 |
| "I'd like to thank the members of the Academy ... " Been practicing this speech for a long time! |
You can read Julie Davis' comments about "Save Send Delete" here.
Monday, April 1, 2013
"Happy Catholic" Names "Save Send Delete" One of the Ten Best Books of the Year!
You can read Julie Davis' comments about "Save Send Delete" here.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
One of the GREAT Movie Scenes of All Time: "Lazarus, Arise!" George Stevens' Response to Dachau
George Stevens' 1965 "The Greatest Story Ever Told" contains one of THE great movie scenes of all time, "Lazarus, arise!"
The film itself is long, lavish, with a big, big cast. It was one of the most expensive films ever made, and it took forever to make. Because it is slow-moving, many people hate it.
I love "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and I'd recommend it to anyone who is looking for an art film treatment of the life of Christ.
Is it fast moving? No, it is not. If you want "Robocop," this isn't your movie.
The slowness of this movie provides thoughtful people ample time to think about the history-shaping words being said, to soak up the beauty of the film itself.
Does Stevens attempt to recreate the sense one gets from looking at beautiful religious paintings? Yes. If you are one of those people who freeze frames beautiful shots, this is your movie.
Do big name stars appear in small roles? Yes. The most notorious cameo: John Wayne plays the Roman centurion who states, "Truly this man was the son of God." Yes it is hard not to giggle when you hear the Duke's distinctive, macho, Western drawl pronounce those words. For me that nanosecond of comic relief is not a bad thing.
The big name stars here are making a meta statement. George Stevens was moved to make the ultimate cinematic life of Christ by his experience of being among the first to document what happened at Dachau, the Nazi concentration camp. Coincidentally, Dachau was where Nazis imprisoned many Polish and German Catholic priests. It was called the largest monastery in Germany. Stevens first made "Diary of Anne Frank." Then he made "The Greatest Story Ever Told." These films were his defiance of Nazism, of war, of death.
Big name stars, like John Wayne, wanted to appear in even the tiniest of roles, because they sensed that Stevens was doing something special. If you can appreciate the big name cameos for what they are – Hollywood, the world's most powerful storytelling community, coming together to tell a story that matters – they will enhance the movie for you, rather than lessen it.
Max von Sydow gives the best performance of Jesus ever committed to film. If he never did anything else, he could die proud because of the truth he embodied in this part.
Just the look on von Sydow's face in his first scene – when he is being baptized by John – a look that is caring, human, loving, confused, pained, as he begins to realize what his life holds in store for him – is in itself marvelous, jewel-like in its purity, and unlike anything else I've ever seen an actor be able to do.
The film itself is long, lavish, with a big, big cast. It was one of the most expensive films ever made, and it took forever to make. Because it is slow-moving, many people hate it.
I love "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and I'd recommend it to anyone who is looking for an art film treatment of the life of Christ.
Is it fast moving? No, it is not. If you want "Robocop," this isn't your movie.
The slowness of this movie provides thoughtful people ample time to think about the history-shaping words being said, to soak up the beauty of the film itself.
Does Stevens attempt to recreate the sense one gets from looking at beautiful religious paintings? Yes. If you are one of those people who freeze frames beautiful shots, this is your movie.
Do big name stars appear in small roles? Yes. The most notorious cameo: John Wayne plays the Roman centurion who states, "Truly this man was the son of God." Yes it is hard not to giggle when you hear the Duke's distinctive, macho, Western drawl pronounce those words. For me that nanosecond of comic relief is not a bad thing.
The big name stars here are making a meta statement. George Stevens was moved to make the ultimate cinematic life of Christ by his experience of being among the first to document what happened at Dachau, the Nazi concentration camp. Coincidentally, Dachau was where Nazis imprisoned many Polish and German Catholic priests. It was called the largest monastery in Germany. Stevens first made "Diary of Anne Frank." Then he made "The Greatest Story Ever Told." These films were his defiance of Nazism, of war, of death.
Big name stars, like John Wayne, wanted to appear in even the tiniest of roles, because they sensed that Stevens was doing something special. If you can appreciate the big name cameos for what they are – Hollywood, the world's most powerful storytelling community, coming together to tell a story that matters – they will enhance the movie for you, rather than lessen it.
Max von Sydow gives the best performance of Jesus ever committed to film. If he never did anything else, he could die proud because of the truth he embodied in this part.
Just the look on von Sydow's face in his first scene – when he is being baptized by John – a look that is caring, human, loving, confused, pained, as he begins to realize what his life holds in store for him – is in itself marvelous, jewel-like in its purity, and unlike anything else I've ever seen an actor be able to do.
 |
| Just the look on Max von Sydow's face when he is baptized by John is worth seeing the film for |
David McCallum is a complex, agonized Judas. He makes you feel for him. His death, as a sacrifice, is brilliant.
Charlton Heston captured the "take no prisoners" approach of the Biblical John the Baptist.
Donald Pleasance is the best Satan ever put on film. He's just an average, sort of nice guy who wants you to eat some food when you are hungry ... that's all. Harmless, really.
There are many scenes I would never want to have missed: the "lilies of the field" scene, John baptizing Jesus, Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus calling Matthew.
There are many effects that work perfectly for me: the handling of sound when Jesus is carrying his cross on the Via Dolorosa, for example.
"The Greatest Story Ever Told" racks up a very low 37% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I think Christophobia plays a role. Had Stevens made a similar movie about Buddha, it would be considered a classic.
Charlton Heston captured the "take no prisoners" approach of the Biblical John the Baptist.
Donald Pleasance is the best Satan ever put on film. He's just an average, sort of nice guy who wants you to eat some food when you are hungry ... that's all. Harmless, really.
There are many scenes I would never want to have missed: the "lilies of the field" scene, John baptizing Jesus, Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus calling Matthew.
There are many effects that work perfectly for me: the handling of sound when Jesus is carrying his cross on the Via Dolorosa, for example.
"The Greatest Story Ever Told" racks up a very low 37% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I think Christophobia plays a role. Had Stevens made a similar movie about Buddha, it would be considered a classic.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Pope Francis: A.) Submits to Muslims B.) Elevates Women C.) Blunders D.) Emulates Christ E.) Stoops to Conquer F.) Violates Canon Law G.) Horrifies Traditionalists H.) All of the Above I.) None of the Above
 |
| Jesus Washing Peter's Feet. Ford Madox Brown. Source |
It was just before the Passover Festival. Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.
He got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"
Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."
"No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet."
Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them."
On Thursday, March 28, 2013, Pope Francis washed the feet of twelve inmates at a juvenile detention center, ages 14-21. Included was a Serbian Muslim girl.
Previous popes have performed the ritual on Catholic priests. This is the first time a female, and a Muslim, was included in the ritual performed by a pope. According to Huffington Post, "Canon lawyer Edward Peters, who is an adviser to the Holy See's top court, noted in a blog that the Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to bishops in 1988 making clear that 'the washing of the feet of chosen men ... represents the service and charity of Christ, who came `not to be served, but to serve.'"
According to the International Business Times, "Chris Gillibrand, whose blog CathCon covers Catholic news, also disagreed with the pope's act. 'Given his active support for the charismatic movement in his Diocese, one can only be concerned that he could be prepared to ordain women," Gillibrand wrote. "How can the Pope maintain discipline in the Church if he himself does not conform himself to prevailing ecclesiastical legislation? [sic]'"
According to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, "this is stomach-churning dhimmitude. This isn't merely a lack of leadership; this is betrayal on an unimaginable level. Kill my people and I will wash and kiss your feet. For jihadists, this image could very well replace the burning twin towers as iconic of Islamic imperialism and conquest."
Eric Blake on Atlas Shrugs responded,
"You all are WRONG WRONG WRONG. Would an imam wash the feet of a woman? HELL NO! neither would Big Mo. She is being shown love, kindness and humility. This may be the one action that touches her heart and gets her thinking. This would never happen to her in her own religion. She is not a Devil, either, she is a human being who has been deceived by evil. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, especially if you are a Christian. P.S. I am not a Catholic, I am a Baptist"
Your thoughts?
He got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.
He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, "Lord, are you going to wash my feet?"
Jesus replied, "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand."
"No," said Peter, "you shall never wash my feet."
Jesus answered, "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me."
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them."
On Thursday, March 28, 2013, Pope Francis washed the feet of twelve inmates at a juvenile detention center, ages 14-21. Included was a Serbian Muslim girl.
Previous popes have performed the ritual on Catholic priests. This is the first time a female, and a Muslim, was included in the ritual performed by a pope. According to Huffington Post, "Canon lawyer Edward Peters, who is an adviser to the Holy See's top court, noted in a blog that the Congregation for Divine Worship sent a letter to bishops in 1988 making clear that 'the washing of the feet of chosen men ... represents the service and charity of Christ, who came `not to be served, but to serve.'"
According to the International Business Times, "Chris Gillibrand, whose blog CathCon covers Catholic news, also disagreed with the pope's act. 'Given his active support for the charismatic movement in his Diocese, one can only be concerned that he could be prepared to ordain women," Gillibrand wrote. "How can the Pope maintain discipline in the Church if he himself does not conform himself to prevailing ecclesiastical legislation? [sic]'"
According to Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, "this is stomach-churning dhimmitude. This isn't merely a lack of leadership; this is betrayal on an unimaginable level. Kill my people and I will wash and kiss your feet. For jihadists, this image could very well replace the burning twin towers as iconic of Islamic imperialism and conquest."
Eric Blake on Atlas Shrugs responded,
"You all are WRONG WRONG WRONG. Would an imam wash the feet of a woman? HELL NO! neither would Big Mo. She is being shown love, kindness and humility. This may be the one action that touches her heart and gets her thinking. This would never happen to her in her own religion. She is not a Devil, either, she is a human being who has been deceived by evil. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, especially if you are a Christian. P.S. I am not a Catholic, I am a Baptist"
Your thoughts?
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Shroud of Turin Dates to First Century AD: New Research
From Vatican Insider, March 26, 2013
"Professor Giulio Fanti and journalist Saverio Gaeta have published a book with the results of some chemical and mechanical tests which confirm that the Shroud dates back to the 1st century."
Full text of the article here.
My questions about the Shroud of Turin appeared on Barrie Schwortz's excellent website, here. They can be read here or in full, below:
The shroud has been subjected to imaging analysis by NASA scientists, to carbon dating, and to analysis, performed by criminologists and botanists, of the pollen particles found on its surface. Forensic pathologists have analyzed the death depicted on the shroud. At least since Descartes, the West has come to regard religion and hard science as polar opposite disciplines. It is this very intersection of religion and hard science that intrigues, delights, and perhaps even threatens many, and attracts many to the Shroud story.
In truth, though, and perhaps counterintuitively, the hard sciences are limited in their ability to crack the mystery of the shroud. This sounds contrary-science has come to be understood as the source of definitive truth. In this case, though, hard science has failed to provide an answer that satisfies the demands of Ockham's razor.
William of Ockham (1285-1347/49), positied that, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate;" that is, "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." In other words, Ockham's razor demands that, of two competing theories, the simplest explanation is preferred.
The shroud compels exactly because there is no simple or easy explanation. None of science's tests, including carbon dating, has changed that. None have produced a simple explanation that meets the demands of Ockham's razor.
One might argue, based on carbon dating, that the shroud is a simple forgery, dating from the middle ages. That theory is not best tested exclusively by hard science. Rather, insights from the social sciences and the humanities are necessary in cracking this mystery.
I am not a hard scientist. I am a Ph.D. candidate in the Folklore Institute at Indiana University. Folklore, like its fellow social sciences, has demonstrated that human expressive culture follows rules, just as surely as carbon decay follows rules. One does not need to be a social scientist to understand this.
Suppose an archaeologist were to discover, in an Egyptian tomb, a work of art that followed the aesthetic prescriptions of Andy Warhol's 20th century American portrait of Marilyn Monroe. Certainly, hard science would argue that ancient Egyptians possessed all the technology necessary to produce such items of expressive culture. Ancient Egyptians had pigments; they had surfaces on which to draw. Hard scientists might see no mystery in a pharaonic Warhol Marilyn.
A non-scientist would have every reason to find such a blase' attitude bizarre. Of course the ancient Egyptians could produce Warhol-like art. The fact is, though, that they simply never did. Ancient Egyptians, like all artists everywhere, followed the artistic mandates of their time and place.
True, art does change, but it changes organically, slowly, and after leaving vast bodies of evidence of change in intermediary forms. For example, as different as it is, art from Greece's Golden Age can be seen to have grown from Egyptian art, in intermediary forms like Kouroi figures.
The shroud is as much an object of wonder and worthy investigation, in spite of carbon dating, as would be an isolated pharaonic Warhol, or a rock song that had been composed during the period of Gregorian Chant, or a Hopi vase that someone somehow came to made during the high point of peasant embroidery in Czechoslovakia. Yes, in each case, technology was available to create these anomalous forms; however, as any layman might well point out, humans did not choose to use available technology in order to create anomalous forms.
There are two consistently unaddressed flaws in the arguments of those who contend that the shroud must be of medieval origin, created by contemporaneously available technology. The first flaw is that even if technology had been available to create an image with all the remarkable features of the shroud, there is no way to explain why an artist would have done so.
This question must be explored not via carbon dating, NASA imaging, or pollen tests, but, rather, by comparison with other relics from the medieval era. I have not seen research by experts in medieval relics that attempts to compare and contrast the shroud with comparable artifacts from the medieval era. Does the shroud look like other relics, or does it not? If, as I suspect is true, it does not look like other relics from that era, then it behooves anyone who argues for a medieval date to explain exactly why. Those who argue this position must tell us why the equivalent of a Warhol portrait has been found among Egyptian artwork where the laws of human expressive culture dictate that it plainly does not belong.
In the writings of church reformers like Erasmus and Martin Luther, one can read descriptions of medieval relics. In fact, many relics once popular in the medieval era can be visited even today. Reformers like Erasmus and Luther expressed open contempt at the gullibility of the Christian masses. Bones that were obviously animal in origin were treated as if the bones of some dead saint. Random chips of wood were marketed as pieces of the true cross; random swatches of fabric were saints' attire.
Why, in such a lucrative and undemanding marketplace, would any forger resort to anything as detailed and complex as the shroud? Why would a forger resort to an image that would so weirdly mimic photography, a technology that did not exist in the Middle Ages?
Well, one might argue, the forger created the highly detailed, anomalous shroud in order to thoroughly trick his audience. This argument does not withstand analysis. The relic market is profoundly undemanding. It was profoundly undemanding in the Middle Ages; it is barely more demanding today.
The Ka'bah of Islam, the millions of Shiva lingams found throughout the Hindu world, the venerated sites of Buddha's footfall or Buddha's tooth, the packages of "Mary's Milk" on sale to Christian pilgrims in Bethlehem, are all contemporary relics that attest to the willingness of believers to believe in items that might look, to others, like simple rocks or standard, store bought powdered milk.
The faith in relics is not limited to the large, world religions; New Age is similarly flush with relics of a provenance, that, to non-believers, may seem comical at best. For example, a speech well beloved by New Agers, titled "Chief Seattle's speech," has long been known to have been written by a white Christian man living in Texas. This knowledge has not stopped many New Agers from believing that the speech issued, miraculously, from Chief Seattle.
The shroud does more than not follow the simple rules of relic hawkers. The shroud not only does not follow the laws of the expressive culture of medieval relics, it defies them. For example, blood is shown flowing from the man's wrist, not his hands. It is standard in Christian iconography to depict Jesus' hands as having been pierced by nails. This was true not only of the medieval era, but also today. What reason would a forging artist have for defying the hegemonic iconography of the crucified Jesus? Anyone who wishes to prove a medieval origin for the shroud must answer that question, and others, for example:
Items of expressive culture are not found in isolation. They are not found without evidence of practice. If one excavates an ancient site and finds one pot, one finds other pots like it, and the remains of failed or broken pots in middens.
If the shroud is a forgery, where are its precedents? Where are the other forged shrouds like it? Where is there evidence of practice shrouds of this type? If the technology to create the shroud was available in medieval Europe, where are other products of this technology? Humankind is an exhaustively exploitative species. We make full use of any technology we discover, and leave ample evidence of that use. Given the lucrative nature of the forgery market, why didn't the forger create a similar Shroud of Mary, Shroud of St. Peter, Shroud of St. Paul, etc.? And why didn't followers do the same?
I'm not attempting here to prove the shroud to be genuine. I am insisting that hard science alone cannot tell us the full truth about the shroud, and that ignoring the obvious questions posed by the humanities and the social sciences leaves us as much in the dark about the shroud as ever.
"Professor Giulio Fanti and journalist Saverio Gaeta have published a book with the results of some chemical and mechanical tests which confirm that the Shroud dates back to the 1st century."
Full text of the article here.
My questions about the Shroud of Turin appeared on Barrie Schwortz's excellent website, here. They can be read here or in full, below:
The shroud has been subjected to imaging analysis by NASA scientists, to carbon dating, and to analysis, performed by criminologists and botanists, of the pollen particles found on its surface. Forensic pathologists have analyzed the death depicted on the shroud. At least since Descartes, the West has come to regard religion and hard science as polar opposite disciplines. It is this very intersection of religion and hard science that intrigues, delights, and perhaps even threatens many, and attracts many to the Shroud story.
In truth, though, and perhaps counterintuitively, the hard sciences are limited in their ability to crack the mystery of the shroud. This sounds contrary-science has come to be understood as the source of definitive truth. In this case, though, hard science has failed to provide an answer that satisfies the demands of Ockham's razor.
William of Ockham (1285-1347/49), positied that, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate;" that is, "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." In other words, Ockham's razor demands that, of two competing theories, the simplest explanation is preferred.
The shroud compels exactly because there is no simple or easy explanation. None of science's tests, including carbon dating, has changed that. None have produced a simple explanation that meets the demands of Ockham's razor.
One might argue, based on carbon dating, that the shroud is a simple forgery, dating from the middle ages. That theory is not best tested exclusively by hard science. Rather, insights from the social sciences and the humanities are necessary in cracking this mystery.
I am not a hard scientist. I am a Ph.D. candidate in the Folklore Institute at Indiana University. Folklore, like its fellow social sciences, has demonstrated that human expressive culture follows rules, just as surely as carbon decay follows rules. One does not need to be a social scientist to understand this.
Suppose an archaeologist were to discover, in an Egyptian tomb, a work of art that followed the aesthetic prescriptions of Andy Warhol's 20th century American portrait of Marilyn Monroe. Certainly, hard science would argue that ancient Egyptians possessed all the technology necessary to produce such items of expressive culture. Ancient Egyptians had pigments; they had surfaces on which to draw. Hard scientists might see no mystery in a pharaonic Warhol Marilyn.
A non-scientist would have every reason to find such a blase' attitude bizarre. Of course the ancient Egyptians could produce Warhol-like art. The fact is, though, that they simply never did. Ancient Egyptians, like all artists everywhere, followed the artistic mandates of their time and place.
True, art does change, but it changes organically, slowly, and after leaving vast bodies of evidence of change in intermediary forms. For example, as different as it is, art from Greece's Golden Age can be seen to have grown from Egyptian art, in intermediary forms like Kouroi figures.
The shroud is as much an object of wonder and worthy investigation, in spite of carbon dating, as would be an isolated pharaonic Warhol, or a rock song that had been composed during the period of Gregorian Chant, or a Hopi vase that someone somehow came to made during the high point of peasant embroidery in Czechoslovakia. Yes, in each case, technology was available to create these anomalous forms; however, as any layman might well point out, humans did not choose to use available technology in order to create anomalous forms.
There are two consistently unaddressed flaws in the arguments of those who contend that the shroud must be of medieval origin, created by contemporaneously available technology. The first flaw is that even if technology had been available to create an image with all the remarkable features of the shroud, there is no way to explain why an artist would have done so.
This question must be explored not via carbon dating, NASA imaging, or pollen tests, but, rather, by comparison with other relics from the medieval era. I have not seen research by experts in medieval relics that attempts to compare and contrast the shroud with comparable artifacts from the medieval era. Does the shroud look like other relics, or does it not? If, as I suspect is true, it does not look like other relics from that era, then it behooves anyone who argues for a medieval date to explain exactly why. Those who argue this position must tell us why the equivalent of a Warhol portrait has been found among Egyptian artwork where the laws of human expressive culture dictate that it plainly does not belong.
In the writings of church reformers like Erasmus and Martin Luther, one can read descriptions of medieval relics. In fact, many relics once popular in the medieval era can be visited even today. Reformers like Erasmus and Luther expressed open contempt at the gullibility of the Christian masses. Bones that were obviously animal in origin were treated as if the bones of some dead saint. Random chips of wood were marketed as pieces of the true cross; random swatches of fabric were saints' attire.
Why, in such a lucrative and undemanding marketplace, would any forger resort to anything as detailed and complex as the shroud? Why would a forger resort to an image that would so weirdly mimic photography, a technology that did not exist in the Middle Ages?
Well, one might argue, the forger created the highly detailed, anomalous shroud in order to thoroughly trick his audience. This argument does not withstand analysis. The relic market is profoundly undemanding. It was profoundly undemanding in the Middle Ages; it is barely more demanding today.
The Ka'bah of Islam, the millions of Shiva lingams found throughout the Hindu world, the venerated sites of Buddha's footfall or Buddha's tooth, the packages of "Mary's Milk" on sale to Christian pilgrims in Bethlehem, are all contemporary relics that attest to the willingness of believers to believe in items that might look, to others, like simple rocks or standard, store bought powdered milk.
The faith in relics is not limited to the large, world religions; New Age is similarly flush with relics of a provenance, that, to non-believers, may seem comical at best. For example, a speech well beloved by New Agers, titled "Chief Seattle's speech," has long been known to have been written by a white Christian man living in Texas. This knowledge has not stopped many New Agers from believing that the speech issued, miraculously, from Chief Seattle.
The shroud does more than not follow the simple rules of relic hawkers. The shroud not only does not follow the laws of the expressive culture of medieval relics, it defies them. For example, blood is shown flowing from the man's wrist, not his hands. It is standard in Christian iconography to depict Jesus' hands as having been pierced by nails. This was true not only of the medieval era, but also today. What reason would a forging artist have for defying the hegemonic iconography of the crucified Jesus? Anyone who wishes to prove a medieval origin for the shroud must answer that question, and others, for example:
Items of expressive culture are not found in isolation. They are not found without evidence of practice. If one excavates an ancient site and finds one pot, one finds other pots like it, and the remains of failed or broken pots in middens.
If the shroud is a forgery, where are its precedents? Where are the other forged shrouds like it? Where is there evidence of practice shrouds of this type? If the technology to create the shroud was available in medieval Europe, where are other products of this technology? Humankind is an exhaustively exploitative species. We make full use of any technology we discover, and leave ample evidence of that use. Given the lucrative nature of the forgery market, why didn't the forger create a similar Shroud of Mary, Shroud of St. Peter, Shroud of St. Paul, etc.? And why didn't followers do the same?
I'm not attempting here to prove the shroud to be genuine. I am insisting that hard science alone cannot tell us the full truth about the shroud, and that ignoring the obvious questions posed by the humanities and the social sciences leaves us as much in the dark about the shroud as ever.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Widows in Judeo-Christian, Hindu, and Facebook Morality
 |
| Mocking Michelle Bachmann or other, right-wing politicians on facebook. Is this morality? |
 |
| Sati or Suttee: Burning widows alive. Is this morality? |
 |
| Allowing a widow, Ruth, and a foreigner, a Moabite, access to your food supply: Is this morality? |
The Biblical treatment of widows warms my heart.
Recently I needed rides to medical treatment. Hospital personnel would say to me, "Have a family member drive you." Or, "You must have a family member accompany you upon release from the hospital."
Problem: I have no family. I'm not a widow; I'm a spinster. I'm a woman, and I'm alone.
I asked for rides on facebook.
Otherwise invisibly good people stepped forward and gave me rides and often declined payment.
I think of a facebook friend – "Harry." He is always loudly in favor of whatever the left has declared the moral stance of the day: "Sign this petition now for gay marriage! Get angry right now at Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachman or Republican Governor Sarah Palin or right-wing talk-show-host Rush Limbaugh! Sign this new petition right now against the war on women and to keep abortion safe and legal!"
In Harry's posts, moral fashions crest and retreat like ocean waves.
Harry lives close to me, on an inheritance. Doesn't have to punch a time clock.
Never offered me a ride to the hospital.
No, no, I'm not saying Harry's a bad guy. He's a good guy, a nice guy.
I'm saying that there are at least two kinds of morality at work here.
Facebook morality is a trendy morality, typified by flurries of stances of public outrage, caricatures of this moment's villain, and urgent petitions. I know that that morality is rooted in genuine care.
But there's another morality that has nothing to do with morality fashions orchestrated by the left. It has to do with more old fashioned, basic stuff: hunger, unemployment, isolation.
An awareness, and an articulation of basic, unglamorous, human need: I love this feature of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
This person is hungry. He needs food.
This woman is alone. Give her a ride.
The Biblical treatment of widows warms my heart.
Widows are mentioned frequently in the Bible. One concordance lists 96 mentions of widows. I am very, very touched by the God who sees widows, who commands his people to care for widows.
God is not kidding when he says to take care of widows. "You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. If you do mistreat them, I will heed their cry as soon as they cry out to Me, and My anger shall blaze forth and I will put you to the sword, and your own wives shall become widows and your children orphans" (Exodus 22:21-3).
God "executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing" Deuteronomy 10:18.
God commands, "At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town … the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do" Deuteronomy 14:28-29.
Ruth is a widow, a foreigner, and a heroine. She is also a role model to Jewish and Christian women, and one of Jesus's ancestresses.
Jesus reserves his highest praise for a widow: "As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 'Truly I tell you,' he said, 'this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.'"
***
Cultural relativism tells us that all religions are the same. Those imbued with cultural relativism assume that all religions counsel kindness to widows.
Hindu tradition orders sati, or suttee. Widows must burn themselves alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands.
Sati comes from the Sanskrit "sat" for "truth," the root of "satygraha," what Gandhi called his movement.
During the British colonial period, Christians William Carey and William Wilberforce played a key role in ending sati. Sati continued into the 20thcentury in Nepal and Bali – not colonized by Britain.
Widows, in Hinduism, are inauspicious. They are associated with the death of their husbands. Wives are to fast and pray for their husbands. Wives are never to say their husband's name. Maybe she didn't fast enough, or pray enough, maybe she said her husband's name, and that's what killed him.
There's a less superstitious, more practical reason why widows are marginalized. A woman has value to the extent that she is currently meeting a man's needs, and, in exchange, to the extent that she is receiving a man's protection and a portion of his resources.
If a woman is not currently meeting a man's needs, she has no value. She has no share in resources. She is disincluded at mealtime. She may die slowly of malnutrition or mistreatment. One can see why some widows actually chose sati. It was a quicker death.
I lived in Nepal. I visited the home of a high-caste widow who shaved her head, wore no jewelry, and dressed only in white, the color of mourning and death. She was allowed only simple foods, no meat. Hindu women rely on wearing red, and on wearing wrist bangles and beaded necklaces. Denying all these to widows is almost like asking them to go naked. The white clothing, shaved heads and absence of bangles announce: "Widow! Inauspicious! Stay away!"
***
The BBC recently broadcast Anthony Denselow's report on Vrindavan, a city of widows in India. Excerpt:
"Widows in India no longer throw themselves on the funeral pyres of their husbands. But life for them can still be hard.
Considered inauspicious, many soon find they have lost their income and are ostracised in their home villages. Some are sent away by their husbands' families who want to prevent them inheriting money or property.
This is one unusual aspect of Indian society that the government might prefer the outside world not to see, despite all their genuine efforts to solve the problem.
Sondi is a tough 80-year-old whose husband died young, she had to bring up her four children by herself. It is her daughter-in-law who effectively threw her out, saying it was her own husband who kept the family going and "as you have not got a husband you will have to look after yourself."
Full text of the BBC story is here
A Hindu's take on Hinduism's treatment of widows is here
Recently I needed rides to medical treatment. Hospital personnel would say to me, "Have a family member drive you." Or, "You must have a family member accompany you upon release from the hospital."
Problem: I have no family. I'm not a widow; I'm a spinster. I'm a woman, and I'm alone.
I asked for rides on facebook.
Otherwise invisibly good people stepped forward and gave me rides and often declined payment.
I think of a facebook friend – "Harry." He is always loudly in favor of whatever the left has declared the moral stance of the day: "Sign this petition now for gay marriage! Get angry right now at Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachman or Republican Governor Sarah Palin or right-wing talk-show-host Rush Limbaugh! Sign this new petition right now against the war on women and to keep abortion safe and legal!"
In Harry's posts, moral fashions crest and retreat like ocean waves.
Harry lives close to me, on an inheritance. Doesn't have to punch a time clock.
Never offered me a ride to the hospital.
No, no, I'm not saying Harry's a bad guy. He's a good guy, a nice guy.
I'm saying that there are at least two kinds of morality at work here.
Facebook morality is a trendy morality, typified by flurries of stances of public outrage, caricatures of this moment's villain, and urgent petitions. I know that that morality is rooted in genuine care.
But there's another morality that has nothing to do with morality fashions orchestrated by the left. It has to do with more old fashioned, basic stuff: hunger, unemployment, isolation.
An awareness, and an articulation of basic, unglamorous, human need: I love this feature of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
This person is hungry. He needs food.
This woman is alone. Give her a ride.
The Biblical treatment of widows warms my heart.
Widows are mentioned frequently in the Bible. One concordance lists 96 mentions of widows. I am very, very touched by the God who sees widows, who commands his people to care for widows.
God is not kidding when he says to take care of widows. "You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan. If you do mistreat them, I will heed their cry as soon as they cry out to Me, and My anger shall blaze forth and I will put you to the sword, and your own wives shall become widows and your children orphans" (Exodus 22:21-3).
God "executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing" Deuteronomy 10:18.
God commands, "At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town … the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do" Deuteronomy 14:28-29.
Ruth is a widow, a foreigner, and a heroine. She is also a role model to Jewish and Christian women, and one of Jesus's ancestresses.
Jesus reserves his highest praise for a widow: "As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 'Truly I tell you,' he said, 'this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.'"
***
Cultural relativism tells us that all religions are the same. Those imbued with cultural relativism assume that all religions counsel kindness to widows.
Hindu tradition orders sati, or suttee. Widows must burn themselves alive on the funeral pyre of their husbands.
Sati comes from the Sanskrit "sat" for "truth," the root of "satygraha," what Gandhi called his movement.
During the British colonial period, Christians William Carey and William Wilberforce played a key role in ending sati. Sati continued into the 20thcentury in Nepal and Bali – not colonized by Britain.
Widows, in Hinduism, are inauspicious. They are associated with the death of their husbands. Wives are to fast and pray for their husbands. Wives are never to say their husband's name. Maybe she didn't fast enough, or pray enough, maybe she said her husband's name, and that's what killed him.
There's a less superstitious, more practical reason why widows are marginalized. A woman has value to the extent that she is currently meeting a man's needs, and, in exchange, to the extent that she is receiving a man's protection and a portion of his resources.
If a woman is not currently meeting a man's needs, she has no value. She has no share in resources. She is disincluded at mealtime. She may die slowly of malnutrition or mistreatment. One can see why some widows actually chose sati. It was a quicker death.
I lived in Nepal. I visited the home of a high-caste widow who shaved her head, wore no jewelry, and dressed only in white, the color of mourning and death. She was allowed only simple foods, no meat. Hindu women rely on wearing red, and on wearing wrist bangles and beaded necklaces. Denying all these to widows is almost like asking them to go naked. The white clothing, shaved heads and absence of bangles announce: "Widow! Inauspicious! Stay away!"
***
The BBC recently broadcast Anthony Denselow's report on Vrindavan, a city of widows in India. Excerpt:
"Widows in India no longer throw themselves on the funeral pyres of their husbands. But life for them can still be hard.
Considered inauspicious, many soon find they have lost their income and are ostracised in their home villages. Some are sent away by their husbands' families who want to prevent them inheriting money or property.
This is one unusual aspect of Indian society that the government might prefer the outside world not to see, despite all their genuine efforts to solve the problem.
Sondi is a tough 80-year-old whose husband died young, she had to bring up her four children by herself. It is her daughter-in-law who effectively threw her out, saying it was her own husband who kept the family going and "as you have not got a husband you will have to look after yourself."
Full text of the BBC story is here
A Hindu's take on Hinduism's treatment of widows is here
 |
| Widows in India, in some times and places, were denied the right to wear blouses to cover their breasts. Source: Wikipedia |
Saturday, March 23, 2013
"I Am Telling You It is NOT Illegal!" An Overheard Conversation in the Adjunct Professors' Office
 |
| Charles Joshua Chaplin. A Conversation Overheard. Source |
As I describe in "Save Send Delete," adjunct professor offices are weird, liminal spaces, somewhere between long-distance bus waiting rooms and church confessionals. They smell of incense, pretense and engine exhaust, but you can encounter intense dedication to scholarship and care for students in between the ignominy and the revolving door that promises us we will never enjoy the salary, health care, or pension of "real" professors.
One day in the adjunct office I overheard one half of a phone conversation. I was so fascinated by it I began taking dictation. Warning: I have no idea what this conversation means. My transcript, below:
"Hey, Lou, you've been my compadre. I want you to know that this new guy is taking your territory. I want to let you in on something. The President of the Albanian Federation will work with us. You'll give me ten percent, as usual. No, it won't be illegal. I've got this guy. He's a professional pool player in Albania. I'm telling you it's not illegal.
Yeah. See if you can get two of those. We'll put up a banner in the arena; you might get some business out of it. You have to assure me that you can deliver to the place up there a day or two before. I have people. I've got a couple people. I need the delivery made up there. They'll identify themselves. Pat Grint. He represents the people putting up the money.
Did I tell you it's not illegal?
You need to try to work on cornering this. We'll arrange something. I'll have him talk to you directly about a boatload over to Albania. Okay, thanks, Lou, God bless you. Oh, it worked out great. I ended up directing the artistic."
Nope, no noun at the end. Just, "I ended up directing the artistic."
One day in the adjunct office I overheard one half of a phone conversation. I was so fascinated by it I began taking dictation. Warning: I have no idea what this conversation means. My transcript, below:
"Hey, Lou, you've been my compadre. I want you to know that this new guy is taking your territory. I want to let you in on something. The President of the Albanian Federation will work with us. You'll give me ten percent, as usual. No, it won't be illegal. I've got this guy. He's a professional pool player in Albania. I'm telling you it's not illegal.
Yeah. See if you can get two of those. We'll put up a banner in the arena; you might get some business out of it. You have to assure me that you can deliver to the place up there a day or two before. I have people. I've got a couple people. I need the delivery made up there. They'll identify themselves. Pat Grint. He represents the people putting up the money.
Did I tell you it's not illegal?
You need to try to work on cornering this. We'll arrange something. I'll have him talk to you directly about a boatload over to Albania. Okay, thanks, Lou, God bless you. Oh, it worked out great. I ended up directing the artistic."
Nope, no noun at the end. Just, "I ended up directing the artistic."
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
"Save Send Delete" "is a book for anyone who wishes to understand something about love, compassion, forgiveness, suffering, for anyone who grapples with the following questions: Why I am here? WTF is it all about? What is God?" Review by Liron Rubin from Amazon
 |
| "The Reader" by Henry A. "Harry" Payne. 1933. Source: Wiki Gallery |
Full text of Liron Rubin's review of "Save Send Delete" from Amazon, below. Liron Rubin's original review can be viewed here.
***
"Save Send Delete" is beautifully written, funny, courageous, and heartbreaking
Warning: Do not read this book if you have to go to work in the morning. I started "Save Send Delete" on Tuesday evening, thinking I'd read for a couple of hours and then sack out. I didn't put the book down until 3 a.m., four hours before the dreaded beeping noise of the alarm clock. The book is that good. Or, as Goska would no doubt write, *that* good.
"Save Send Delete" is not what I expected it to be--to wit, a "Dangerous Liaisons" for Christians. It is, instead, a moving argument for faith in this vale of tears. Rarely have I read so convincing an argument for the religious worldview, and rarely have I been so powerfully moved by a book that is not a novel. No, "Save Send Delete" is not a Christian book; it is a book for anyone who wishes to understand something about love, compassion, forgiveness, suffering, for anyone who grapples with the following questions: Why I am here? WTF is it all about? What is God?
"Save Send Delete" is beautifully written. The style, which achieves the admirable feat of being both ice-cold and white-hot, is electrifying. Goska is never preachy, condescending, or, worse, sentimental. She states her arguments elegantly and clearly, and she has the wit and grace to remember that there are, after all, other opinions, other worldviews. One passage (I won't tell you which) helped me to resolve an issue that has been vexing me for some time. For that, I am grateful to the author.
"Save Send Delete" is funny. Goska's good-natured ribbing of her interlocutor is so funny (and, at times, raunchy) that even a potty-mouthed sailor like yours truly was impressed. I particularly liked this: "That's why you stopped believing in God? Because your debate opponent's stack of three-by-five cards was taller than yours? You p**sy."
"Save Send Delete" is courageous. For one who, as she tells us, was never taught to say "no" as a child, Goska seems to be doing a fine job of it as an adult: "No" to political correctness; "No" to apologists for jihad and Islamic misogyny; "No" to identity politics and self-pity; "No" to educators who encourage laziness in children. Instead, Goska urges us to say "Yes": "Yes" to calling atrocities by their name; "Yes" to forgiveness and compassion; "Yes" to God.
Finally, "Save Send Delete" is heartbreaking. Some of the emails are so raw in their melancholy and hurt that I found myself putting the book down at frequent intervals. I'm thinking, here, of the emails about the author's hellish period as a grad student, the emails about keeping faith in God in the face of mind-numbing suffering, and the emails about suicide. Virgil was right: there are tears in things.
Five stars for heart, five stars for mind. "Save Send Delete" is one hell of a book.
***
"Save Send Delete" is beautifully written, funny, courageous, and heartbreaking
Warning: Do not read this book if you have to go to work in the morning. I started "Save Send Delete" on Tuesday evening, thinking I'd read for a couple of hours and then sack out. I didn't put the book down until 3 a.m., four hours before the dreaded beeping noise of the alarm clock. The book is that good. Or, as Goska would no doubt write, *that* good.
"Save Send Delete" is not what I expected it to be--to wit, a "Dangerous Liaisons" for Christians. It is, instead, a moving argument for faith in this vale of tears. Rarely have I read so convincing an argument for the religious worldview, and rarely have I been so powerfully moved by a book that is not a novel. No, "Save Send Delete" is not a Christian book; it is a book for anyone who wishes to understand something about love, compassion, forgiveness, suffering, for anyone who grapples with the following questions: Why I am here? WTF is it all about? What is God?
"Save Send Delete" is beautifully written. The style, which achieves the admirable feat of being both ice-cold and white-hot, is electrifying. Goska is never preachy, condescending, or, worse, sentimental. She states her arguments elegantly and clearly, and she has the wit and grace to remember that there are, after all, other opinions, other worldviews. One passage (I won't tell you which) helped me to resolve an issue that has been vexing me for some time. For that, I am grateful to the author.
"Save Send Delete" is funny. Goska's good-natured ribbing of her interlocutor is so funny (and, at times, raunchy) that even a potty-mouthed sailor like yours truly was impressed. I particularly liked this: "That's why you stopped believing in God? Because your debate opponent's stack of three-by-five cards was taller than yours? You p**sy."
"Save Send Delete" is courageous. For one who, as she tells us, was never taught to say "no" as a child, Goska seems to be doing a fine job of it as an adult: "No" to political correctness; "No" to apologists for jihad and Islamic misogyny; "No" to identity politics and self-pity; "No" to educators who encourage laziness in children. Instead, Goska urges us to say "Yes": "Yes" to calling atrocities by their name; "Yes" to forgiveness and compassion; "Yes" to God.
Finally, "Save Send Delete" is heartbreaking. Some of the emails are so raw in their melancholy and hurt that I found myself putting the book down at frequent intervals. I'm thinking, here, of the emails about the author's hellish period as a grad student, the emails about keeping faith in God in the face of mind-numbing suffering, and the emails about suicide. Virgil was right: there are tears in things.
Five stars for heart, five stars for mind. "Save Send Delete" is one hell of a book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)