Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials: Ancient Gnosticism in Modern Atheist Clothing
|
|
Thread rating:  |
weiler214@hotmail.com - 09 Dec 2004 20:12 GMT http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html
Philip Pullman
His Dark Materials
For this month's look at books, let's begin by playing a game.
Try, if you can, to guess from which genre of literature the following quotations were taken:
The Authority, god, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father the Almighty -- those were all names he gave himself. He was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves -- the first angel, true, the most powerful, but he was formed of Dust as we are, and Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself....The first angels condensed out of Dust, and the Authority was the first of all. He told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie.
...I met an angel: a female angel....She said that all the history of human life has been a struggle between wisdom and stupidity. She and the rebel angels, the followers of wisdom, have always tried to open minds; the Authority and his churches have always tried to keep them closed.
The Authority considers that conscious beings of every kind have become dangerously independent....
There are two great powers....and they've been fighting since time began....Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit.
Let's hear your guesses on the source of these snippets of wisdom. The latest manifesto from a fortress in the Montana backwoods? One of any volumes plucked at random from the "New Age" shelf in your local bookstore?
Final answer?
Wrong. Those rather tendentious flailings at someone's image of traditional Judeo-Christianity are taken from one the more popular fiction series for older children and teens: His Dark Materials by British writer and former schoolteacher Philip Pullman, books which have received almost universal accolades from education and librarian's organizations, including awards from the American Library Association, Horn Books, and Publishers Weekly. The last book of the trilogy, The Amber Spyglass, was published in October of 2000, and at this writing (late January) stands at #49 on the Amazon.com bestseller list, with hundreds of mostly glowing reader reviews.
Forget Harry Potter. Although some readers continue to disagree, it's clear to an objective observer that J.K. Rowling doesn't have any agenda on her mind but that of penning entertaining fantasy that's about as dangerous as an episode of Bewitched.
Philip Pullman is different. He's a gifted, imaginative writer, but with a twist. He does indeed have an agenda, he doesn't hide it, and it's all about religion.
The complex plot of the His Dark Materials trilogy resists simple summary. The books, resting somewhere between the fantasy and science fiction genres, revolve around a pair of pre-adolescents, Lyra and Will, children from different worlds (literally) who share two common bonds: the loss of parents and the possession of objects which give them unique access to knowledge. Lyra holds the Golden Compass of the first book, an object which communicates truth about any situation to any person wise enough to be able to read it, which Lyra is. Will's gift is the Subtle Knife (the title of the second volume), an instrument which can cut open windows to other worlds.
Through their adventures in various worlds, it becomes clear that Lyra and Will are objects of interest to both sides in another heavenly war, this one, like the first, between God (the Authority) and Satan (called Lord Asriel here). Why? Because, it seems, these two children will be essential actors in a re-enacting of the Fall and Temptation of humanity, a second chance to claim the true fruit of the Fall, which was never really sin, it seems, but knowledge and wisdom, replacing the old, authoritarian "Kingdom of Heaven" with the "Republic of Heaven."
From the quotations above, it's clear where Pullman's wartime sympathies lie. In Lyra's world, one which is similar to but not exactly like ours (which is Will's), the "Church," a combination of the worst of Inquisitorial Catholicism and Calvinism, (the central "Magisterium" is located in Geneva) attempts to controls thought and stamps out heresy with glee and even murderous intent -- one character, a "Father Gomez," is given absolution in advance before he's sent out by the Magisterium to kill Dr. Mary Malone, an ex-nun, now physicist, who's posed to play the part of Lyra's tempting serpent.
Philip Pullman is, indeed, a gifted writer. It's clear that young readers have been captivated by these books, not because of his agenda, but because of interesting characters, skillfully built suspense and an array of fantastical creations, ranging from the basic premise of other worlds co-existing almost within each other, to specific features like huge, sentient, warrior polar bears, tiny spur-bearing spies called Gallevespians, and, most brilliantly of all, what those in Lyra's world call daemons -- material manifestations of one's soul that are in the form of animals, creatures that accompany a person for the whole of one's life, but don't settle down into a permanent shape until adolescence. Pullman's use of this last element is really a fascinating way to provoke thought about character and personality.
But, as one reviewer has observed, the best word to describe the cumulative effect of these novels is "a tragedy," and not because of the events within them, but because of Pullman's anti-religious agenda. The agenda is clear in interviews, as Pullman calls the God of the Old Testament a "hideous old brute" -- but sneaks only into the last few pages of the first book. By the last, however, the agenda is the central focus, even involving a death-of-God scene in which Lyra kills the Authority, revealed to be a decrepit, runny-eyed old creature, whose dissipation into the atoms is accompanied by his own sigh of relief.
Beautiful.
What makes it worse, if possible, is Pullman's own dishonest attitude towards his work. In interview after interview, the author claims that he doesn't even like his books to be classified as "fantasy," since, in his words "I'm a realist in everything I write."
Not so fast. A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos. An artist truly dedicated to "realism" in his depiction of organized religion would shine light, not on inquisitions and heresy courts, but on hospitals, schools, art, literature, scientific knowledge and sacrifice. And oh yes, a "realistic" presentation of Christianity would mention Jesus of Nazareth.
J.R.R. Tolkein, to whom Pullman is often compared, but for whom he has little regard (for the record, Pullman despises C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, calling it "anti-life"), was a man of deep convictions as well. The difference between the two writers' work, though, is that Tolkein, as devout a Catholic as he was, took special care in his voluminous fantasy works -- which extend far beyond The Lord of the Rings, by the way -- to offer what he calls a "sub-creation" embodying his vision of reality and truth, but in which there is never an explicit reference to the notions "our world" has of God, nor of religion at all, creating on the way, a work of art, not polemics.
So there lies the essential difference, which extends beyond ideology. Phillip Pullman ultimately fails as a writer in His Dark Materials, not because of his views on religion, but because he simply can't resist the temptation to preach about them, putting art to the service of manipulating his young readers' opinions, ironically enough, with even more force and skill than any of his imagined Magisterial Courts could ever muster on their own.
Dorothy J Heydt - 09 Dec 2004 20:27 GMT [schnipp]
>So there lies the essential difference, which extends beyond ideology. >Phillip Pullman ultimately fails as a writer in His Dark Materials, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >even more force and skill than any of his imagined Magisterial Courts >could ever muster on their own. I see. You're saying he suffers from advanced LeGuin's Disease.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djheydt@kithrup.com
DylanBD - 09 Dec 2004 20:42 GMT > > <weiler214@hotmail.com> wrote: >>he simply can't resist the temptation to preach > > I see. You're saying he suffers from advanced LeGuin's Disease. I haven't dared go back to Le Guin since Tehanu for fear that it would depress me, but from what I understand, the next two Earthsea books reined in the preachiness a bit. Can anyone tell me if it's safe to return? I used to really like her when I was a kid, and I'd hate to write her off.
Ghod - 09 Dec 2004 20:53 GMT : > > <weiler214@hotmail.com> wrote: : >>he simply can't resist the temptation to preach [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : in the preachiness a bit. Can anyone tell me if it's safe to return? I : used to really like her when I was a kid, and I'd hate to write her off. I normally hate preachiness.....but I don't recall having been annoyed when reading Tehanu. Don't write her off, perhaps just having let some time go by will make a difference in how the books strike you. When I'm in certain moods, some things will set me off instantly, to the point where I can't enjoy the book anymore, but when my mood has changed, things that seemed completely unbearable become mere background noise, easily ignored.
Dave Shipley - 09 Dec 2004 22:32 GMT > : > > <weiler214@hotmail.com> wrote: > : >>he simply can't resist the temptation to preach [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > : depress me, but from what I understand, the next two Earthsea books > reined Next two *after* Tehanu?!! *runs off to Amazon*
> : in the preachiness a bit. Can anyone tell me if it's safe to > return? I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > changed, things that seemed completely unbearable become mere > background noise, easily ignored. Öjevind Lång - 11 Dec 2004 07:05 GMT "Ghod" <ghod@ameritech.net> skrev i meddelandet
[snip]
> I normally hate preachiness.....but I don't recall having been annoyed > when reading Tehanu. Don't write her off, perhaps just having let [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > changed, things that seemed completely unbearable become mere > background noise, easily ignored. But her writing used to be crystal pure, without any background noise to ignore. Then she started to promote an atheist-feminist agenda that messed up several of her books and tainted the earlier ones a bit for me. The absolute nadir was that abortion, "Always Coming Home", which she explicitly stated to be "non-linear" - that is to say, it was not intended to be read from beginnign to end, A good thing, since I doubt that anyone has ever managed to wade trough all that drivel. And I just *hated* Tehanu.
Öjevind
Dorothy J Heydt - 09 Dec 2004 21:04 GMT >> > <weiler214@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>he simply can't resist the temptation to preach [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in the preachiness a bit. Can anyone tell me if it's safe to return? I >used to really like her when I was a kid, and I'd hate to write her off. I've never liked her fiction much, but her essays are interesting. Though of course therein she preaches nonstop, sometimes going back and revising her earlier sermons because they weren't preachy enough before.
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djheydt@kithrup.com
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com - 12 Dec 2004 11:46 GMT > >> > <weiler214@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>he simply can't resist the temptation to preach [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > back and revising her earlier sermons because they weren't > preachy enough before. There's an old McGuin book about a guy who's dreams change the reality of the entire Earth. He goes to a psychiatrist and the story goes on from there. It is set in Portland, OR and is one of my faves. What a great book.
There's another book set in the Moraga, California area in a far primitive future that I also like but it has been a long time.
Neither has any preachiness. I also read "The Color Of Magic" which was quite nice and not preachy.
Aaron Davies - 12 Dec 2004 19:41 GMT > > >> > <weiler214@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>he simply can't resist the temptation to preach [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > from there. It is set in Portland, OR and is one of my faves. What a > great book. _Lathe of Heaven_.
 Signature Aaron Davies Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator. "I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth." -Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
Jim Deutch - 13 Dec 2004 16:55 GMT >> > <weiler214@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>he simply can't resist the temptation to preach [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in the preachiness a bit. Can anyone tell me if it's safe to return? I >used to really like her when I was a kid, and I'd hate to write her off. I also abandoned her, long before Tehanu, in fact (Tehanu being the only exception over a couple of decades, and a bit of a disappointment, though it wasn't bad IMHO). Having read some good reviews, though, I decided to try her again a couple years ago. Maybe twenty pages into "The Telling", I decided I had been right the first time and put it down. Then, many months later, I picked it up again and read the whole thing in one long afternoon and loved it!
The latest couple of Earthsea books are good, if you ask me, though they don't reach the levels of the first three (well, first and third).
Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)
 Signature Research Center today confirmed that foot-and-mouth disease cannot be spread by Microsoft's Outlook email application, believed to be the first time the program has ever failed to propagate a major virus.
Werner Arend - 15 Dec 2004 08:37 GMT > The latest couple of Earthsea books are good, if you ask me, though > they don't reach the levels of the first three (well, first and > third). Interesting how tastes can differ. I liked the second one very much, but weren't much impressed by the others.
Werner
Steve Hayes - 10 Dec 2004 04:58 GMT >[schnipp] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I see. You're saying he suffers from advanced LeGuin's Disease. Much worse than LeGuin, or worse than her earlier wors, anyway. And much worse than C.S. Lewis, whom Pullman criticises from being preachy, and then goes on to be more preachy.
 Signature Steve Hayes E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm
DJ Nozem - 09 Dec 2004 20:47 GMT >http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html
>Philip Pullman
>His Dark Materials You are mapping the conservative campaign quite admirably. Here's stage two, still not hysterical, but with the subtext written loud and clear:
YOUR CHILDREN MAY BE READING THIS BOOK.
(Funny quote: "Some readers continue to disagree" that Harry Potter is harmless. Heh.)
To complete the information: Amy Welborn is a Catholic author, who, among other things, has written a series of apologetics books for teens hilariously titled 'Prove It!'.
 Signature We give meaning to each other
Dorothy J Heydt - 09 Dec 2004 21:06 GMT >To complete the information: Amy Welborn is a Catholic author, who, >among other things, has written a series of apologetics books for >teens hilariously titled 'Prove It!'. Thanks, I'll stick with Sayers, with titles like "The Dogma Is the Drama."
Dorothy J. Heydt Albany, California djheydt@kithrup.com
Flame of the West - 10 Dec 2004 05:10 GMT > You are mapping the conservative campaign quite admirably. This has nothing to do with political conservatism. It is a religious issue. Pullman is openly at war with Christianity.
> To complete the information: Amy Welborn is a Catholic author, who, > among other things, has written a series of apologetics books for > teens hilariously titled 'Prove It!'. Does her Catholicism somehow lessen the truth of what she is writing? Or are you just being a bigot?
-- FotW
Tolkien reuels!
DJ Nozem - 10 Dec 2004 10:08 GMT >> You are mapping the conservative campaign quite admirably.
>This has nothing to do with political conservatism. It is a >religious issue. Pullman is openly at war with Christianity. Religiousness and political conservatism are quite obviously tied to one another, certainly so in the person of Amy Welborn. Current day politics in the US are for a large part about cultural issues such as gay rights, euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research, etcetera. Amy is squarely on the conservative side on these issues.
>> To complete the information: Amy Welborn is a Catholic author, who, >> among other things, has written a series of apologetics books for >> teens hilariously titled 'Prove It!'.
>Does her Catholicism somehow lessen the truth of what she is >writing? Or are you just being a bigot? Your disjunction is incoherent. Presumably I would be a bigot precisely when I thought that her Catholicism lessens the truth of what she is writing. I thought that it might be relevant information that Amy is an author of Catholic books for teens when she is writing sentences like Philip Pullman is "manipulating his young readers' opinions". I don't know, somewhere it strikes me as funny.
 Signature We give meaning to each other
Flame of the West - 11 Dec 2004 00:14 GMT >>>You are mapping the conservative campaign quite admirably. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Religiousness and political conservatism are quite obviously tied to > one another, certainly so in the person of Amy Welborn. But your reference to a "conservative campaign" is an attempt to tar all Christian criticism of Pullman as motivated by political conservatism, not just Amy Welborn. You don't have to be a political conservative or even an American to be offended by what Pullman is trying to promote.
> I thought that it might be relevant information > that Amy is an author of Catholic books for teens when she is writing > sentences like Philip Pullman is "manipulating his young readers' > opinions". I don't know, somewhere it strikes me as funny. It shouldn't. It sounds like Amy is writing nonfiction books that openly argue her viewpoint rather than trying to trying to convert young people covertly via fictional representations that mock or vilify those who disagree with her.
-- FotW
Tolkien reuels!
Mike Williams - 11 Dec 2004 02:36 GMT > You don't have > to be a political conservative or even an American to be > offended by what Pullman is trying to promote. I'm sure you can round a group of people to be offended by pretty much anything nowadays.
Michael (caught 'twixt hilarity and despair while reading Francis Wheen's "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World")
DJ Nozem - 11 Dec 2004 10:47 GMT >>>>You are mapping the conservative campaign quite admirably.
>>>This has nothing to do with political conservatism. It is a >>>religious issue. Pullman is openly at war with Christianity.
>> Religiousness and political conservatism are quite obviously tied to >> one another, certainly so in the person of Amy Welborn.
>But your reference to a "conservative campaign" is an attempt >to tar all Christian criticism of Pullman as motivated by >political conservatism, not just Amy Welborn. You don't have >to be a political conservative or even an American to be >offended by what Pullman is trying to promote. The Christian criticism I have seen so far has all been from the American religious right. I don't see how calling this a conservative campaign would be an attempt to call any and all criticism part of that campaign.
>> I thought that it might be relevant information >> that Amy is an author of Catholic books for teens when she is writing >> sentences like Philip Pullman is "manipulating his young readers' >> opinions". I don't know, somewhere it strikes me as funny.
>It shouldn't. It sounds like Amy is writing nonfiction books >that openly argue her viewpoint rather than trying to trying >to convert young people covertly via fictional representations >that mock or vilify those who disagree with her. Having children read books with the explicit purpose to teach them how to defend the faith is less manipulative of their opinions than having them read a work of fiction with some atheistic overtones? That's still funny.
 Signature We give meaning to each other
Francis A. Miniter - 09 Dec 2004 21:20 GMT Comments about the article (not about the books) interleaved.
>http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Philip Pullman is, indeed, a gifted writer. But Brutus is an honorable man.
><snip> > >But, as one reviewer has observed, the best word to describe the >cumulative effect of these novels is "a tragedy," and not because of >the events within them, but because of Pullman's anti-religious >agenda. But in closing (below) you contradict this statement. Which are we to believe you hold true?
>The agenda is clear in interviews, as Pullman calls the God of >the Old Testament a "hideous old brute" Yeah, he was that as described by some of the OT authors. Add arbitrary and capricious, especially in Genesis. And Jealous - this latter in his own words (Exodus).
>-- but sneaks only into the >last few pages of the first book. By the last, however, the agenda is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What makes it worse, So this is your real opinion and the closing statement is false.
>if possible, is Pullman's own dishonest attitude >towards his work. In interview after interview, the author claims that >he doesn't even like his books to be classified as "fantasy," since, >in his words "I'm a realist in everything I write." > Ever here of irony? When asked about the title of his novel "The Name of the Rose", Eco said that he did not think that the title should have anything to do with the book. Haven't you learned not to trust what authors say about their own works yet?
>Not so fast. A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift >in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos. What racist, bigoted, blinkered, false hogwash. Read some non-eurocentric history! For that matter, read The Adventures of Marco Polo and tell us which civilization was more advanced in the 13th century - Italy or China.
>An >artist truly dedicated to "realism" in his depiction of organized [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >would mention Jesus of Nazareth. > So your real criticism is that he is persuasive in focusing the reader on things you want to hide and does not focus on your agenda, so he must be evil. Do I have it right?
>J.R.R. Tolkein, to whom Pullman is often compared, but for whom he has >little regard (for the record, Pullman despises C.S. Lewis' Chronicles [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >religion at all, creating on the way, a work of art, not polemics. > Like the one I am reading now?
>So there lies the essential difference, which extends beyond ideology. > Yeah, right.
>Phillip Pullman ultimately fails as a writer in His Dark Materials, >not because of his views on religion, contrary to your argument above ...
>but because he simply can't >resist the temptation to preach about them, invading your sole prerogative to preach something else that you believe in.
>putting art to the service >of manipulating his young readers' opinions, which you and others do not? Or is it that indoctrination in christianity is not manipulation?
>ironically enough, with >even more force and skill than any of his imagined Magisterial Courts >could ever muster on their own. > Ah, it is that he fails because he is persuasive and good at what he does. Now I understand. You are like Yahweh, jealous.
Francis A. Miniter
DylanBD - 09 Dec 2004 21:42 GMT > Ah, it is that he fails because he is persuasive and good at what he > does. Now I understand. You are like Yahweh, jealous. Unfortunately not. The series really falls to pieces the more Pullman piles on the allegory. His great strength is in creating vital and likable characters, but by the end he's just treating them as symbolic figures -- "The Second Eve" etc. -- with no personality of their own. The ending is both sentimental and senseless: the war on Heaven, and basically the entire plot up to this point, is revealed as having been pointless, and the pubescent hero and heroine must Save the Universe by losing their virginities to each other, which releases just enough Cosmic Energy to ... do something or other, but then they have to Part Forever so that the reader can go away with a lump in his throat.
It's true that Pullman's critics are being just as hamfisted, but you know what -- they're writing polemical essays, not children's adventure stories.
One thing: I'm pretty sure that Pullman started out trying to follow Nietszche in a programmatic way: Lord Azriel and Mrs. Coulter are The Last Man, and Will and Lyra are the Uberbub and Ubermadchen. That would be an interesting allegory if he followed through with it, but it sort of gets lost at the end as well.
Gene Ward Smith - 10 Dec 2004 03:31 GMT >The ending is >both sentimental and senseless: the war on Heaven, and basically the entire [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >do something or other, but then they have to Part Forever so that the reader >can go away with a lump in his throat. This is so silly that Wagner could have made a great opera out of it.
Öjevind Lång - 11 Dec 2004 07:10 GMT [snip]
> >Not so fast. A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would > >require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Polo and tell us which civilization was more advanced in the 13th > century - Italy or China. China was more advanced, but human dingity and freedom (or compassion) were not exactly prioritized there.
Öjevind
Elf M. Sternberg - 09 Dec 2004 21:41 GMT > A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would > require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift > in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos. And just who is pandering to their audience?
Elf
Douglas Clark - 09 Dec 2004 22:53 GMT This thread seems to be about Americans and their ridiculous belief in God. But I am ashamed for Philip Pullman for selling out to Hollywood to make himself some money.
 Signature Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England .... http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com
> http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html > [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > even more force and skill than any of his imagined Magisterial Courts > could ever muster on their own. Andrew Maizels - 10 Dec 2004 04:03 GMT > This thread seems to be about Americans and their ridiculous belief in God. > But I am ashamed for Philip Pullman for selling out to Hollywood to make > himself some money. I'd say that if one is going to sell out to Hollywood, then that is the best of all reasons.
Andrew.
 Signature Visit mu.nu! It's crunchy and full of goodness! http://mu.nu/
Jette Goldie - 10 Dec 2004 18:56 GMT > > This thread seems to be about Americans and their ridiculous belief in God. > > But I am ashamed for Philip Pullman for selling out to Hollywood to make > > himself some money. > > I'd say that if one is going to sell out to Hollywood, then that is the > best of all reasons. True - tis better than selling out to Hollywood for chocolate - he can use the money they give him to buy chocolate.
 Signature Jette Goldie jette@blueyonder.co.uk Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
the softrat - 10 Dec 2004 01:45 GMT > A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift >in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos. Obviously a person who never heard of, much less read, Plato.
the softrat "Honi soit qui mal y pense." mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The pragmatist, being thirsty, drinks the water.
Jeffrey C. Dege - 10 Dec 2004 01:55 GMT >> A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >>require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift >>in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos. > >Obviously a person who never heard of, much less read, Plato. The Plato who's "ideal" society was a collectivist tyranny?
 Signature Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it is, doubtless, if it come to force, that a less number compel a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, their liberty, than that a greater number, for the pleasure of their baseness, compel a less most injuriously to be their fellow slaves. They who seek nothing but their own just liberty, have always the right to win it, whenever they have the power, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it. - John Milton
Francis A. Miniter - 10 Dec 2004 02:54 GMT >>>A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >>>require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Plato who's "ideal" society was a collectivist tyranny? Karl Popper never understood Plato. He got it all wrong. Read Allan Bloom;s Interpretive Essay accompanying his translation of Plato's Republic for a better understanding. Better yet:
To quote from my own (unpublished) MA thesis of long ago [with current comments thus inserted] - this is all from my Chapter IV, entitled "The Descent To Political Realism" :
"The formation of the just city [Book VII] is finished. The last stage, the one which makes the whole impossible, according to Bloom [p. 416], i.e., the addition of the philosopher as rule of the city, has been carried through without objection [by Glaucon or Adeimantus]. In the progression from a preternatural state of innocence to knowledge of good and evil through the acceptance of evil (the feverish city) we have come at last to the just city, which significantly stands last in the analysis as the goal of mankind, that state which he seeks in his position as a member of society. One might think at first, and if he read no further, that Plato was advocating this as a goal which men ought actively to strive for, just as Lenin strove to actualize the ideal state propounded by Marx as something which can be reached and hence striven for. Were Socrates advocating that men should forcefully seek after this ideal of justice, he would have ended the dialogue here [and see the final words of Book VII - it seems - an illusion - that he is about to end it] with some encouragement to the audience to act. In that case he would have been a reformer or revolutionary, not a philosopher.
"Instead, Socrates now takes the strange step of putting the time of the just city irrevocably in the past. It has come and gone. It was the first. What we see now in the present cities are different stages of decay of the just city. Why does Socrates do this? Popper, overlooking the first step (that the just city is also the last city) argues that Plato was presenting this in a temporal sense, that he was choosing the historicist point of view with the gloomy prophecy that mankind is doomed to reside in a totalitarian state, a tyranny. [Popper, pp. 19, 40, 45, 80] He treats the descent into the inferior forms of government as detailing an historic succession of cities. Besides the fact that Popper does not see that the just city is both first and last, he assumes that Plato is giving an historical account of government, which implies that Plato is not here concerned with ethical, political conduct. Yet in the preceding sections of the book and throughout this description of inferior regimes, ethical conduct is foremost in the discussion.
"Moreover, in stressing the historical character of this section, Popper misses the mythical trait that pervades it. This is as much a myth as the Myth of Er or the Cave Allegory. As we saw earlier that the whole Republic imitates the form of the Cave Allegory. [item: the first word of the Republic is kateben - "I went down" - Socrates is thereby acknowledging that the narrative that follows was an exercise in the obligation of the philosopher to teach] That would indicate that the proper way to take this section of the work is not as an historical account, but perhaps as an ethical metaphor.
"Bloom suggests that the just city is placed both last and first because of Socrates' desire to make the city and philosophy come to terms with each other, so that he, Socrates, might moderate Glaucon's tendency to tyranny and Adeimantus' hatred for philosophy. Since the city worships the ancestral, philosophy must be portrayed not as an enemy of the old, but as an attempt to recover the truly ancestral. This point is consistent with what we have observed in our investigations.
"Yet there is an aspect which neither of them mentions, but which has the added benefit of resolving the dichotomy of the just city being first and last. That is this. The just city should be considered ontologically prior, not temporally first. Through its close approximation to the form of justice, it is that which makes possible any real human society. ... Thus, the just city is ontologically prior in that it is involved in man's being, by correctly describing the state which he seeks, regardless of whether or not this state ever existed.
"Now the just city is also last in that it is the unrealized goal to which all men, in their role as citizens, strive. Each attempt to form a new constitution is in reality an attempt to approximate justice more closely than an earlier constitution. There is no guarantee that his absolute goal can ever be achieved. Indeed, if what we have said is true, it cannot occur. ...
"There is one further point to the arrangement of the ascent-descent order and the twist from the just city as last to the same as first. By so doing, and by presenting a decay of political life with no hope of change for the better, Socrates tempers any desire that he may have encouraged toward the institutionalization of the just city in reality with the false threat that all change is for the worse. ... "
Francis A. Miniter
Will DuPower - 10 Dec 2004 14:28 GMT >>>>A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >>>>require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > comments thus inserted] - this is all from my Chapter IV, entitled "The > Descent To Political Realism" : Thank You for sharing your thesis. I am going to pull out my Bloom and give the Republic another read.
Öjevind Lång - 11 Dec 2004 07:13 GMT > >> A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would > >>require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Plato who's "ideal" society was a collectivist tyranny? And the orthodox Chistian ideal society was, for centuries, a theocracy, with no freedom of thought. Yet it would be wrong to reduce either Christianity or Platonism to simply an affirmation of tyranny.
Öjevind
Francis A. Miniter - 10 Dec 2004 03:22 GMT >>A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >>require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift >>in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos. > > Obviously a person who never heard of, much less read, Plato. or the Bhagavad Gita or the teachings of Bhudda or Confucius, to name a few.
> the softrat > "Honi soit qui mal y pense." Interesting. I can't seem to escape Edward III this week. I just finished reading "Death of a King" by P.C. Doherty.
Francis A. Miniter
czarfire1@aol.com - 10 Dec 2004 11:36 GMT > > A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would > >require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift > >in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos. > > > Obviously a person who never heard of, much less read, Plato. While as a Jew I loath the term Judeo-Christianity since it implies that Judaism equals Christianity minus Christ, which it does not, I am not fond of people who state that the Jews through Judaism made no positive contribution to the world and that it all comes from the Greco-Roman philosophers. A good chunk of Western ethical and social thought comes from Judaism. Thomas Cahill in his book "The Gifts of the Jews" argues the idea of progress, that history can go foward rather than repeat itself in an endless cycle comes from Judaism. It can also be argued that the idea of legal equality, that the law should apply to all people equally regardless of position in life comes from Judaism.
Gene Ward Smith - 11 Dec 2004 00:12 GMT >> > A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >> >require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >positive contribution to the world and that it all comes from the >Greco-Roman philosophers. So how about the alternative--Abrahamic religions?
A good chunk of Western ethical and social
>thought comes from Judaism. And a good chunk of Jewish metaphysical thought comes from Greco-Roman philosophers, sometimes by way of intermediaries.
Joe Bernstein - 11 Dec 2004 03:49 GMT > >> > A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would > >> >require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift > >> >in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos.
> >> Obviously a person who never heard of, much less read, Plato. (I share the quizzical take on this statement expressed upthread. Is Plato the best we can do for a pre-Christian exponent of human dignity and freedom? Not Sophocles or Pericles or for that matter Homer, but Plato?)
> >While as a Jew I loath the term Judeo-Christianity since it implies > >that Judaism equals Christianity minus Christ, which it does not, I am > >not fond of people who state that the Jews through Judaism made no > >positive contribution to the world and that it all comes from the > >Greco-Roman philosophers. Fair enough, but frankly, this notion that "any" sense of human dignity and freedom can be traced to a single source is disingenuous anyway. While in general those who play the multiculturalism game tend to exaggerate, I don't think it's unreasonable to point to the Native Americans north of Mexico as representing a radically separate source for ideas about dignity and freedom, and a source that has not been totally without influence. Most societies with histories that go back further than their exposure to Judaism or Christianity can furnish examples too, though in general those societies did not, in practice, extend the notions of dignity and freedom as widely as we claim to believe in today. ("dignity" makes example-hunting easy, actually; "freedom" would be much harder in some cases. I'm not sure I can come up with arguments for human freedom from ancient Babylon, let alone Assyria.) Since Jewish and Christian societies have normally *also* not been quite as concerned with dignity and freedom as people who talk this way would like, I don't see that that matters.
> So how about the alternative--Abrahamic religions? Well, you're both thinking too small.
> A good chunk of Western ethical and social > >thought comes from Judaism.
> And a good chunk of Jewish metaphysical thought comes from Greco-Roman > philosophers, sometimes by way of intermediaries. Yawn. A good chunk of Jewish ethical and social thought comes from Zoroastrianism too, and I doubt it was all original with them either. [1]
There was a guy in Egypt in the 20th century BC who hypocritically began his book by saying "All the good ideas have already been written, so this is just a waste of time". No, I'm not making this up; I've mentioned it on I think two of these groups before; see the Instruction of Khakheperre-Sonb in your favourite collection of ancient Egyptian literature.
I don't think history is devoid of originality by any means, but when you let the thing you're looking for get as big as "any sense of human dignity or freedom", you're pretty much guaranteed to get nowhere. Gee, I wonder who the first known person to think anger was a bad idea is? How about the first one who gave thanks for the sun rising? It's amusing to trundle out Enheduanna's name when asked who the first known author was, given that it's a rare case of a PC answer that has a very strong claim to truth, but does it *mean* anything?
In fact, the only rational reading to the original poster's claim is a *thoroughly* PC one that I'm sure he or she did not intend. If we can't trace "any sense" of human dignity or freedom in the world today to any source *other* than the Judaeo-Christian ethos, then that suggests to me that the Judaeo-Christian ethos must have exterminated all other possible sources. As it happens, this is not true, but I hope it shows how dangerous this sort of stupid hyperbole can be.
Joe Bernstein
[1] As I've said before, see volume II of Mary Boyce's <History of Zoroastrianism>. Um, I think; it may be volume III. This is part of the <Handbuch der Orientalistik>, so be sure to ask your librarian before attempting to make the library catalogue disgorge a call number.
PS I am dismayed to find that this is entirely off-topic for the group I'm posting from, rec.arts.sf.written. Oops. Yes, it is; Khakheperre-Sonb, Enheduanna and Pericles are definitely off-topic and I'd argue that Homer and Sophocles are too; anyway I only mentioned them. I could play with the myth of the cave or the stories of Er or Atlantis, I suppose. But I do wonder if it's immediately obvious that the Enlightenment concepts of dignity and freedom that lie behind what most of us mean by those terms in English, have *no* source other than the Judaeo- Christian. First of all, the Enlightenment was rich in thinkers well versed in classical antiquity. Second, they *in fact* paid attention to information from abroad, and some of them, most obviously Rousseau, paid a good bit of attention to the aforementioned Native Americans. Third, and by no means least, the Enlightenment thinkers did in fact have a generous chunk of the aforementioned originality. In fact, until recently, the standard accusation against them from the Church was that they had too much of this, and their ideas were dangerous and unworkable. I'm not sure why a mere sixty years of more or less peace has sufficed to change tactics such that the (often anti-Christian) philosophes are now attacked as *un*original instead. ANYWAY, though, it takes very little effort to draw the chain between the Enlightenment and a fair chunk of what science fiction, in particular, concerns itself with. God knows sf's history is filled with discussion pro and con of the indefinite perfectibility of man, for example. It amuses me, though, to see this attack on an essentially Enlightenment-founded atheist trilogy days after I read an Objectivist attempt at high fantasy. John C. Wright's new book, whose title is escaping me, is not quite so openly revisionist as the blurb on the dust jacket makes out, but is still a very entertaining effort at, on the one hand, making up a kick-a.s cosmology, and on the other hand, importing into it strict Objectivist rules of morality. An early hint of this comes in the fact that, in the deed that drives the plot of the whole first book, the *bad* guy's sword is named "Pity". Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure Objectivist logic fails catastrophically in the world Wright is imagining (it depends, for starters, on the mortality of the soul, which I don't think he's offering). But it's still a very entertaining read. It'll take the other book or more (I'm guessing trilogy here) before it's clear to me whether Wright is extending his views as far as the rulership of his cosmos. Stay tuned; a year or two from now, this thread may be re-runnable with new proper nouns! Regardless, for all Wright's skill in conjuring up a mysterious and old-fashioned fantastic cosmos, his intellectual inheritance clearly goes back to guys like Locke and Voltaire, and he is far from alone in this in sf.
 Signature Joe Bernstein, bookseller and writer joe@sfbooks.com <http://www.panix.com/~josephb/>
Aaron Davies - 12 Dec 2004 03:36 GMT > > > > > A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would require > > > > > admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the best we can do for a pre-Christian exponent of human dignity and > freedom? Not Sophocles or Pericles or for that matter Homer, but Plato?) Personally, I'd go for Aristotle. Admittedly, it's been quite a while since I read any Plato, and I never read all that much, but I have the impression that he basically agreed with Socrates that the ideal society is anthill-style totalitarianism, where everyone has their place and no choice about it.
 Signature Aaron Davies Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator. "I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth." -Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
Öjevind Lång - 11 Dec 2004 07:24 GMT [snip]
> While as a Jew I loath the term Judeo-Christianity since it implies > that Judaism equals Christianity minus Christ, which it does not, You know, I rather think it does. But if one is not stuck in a linear rut, thinking that what comes later must be superior to what came before, that shouldn't be a worry to any Jew. Personally, Ii dislike the term a bit because often it is used to imply that everything of value in the western tradition comes from Judaism and Cristianity, which ignores Greek democracy, the stoics, Plato, the Roman law, gnosticism and quite a few other things.
> I am > not fond of people who state that the Jews through Judaism made no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > should apply to all people equally regardless of position in life comes > from Judaism. Is this the same Thomas Cahill who write a manifestly nutty book about "how Ireland saved western culture"? In that case, I wouldn't take him seriously if he sad that the earth is round. Of course, the Jews made a very important contribution to western culture, but some would apparently dismiss the Greco-Roman philosophers completely. I disagree with that. Besides, I don't like the linear idea of "progress", that is, of what is later always being better than what came before. Mind you, it is probably wrong to attribute the idea to the Jews.
Öjevind
Flame of the West - 13 Dec 2004 17:43 GMT > Is this the same Thomas Cahill who write a manifestly nutty book about "how > Ireland saved western culture"? In that case, I wouldn't take him seriously > if he sad that the earth is round. He is the one who discovered that you can hit the bestseller list many times in a row by issuing a series of books each of which flatters some ethnic group. Don't worry Öje, he'll get around to singing the praises of Swedes eventually.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Öjevind Lång - 17 Dec 2004 09:23 GMT > > Is this the same Thomas Cahill who write a manifestly nutty book about "how > > Ireland saved western culture"? In that case, I wouldn't take him seriously [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of which flatters some ethnic group. Don't worry Öje, he'll > get around to singing the praises of Swedes eventually. Quite honestly, Jerry, praise of that description would make me squirm.
Öjevind
Count Menelvagor - 15 Dec 2004 01:09 GMT (Whoah, this gnu and improved Google thing is weird. I'm replying on Öjevind's post about Judaeo-Christinaity. Why is including quoted text not the default?)
One problem with "Judaeo-Christianity" is that it leaves out Islam, which is historically and in terms of its ideas very close to both (and I think somewhat closer to Christianity than Judaism is).
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com - 10 Dec 2004 09:07 GMT > http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html > A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would > require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom adrift > in the world today can be traced to the Judeo-Christian ethos. Mahatma Ghandi might disagree.
Such bigotry against all other religions. How many problems in the world today can be traced to this aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethos?
czarfire1@aol.com - 11 Dec 2004 00:06 GMT > > http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html > > A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Such bigotry against all other religions. How many problems in the > world today can be traced to this aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethos? Will you stop using the term Judeo-Christianity to refer to Christianity and its beliefs and the actions of its adherents. Judaism is not Christianity, it does not share the same beliefs as Christianity Just because Christians displayed bigotry against other religions and at times converted at sword point does not mean that Jews would if they were just as numerous as Christians.
Aaron Davies - 11 Dec 2004 00:50 GMT > > > http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html A "realistic" treatment > > > of Judeo-Christianity would require admitting that any sense of human [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > converted at sword point does not mean that Jews would if they were just > as numerous as Christians. obDisclaimer: I'm Jewish. Just thought I'd get it out there before I start saying controversial things.
Honestly, that's debatable. Not prosletyzing is a big part of modern Judaism, certainly, but there's a case to be made that that's a result of 2000 years of oppression at the hands of Christians and, yes, Muslims too. (Life as Dhimmi may have been better than having the Inquisition come calling, but it was still oppression.) IIRC, there was an incident towards the end of the first century B.C. where Jews forcibly converted some Arab tribe. OTOH, tradition says that God sent Herod as their punishment.
 Signature Aaron Davies Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator. "I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth." -Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
czarfire1@aol.com - 11 Dec 2004 03:08 GMT > > > > http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html A "realistic" treatment > > > > of Judeo-Christianity would require admitting that any sense of human [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > of 2000 years of oppression at the hands of Christians and, yes, Muslims > too. I freely admit that the Jews were active prosletyzers before Constantine's conversion but the move away from prosletyzation occurred during the pagan phase of the Roman Empire. Jews did do some minor conversions when they could get away from it though.
(Life as Dhimmi may have been better than having the Inquisition
> come calling, but it was still oppression.) The Muslim world covered a large area and conditions varied widely. Jews living in Sunni lands were better off than Jews living in Shiite lands usually. Living as a Jew in Asia Minor or Egypt or Tunis or Syria was not bad until recently. The Jews of Morrocco were forced to live in ghettos like the Jews of Europe and the ghettos were often the nastiest part of time, being near wear salt was made. The Jews of Yemen were in a constant state of terror from the Muslim Conquest till when they all moved to Israel. The Jews of Central Asia adopted Russian style family names because the Russians, not known philo-Semites, treated them better than the local Muslim Emirs.
IIRC, there was an incident
> towards the end of the first century B.C. where Jews forcibly converted > some Arab tribe. OTOH, tradition says that God sent Herod as their > punishment. They were not Arabs but Idumeans, one of the many Semitic people who lived in the Middle East at the time. The Semitic language family was much larger in antiquity and now it only consists of Arabic, Hebrew, and Aharmic, the main language of Ethiopia.
> Aaron Davies > Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator. > "I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth." > -Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality. Orit - 11 Dec 2004 10:53 GMT >>>Such bigotry against all other religions. How many problems in the >>>world today can be traced to this aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethos? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of 2000 years of oppression at the hands of Christians and, yes, Muslims > too. ObDisclaimer: I'm an atheistic ethnic Jew.
There is no instruction anywhere in the Torah, or the rest of the Old Testament, to convert the heathens to belief in the One True God. Certain tribes are to be exterminated, others are merely to be driven out of the Promised Land (which is not the entire Earth by any means). Nowhere is it written that everybody in the world should become Jewish.
Judaism is bigoted in another way. It is elitist and racist. Jews believe they are the Chosen People, the ones God has chosen to do His work in this world (whatever that is). God makes various promises in the Bible to "your seed", never to "all who believe in me".
Converting to Judaism may have been easier in olden times (there is the famous story of Ruth of Moab, who merely said "Your God is my God", and got to become the ancestress of King David (and therefore the Messiah to come). But the Bible doesn't so much as hint that it was ever actively encouraged, not to mention forced.
Orit
Gerry Quinn - 11 Dec 2004 13:12 GMT
> There is no instruction anywhere in the Torah, or the rest of the Old > Testament, to convert the heathens to belief in the One True God. > > Judaism is bigoted in another way. It is elitist and racist. Jews > believe they are the Chosen People, the ones God has chosen to do His > work in this world (whatever that is). Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
- Gerry Quinn
czarfire1@aol.com - 12 Dec 2004 00:53 GMT > >>>Such bigotry against all other religions. How many problems in the > >>>world today can be traced to this aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethos? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > There is no instruction anywhere in the Torah, or the rest of the Old
> Testament, to convert the heathens to belief in the One True God. > Certain tribes are to be exterminated, others are merely to be driven
> out of the Promised Land (which is not the entire Earth by any means). > Nowhere is it written that everybody in the world should become Jewish. > > Judaism is bigoted in another way. It is elitist and racist. Jews > believe they are the Chosen People, the ones God has chosen to do His
> work in this world (whatever that is). God makes various promises in
> the Bible to "your seed", never to "all who believe in me". You are missing the point of what Judaism means when it calls Jews the Choosen People. According to Judaism, God choose Abraham because Abraham choose God by rejected the idols made and worshiped by his community. Jews were choosen because they choose, it was not a random decision. Also, Jews do not believe that we are better because we are choosen but that we ought to be better, that we must be a light to the nations, and that our moral obligation is greater than that of others. Being one of the Choosen People is about obligations, it carries no rights.
Flame of the West - 11 Dec 2004 03:39 GMT >>>A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >>>require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Will you stop using the term Judeo-Christianity to refer to > Christianity and its beliefs and the actions of its adherents. Touchy, touchy. But why do you get offended that Judaism is mentioned in connection with human dignity and freedom? Do you dislike those things?
> Judaism > is not Christianity, it does not share the same beliefs as Christianity > Just because Christians displayed bigotry against other religions and > at times converted at sword point does not mean that Jews would if they > were just as numerous as Christians. Both Jews and Christians have rare examples in history of forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not common in either religion, unlike Islam.
-- FotW
"If you must read newspapers and magazines at least give yourself a mouthwash with The Lord of the Rings."
-- C.S. Lewis
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com - 11 Dec 2004 06:07 GMT > > Judaism > > is not Christianity, it does not share the same beliefs as Christianity > > Just because Christians displayed bigotry against other religions and > > at times converted at sword point does not mean that Jews would if they > > were just as numerous as Christians. The Old Testament has several cases of the Israelites being ordered by Jehovah to exterminate tribes of other religions. However, they did not convert them! so your point goes uncontradicted.
> Both Jews and Christians have rare examples in history of > forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not > common in either religion, unlike Islam. Consider the numerous wars large and small between Christian sects. This activity may be unique to Christianity.
As to Muslims forcing their religion on others, it is hard to say. It did happen but is forbidden by the Qur'an so it is difficult to get unbiased information. In some areas like Iran there was force, in other areas like Indonesia there was not.
Öjevind Lång - 11 Dec 2004 07:34 GMT [snip]
> Both Jews and Christians have rare examples in history of > forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not > common in either religion, unlike Islam. Henh? The Indians in what is now Latin America would disagree with you. So would the Jews and Moors in Spain, the Indians in India who got in the way of the Portuguese, the Huguenots, the Saxons who were forcibly Christianized by Charlemagne, the Filipinos, the Slavs and ancient Prussians who were forcibly converted by the Teutonic order and the Finns who were forcibly converted by the Swedes. I could go on. As for Islam, forcing Jews or Christians to convert is against its teachings and has always been an extremely unusual occurrence. The majoirty of people in the Middle East were Christians until the crusades, when many of them voluntaily converted to Islam out of disgust at the behaviour of the western Christians. As for the Jews, according to their own traditions they were quite active killing off the unclean worshippers of other gods in the days of their power.
Öjevind
Aaron Davies - 12 Dec 2004 03:38 GMT > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Christians until the crusades, when many of them voluntaily converted to > Islam out of disgust at the behaviour of the western Christians. I think everyone involved in this discussion knows about Dhimmi, so will you and anyone else inclined to bring it up as an example of Muslim "tolerance" please stop? We're not talking about the their attitude to the "people of the Book", but to the "polytheists", as they still call them. They had two rules: Jews and Christians can covert or live as opressed minorities, everyone else can convert or die. I'm talking about all the various pagan tribes of the Middle East, of Africa, of the Asian steppes, of the Indian sub-continent, etc.
 Signature Aaron Davies Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator. "I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth." -Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
Öjevind Lång - 12 Dec 2004 20:57 GMT "Aaron Davies" <aaron@avalon.pascal-central.com.invalid> skrev i meddelandet news:1gonh1i.ufckdfqct6x9N%aaron@avalon.pascal-
[snip]
> I think everyone involved in this discussion knows about Dhimmi, so will > you and anyone else inclined to bring it up as an example of Muslim [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > all the various pagan tribes of the Middle East, of Africa, of the Asian > steppes, of the Indian sub-continent, etc. All the Bedouin tribes on the Arabian Peninsula had to become Muslims, that is true. (Most of them were quite willing.) But Hindus were obviously not forced to abandon their religion; many of them lived under various Muslim rulers for centuries. As for the tribes on "the Asian steppes", by which I presume you mean central Asia since the Mongols never became Muslims, they were converted by Muslim missionaries, not by violence. The same is true of Africa. Of course, the fact that traditionally, Muslims were less rabidly intolerant than their Christian contemporaries is of quite secondary importance *today*. The word polytheist is, to my knowledge, the generally accepted term for people who worship more than one god, as opposed to monotheists. Perhaps you were thinking of the word "idolator", or "pagan"? But those words were very freely used by Christians too.
Öjevind
Aaron Davies - 12 Dec 2004 21:51 GMT > The word polytheist is, to my knowledge, the generally accepted term for > people who worship more than one god, as opposed to monotheists. Perhaps > you were thinking of the word "idolator", or "pagan"? But those words were > very freely used by Christians too. I think I read somewhere that the Arabic word best translated as "polytheist" is the preferred term in Muslim societies for those who are neither Muslim, Christian, nor Jewish, regardless of whether it accuratly describes their beliefs. It shows up in typical Friday sermon rants against the great conspiracy of the Americans, the Zionists, and the polytheists to destroy all Muslims.
 Signature Aaron Davies Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator. "I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth." -Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
Steve Hayes - 13 Dec 2004 03:25 GMT >> The word polytheist is, to my knowledge, the generally accepted term for >> people who worship more than one god, as opposed to monotheists. Perhaps [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >rants against the great conspiracy of the Americans, the Zionists, and >the polytheists to destroy all Muslims. And if you read some of the rants of the adherents of Hindutva, you could hardly blame them.
 Signature Steve Hayes E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/books.htm
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com - 13 Dec 2004 05:54 GMT > > The word polytheist is, to my knowledge, the generally accepted term for > > people who worship more than one god, as opposed to monotheists. Perhaps [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the polytheists to destroy all Muslims. > -- Even Christians have some taint of idolatry--images of Jesus--and polytheism--doctrine of the Trinity. The Zoroastrians are often wrongly believed to be polytheists.
The Muslims pray to the Kaaba, an ancient meteor, but Islam is abstract and almost free of idolatry. This has the advantage that you don't have Africans praying to a Danish-looking Jesus. Islam is free of racism, as Malcolm X testified.
But realize that there is little orthodoxy in Islam. Outside of the sketchy framework of the Quran, Muslims are free to disagree and do so often. Some Muslims believe that even right-thinking Hindus may enter Heaven. The decision is reserved for the creator, and church membership and participation in rituals are of importance only for leading the individual to goodness.
Flame of the West - 14 Dec 2004 03:48 GMT > Henh? The Indians in what is now Latin America would disagree with you. So > would the Jews and Moors in Spain, the Indians in India who got in the way > of the Portuguese, the Huguenots, the Saxons who were forcibly Christianized > by Charlemagne, the Filipinos, the Slavs and ancient Prussians who were > forcibly converted by the Teutonic order and the Finns who were forcibly > converted by the Swedes. I could go on. I agree about Charlemagne and the Teutonic Knights. The others are examples of oppression rather than forced conversion.
> As for Islam, forcing Jews or > Christians to convert is against its teachings Strange that you would mention that only about Islam when it's also true of Christianity.
> The majoirty of people in the Middle East were > Christians until the crusades, when many of them voluntaily converted to > Islam out of disgust at the behaviour of the western Christians. Never heard of such a thing. Talk about biting off your nose to spite your face.
> As for the Jews, according to their own traditions they were quite active > killing off the unclean worshippers of other gods in the days of their > power. The Canaanites sacrificed babies, as did the Carthaginians. Cato had a point.
-- FotW
Tolkien reuels!
Jette Goldie - 14 Dec 2004 18:37 GMT > The Canaanites sacrificed babies, as did the Carthaginians. Well, that's what the Hebrew and Roman propaganda says about them - history tends to be written by the winners, remember, and no tribal leader wants his people to think that the enemy tribe is *just like them*.
The Romans were quite fond of the practice of exposing unwanted children on hillsides, or dumping them down sewers......... something for which we have archeological *proof*...... unlike the Canaaninites and Carthaginians.
 Signature Jette Goldie jette@blueyonder.co.uk Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
wbarwell - 14 Dec 2004 22:53 GMT >> The Canaanites sacrificed babies, as did the Carthaginians. Phoenicians, not Canaanites. There is no sign of such sacrifices in Cannan until the Iron age.
> Well, that's what the Hebrew and Roman propaganda says about > them - history tends to be written by the winners, remember, and > no tribal leader wants his people to think that the enemy tribe is > *just like them*. The Romans got huffy that the Carthaginians and the Gauls had human sacrifice, yet the Roman 'games' started out as a religous sacrifice and ended up being bloody spectacles. A touch of hypocricy here.
The bible condemnations of Moloch were written about 700 BCE or so, vary late. And some verses in the OT would seem to heavily indicate the Hebrews themselves practiced human sacrifice at some point. See Exodus 24 for example. First born sons are god's but you can "redeem" him, substitute a sacrifice. Repeated prohibitions against child sacrifice strongly indicate that they themselves practiced child sacrifice at some point.
> The Romans were quite fond of the practice of exposing > unwanted children on hillsides, or dumping them down > sewers......... something for which we have archeological > *proof*...... unlike the Canaaninites and Carthaginians.
 Signature Apes bad! Dust good! Apes bad! Dust good! 21st Century American Christianity in a nutshell.
Cheerful Charlie
Öjevind Lång - 17 Dec 2004 09:36 GMT > > Henh? The Indians in what is now Latin America would disagree with you. So > > would the Jews and Moors in Spain, the Indians in India who got in the way [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I agree about Charlemagne and the Teutonic Knights. The others > are examples of oppression rather than forced conversion. You must be kidding. The Indians, the Spanish Jews and Moors, and quite a number of other peoples have been forcibly Christianized, or killed or expelled if reusing to be converted.
> > As for Islam, forcing Jews or > > Christians to convert is against its teachings > > Strange that you would mention that only about Islam when > it's also true of Christianity. It may be officially true of it, but the Christian practice was, for a great number of centuries, religous oppression and forcible conversion.
> > The majoirty of people in the Middle East were > > Christians until the crusades, when many of them voluntaily converted to > > Islam out of disgust at the behaviour of the western Christians. > > Never heard of such a thing. Talk about biting off your nose > to spite your face. Nevertheless, 'tis true. The eastern Christians were not too enchanted with Frankish rule, in fact. And they seem to have become quite happy as Muslims.
> > As for the Jews, according to their own traditions they were quite active > > killing off the unclean worshippers of other gods in the days of their > > power. > > The Canaanites sacrificed babies, as did the Carthaginians. > Cato had a point. As others have pointed out, the Romans were more than a little hypocritical there, what with their crucifixions and gladiatorial games. The gladiatorial games were so intensely loved by the Roman populace that it wasn't until the 6th century, when Rome had been officially Christian for two centrures, that the Church managed to have them abolished. Getting rid of the gladiatorial games is someting Christians can feel truly proud of.
Öjevind
wbarwell - 11 Dec 2004 12:14 GMT >>>>A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would >>>>require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not > common in either religion, unlike Islam. Rare? Christianity? Bwahahahahahah! Christianity was the first known religion that attempted to outlaw all other religions in lands it controlled, and made forced conversions standard procedure.
From Justinian onwards, it was what Christainity was all about! Your ignorance of history is breathtaking.
 Signature Apes bad! Dust good! Apes bad! Dust good! 21st Century American Christianity in a nutshell.
Cheerful Charlie
Dave Shipley - 11 Dec 2004 14:31 GMT > >>>A "realistic" treatment of Judeo-Christianity would > >>>require admitting that any sense of human dignity and freedom > > > > adrift <snip>
> > Judaism > > is not Christianity, it does not share the same beliefs as Christianity [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not > common in either religion, unlike Islam. *jaw drops*
What absolute crap. Christianity has a huge history of forced conversions; of Moor's after the fall of Al-Andalas, in the Americas as part of the Spanish colonisation, during the colonisation of Africa in the late 19th Century.
Mike Williams - 11 Dec 2004 23:00 GMT > Both Jews and Christians have rare examples in history of > forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not > common in either religion, unlike Islam. Individual US states have laws that basically force literal Christian dogma (like creationism) onto citizens, regardless of their religion.
Gerry Quinn - 12 Dec 2004 11:31 GMT > > Both Jews and Christians have rare examples in history of > > forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not > > common in either religion, unlike Islam. > > Individual US states have laws that basically force literal Christian > dogma (like creationism) onto citizens, regardless of their religion. How do you "force creationism" onto a citizen?
- Gerry Quinn
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com - 12 Dec 2004 11:41 GMT > > > Both Jews and Christians have rare examples in history of > > > forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Gerry Quinn You offer them a choice between creationism and Darwinism. Should the victim choose Darwinism, then his or her DNA is manipulated so that there is reversion to an ape-like form. Such creatures are in great demand in the army of the United States.
Christopher A. Lee - 12 Dec 2004 13:50 GMT >> > Both Jews and Christians have rare examples in history of >> > forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >How do you "force creationism" onto a citizen? Ever been to school?
>- Gerry Quinn Mike Williams - 12 Dec 2004 20:47 GMT >>>Both Jews and Christians have rare examples in history of >>>forcing their religion on other peoples. It was not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How do you "force creationism" onto a citizen? Pass laws that forbid teaching of material that contradicts the Garden of Eden story for example. Or remove all references to evolution from school texts.
Gerry Quinn - 13 Dec 2004 11:13 GMT > >>Individual US states have laws that basically force literal Christian > >>dogma (like creationism) onto citizens, regardless of their religion.
> > How do you "force creationism" onto a citizen?
> Pass laws that forbid teaching of material that contradicts the Garden > of Eden story for example. Or remove all references to evolution from > school texts. Ah, you mean they _teach_ it. From the hysterical language, I had assumed that it was 'forced on citizens' in some fashion other than that in which countless other concepts are 'forced on citizens'.
- Gerry Quinn
Mike Williams - 13 Dec 2004 23:03 GMT >>>>Individual US states have laws that basically force literal Christian >>>>dogma (like creationism) onto citizens, regardless of their religion. > >>>How do you "force creationism" onto a citizen? >
>>Pass laws that forbid teaching of material that contradicts the Garden >>of Eden story for example. Or remove all references to evolution from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > assumed that it was 'forced on citizens' in some fashion ot |
|