensity and the idiosyncratic changeability of the character of the god.  This can be explained by the fact that stories were written and re-written and redacted by generations of Israelites, Judeans, Jews and Christians (not to mention the ‘heretics’ like the followers of the various gnostic groups) over hundreds of years.

But many of those who see the bible- old and new testaments- as a single continuity and narrative have a harder time reconciling the vast differences in personality and approach of the singular deity (that was then divided- yet not divided– into three parts).  Still, they manage.  Somehow they are okay with this clearly bi-polar god being seen as unchanging and unchangeable.

The lengths to which we are willing go in the continuation of self-delusion when we try really hard is pretty spectacular at times.

Still, can we really look at the actions of Yahweh as being all about the betterment and support of humanity?  The authors of books like Job and Ecclesiastes didn’t really think so.  They asked questions and received less-than-strongly-supported ‘arguments’ about the god’s omniscience and justice.

If the fallen angels can be vilified for giving humanity the gifts of civilization (temptations that lead us from the path ordained by the deity) can we go any easier on the deity who allowed the Fall(s) (Adam’s and the angels’) to happen.  Who orchestrated the actions?  Is it not all part of the ‘divine plan’ that is laid out in linear history and leading us to the ultimate End of Days at which time those pesky fallen angels will finally get their comeuppance?

Free will is a tricky proposition.  Arguably, there would be far fewer (or non-existent) issues if we all were programmed to follow a set path at all times and under all examples of adversity.  The truth is, people often suck.  We do have this propensity to want to look out for ourselves, take what isn’t ours, reach beyond that which we’re capable of.

In order to explain that- in a worldview that posits a benevolent deity- evil, and those who suborn evil, had to be created in explanation.  And if we were to be able to be influenced by this evil and its incarnations, we had to have some sort of ability built in to us that permits that choice.  So, free will.

It would be lovely if I could believe in just the benevolence and the love and wisdom that can be seen in some of the myths of the biblical deity/deities.  As I have said before, faith can provide hope when faced with nothing more than hopelessness.

I had an email conversation with a friend, and former student, today.  In discussing current job searches, I offhandedly told him to ‘keep the faith’.

His response to that?  “Faith is the active suspension of critical thinking…. no thanks.”

And my comeback?  “It doesn’t have to be about a lack of critical thinking.  I was using it figuratively- or rather, in a humanistic manner.  In that I have faith in (some of) my fellow humans and experiential evidence that some people warrant that level of faith.”  Or something along those lines.

I can continue to believe in people.  We are continually subject to change and so very very adaptable that it astonishes me when I see the things that some manage to cope with, weather and emerge the stronger for.  I honestly think that we are constantly trying to do better, to be better, to achieve the level of goodness with which we imbue the best of our gods.

Even assuming that I could somehow change the entirety of the way in which I view the world and discover some form of faith in a supernatural entity that is overseeing my life and the lives of those I love, if that deity adheres to/embodies an approach to justice that I can’t begin to comprehend in what way does it deserve love and worship?

And if said deity is not as adaptable and open to evolution (as opposed to inconsistent and scatter-brained changeability) and betterment as its creation, how can he it considered in any way superior to the best of humanity?

Blaming rebel angels for the negative stuff that happens in the world is a supreme cop-out.  Especially when the creator deity, if we follow the theology and myriad attempts to explain an incomprehensible theodicy (‘humans cannot know the mind of god’?  Another cop-out), is supposed to be all-knowing, -creating, -seeing and -loving.

Making this group of rebels the source and continuation of all that is bad and wrong in the world not only doesn’t make the least bit of logical sense, it really is a case of one kitchen implement referring to its comparable counterpart as dark and evil.

Or, just a childish, petulant deity that has no place in the 21st century.

I know you are, but what am I?

Have Some Courtesy

This blog achieved its 666th hit the other day.

The Devil has been on my mind lately.

Admittedly this is not a new thing.

I saw This is the End a couple of weeks ago- an entertaining (if silly and juvenile) little film sending up celebrities playing ‘fictional’ versions of themselves as the Apocalypse arrives.  Definitely a boy movie (as opposed to a chick flick), with all is scatology and penis jokes, but Hermione kicked some major ass and the reunion in Heaven was pretty hilarious, so overall it was a fun couple of hours.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Once I got past the repeated reference to the Book of RevelationS (ONE revelation- not many.  Pedantic I realize, but I accept and celebrate my nitpicky nature), I had to laugh at the myriad ways in which Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg played with the apocalyptic mythology.

Franco losing his opportunity to be saved- as his self-sacrifice is cancelled out by his final act of douchebaggery- and ending up devoured by his now-cannibalistic former friend was pretty amusing.

And heaven turned out to be a pretty cool place.  Even if the Backstreet Boys showed up.

There were demons- and an extremely large and well-endowed- devil-type guy who, um, possesses Jonah Hill and wreaks havoc within the survivors’ sanctuary, driving them out into the chaos.

The Devil, once again, getting a bad rap.

All this externalization- of good and evil- is becoming increasingly bothersome to me.

Last night we had a bit of a flood sitch here in TO.

Nothing like Calgary and southern Alberta, and definitely not a tragedy of the scale of what happened on the weekend in Lac-Mégantic, QC, but there was some biblical imagery happening all over this City (snakes on the stranded GO train?  Apparently so) as we dealt with various inconveniences- from flooded basements, to power outages and live wires brought down by tree limbs.

Subway stations looked like swimming pools (if you’re partial to swimming in icky brown water) and cars ended up submerged up to their roofs on the Lakeshore.  Live wires were dragged down by wind or the sheer weight of the rain and the City got darker and darker.

Some real craziness.

I was lucky.  Got caught in the initial downpour and was soaked before walking a block (by the time I made it home- 10 minutes later- it was as if I’d gone for a swim fully dressed) and lost power for a little over 12 hours, but the house is intact and remained cool enough through the night that it was never uncomfortable.

Very lucky.

As I sat in the dark all night, alternately reading (another great book- remind me to tell you about it sometime) by flashlight and trying to sleep with the flashing lights from the Hydro trucks and the sound of chainsaws cutting up the tree that took out our power lines, I got to thinking again about the eschaton, and the role of the devil in the mythological cycles about the end of all things.

The line of thought continued into daylight hours as the blame game began playing out on the various news sources around town and across the country:  Did the infrastructure hold up as well as it should have?  Did the TTC/City/Mayor (such as he is) act as quickly and in the way that best addressed the situation as it unfolded?  Are we ready for another hit, should it (perhaps) come tonight or tomorrow as (possibly) forecast?

We have been taught- by our myths and by our basic natures- that there is always someone else to blame when terrible things happen.  When we don’t want to take responsibility for our own actions, or when the source of the issue is either invisible or something closely held and personally or socially/culturally valuable, we invent external sources to blame.

I briefly talked about this phenomenon here, discussing how the concept developed in Israelite mythology and introducing the character Azazel- an early incarnation of the Biblical Big Baddie who eventually came to incarnate evil itself.

There may be some detractors who will dismiss/condemn/vilify me as a ‘devil worshiper’, but I’ve really had enough of this idea that we can/should look outside of ourselves for the source of our problems.  It bugs me big biggest time.

I don’t believe in the devil- any more than I believe in his opposite- so the idea that I would worship something I know was created by humanity to let itself off the hook… Uh, no.

Assigning some poor supernatural devil such ascendency and such a huge role in the workings of the world is the flip side of the complete resignation of our own power that leads to concepts like ‘god’s plan’ as explanation for occurrences that happen because of the actions/inaction of ourselves or other human beings?  Especially when it requires accepting that the ‘god’ in all this allows and encourages said supernatural devil in his workings against ‘god’s children’?

How does any of that make anything like sense?

I’m not going to get into the whole free will/god’s plan conundrum/contradiction in terms.  At least not today.

But I AM going to reiterate what I started to address when talking about those poor ol’ goats who came to represent the totality of the sins of the people, and the animated character in an entertaining show that was much too short-lived as a result of (relatively) contemporary hysteria about mythological embodiments of pure evil.

Way past time to leave the devil (and god(s) for that matter) out of it and look for our human culpability in the things that happen in our world- be they actions that cause climate change and increased rainfall and storm conditions, poorly planned cities built on flood plains, human error/lack of regulations leading to cataclysmic train derailments and explosions or the kindness of neighbours working together to clean up after the floods have receded, the workers providing blankets for those rescued from submerged commuter trains, the family members and friends who come together to tell stories of remembrance of those still missing in what used to be the centre of a small Eastern Townships community…

Let’s take responsibility- for the good and the bad- and own up to the fact that WE are the ones who are affecting the workings of the world.  We can appreciate the Devil- and his antecedents/coevals/contemporaries- for the great stories and themes he has added to our mythologies without censuring him for every bad thing- whether little or larger than life- that happens in our lives.

‘Have some sympathy and some taste.  Use all your well-learned politesse…’

Leave the Devil alone.

At least until we really have a closer look at him- and the ways in which a character who provides learning and ‘technology’ to humanity became Public Enemy Number 1.  How Prometheus/Azazel/Lucifer/the satan became the Lord of the Flies/the dragon/serpent/Beelzebub etc. for disobeying the will of another supernatural being and helping humanity in its progress and evolution.

He’s actually a pretty cool archetype- just maybe not the one you’re thinking he is…

Devil’s Advocate

The other night, while out for dinner with friends, our discussion turned to television and the viewing patterns of people we know.  It got me thinking about cultural mores and how changeable they are- and how relatively quickly those changes can come about.

Not to sound like some ancient geezer who waxes philosophic about the good ol’ days, but the truth is that there is programming being broadcast over the airwaves (public, cable, pay-per-view and the interworld) that would not have been allowed to see the light of day even a very few years ago.

Between the voyeuristic idiocy that is most reality programming and the sex and extreme violence that is found on HBO and the like on a weekly basis (did you SEE that Red Wedding?!?  WTF was that?!?!), many of the shows that were once strongly criticized now seem incredibly innocent in comparison.

When The Simpsons first premiered on Fox way back in 1989 (!) it came under loudly-expressed fire for it’s presentation of ‘degraded’ ‘American family values’.  Then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush spoke against the show, suggesting that what America needed was a family ‘more like the Waltons than the Simpsons.’  Bart was widely criticized as being terrible role model for children.

Those who took the time to actually watch the show soon discovered that, along with solid, witty writing, the Simpsons and their neighbours offered up some of the best-natured, morally stable programming out there.  This is a family who, even with all the admitted dysfunction, stick it out and make it work while doing the best for their community.

There are certainly voices of institutionalized morality (Flanders, of course, and Reverend Lovejoy are the obvious examples) but generally religion is dealt with as being something that is present- and integral to the lives of the residents of Springfield- without it being preachy or judgemental in any way.

Apu frequently exhibits frustration as his neighbours refer to his religion as ‘other’, but Marge and Homer throw him a traditional Hindu wedding and adopt the personas of the avatars of his gods when he and his wife are dealing with marital stressors.  Krusty deals with the abandonment and rediscovery of his Jewish faith in an effort to reconnect with his Rabbi father.  Lisa struggles with concepts of belief, dabbles in Wicca and ultimately embraces Buddhism.

The microcosm of Springfield, USA exemplifies a community working the way one should work.  A town where those of different faiths, races and ethnicities get along and do their best at every turn.  Even with its myriad issues; the corruption of its mayor (although I’d take Quimby over our incumbent any day), the evil Republican power mongers (headed up by Mr. Burns), giant sinkholes, the eternal tire fire… Springfield really is a pretty  ideal town to call home.

Another show that got a very undeserved bum rap at its get-go was the sadly short-lived God, the Devil and Bob.  The animated sitcom showed up on NBC on March 9, 2000.  It was pulled March 28, 2000.  Only 4 episodes- out of the 13 that were produced- aired before it was removed from the line-up, largely as a result of pressure from religious activists.

Watching the show again recently I was struck by the complete innocence- and ‘niceness’, for lack of a better word- of the star-studded half-hour program.  God (James Garner) is charmingly laid back and reminiscent of Jerry Garcia.  He enjoys having a beer, playing a round of golf and generally being around and involved with his creatures.

That the state of his creation has driven him to consider getting rid of it all and starting over again is a function of humanity’s poor use of their collective free will, rather than any sort of unreasonable wrathfulness or vengeful tendencies (as he explains in the intro, he’s ‘not that kind of god’).

The Devil (voiced by Alan Cummings) encourages God to destroy this world and begin again- providing he still gets to play a role in the new creation (in which marsupials would be the dominant life-form this time ’round).  They have something of a dysfunctional and co-dependent- yet still respectful and reciprocal- relationship.

Lucifer’s feelings are hurt when God forgets his birthday, or a scheduled golf date, and reacts rather badly.  Like a sulky adolescent, actually.  One who just happens to have the resources of Hell at his disposal.  Yet there is no animosity between them- there is definite affection (and understanding) there- as God repeatedly mollifies the Devil, apologizing for hurting him and letting him know that he is, in fact, appreciated.

I imagine the criticisms about the show- likely led by those who never took the time to watch it but who were ‘offended’ by the title itself- were sourced in the ‘humanness’ of the portrayal of the deity and his ‘evil’ counterpart.

The trouble with that is the plot- and the interactions between God and the Devil, and God and Bob (who is a blue-collar, porno-watching, beer drinking, father of two who works on the assembly line of an auto plant in Detroit- played by French Stewart), and the Devil and Bob- are very much in keeping with the original mythology.

Think Job.

Or any of the Prophets.

The show is decidedly Old Testament (Jesus is nowhere to be found- except in very brief passing) and it is likely therein that the problem lies.

Those who have read the whole OT shebang (and not just in order to be able to cite random passages out of context to condemn various things that personally offend them) would certainly see that the story of the relationship between God and the Devil/Satan/Lucifer (certainly among the most unfairly maligned characters in mythology/literature/history) did not originate with wars in Heaven, or with falls from that same locale and eventual punishment in the abyss.

The satan began as an emissary- lackey/gofer/PA- of Yahweh, and one that fulfilled a vital role in the bureaucracy of Heaven.  The assumption of later cultural traditions saw the satans meshed with demons and/or vanquished gods to become beings that were set in opposition to the presiding deity.

The strict black and white dichotomy of good vs. evil is a later development in the mythology- one that very much leads to a lack of assumption of responsibility for one’s own actions- that is not at all in keeping with the foundational premise behind the earliest biblical myths.  What WE do- as individuals and collectively- matters.  Our actions and ideas affect us personally, our families, the larger community and the nation.  Every once in awhile, when we seem to be straying too far off the desired path, the deity sends a mouthpiece to guide us back to the straight and narrow.

IF we are willing to listen to said prophet.  Historically (according to the stories), we haven’t been much good at that.  As a result, the deity sends the appropriate punishment our way.  There was, initially, no emphasis on any sort of external being showing up to tempt us down the garden path.  Our deeds- and the results of those deeds- were completely our own look-out.

God, the Devil and Bob very much demonstrates the wisdom of this earliest message in the mythology as is can be applied to 21st century life.  The characters are funny, endearing and very human in their actions and reactions.  While the Devil does try to interfere with Bob’s attempts to make the world a better place (on behalf, and in defence, of ALL humanity), the characters on the show do the right thing- not out of fear of divine punishment (since no one- other than Bob’s six-year-old son, Andy- believes in his prophet-hood) but because they truly know right from wrong.

Compared to the sophomoric humour that is the norm in the crop of myriad animated shows out there now (looking at YOU Family Guy et al), and certainly when placed against some of the ridiculous ‘unscripted’ programming that crowds the tv listings, God, the Devil and Bob reflects basic values and morality in an entertaining and light-hearted manner, while acknowledging the realities of life in our particular cultural context.

Along with being ‘smarter’ than a great deal of the shows on offer these days, it is a very positive and responsible use of the mythology- with familiar characters made more sympathetic and less-vengeful- that reminds us that we humans need to be charting our own paths without constantly relying on any form of divine guidance or intervention.

It deserves a closer viewing.  One that isn’t dictated by the hysterical posturing of those with a literalist agenda- and no sense of humour.

If you’re interested, you can find the episodes on YouTube- or you might be able to find the whole 13-episode season on DVD.  I have it- it’s fun.

dear god

Due to a particularly persistent earworm, I’ve been thinking about 80’s tunes a lot lately and switched the playlist on the iPod to better succumb to this feeling of nostalgia.  In one of the strange tricks of the ‘shuffle deity’ these two tracks came up back-to-back: 

Two songs, two years apart, one title.  Great tunes, both of them, and the epistolary form is in keeping with the concept of prayers/supplicant pleas to a deity and with the literary tradition of world mythologies, and therefore of academic as well as aural interest to me.

XTC’s song, from the 1986 album Skylarking, is pretty directly critical and suggests, despite its title, an atheistic worldview:

“Dear god, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but your name is on a lot of quotes in this book

us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look…”

And:

“I won’t believe in heaven and hell, no saints, no sinners, no devil as well.  No pearly gates, no thorny crown, you’re always letting us humans down.

The wars you bring, the babes you drown, those lost at sea and never found

And it’s the same the whole world ’round

The hurt I see helps to compound that father, son and holy ghost is just somebody’s unholy hoax

And if you’re up there you’d perceive that my heart’s here upon my sleeve

If there’s one thing I don’t believe in it’s you, dear god.”

While there is a continual assertion throughout the song that Andy Partridge et al acknowledge that god is a human construct that is constantly failing humanity, there remains the underlying reality that SOOOOOOO many people still look to such a deity to guide and help them.  And despite the fact that the help is not in the offing, continue to believe the stories written in its name.  The anger and sense of moral outrage are striking- and heightened by the use of the child’s voice to begin and end the song.

Interestingly, XTC’s Dear God was a B-side, not originally included on the album.  American airplay of the song boosted its popularity to the extent that the album was reissued in the United States with the song replacing another.  There is a message in that- cultural mores (and the influence of the Bible Belt) are subject to change based on specificity of societal focus and concern.

For all its upbeat catchiness, XTC’s Dear God is a very angry song, directed at those whose complacent beliefs, or political machinations, perpetuate injustices while looking for quick fixes to unimportant things (“a big reduction in the price of beer”) that serve to keep the masses placated (although I would hardly disdain a small reduction in the price of beer, what with a long weekend coming up- not to mention an impending strike at the LCBO… but I digress).

Midge’s song, from his 1988 album Answers to Nothing (the title song may well turn up in another blog post someday- forewarning) is more questioning than accusatory, and leaves the possibility open that there may be some kind of ruling being up there, while wondering whether or not said deity might be listening.  The tempo and overall feel of the song suggests hope for change, with or without the intercession of a supernatural power.  His listing of the things he would like to see happen to make the world a better place can be summed up in the line “Give me peace in a restless world.” 

Answers to Nothing is his second solo offering, coming four years after he co-wrote a little ditty (Do They Know it’s Christmas) that initiated a social movement in music that is still reverberating through our collective cultural awareness and the ways in which we attempt to bring about social change.

Although he claims to be a “simple man with simple words to say”, Midge uses the imperative when listing his ‘requests’, suggesting an active concern rather than one which is simply plaintive and passive.  He also cautions humanity about making such requests of a deity in the lyric “asking for more only got us where we are today“, which evokes various mythological and ideological concepts of ordained rights to things- whether land, power over other people or any other of dozens of perceived entitlements that are supposed to come along with adherence to a particular deity or belief.

During Much Music’s 80’s heyday (when it actually showed music rather than reality shows) Midge’s Dear God saw heavy rotation as part of the progamming on Christmas Day (along with that other tune of his) and, as a result, hearing it tends to evoke that time of year.  One line in particular always stood out to me: “Give me a worldwide religion”.  What with the directions that my pondering mind have always been wont to travel, I wondered about that particular phraseology and often rewrote it in my head to be ‘world without religion’ (which, admittedly, doesn’t scan as well in the metre of the song.  Not claiming to be a songwriter here).  Setting aside a discussion of the somewhat colonial idea that would have everyone in the world believe exactly the same thing (for perhaps another time),  ‘worldwide’ religion is not something that is possible.  Religions are contextual and answer the needs of people in specific times and places as a response to societal conditions and realities.  These specific realities are never going to be ‘worldwide’ and we are unlikely to ever all agree on our human interpretations of our varied environments.  The best we could, and should, be able to do, is to understand and accept those varieties, which isn’t something that will be easily achieved.  Not in the world that we currently have.

But we HAVE to try.

Both songs cry out to a mythological deity for help, but both are really just calls for us, as the ones who actually live on this planet, to DO something about our own freakin’ issues.  XTC and Midge are asking people to take responsibility for themselves rather than looking for supernatural aid to get us out of this “mess that we’ve made.”  We have to stop viewing tragedies and diseases and hardships as god-given punishments for nebulous sins and look to actual causes while using our learning and resources to find solutions.

Ultimately, our problems are our problems.  They need to be solved through working together and using the tools we have created- science, diplomacy, economics and etc.- since history has proven that issues affecting one part of this world eventually affect US ALL.  The only other option is to continue alternately railing against and then begging aid from an imaginary creature who has not been anything like helpful up until now.  Can any kind of intelligent rationale truly justify sitting on our collective asses in anticipation of divine intervention?  Really?!?!

dear god.