As Far From God As Angels Can Fly

The Door to Hell in the Nighttime, flydime, 2010

In October my most recent promulgation on theology veered off from its intended target into an argument against circumcision. It's unsurprising that in the end I ditched half of the draft, as it took seven months to turn a collection of notes, quotes, and links into a publishable post. Amidst it I did touch upon my own perception of the servile nature of Christianity, and indeed all the Abrahamic religions - accepted translations for the words Islam (iSLaM) and Muslim (muSLiM), from the Semitic triliteral root š-l-m (cf. Hebrew 'Shalom'), are 'the act of submitting' (submission) and 'one who submits'. I grossly reject the subservient streak of those theologies - the metaphorical patriarchy, the use of the language and imagery of shepherding, and the idea of serving (in heaven). I said I was one of those people more interested in ruling in Hell. It's an expression, of course, as I remain an atheist and the one thing more ridiculous than worshipping Santa Claus is worshipping the Bogeyman. I don't think it's coincidental that those names are appropriate substitutes for God and Satan because they really are near identical methods of social control.

For a child the world is understood in material terms. For example, under a particular age a child will likely prefer many coins of a low total value over one coin of high value. Thus, for the well behaved in December a bountiful Christmas awaits as a relatively immediate gratification. For adults possessing an understanding of mortality and existential concern, a less tangible system of reward is in place which offers the ultimate in delayed gratification for the pursuit of a life lived in accordance with the relevant religious texts. The Devil, just as the Bogeyman, takes bad people away with nothing again but the added twist of eternity. Although the Santa-Bogeyman behavioural dichotomy is not a religion nor has it ever been codified as one would be, it pervades history just as much as the Good-Evil moral dichotomy. I would wager they are in fact a singular concept that arose in prehistoric society but merely employing different strategies to temper different age groups. The practical difference between the two is that children eventually grow out of believing in Santa Claus. In that sense, I still see the Abrahamic religions addressing people as children, albeit grown-up children. To get beyond the fantasy of Goodies and Baddies is not to abandon morality, it would just be a belated recognition of the complexity of reality.

For as long as I've been aware of the catchphrases of Nietzschean philosophy there's been debate about the exact meaning of his writings, and a brief discussion about him in college never yielded much of a definitive answer. I've never read any of his work, thought I have read interpretations of select parts here and there online. As such I could be wildly wrong in my assertions or it could be others who are mistaken in theirs - it could be deliberate that Nietzsche praised art when his own ideas remain as vague and open to interpretation as is characteristic of art in comparison to writing a dry but nevertheless unambiguous essay. That said, some of his ideas are provocative and a source for exploring criticisms of Christianity.  That has not come to pass, but what has occurred is the "death of god" in Western civilisation and with it, as the dominance of science has declined to prescribe a morality, the death of the values extant since the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. That an 'overman' (übermensch) could appear and establish a new value system is possible, though in my mind all too reminiscent of a messiah figure. In the process of thinking through these concepts I initially thought that I could say commercialism (personified as the free market) was the false overman that had arisen in the post-Christian era. However, the essence of the overman and his transcendent values is that they will be out of the reach of criticism borne out of our current morality and for Nietzsche it would therefore be expected that every Christmas the Bishop of Rome and the Archbishop of Canterbury will bemoan the seasonal spectacle of materialism - though they never go so far as to denounce capitalism itself. Christianity is preoccupied with the unearthly and he characterised it, and I would extend that to the rest of the Abrahamic tradition, as oppressing man's true nature rather than attempt to reconcile with it and rather than advise avoidance to proscribe them and label them sinful. While the new values of consumption have certainly embraced, or more correctly exploited, man's base nature; only belatedly and through state intervention has a fast-food chain or confectionery company ever recommended a balanced diet. That would hardly make those bearing resemblance to Gordon Gecko masters of their own destiny nor victors over the alleged slave-morality of democracy.

Commercialism has undoubtedly delivered for some, but many others have consciously joined the once rapidly declining congregations. Is that any wonder when commercialism has failed to provide meaning and the only sense of community it has ever generated is that akin to the camaraderie of a battery farm? I know at least one person who has become a member of a church for such reasons, and it's even crossed my mind whilst finding myself highly sympathetic to the liberal Quakers. To my mind we should escape the binary model of the slave morality and the master morality as described by Nietzsche. We have to cease idolising the Hebrews enslaved by the Pharaohs, just as we should renounce aspirations to become slave-masters ourselves. Rather we should become masters of ourselves. This is really the overarching theme that I've come to understand as my personal philosophy. The universal priesthood (which I've discussed previously) is this for spirituality, just as my belief in self-representation is this for politics, and (as I'll elucidate some time soon) the same is true of economic participation where the system currently operates as latter-day refuge of monarchism. Whatever the theological role of the variously titled fallen angel, the notion that Lucifer was banished from heaven for refusing to bow before God (or God's creation) is one that resonates with my anti-authoritarian, contrarian and rebellious tendencies. Out of context that is a particularly radical statement - it is not the desire to rise from slave to master as it is roughly detailed in the Bible, but to exercise my own free will.

For the most part in the Western hemisphere of the developed world, broad Christianity is something of a defeated force. Denominations remain state religions in plenty of countries but lack the kind of power exercised just a century and a half ago. The United States seems to defy this trend despite continuing to be secular and disestablished as all kinds of denominations run wild out there. The ridiculous applications of chastity and abstinence that have failed to solve social problems are largely due to one of the main problems arising from the transmission of Christianity via Greek virginity cults. When I say it is a spent force I mean that I can write the above criticisms without fear of arrest or being lynched. It's three hundred and sixteen years since the death penalty was last issued for blasphemy on Great Britain so I can't help but feel part of the global community we live in is stuck in the deep past. The numerous reports of blasphemy cases and witchcraft trials I've heard occurring in the Islamic world (but not exclusively) force me to engage in what detractors would call cultural imperialism. Plenty of liberals have decried the appearance of 'Islamophobia' especially with the concurrent lack of criticisms of Christianity from other liberals; but as I've pointed out, Christianity was sent on the defensive far back in the Victorian era with the rapid advances in science and especially after publication of On the Origin of Species. Political Islam had been militarily defeated in Europe far far back with two sieges of Vienna and the gradual recession of the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans into Asia Minor by the aftermath of the First World War, but it has never in that time undergone the same battle with science. Now, in the global village, all the ideologies and truths mingle and compete for acceptance. There can no more be a parallel judicial system of 'Sharia Law' in England and Wales than there can be distilleries in Saudi Arabia. There can be Muslims in the West and European Christians in the East, but each set attempts to maintain cultural hegemony in its homeland. Integration and multi-cultural societies are certainly possible, though they have their continuing issues, but a full and frank cultural exchange is required without declaring topics sacrosanct while still maintaining an expectation of openness from other parties. This would over the course of time lead to a new culture which has repercussions for that which is already in place - another topic forthcoming.

As I understood it, Jesus wasn't a Christian because he carried a copy of the New Testament with him and waved it about a lot - it was because of his actions. Thus, whether or not the historic blasphemy laws of much of Europe were Christian in origin, they were held up by Christian states. Similarly, whether or not blasphemy laws in North Africa and Southern Asia are Islamic in origin, they are enforced by de jure Islamic countries. What gradually rolled back religious oppression in the West was the emergence of rationalism and unobstructed inquiry culminating with the Enlightenment. This was not an exclusive event. The Arab world had experienced such an era of scientific advance (consider the words 'alchemy, algebra, algorithm') and if it were not for the translation of many Greek texts into Arabic the contents of those works would be lost when the original copies were later destroyed in the course of European history. Whatever happened in the course of Middle Eastern history altered this state of affairs to what we see today. When Arabic science flourished the culture of truth-seeking and fact-finding was carried by it. Those notions were and are now carried by the West. If we were to argue whether it is or is not an insult to display the soles of your shoes to someone and then went about enforcing that interpretation on people with differing opinion, then that would be cultural imperialism.

The universality of the declaration of human rights is under threat of being carved up by certain states that have been attempting to outlaw religious debate under the auspices of abuse of free speech and bolster their own repressive laws via the United Nations. Support for such proposed resolutions is not limited to the Islamic world. The Christian churches of Africa are known to be extremely conservative to the point that the Anglican Church cannot make headway on several issues without breaking off into separate continental institutions. Uganda in recent years has become infamous for its treatment of homosexuals. I struggle to think how far back you'd have to program a time machine to reach an era in Western history when the names of homosexuals were printed in a prominent newspaper with an invocation toward lynching. Regressive forces are hiding behind the claim of cultural imperialism because of statements like the above - that this is a behaviour eliminated in our past is a slander that their culture is situated in the past of a modern world defined by European history. I would debate, though, just how culturally native the Anglican or Catholic churches are in Central Africa. Or are we to accept that only Western homosexuals are allowed to live their lives freely? That only African homosexuals are the acceptable targets? That really would be cultural imperialism.

I will say this: there is no misuse of freedom of speech. Neo-Nazis can hold a parade for their absurd and malformed ideas as much as anyone in my book. So long as Nazism is forced to skulk in the dark it will never be exposed in the harsh daylight. The only protection from what we perceive as foolish speech is more free speech, because the only counter is a well-reasoned argument This is almost universally opposed, even in the West under the rubric of political correctness, because this inevitably leads to the dismantling of untruths.

Written 2nd of February
[2057 ; 8]