Reflection

It’s still unseasonably cold here.  Honestly.  What do we have to do to get some Indian Summer thrown our way?  And since I’m nearly as cold in the city as I was at the cottage (okay, that’s hyperbolic- it was DAMN cold at the cottage) I’ve been wishing I was back there more than a little bit.

I got to thinking today about one of the kitchen chats I joined after walking in on it in the middle- because that’s what we do- talk, interject, offer opinions/advice/whatever.  The things friends do when interested in each others’ ideas, opinions and perspectives.  They were discussing atheism vs. agnosticism and asked me to define both terms.  I offered my definition- and some of the reasoning behind my non-belief, which led to the same argument which our host and I have been having for well over two decades.

Theism is defined by the belief that at least one deity exists- somewhere- and the term is commonly used to describe the belief in a deity that is personal, present and active in the world/universe and who is gainfully employed in providing its governance.  Therefore, an a-theist is someone who does not believe that any such a deity exists.

Going back to the original Greek roots of the term, I am literally ‘without gods’.

And I’m good with that.

Agnosticism is a bit more complicated- and varied- in its definition- and that was a source of a bit of contention.  Also from the Greek, agnostic literally means ‘without knowledge’ and generally is applied to those who neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a god- or many gods- as they have been imagined and described by people.

Agnostics admit to ‘not knowing’.  They‘re good with that.

Some will apply more of a philosophical meaning to the term, asserting that human reason and rationality are not capable of justifying whether- or not- deities do- or do not- exist.  Essentially those philosophers among us would claim that there is no way of knowing one way or the other.  Some suggest that you ‘can’t prove a negative’ and this ‘evidence of absence’ argument is one that is often tossed around when believers and non-believers (or those who allow for uncertainty) ‘discuss’ such things.

I concede that proving the non-existence of something is pretty tough to do, but I also suggest (as have others before me) that the flip side of that little tautology is that those who maintain the existence of something are likewise required to offer proof- that is acceptable to my particular worldview– that that same thing DOES exist.

Otherwise, I’m not likely to buy what you’re selling.

And since no one has, as of yet anyway, offered me anything remotely resembling definitive proof that the gods are anything other than the creations of us human beings, I’m very comfortable with my non-belief and I will thank you to not attempt to sway me to your perspective.

By all means- believe as you wish.  We are fortunate to live in a society that allows us the freedom of our beliefs- and their expression (at least at the moment and in Provinces other than Quebec…) so I will likewise not attempt to disabuse you of any privately held views on religion and gods.

Do I have time for proselytising?  Can’t say as I do.  Sometimes my Canadian politesse comes into conflict with this reality, but as willing as I am to hear you out in your argumentation, if it includes anything about me being condemned to eternal hellfire or cursed for my non-belief, I’ll likely cut you off pretty quickly.

Name-calling has no place in rational discourse, and telling me that I’m ‘damned’ isn’t nice at all.

And attacks launched from the defensive?  Also not attractive.  Nor something that will incline me to listen all that sincerely to what you have to say.

Clear example of this tension- but also the way in which it is consistently overcome- is the ongoing discussion about this subject that takes place repeatedly.  We will never agree on the divinity/non-divinity of Jesus (although ‘never’ is a word I hesitate to use.  Too restricting- he might yet change his mind…  Joking.  Seriously- just joking.  He knows I’m joking- and that I’m not looking to change his mind on the subject).

As an historian of religion. I believe in the existence of Jesus as an historical figure who sought change within his religious framework and social milieu, and that the guy had great ideas and inclinations toward inclusion, love and peace.  He was a radical dude, seeking religious and cultural change for the better.

A prime example of the heights of humanity to which we should all aspire?

Zero argument there.

Son of a deity?  One third of a triumvirate god that became incarnate in human form?  Immortal and supernatural?

None of the above.

The thing with this ongoing discussion is that we always take the time to listen to what the other person has to say, and we both are secure enough in our belief(s) that we can maintain a sense of humour about the arguments.  We happily agree to disagree.

When I touched upon this subject previously, I offered up an meme I’ve seen circulating that demonstrates the worst of the ‘New Atheist’ propensity toward labeling those with opposing views as ‘stupid’ or the like.

Not productive.

On the other side of the fence… I happened upon this little gem (that would be sarcasm) last night:

Also not remotely cool.

Although I’d think that Dawkins (and Hitchens before he died) would likely have found it quite amusing to be described as one of the harbingers of the Apocalypse.

A mythological story about the ending of all things and the return of a deity in which they do not believe.

Productive.

Such rhetoric is demonstrative of this insidious propensity toward the externalization of ‘evil’– and making people monstrous because of a differing worldview- that I keep harping on about.  Not good.

Definitely not good.

The more we vilify each other and create and perpetuate dichotomies of right/wrong, good/evil, black/white, the farther away we continue to stray from the message and the mission of teachers like Jesus of Nazareth.

One of the reasons I love and respect my friends and family (and the peeps I have had the opportunity to meet through this forum) is because we can continue to engage in dialogue without in any way dismissing or diminishing the beliefs of those around us.

Last night, while out for dinner in one of our local little restaurants (Focaccia near Yonge and Bloor.  Try it if you get the chance.  The staff is FANTASTIC), I overheard the conversation of the couple who had been at the next table, just as they were leaving.  They were discussing their full-fledged support of the nonsense in Quebec– while loudly proclaiming their total ignorance of the beliefs and traditions of those they were demonizing.

Respect for our beleaguered waiter- who had been dealing with such commentary for the duration of their meal- was the only thing that kept me from speaking out as they exited.  That, and the awareness (after years of experience) that minds cannot be forced open, and that, sadly, some people are just unwilling to even attempt to see a perspective outside of their own.

So instead I wrote this post.

In frustration that there are still so many who will not offer dignity and respect to those whose ideas differ from their own.

In exasperation that there are too many among us who still seek to divide rather than to bring together.

But also in remembrance of the fact that there are all kinds of people out there who are honestly willing to listen to one another and, as required, agree to disagree.

Lots and lots of people who realize that all humans are reflections of one another- regardless of place of origin, cultural context or belief or non-belief.

And that I am privileged to have a whole bunch of people like that in my life.

P.S. Speaking of the Four Horsemen and such things… I watched the series premiere of ‘Sleepy Hollow’ earlier this week.  Seems the Headless Horseman is really Death- that Rider on a Pale Horse who seems to have been called up by a demon-type thing in the woods around town.  Potentially interesting amalgam of a classic American story and apocalyptic mythology all thrown into the 21st century Hudson River Valley.  Will have to check it out for a while and see.  Told you apocalypses seem to be everywhere lately…

‘The Way Things are Going…’

Thursday’s post, complete with Beatles tune at the end, got me thinking about the weekend playlist, so I have decided to get a jump on the Shuffle Daemon and create my own theme for some Saturday tuneage.

For some reason, I always closely associate Ob-la-di Ob-la-da with The Ballad of John and Yoko.  Likely because they are both on the same side of the same record in the 2-record ‘Blue Album’ compilation of hits from 1967-1970.  I played that particular album a lot at one point in time.

Like those long-haired weirdos themselves, the song attracted its share of controversy, given John’s history of self-comparison with Jesus.  Even if it is the story of John and Yoko’s honeymoon.

‘Christ you know it ain’t easy, you know how hard it can be

The way things are going they’re going to crucify me’

John’s line about being “more popular than Jesus” in 1966 was made in the context of a discussion that had been happening in the UK since the end of WWI regarding the decline of Christianity.  It came out of John’s own studies about the phenomenon and was an expression of an opinion that was pretty well supported by academic evidence.  The comment provoked no reaction in the UK.

But the States?  Whoa boy.  As is their continuing wont, America over-reacted and started banning the Beatles from the airways, burning their albums and accusing them of blasphemy.  Over a decade later, a born-again Christian who had been a Beatles fan until John’s comment about Jesus, murdered him in Central Park.

The 1969 Ballad of John and Yoko was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the hoopla caused by a comprehensive interview being taken out of context.  I love the song- not just because it is snappy and fun, but because John and Paul recoded it together- just the two of them- when George and Ringo were tied up with other responsibilities.  They played all the instruments and provided all the vocals.  It was the probably the last great blast from a musical partnership that has yet to be matched.

This one is great for so many reasons.  Some pretty wicked fiddling happening there (and I’m not generally into the fiddle tunes) but I love how it plays with themes from myth and folklore while paying respects to a number of different traditional ditties in Johnny’s performance (in contradistinction to the Devil’s heavy guitar-based rock and roll).

The motif of the ‘Deal with the Devil’ is played with and made into a competition, which Johnny wins.  Interestingly, he is hardly the poster child for virtue- his vanity/hubris is pretty spectacular.  Even if it is an accurate assessment of his talent.

The best line in the song was unfortunately *blanked* out/changed for radio/television airplay.

‘I done told you once you son of a bitch I’m the best there’s ever been.’

The confidence- and lack of fear- is a pretty neato variation of the whole Faustian bargain thing.  And the fiddle prowess at the centre of it all evokes the legend of Paganini.

The Devil and music are often found together.   Blues musician Robert Johnson made a deal with Satan at a crossroads that led to his mastery of the guitar.  Love the liminality of that particular story.  And crossroads demons have gained some contemporary pop cultural revisiting on Supernatural.

Deals with the Devil for advancement or powers beyond ordinary ken are cautionary tales having to do with the dangers of vanity, hubris, greed and any other vice/deadly sin that you can think of.  Typical mythological motif.

The idea that the Devil can be beat though… so very human in its optimism.  And it takes the edge off the power of Satan when people manage to win every once in a while.

Well done, Charlie Daniels.

Wall of Voodoo- with new lead singer Andy Prieboy, who replaced Stan Ridgway in 1983- combined both Jesus and John Lennon in Far Side of Crazy.  The song is full of historical-cultural references that go along with the characters drawn from myth/history.

It’s quite a clever song, lyrically. The protagonist self-describes as both Pilate and Jesus and then goes on to talk about relating to both John Lennon and his murderer, as well as would-be Presidential assassin John Hinkley and his victims (‘I shot an actor for an actress’).  The tension between fandom/obsession and violence as well as religious (and literary- both shootings had associations with J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye) manifestations of mental illness, is clearly expressed in the tune.

And the video is pretty trippy.

Even if that clown is terrifying.

Depeche Mode’s 1989 song demonstrates a shift in cultural mores- enough so that a title- and theme- like Personal Jesus can slip into popular culture without much outcry.  Martin Gore has said that the song was influenced by the relationship between Elvis and Priscilla Presley, as described in her memoir Elvis and Me.

It’s about the imbalance that can happen in relationships, when one partner is both lover and leader/teacher and becomes the totality of the world.  The analogy certainly doesn’t present the relationship between deity and adherent in all that healthy a light either.

They will be in town in a couple of weeks, and you know that this song will make the set list.  I’ve seen Dave Gahan sing this song live at least 4 times, and the experience remains electric.  His charisma- always pretty emphatic- really becomes transcendent when he performs this tune.

I wrote here about two Don Henley songs that have impacted my life, and this is another one that resonates in so manymany ways.

1995 was a weird year.

Shortly after the song was released I heard an interview with Don in which he described it as something of sequel to Hotel California.  Like that classic, The Garden of Allah is social commentary.  In a big and pretty condemnatory way.  He critiques music, fashion and the media, in particular citing the media circus and the debasement of the criminal justice system (including some unscrupulous ‘expert witnesses’) in the travesty that was the OJ Simpson trial.

It is told from the point of view of a very disgruntled Devil, who is feeling completely superfluous as humanity surpasses even his capacity for evil.  The Devil recounts happier days, going all the way back to the Garden and times of relative harmony in Heaven- when the gods (note the plural) valued him (for his ‘talents and creativity’).  Even once the Devil and his companions are tossed at the end of the war, the earth remained a viable playground for his ministrations.

Not so much anymore.  This world has become far too much like ‘home’ and there’s nothing left for him to do or ‘claim’.  A Devil without purpose in a world without soul and in which notoriety and fame have become inseparable.

Can’t say that things have improved since 1995.  That slope has proven far too slippery.  Once again Don’s vision, couched in the language of myth, went ignored.  Sigh.  The wilderness is still swallowing the most important of our voices.

Of course, since nothing he writes has only one layer or meaning, the Garden of Allah references more than just the abandoned Eden we can no longer access.  Don is also evoking the Golden Age of Hollywood, and an apartment complex built by the actress Alla Nazimova.  The site was the scene of notorious parties and housed all kinds of celebrities over its lifetime (including F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1937-38).

Man, that guy is just tootoo fine a lyricist.  Every time I hear this song its nuances hit me in the gut.   

Still, it is the weekend, and a good playlist shouldn’t be ALL about thought-provocation and insight.

Tenacious D.  Jack Black and Kyle Gass.  Tribute is thematically similar to The Devil Went Down to Georgia except that the duo is given no choice but to perform “the Greatest Song in the World” in order to avoid having their souls eaten by the demon who accosts them on the road.  The demon is, naturally, Dave Grohl (who played drums on all of Tenacious D’s studio albums).

They comply, and save their souls, but they are unable, afterward, to remember just which song it was that they played.

It’s silly.  And fun.

Music and Myth.

Getting the weekend off to a great start.

Enjoy.

Man of Steel or Son of Man?

I had an interesting conversation last week about whether or not Superman is an archetypal Christ/Messiah figure.  It came up in the context of a discussion of the newest film incarnation of the Superman mythos- Man of Steel.

At that point I hadn’t yet seen the film, and to be honest I had never given the assertion all that much thought.  My Superman experience pretty much began and ended with

and

Christopher Reeve’s (may he RIP) goody-two-shoes portrayal in the 70s and 80s.

 

Both versions were so incredibly clean cut and American that mythological links to Jesus didn’t really come up.

Over the course of the discussion I came to the rapid decision that yes, of course Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman is Jesus.  Perhaps with a little bit of Moses and Azazel thrown in for good measure.

Even his original/alien name features the Northwest Semitic (the language group that includes Hebrew and Arabic) word for ‘deity’.  If the method of family naming on Krypton is in any way comparable to that in many places on Earth, this patronym would suggest that Jor-El and Kal-El are in the family line of god.

Duh.

You’d think someone who spends as much time with myth as I do would have made that connection before.  I guess Superman just usually isn’t on my radar.

Then, in a recent Twitter feed, I saw this article referenced.

Here I had just wrapped my brain around the Kal-El-as-Christ motif, now some Christian reviewers are saying that this recent iteration is actually Superman-as-ANTI-Christ (as in ‘against/not Christ’ rather than THE Anti-Christ, I’m presuming from the context).

Hmmm.

I actually saw the film last night.

LOVED it.

Yep.  The Jesus-mythology is there in fullest force.

Okay, in the final showdown (SPOILER ALERT!) Kal does NOT turn the other cheek.

But, if we keep to the whole of the (canonical) mythology, the Nazarene carpenter wasn’t above an act of violence himself.  Turning over some tables in the Temple ring any bells?

It’s in all four of the Gospels, but John spices up the incident by also including whips and chains (okay, not chains, but the whip IS there):

“In the Temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.  Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle.  He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.”  (John 2.13-15)

And then there’s this:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt. 10.34)

Okay, so maybe neither of those outbursts is quite the same as the act to which Kal-El was driven (in order to save humanity).  But Jesus doesn’t seem to have been as completely opposed to expedient means for necessary ends, as some might maintain, either.

And he did hang out with Simon.  Who was a Zealot (Luke 6.15, Acts 1.13).  Zealots WERE violently opposed to Roman rule.  They were guerilla soldiers who could give some of the terror-mongers of today a run for their money.

Not that I’m an advocate of guilt by association or anything.  Jesus was more about making changes in the religious system that he adhered to than he was concerned with the Roman occupation of Palestine.  He may have palled around with some overly-Zealous guys, but he wasn’t necessarily guilty of complicity in seeking to violently oust the foreign rulers from the land.

Still,  I tend to take issue with people who ignore the bits of the myths that don’t suit their interpretation/belief.

People who are far more expert than I in the whys and wherefores of Superman mythology will no doubt endlessly debate whether or not Kal killing Zod (I WARNED you that there would be spoilers) and “completely disregarding the safety and welfare of the people around him” actually “blasted a hole in the traditional moral code of the character” (quotations from the article linked above- Michael Parnell and Jeff Weiss, respectively).

IMHO, Kal did what he needed to do.  There was certainly collateral damage (or ‘disaster porn’ depending on POV) but the greater good was served.  The military dudes (the guy who used to be on Law and Order: SVU and Toby from West Wing) sacrificed themselves in order to play their part in the salvation of the Earth.  Should Kal be vilified for doing what only he could do?

That’s not my call to make.  Admitted Superman neophyte and Johnny-come-lately here (see above comments re. the Super Friends and Christopher Reeve).

Believe me, I am all too aware of how uppity grouchy offended people can get when you mess with their interpretations of closely-held and much-beloved myths.

Whether of Superman or Jesus.

The adoration and devotion is often not all that dissimilar.

I also get that people don’t like to have their myths taken lightly.  Stories that are invested with sacred meaning are very personally important to those who sincerely believe in a particular interpretation of the myth.

Mythic motifs and characters are reflective of vital cultural values and beliefs.  They are recurrent- familiar themes are reintroduced in different forms, and common issues are revisited according to specific time and place.  They are also finite in number.  The same archetypes show up again and again because they address the same feelings, doubts, questions and anxieties as they always have.

Carl Jung and Prof. Cambell weren’t blowing smoke when they identified the figures (mother, child, trickster, hero…), the events (birth, death, initiation…) and motifs (apocalypse, creation, deluge…) that are the archetypes that we employ to structure our realities.

Myths are tools- for coping with our world and the human condition.  While the specifics are illustrated according to contextual elements like history, geography and culture, the underlying ways of presenting our responses to our common concerns remain the same.

As we saw yesterday, one person’s imaginary guy/girl in a lamp is an Allah-created supernatural being to someone else.  Humans who subscribe to a particular religious belief system tend to get a bit hinky when their sacred cows (or people, or divinities) are equated with fictional characters ostensibly meant solely for the purposes of entertainment.

Our myths are special stories, imbued with meaning, seriousness and importance, but I think we really need to lighten up some and appreciate that the repetition of the themes and character(istic)s in our stories is something that is going to happen.  We have pretty cool brains (when they are actually used to fullest capacity) but, for all their complexity, they remain somewhat limited in the ways in which we name and describe things.

In Man of Steel Kal did his damndest to save humanity using the tools he had to hand and at great risk to himself.  If he had seen any other alternative he would have taken it.  Cut the dude some slack.

Everything old is new again.  There is nothing new under the sun.  And whatever other trite, clichéd tautology you might want.

Let’s keep that in mind- along with the fact that our cultural heroes are reflections of us (in the same way that 1st century Palestinian heroes are reflections of the cultural values and behaviours of 1st century Palestinians).  If we are going to take issue with their actions, we should probably evaluate why, exactly, we would have them act in that way.

Is Superman the real problem here?

Really?

Did I mention I LOVED this movie?

Go see it.

Proud- Part 2

Continuing where we left off yesterday…

In case you missed it, or don’t want to read the whole of Part 1 (although I’d love it if you did), let me explain.  No, there is too much.  Let me sum up: (to steal a line from Inigo Montoya).

This week SCOTUS made landmark rulings, overturning Prop. 8 (which banned same-sex marriage in California) as unconstitutional and invalidated the provision of DOMA that prevented same-sex couples from accessing the same benefits available to heterosexual couples.

This is a GOOD thing.

As usual, and as noted by George Takei, the bible thumpers are out in force screaming about the whole thing- regardless of the fact that it affects the lives of heterosexuals in NO way, shape or form.

We talked briefly about the mythologies of Mesopotamia and Greece- two of the major cultures that influenced the development of biblical mythology- and found that neither of them took any issue with homosexuality, nor proscribed against it.

Which leads us to that much-thumped book of stories (terrible way to treat stories- all that thumping).

Starting at the beginning (or the re-beginning, anyway):

Genesis 9.1  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”

Genesis 9.7.  “And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it.”

This is YHWH speaking with Noah and the fam post-flood.  Right after the deity had just completely wiped out his own creation (with the exception of one family and those animals that made it onto the boat.  Poor dinosaurs and unicorns.  Sniff).  No over-reaction there.

He is setting the scene with this initial covenant (ironically- given its use by the LBGTQ community- represented by the appearance of a rainbow in the sky) for the big-C-Covenant-to-come by setting out some initial commandments and telling Noah and his progeny to go forth and re-populate the earth that he had just finished destroying.

Obviously, this would be difficult if there was much of a homosexual component to Noah’s family (being, as it was, the days before artificial insemination).  These early passages set the stage for the oft-cited idea that marriage is all about procreation, a key facet of upholding the covenant with the deity.

The laws found in Leviticus echo this idea with a more definite attempt at controlling behaviour.  Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 both suggest that ‘lying with mankind as with womankind’ is an ‘abomination’.  The Levitical laws are social controls– meant to establish order in the new nation under the covenant established with YHWH.

Some of them are practical concerns (the food laws are generally accepted to have had a whole lot to do with lack of refrigeration capabilities in the desert and therefore efforts to avoid having the population die out from food poisoning), while others were meant to set the Israelites apart from their neighbours, and those they conquered in the name of their god.

The gods, mores and practices of the Canaanites (the original residents of the ‘Promised Land’) had a great deal in common with those of the Mesopotamian City States, which were not institutionally against homosexuality.  To distinguish themselves- and assert the holiness of their covenant- the Israelites had to adhere to an identity that was very much against the ‘other’- which meant distancing themselves from the social realities of the surrounding cultures.

Biblical literature is full of examples of the Israelites falling off the YHWH-wagon and taking up the pastimes and habits of those around them- which often included the worship of their gods.  Major covenant violation there- breaking of Big Rules #1 and #2, in fact.  Not going to please the old man at all.  Best to enforce the complete separation from the other by reinforcing mores that are supported by earlier Hebrew myths.

Going back to Genesis, the story of Sodom and Gommorah is usually dragged out as the main justification for the ‘abomination’ associated with homosexual acts, because the mob at the door wanted to access Lot’s angelic visitors and to ‘know’ them- in the biblical sense.  Even Lot offering his own virgin daughters to placate the crowd in their stead did not turn the citizens away from their violation of the laws of hospitality and lack of charity to visitors (I should think that the impulse to rape guests in the city would definitely qualify as being inhospitable).

If you read the Prophets (Ezekiel for example) and early Talmudic tradition, the ‘sin’ of Sodom and Gommorah was identified as this social injustice and lack of hospitality.  Since violating the proper social order leads to chaos, such actions were deemed dangerous and punishment was required (with YHWH again following his pattern of the overkill model of punitive judgement).

Later interpretations and compositional strands in the mythology itself- and stronger shout-outs against homosexuality drawn from the influence of Zoroastrianism from the period of the Babylonian exile- tended toward a more completely negative view of same-sex pairings, based in cultural bias rather than social prescriptions.  Even with this syncretism of prejudices, it wasn’t until the 1st century CE that Jewish writers- such as Philo of Alexandria and the Roman historian Josephus- unequivocally asserted that homosexuality was, in fact, the great sin that caused the destruction of the twin cities.

When it comes to support of anti-homosexual proclamations from the OT, basically we are talking about examples of institutionalized aversion to the other, as the political and religious powers sought to maintain control and social order in a developing nation, while avoiding the assumption of outside ideas into Jewish beliefs and practices.

Moving on to the NT…

Jesus says nothing, nada, zilch about homosexuality in the words that are attributed to him.   In fact, in Matthew 10.14-15, he compares the fate of anyone who is unwelcoming of his followers to the lack of hospitality displayed at Sodom and Gommorah- noting that any towns that turned them away would suffer even more than the Sodom and Gommorah-ites.

Jesus was a 1st century CE Jew who was looking to reform the religious tradition in which he was raised.  He welcomed those from the margins of society and his mission was one of inclusion- values that he felt were being ignored by the authorities of the Temple.  If Christians want to maintain that his message was all about the love, they really need to stop involving him- completely undeservedly- in their hate-mongering.  Poor guy must be rolling over in his grave.

On the other hand, the early Christian writers- Paul of Tarsus for example- were seeking to develop a minority new religious movement within a larger social, political and religious background.  Like the Israelites, they had to differentiate themselves- first from the Jews and then from other cultural groups that were in any way displeasing to the Roman officials.

There are mentions made in some of the canonical epistles (Romans 1.26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6.9-11 come to mind) that speak against all kinds of perceived sexual improprieties, but this is hardly surprising.  Paul wasn’t a big fan of sex in any form.  Have a look at 1 Corinthians 7, if you have any doubts about that reality.

The upshot of all this discussion (and I could go on, believe me), is that ideological objections to homosexuality drawn from biblical mythology are few and far between (especially given the volume of canonical literature alone).  Those that do exist are clearly culturally and temporally driven- by political expedience for the purpose of the maintenance of social order, flying under the radar of the ruling majority and/or in order to support increasing the number of followers of the deity of the covenant.  Yet people want to use 2000-3000 year old political and cultural ideas as the basis for life-affecting legislation in the 21st century?

Sigh.

My wonderful friend Tracey had a conversation with her son about the events of the week.  Hopefully more people will finally embrace the reality that this amazing child knows intuitively.  It is beyond ridiculous to hold to the proscriptions dictated by Bronze Age people, looking to assert their national dominance (and that of their god) over the indigenous peoples of the land they sought to conquer and claim as their own.  And citing the epistolary writings of the PR people for a struggling new religious movement trying to find its footing in the face of majority persecution- against the model and words of the ‘founder’ of said movement?  You call that justification?

Humbug.

The SCOTUS decision is a welcome step toward the arrival at a point that should have become moot long ago.  I honestly can’t believe we are still talking about this.   Yet seeing the vitriolic responses in the ‘news’, the comments sections of opinion pieces and in various incarnations of social media, I realize that dialogue apparently remains necessary.  Still.  So let this be my two cents- and my happy (and relieved) reaction to an historic ruling that upholds equality, intellectual rationale and just plain common sense.

Happy Pride everyone.  May the fact that human decency, fairness and reason finally saw some light this week set the tone for a joyful weekend.

Escape goats

Given my great love of myth and symbol as expressions of what it means to be human, it should hardly come as a surprise that I love language in general and the origins of words and phrases in particular.  We take words for granted- use and misuse them without too much thought about where they came from and, sometimes, what they really mean.  So many words and phrases that are part of our (relatively) common parlance have origins in the language of myth.

One such term has been hovering on the edge of my consciousness a lot lately- not because it is all that out of the ordinary, but because I heard it spectacularly misused in conversation not long ago- although, to be perfectly fair, both words have the same root and have been used interchangeable historically.  Still, the speaker calling herself an ‘escape goat’ very much summoned images of a cartoonish getaway goat stationed outside of a bank as quick post-robbery transportation.  Think Benny, the New York taxi from ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit’, as a goat, and you have a pretty good idea of the mental picture I got.

The concept of the scapegoat has its origin in the Ancient Near East, most notably in biblical mythology.  Although there are comparable examples from Ebla, in Mesopotamia, that predate the biblical usage of the concept, the role of the scapegoat in the ceremonies associated with the Day of Atonement is perhaps the most familiar to contemporary audiences.

Leviticus 16.1-34 describes an annual ritual that likely was originally a purification rite for the sanctuary where religious events and sacrifices took place.  It detailed the steps required to remove the impurity caused by the personal pollution of those who were present in the sanctuary, in particular, the bodies of Aaron’s priestly sons who ‘drew near before the Lord and died’ (Lev. 16.1) after offering up ‘unholy fire.’ (Lev. 10.1)

Aaron is told to sacrifice a bull as an offering against his own sins, and then ordered to take two goats and, by drawing lots, choose the ‘Lord’s goat’, which would be used as the blood sacrifice to atone for the collective sins of Yahweh’s Chosen people.  The second goat- the ‘Azazel’ goat- was sent into the wilderness, figuratively bearing the sins of the Israelites and taking them away from the sanctuary and the presence of the deity.  The two goats ‘paid’ for the sins of the nation in their stead.

Traditional English translations of the Hebrew bible render the Hebrew (transliterated) Azazel as ‘scapegoat’.  The original term is much more interesting and provides evidence, if more is needed, that the core beliefs of the ancient Israelites weren’t quite so monotheistic as all that.  ‘Azazel’ means ‘angry’ or ‘fierce’ god (El)– one who is seen as being in opposition to Yahweh.

Azazel appears as a character in 1 Enoch- as one of the leaders of the fallen angels or Watchers. In 1 Enoch, Azazel leads his fellows in providing humanity with such useful tools as the knowledge of warfare, metallurgy and the production of cosmetics (among other transgressions).  The corruption associated with evil comes from the teaching of inappropriate and sinful skills, as well as through the unholy congress of angels and humans.

This represented a new idea in the development of the mythology: sin came from something outside of human beings.  Evil originated in a sphere that was separate from the human realm, and therefore salvation must likewise come from an outside source.  At this point in the development of the mythology, humanity was seen as more the victim of supernatural forces than as a source of evil itself.  Augustine, much later, will strongly disagree with this perspective with his ideas about ‘original sin’ and comparable nonsense.

1 Enoch is one of the earliest texts in the development of biblical apocalypticism (even though it is a non-canonical, pseudepigraphal text) and one that heavily influenced later literary and legendary traditions.  Azazel, and the problems he caused in allowing humanity ‘access’ to sin, will certainly show up again in this blog.  Far from being an entirely negative figure, Azazel can be seen as a Hebrew Prometheus, providing humanity with the tools they required to enable the progress of civilization.  He is far too interesting to be merely a footnote in the discussion of the scapegoat.

In Christian mythology Jesus is the ultimate scapegoat.   Through his sacrifice all who profess faith in him are forgiven of the totality of their sins, and offered redemption in the afterlife.  He removed both the pollution and burden of sin, saving those who would follow him from the need for sacrifice- either in the form of the burnt offerings of the Jewish tradition from which Christianity stemmed, or in the self-sacrifice that Yahweh, and other contemporaneous gods, demanded.

In the current vernacular a scapegoat is someone who is vilified and punished for the sins of others- an often-blameless figure who is used to divert true justice, and often an agent of deception that hides the corruption of others.  I can think of one extremely timely scapegoat who has been thrown under the bus this past week (looking at you Mr. Former Chief of Staff to the PM) in the furtherance of an agenda/mandate that seems, increasingly, to require such actions in defence of suspect leadership.

Perhaps the image of the goat as a means of escape is actually the one that is indicative of the greater humanity.  The goat could be used as a means of transportation out of the environment of lies and prevarication that requires such sacrifice.  Misused or not, the idea of any kind of escape from such sordid necessity of displaced sacrifice in the name of preserving wrong behaviours seems the more humane and human option.

On second thought, I think I’ll hang onto that particular mental picture and hope that the cartoon goat carries those without real culpability far away from the systems that require such unethical acts of preservation.