Leprechaun Vomit... or why I hate St. Patty's.

I used to lament that the most irritating aspect of St. Patrick's day was the well meaning, but historically ignorant, neo-pagans who decided that the day should be one not of celebration, but of mourning. Why, they would ask, would any polytheist willingly celebrate the coming of Christianity and the eradication of the "old" religion? After all, isn't one of the most famous episodes of St. Patrick's hagiography the fact that he drove all the snakes out of Ireland; and of course, "we" all know those snakes were really the Druids. Yeah, so this was (and remains) a very irritating meme which seems to pop up every year around this time in March. Long story short: no, the episode was lifted from another Saints legend and was (among other things) used to explain why there are no snakes; but it was about actual snakes, not symbolic ones who were secretly referencing Druids. Two, the reason I celebrate the day, despite not being of Catholic stock, is because I recognize the historic and cultural significance the day represents; doubly so here in the diaspora. If you want to know a little more, and understand the origins and significance of the bevy of Parades which occur, just do a little research and you'll come to see why the day is far more about the Irish cultural identity, and less so about the Saint it was named after. The proviso to this being that this really only holds in the diaspora, and it is more of a religious observance (which btw is muted, seeing as it is Lent) in Ireland itself.

Alright, so clearly I actually celebrate the day, why then do I make a post insisting that I hate it. Well if you haven't figured it out yet, you will shortly. I mention above that the real significance of the day is about recognizing and celebrating Irish culture. This is not, however, what tends to actually happen. No, instead we basically throw a Mardi Gras party, except instead of everything being purple, yellow and gold, everything is shiny, vomit inducing green. St.. Patrick's day is a day when everyone, all over the world, can come together and get absolutely shit faced. This is what St. Patrick's day has become, this is the single thing that is worth celebrating about Irish culture; they drink. A LOT. Not that American's, Canadian's, the English or any other culture drink themselves stupid, no of course not. Not that people of all cultures and backgrounds simply use the day as an excuse to get snookered. No it's because they're being Irish for a day, and that means they need to be inebriated, JUST LIKE THE IRISH ARE EVERYDAY!

Just stop and think about this for a minute, because maybe you don't quite understand why this is so very upsetting. After all, the Irish DO like the drink; they self depricate all the time about it, and it's all in good fun, right? Yeah, remember where I mentioned above about a little research going a long way, providing some historic context and explaining the significance of certain outward expressions of ones identity? I do wish more people actually took the time to do so, because then you'd be aware of just how old this "Irish= Drunk" stereotype is, and how it has been used throughout history to legitimize any number of agressive domestic and foerign policies. The most famous of these cartoon images could be found in Victorian publications like Punch and Puck, with their ape like Irishman doing something loud, violent and inebriated, you know like asking for fair wages, or to not get the shit kicked out of them for the crime of being Irish. Honestly, the audacity some ethnicities had.

But that's all in the past now, right? It isn't as if the Irish, or the Diaspora are still portrayed as loud, violent drunks, right? Of course not.

Now, I think I should also make a couple of things perfectly clear so as to not detract from the actual source of my ire. I do not think that these idiotic shirts, hats, beads, and other leprechaun vomit products are proof of this nonsensical notion that "the only acceptable racism is that directed towards white Christians". I've come across this opinion in message boards, blog posts and commentary in response to these products, and the stereotypes they propogate. The Irish-Americans, Irish-Canadians, and other members of the Diaspora are not some persecuted minority, forced to endure systematic racism, resulting in a decreased quality of life. This may have been the case several centuries ago, but it isn't anymore. It certainly is not the same thing as groups which are actually systematically stigmatized and repressed, who are deneied the same oportunities as others because of their genetic or ethnic background. So the "it's okay to be racists to white people" meme ammounts to little more than the mewling of people who want to be unabashadely racist, but want to try and play the "...but I'm

persecuted too card". It is the same sort of hollow sympathy seeking from those Evangelical Christians who believe they are also a persecuted minority. So yeah, this isn't about trying to drum up this idea of the poor persecuted Irish.

Yes, these products and the sentiments they espouse are stupid, and do propogate the worst of stereotypes. It is precisely this, that irritates me so. Understanding the history of the Diaspora and how important St. Patrick's Day (and the parade associated with it) was as an outlet to express and celebrate ones culture (which did include their religion), in the face of oppression and that systematic stigma I mentioned eariler, is an important aspect of how the Diaspora did (and did not) hold onto their culture. That it was a day for celebrating Irishness, for keeping those connections to the "old country" alive while asserting their own right to exist in their new country. This is still, for the most part, the main purpose of the numerous Parades which do occur across North America. Almost all of them are organized by local Irish groups, who still maintain that they do so in celebration of their cultural identity.

So when a day is supposed to be about celebrating a culture, about celebrating an identity, and that identity is then popularly portrayed as being the worst stereotype of that culture, the meaning and significance is completely lost in a sea of four leaved shamrocks, leprechauns and an alcoholic haze. It isn't an appropriation of Irish culture, because you would need some actual Irish culture to be appropriting. No, its bizzarely just a sophmoric misrepresentation, which is then celebrated as being authentically Irish; cultural misappropriation, perhaps?

I know, already some of the other responses to such lamentations: "...but come on pal, the Irish have a sense of humour about these sorts of things", or (and my personal favourite) "I'm Irish (by which they mean of Irish descent), and I think its funny, what's the harm?" The harm, of course, is completely lost on such folks because their closest contact with actual Irish culture or tradition is the bowl of Lucky Charms they had for breakfast. It is an argument from ignorance because they do not understand the significance, and so are indifferent to the point of arguing that people who do get upset or irritated by such portryals, "just need to lighten up." So when taverns across the land offer "black and tans", to the point where Nike actually developed a shoe which is also named, as a way of "celebrating Irish culture" for St. Patrick's day; isn't a case of stupidity and lack of research, the fault lies with the PC police who can't take a joke.

Okay, here is a compromise then: I'll stop "getting my panties into a bunch" when they stop wearing this crap, treating the day like its some sort of bachanal, and actually crack open a book and learn something about Irish history or culture.

P.S.

Things to do, to actually learn about or experience some actual elements of Irish culture, if but a few suggestions:

• Go out to an Irish Pub. Yes, while I will certainly decry at every turn the image of the Irish as nothing more than violent, drunk buffoons, pubs are a decent enough place to actually experience some elements of Irish culture. Though do be a little critical, there are many an "Irish pub" which is about as Irish as the four leaved shamrocks they hang on the walls. There ought to be any number of menu items, which while pub fare, are still Irish dishes; I'm partial to boxty with masala myself, not traditional of course, but rather reflecting the diversity of modern Irish society. There are also actual ales, lagers and stouts which will be imports from Ireland, and will most certainly not be dyed green. Further most decent pubs or taverns will have live music, and on St. Patrick's Day this is almost a sure thing.
• Cook. I really do enjoy cooking, even to the point of considering it a devotional activity. There are many traditional Irish dishes which are simple enough to make, and finding recipies as simple as typing the dish into a search engine; most recipie sites will actually have a "St. Patrick's Day" menu. Try some colcannon, champ, boxty or lamb stew, make some brambrac, or soda bread.
• Expose yourself to Irish media, in Gaelic if you can. There are many decent films which have recently come out of Ireland. I've mentioned it on this blog before, but Mongol films "The Secret of Kells" is a wonderful film with gorgeous traditional animation, excellent voice acting and showcasing the unique blend of Irish myth between pre and post Christianization.
• If you're not the pub going sort, and want to avoid the rowdy crowds, then try and find other locations where you may get a chance to see a live band play. Irish music is considerably diverse and so there are genres which should tickle anyone's fancy.
• Meet with friends and read the tales outloud; they're meant to be. Sure, finding a Senachie is no easy feat, and probably nigh impossible on this side of the pond, but don't let that stop you from giving it a go yourself. Even if you don't feel comfortable reading out loud, or lack anyone but yourself who's interested, I think its still a good idea to hear them orated. So for those who can not do so on their own, why not check out online versions of the tales: the Celtic Myth Podshow has been providing oral versions of the tales for years now, and you could do a lot worse.
• Read. I know it doesn't scream excitement, and is generally an individual pursuit but if you like to keep things on the more relaxing side, then find a good book on Irish history, brew yourself a cuppa, and unwind by exploring the past. Who knows, you might accidently learn something.

An addendum, for those who haven't already figured the little joke out yet. Have a gander here.

'Bad Habbits" or everyday virtue is for the birds.

One of the most common tasks I perform at work is standing at the main entrance, to greet and direct guests to the appropriate chapels, and to wish people who are leaving a good evening. One of the other, slightly less enjoyable tasks is refered to as "butts", which involves going outside and cleaning the various receptacles of their accumulated cigarette butts. What does this have to do with anything, you may ask, well quite a bit actually. You see, during the course of a visitation, any number of people will step outside for "a quick smoke", but it is the manner in which these smokers will refer to their own necessity for a ciggarette which piqued my interest and lead to this post.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that smoking as a past time, particularly of ciggarettes, is unhealthy. In Canada, in fact, every single package of ciggarettes is sold with some warning label about the ill effects of smoking the packages contents, which is also accompanied by a "shocking" image (which is legislated to consist of at least 50% of the package).


So, alright, other than some interesting imagery and government regulations being considerably heavy handed, what's it all about? Well I am establishing the fact that the ill effects of smoking are established in the collective conciousness of society in general; smoking is bad. This is not, however, something which is only understood (or believed) by non-smokers and Health Canada officials; smokers are just as cognizant of these ill effects, they just don't care. I understand perfectly that there is also the issue of chemical dependence and thus addiction to combat, which is by no means an easy thing to overcome, but it can be done. The reason that I say smokers don't care, and so do nothing about it, is actually one example of a wider phenomenon.

I'm not writing this as a screed against smoking, or smokers themselves. Only that this particular group is the most common group I encounter in my going on, and exmeplify the problematic nature of rejecting what I will call "everyday virtue". I mentioned eariler that smokers are aware of how problematic smoking is, this I base primarily on annecdotal evidence; on simple logic too but for the sake of this post, annecdotes will suffice. The sarcastic/ironic/self deprecating euphamisms they themselves use range from "my bad habbit", to "cancer sticks", to "off to shave a few minutes off my life". They know it is not only percieved as bad, but that they also accept that it is bad factually. As I said before, somkers simply do not care; they want their ciggarette and by the gods, they're going to have them.

So then to move away from picking on smokers, to the actual point, what transpires is a rejection of "everyday virtue". I use this term, because (again based on my experience) I have come to understand that a significant number of people really only consider questions of morality or ethics when it comes to "big" decisions or problems. Pick any "hot-buton" topic out of a hat: murder, capital punishment, war, torture, abortion, etc., and people tend to have polarized, often absolutist posistions on the morality of any, if not all of such topics. Ask someone what they think of speeding and they'll probally stare blankly at you and mutter something about it not mattering, or "it being alright if you don't gett caught". Well that may not be the best example because I do not want to reduce ethics to the standpoint of deontology when I mean to be speaking about virtue ethics, nor do I want to reduce ethics to whether one does or does not adhere to any given law or statute; it simply isn't that simple. I use the example of speeding, only to illustrate that when it comes to the more mundane aspects of what people consider ethical or moral, ambivalence is the general attitude.

People, again speaking in very general terms, have certain concepts of what constitutes a moral decision or what qualifies as an ethical quandry, and for the most part rarely consider how it applies to their everyday behaviour. Individuals do not reflect long enough on their behaviour or action to even consider the sense in acknolwedging that something is wrong, but then persist in doing it none the less. The smoker who persists in smoking, who understands how bad it is, who jokes about this fact, is one of a thousand such hypocricies.

I had actually written about a related topic some time ago, because there is a similar mentality or attitude inherent in those who acknowledge they are doing something "bad", and those who say "you can't judge me". The common thread is a lack of virtue, or perhaps it would be better to say an ignorance of it. I believe this ignorance stems, in no insignificant part, from the attitude toward morality and ethics fostered by the Christian doctrine of sin. That sin is an inescapable facet of life; the essence of human nature in fact. No matter how good one is, they will never be "good enough", and so that actually trying to be good is at best impossble without divine intervention, or at worst an exercise in futility. This has bled even into the secular sphere, where the idea of "nobody's perfect" has become a catch-all for dismissing unethical behaviour, and a veritible blank cheque for vice. So ingrained is this attitude that phrases which are religious in nature, "self-righteous" and "holier than thou" are bandied about in secular parlance along side "get off your high horse" and "...your shit don't stink". The value of actually being virtuous, and daring to even mention oneself in such a light, is remarked upon as itself immoral; this being dread "pride". 

This is regretable, not only because using such terms detracts from their legitimate use (the first two anyway), but actually villifies those who have the moral fortitude to dare to flourish. Coupled with this then is the idea that morality doesn't really count, except for the "big things", and we get this ignorance, if not outrght disdain, of virtue.

Virtue can be concerned with those larger issues, but attitudes towards more complex ethical issues are derived from smaller ones. Virtue is not somthing that is visited upon only during times of trial, because it is supposed to permeate every thought, every action, and thus is better understood as something to be cultivated, not harvested. Virtue is not an end in and of itself, but the means to an end; human flourishing or "the good life". This does not mean that adopting virtues will make one "perfect". I find the very notion of perfection as an ideal ludicrous, because it is by definition unobtainable. The problem is that somewhere along the way this became the standard; the whole notion of morality was subsumed by the fact that no one could ever be "good" (on their own at least), and so all are equal in their failure. 

Fortunately, such retrograde thinking is not the only model available. Despite the protestations, it really is not that difficult to be ethical. One simple tip is to avoid bahaviours or actions which you understand do not contribute to human flourishing. If you recognize that something is immoral, then do not do it. If you understand that a habbit is "bad", then do all in your power to avoid or end it. Viture ethics are very much about finding balance, or the "golden mean", afterall virtue abides between deficency and excess. If more folks recognized that morality is a mundane, everyday thing, I think a lot more folks could be flourishing instead of wallowing in their "bad habbits". 

Celtic Statuary for sale... but please leave your brain behind the front counter

Chas Clifton in a recent post made mention of an online web merchant called "Sacred Source", and posted some interesting ratios of god:goddess statuary which was featured by the site, further subdividing it into cultural or traditional focuses (Celtic, Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Etc.). Interestingly enough, but surprising no one who reads this blog, I was drawn to the breakdown of Celtic statuary. The ratio of goddess to god statues was almost 4:1. The goddess featured are Brigid, Danu, An Morrigan, Arianrhod, C(K)erridwen and also Medb, and the Sheela-Na-Gig. The gods featured are Lugh, C(K)errunos (and an odd three headed one which is supposed to represent Goibnu-Luchta-Credne, but with antlers?), a "wild wisdom god", and the "Green-man of Death/Rebirth".

Oh boy.

I'll start with what I like, there is an absolutely gorgeous statue/candle holder of Brigid, accompanied by a fancy triskelle and items associated with her areas of typical influence. There is also an interesting Lugh statue which I have seen some folks actually make use of on their shrines or altars. But that's it.

So the bad, and trying to pick somewhere to start is tricky, because there is just so much that is utterly wrong and utterly ignorant of even the basics of "Celtic" myth. Okay so there is an overly "sexified" statue of just about every one of the goddesses (except, perhaps, for Medb and of course the Sheela-Na-Gig). But "sexy" Brigid is a tad unsettling for my taste.

There is the issue of why some of these statues are included at all; certainly the Sheela-Na-Gig is debatable as a pre-Christian figure, let alone a deity. Mebd is included, and while there is good reason to associate her with a possible goddess of the same name, well the folks writing the descriptions just aren't that bright. So, yes, lets look at the "wild wisdom god" and "green-man of Death/Rebirth". So the later really galls me, because as a devotee of the actual Gaelic god of the dead, it pisses me off that some nuage/neopagan fantasy is being credited with the job. It is the Wiccan "Greenman" who is equated with Pan and Silenus, so what this has to do with anything even remotely "Celtic" is an absolute mystery. I find it odd that they left out deities which could easily fit the kind of "god roles" these twits promote, and would be known by people on "Celtic" paths; gods like An Dagda or Angus Og.

At first they got my dander up, but after reading the fifth or so, tragedy had become comedy. They betray such an abundant amount of ignorance about all things "Celtic", but especially the mythology, that one can't help but chuckle at them. My favourite by far is one for an now out of stock An Morrigan statue:

Morrigan is the Celtic Goddess of Destruction/Creation. This image depicts the Irish triple goddess: Ana, the fertility maiden; Badb ("brave"), the boiling mother cauldron, producer of life; and Macha, the death-crone symbolized by the carrion-devouring raven.

Oral tradition says the Celtic dying god Cu Chulainn was met by the beautiful chariot-mounted goddess with red eyes and cloak. She cursed him to death that his blood might fertilize the earth, then transformed herself into Badb Catha, the Raven of Battle who induces panic in warriors. Morrigan evolved into Morgana Le Fay, sorceress of Arthurian legend.

[Derived from an Epona plaque.]

First and foremost, why is Ana (did they mean Anu) included as an epithet for An Morrigan? Were the available goddess who were already associated too much of a stretch to put into a "fertility role"? Which then makes no sense whatsoever, because they associate the mother figure with fertility too; except that the mother figure is Babd. BABD, the skald-crow, is not the "death crone", cause that would actually make some kind of sense, mythologically. Nope, Macha, a mythological figure who is known for giving birth after running a race, while pregnant, is the bloody "death crone". But it gets worse.

CUCHULAIN IS A DYING GOD!?! I realise he dies, and he does so spectacularly, but equating him with being a "dying god" is almost as bad as having him be a god of peace. Apparently though, his awe-inspiring final moments are wholly ignored, and instead he is "cursed to death" as some sort of fertility ritual? This is just sheer laziness, the Ulster cycle is probably the most well known and easiest to find material in Irish myth, and they couldn't even do that right.

The other product descriptions are just as misinformed/ plain fantasy, and they reek of the worst sort of neopagan veneer; but then again those are just the kind of misinformed individuals who would frequent such a website. What blows me away, however, is that the product descriptions statues/images from other cultures, are actually well informed. Almost all of the descriptions for the "Norse" goods, are adequate (if again overly laden with fertility symbolism), and even good when compared to the "Celtic" stuff. Is this perhaps indicative of a more discerning customer base for Norse goods, or maybe a better read description writer? I'd probably say neither, but that Norse myths are a little more cut and dry, and available, than the Celtic. Also the northern folk do not seem to get lumped in with the MMC/fertility god motif anywhere near the extent that Celtic mythical figures do. I suppose that considering how influential the VVictorian view of the Celts were on both Wicca and Wicca derived neoPaganism, this isn`t surprising. Irritating, laughable, but not surprising.

I mentioned earlier that two of the statues are decent enough, but I think as much as I am enamored with the Brigid statue, I could not in good conscience actually buy something from such cretins.

Bad Omens

So just under two weeks ago [now well over a month] I had just finished cleaning my offering bowl when it slipped from my hands and broke upon the floor. This wouldn't have been terribly surprising, a dropped ceramic or glass dish is bound to shatter when it hits a ceramic floor; the thing is that my bowl is (was) made of wood. It wasn't even a clean break, it did not split along the grain of the wood; rather, a large chunk of it simply came away in one jagged piece. I had had this particular bowl for over three years, and here it was, useless. Suddenly a wave of foreboding swept over me, and the day which followed was, indeed, a terrible one. Nothing seemed to go right from that point on, and while I did prevail in whatever tasks were required, the effort was far greater than it should have been, and the results less than stellar.

This got me to thinking about the nature of omens, particularly of the negative variety. Now, before I go any further, perhaps a bit of a side note about the nature of omens, "believing in them", and psychosomaticism. While I tend to be rather skeptical of many forms of divination, I at least acknowledge that in the given world view I have adopted, "reading the signs" is well attested to in various sources, especially when it comes to methods like augury. With that said, I do tend to pay closer attention to specific instances of avian activity which seem rather odd or happenstance. Or, in the case above, when something I am doing in a ritual format results in something out of the ordinary (like dropping and ruining a vessel used for offerings). These sorts of things tend to make me step back and consider whether or not these are omens, or just random events. Though I suppose it bears mentioning that meaning is something one imparts onto an experience and so if a given event is understood to have a given significance, then it does so, at least on a personal level. I do believe that people can "psych" themselves out, unconsciously sabotaging themselves or reading too much into something and then seeing the results of the bad omen everywhere they look. There is, I believe, a line between self inflicted grief and external grief, the avoidance of which is not in a given individuals powers to have agency over.

I suppose that despite my ingrained skepticism, I have been making an effort to be more "open" to such experiences, and not just brushing them off as coincidence or happenstance. It would seem that I am not alone about being cautious and not jumping to conclusions, but also to be discerning and not merely dismissive, when it comes to interpreting such things.

As always, I do like going back to the sources, especially the tales, as they can provide some much needed perspective. Clearly omens and the reading of signs was considerably important, and for a very significant part of the litterature, the narrative will actuall revolve around some kind of prophecy, omen reading, or reaction to. This raises a good number of other questions and concerns, which are beyond the scope of this post anyway, but clearly the importance of correctly understanding the "signs" was something which was stressed.

So what to make of it all, there is the distinct possibility that my bowl just broke because it was dropped, and reading anymore into it is silly. The subsequent rotten day would have been so, regardless of wether or not I had dropped and broken my bowl in the first place. Of course, it would then merit pointing out that the later events were not actually caused by the breaking of the bowl, only that it foreshadowed what was to come. This, I think, is an important distinction to make because omens are not, necessarily, prophecy and "reading the signs" is not, necessarily, divining the future. The latter implies a chain of events or single event which will ultimaely lead to something. The former foreshadows that something may occur, and based on understanding what the omen means, wether it bodes ill or good. I suppose in either case there is a certain lack of agency, which can be disquieting, but then again sometimes, and despite your best efforts, things do not always go as you want them to.

But it helps to have a little warning.

-Gorm.

PS: Since we are on the subject of coincidence, I had actually written a good chunk of this post almost a month ago, but then got fussy about where to go with it. Then Seren goes and publishes a related, but slightly different post only a day or so ago which provided some perspective, and got me thinking about this whole business again.

Is that weird, or what?

The subtext of "funny" prayer in school demotivationals/editorial cartoons

Two images, one a little older and one more recent, have been making the rounds in the never ending "prayer in schools" debate (primarily in the context of the US, but there are some here in Canada who would make the same sort of arguments). The first is a "demotivational", which started making the rounds a few years ago:

 

Oddly enough, the image is for a Halloween costume

The second is a little more recent, based on the comments of one of the current nominees for the Republican party:

This is funny, right?

So each of these is supposed to be humourous because they involve juxtaposition or the "left turn", both are elements of comedy. Neither image is what a "normal" person would picture as being representative of what they imagine reinstating school led prayer, would look like. Further, it illustrates the tacit special privilege that is present in the debate, that the kind of prayer would be that of those seeking to reintroduce it; Evangelical Christians. Thus, additional humour is to be found at the idea of poetic justice towards those who seek so strongly to reinstate school mandated prayer. I think both of these visual commentaries are effective in invoking such thoughts, but at the same time I understand the subtext which is present in both of these (and similar visual commentaries) which results in ridiculing the outlier.

The juxtaposition of both images is supposed to be in stark contrast to what one would normally associate prayer in schools to look like, namely:

This could be a scene from "Pleasantville".

The issue I have comes with the inherent "otherness" that is invoked to show how ridiculous (or dangerous even) the idea of school mandated prayer is supposed to be in so diverse a society. By what basis is a teacher, a school principal or school board supposed to decide what form the prayer is supposed to take? How could one possibly accommodate the myriad religions out there? Well one of those "clever" editorial cartoons posits:

Couldn't add even one "Celtic" deity, eh?

 Again, it invokes the sheer complexity, and thus functional absurdity, of school mandated prayer. Except that this and the above commentaries are funny precisely because they denigrate other forms of prayer, or that they recognize that there are folks who do not belong to the overt object of fun, Christianity. In essence it is using a number of significant aspects of non-mainstream religions, or theistic perspectives to ridicule the idea of prayer in schools. Of course, it then tacitly ridicules these outlying forms of religious expression. Dancing in a circle as a form of worship? Positing polytheism as a functional religious perspective? Utter absurdity! And there in lies the tacit fear mongering, invoking the "other". Look Christians who want state mandated prayer (but who are usually adamant about the state staying out of everything else), you want to put prayer back in schools. This is fine, but then your kid could be offering a prayer to Odin, as not every child is a Christian and therefore other religious perspectives (regardless of their merit) will be reflected. The best way to hammer this point home? Drag out the freaks and weirdo's to scare the panicky members of the RR into seeing the unintentional consequences of their desires. So it becomes a binary issue: either allow all forms of prayer in schools, or let none and maintain the default secular nature of the school system.

Of course, these commentaries also operate on the basis that the sort of folks who want prayer reinstated, who are overtly campaigning for the privilege to be given exclusively to Christians (and as always, to a lesser extent members of the Jewish religion; but not, of course, Muslims), are then going to allow pluralism. It is precisely pluralism that they are railing against, so they would never accept this as a legitimate reason not to pursue state mandated prayer, because only the Christians will be given the special privilege to do so. As such, the intedned object of ridicule, the religious right, are actually outside of the picture; they know what they mean, what kind of prayer they want, and what deity they're praying to. Which leaves us with the problematic depiction of the outlier, and the bitter irony that those who try to pass themselves of as "progressives", do so in a way which betrays their own prejudice.

What strikes me as the most baffling of all is the use of such imagery, by the very outlying religious minorities which they tacitly ridicule. So many seem to think that the "joke" is on the RR, but fail to see that they too, or more specifically their non-mainstream religious practices/perspectives, are the real objects of ridicule and derision.

-Gorm.

Happy Holidays

Merry... Celtmas?

I suppose it just gets to be that time of year, and once again the Pagan blogosphere is rife with opinions, essays and critiques of all things Christmas. Star Foster has written a wonderful rebuttal to the Christmas time triumphalism espoused by another contributor on Patheos. Helio Pires, of the Golden Trail blog, responds to the same article with, you know, those pesky "facts". As someone who spends an inordinate amount of time inside Catholic Churches, I must admit that I do get a little pleasure (albeit, perhaps a bit perverse), that around this time of year boughs of evergreens, or advent wreaths, are featured prominently, usually in very close proximity to the altar...

Seren, on the other-hand, has made a post about the significance of Christmas in her past, present and (hopefully) future. I had posted some similar thoughts (if perhaps a tad more saccharine, last year) about the significance of Christmas within my own family. Of course, my post did not feature a thought provoking examination of the (often times problematic) nature of ancestor worship.

I highly recommend having a gander at all three blogs; I think, however, that I'm going to stay out of the "War on Solstice" this year. After all I did my part for the "War on Halloween". I'll let other people who actually care about the religious significance of the day, fight the good fight; I shall be cheering from the sidelines.

Lately I find myself to have less and less of that innocuous "Christmas spirit"; which in earlier years was in abundance. It may have been the years spent working in retail; terrible, horrible, soul destroying retail. It may be that for the first time in my life I will not actually be seeing my family on the 25th. Perhaps the teenaged "jadedness" which has lain dormant for the past decade or so has finally decided to end its hibernation and in its ravenous hunger, devoured my defenseless nostalgic sentiments. It could also be that, as significant the day is for me as a holiday to celebrate family, more significant days, actual holy days, have become more important. I find myself less and less excited about Christmas, but when it comes to days like Lá Fhéile Bríde or Oíche Shamhna, my youthful exuberance seems to be in ready supply. I suppose it is possible that I've undergone some sort of "Christmas spirit transference"; and so now the days I get really excited for are ones which actually have religious significance. I admit, now I've gotten myself all curious to see if anyone else has had similar experiences.

An now, insipid Paganizations of beloved Christmas carols:

 "Gods Rest Ye Merry Pagan Folk"

"Dancin'In A Wiccan Wonderland"

"Sun God Rise"

-Gorm

Anatomy of a "Gospel Tract"

I will admit it, one of my hobbies is collecting religious propaganda. Whether it be Christian, Muslim, New-Age, etc. I find them to be both troubling and hilarious, and whats more they provide a very useful window into the worldview of those who publish and distribute them. I'm not even talking about something as infamous as the "Chick Tract", nope the disturbing/hilarious dichotomy is just as present in your everyday tract left on a bus seat or on a pay phone.

I'm going to be using one I recently found entitled, "IS JESUS CHRIST YOUR SAVIOUR?", published by the Fellowship Tract League out of Lebanon, Ohio; it was distributed by the Pentacost International Worship Centre, a local Pentacostal congregation. The front is red, with an image of a cross set before a cave with a rock that has been moved from the entrance. It also features a quote from John 1:12, "But as many as recieved him, to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that believeth on his name." So lets begin with an examination of the front. Typically the tracts are tricolour, black white and red. The red is either an accent or features prominently on the cover. Since the most common means of distributing the tracts is leaving them where people can pick them up, it makes sense that an eye grabbing colour like red would be used. The title of the tract, again speaking in broad terms, is either a question or some kind of "offer". In this case, the question is fairly obvious. From the title, it is relatively easy to discern the message within; in this case the emphasis will be on the necessity of Jesus as a saviour figure. The image, as described above, is not as important in this instance, but will resonate with anyone who has even a little knowledge about Christian myth. Likewise, the scripture quoted relates to the question, and introduces the idea of just how "great" an offer is being made. This same theme, that of an "offer" is a recurring theme, usually around the winter holidays tracts adorned with red gift boxes tend to appear.

The inside of the tract is significantly less flashy than the cover, as the curious reader will have already been drawn in. To guide the reader, there are headings which are all in caps and a bold text. In this case there are four headings (three inside: "THE ONE SAVIOUR", "THE ONE SINNER", "THE ONE SOLUTION", and one on the back, "THE ONE SIN"). Each provides a topic which will be addressed in the subsequent paragraphs, but generally there is a common theme even in these titles. In this case, if it is not already clear, the concept of a singular "way" is being emphasized, highlighting the bifurcated worldview inherent in Pentecostal Christianity.

The first title, "The One Saviour", begins by asking a question: "My friend, are you saved?". Again, a common, "folksy" method of written communication is utilized through the inclusion of some imagined witness speaking to the reader. The first paragraph explains that this imagined, but seasoned Christian, knows that most people do not know what "salvation" means in a "Biblical context". The second paragraph explains what is necessary to be "saved": a belief in the Christian god as the only god, that said deity has agency to effect change in the readers life, and that the Bible is this deity's one and only means of communicating his desire for humanity. Then a scriptural excerpt is used to "prove" the above assertion, in this case Acts 4:12. The third paragraph explains that "salvation" is not an intellectual activity, but one from the "heart". It reinforces this idea by asking if the reader loves their spouse with their "head or their heart". The final paragraph is an interesting one, in which the witness throws out some famous "thinkers": Plato, Aristotle and Einstein, and shows how they "came up short", and that the only real source of knowledge is the Bible. Again, the anti-intellectual tone of this tract is in keeping with the literalist Pentecostal worldview.

The second title, "The One Saviour", explains what a "sin" is to the reader. The first paragraph again opens with our folksy witness asking the reader a question,"Have you ever sinned?". Seeing a pattern emerging? The question-answer provided on the readers behalf format is the standard one for Christian religious tracts. The first paragraph explains that "sin" is universal, and posits the "original sin" as infecting the rest of humanity. The second paragraph explains what it means to be "saved", and explains the necessity of being "saved" from "damnation". It then turns back to the witness asking a number of questions, and implying that anyone would "give up", but wait, you're not doomed yet!

The third title, "The One Solution", is what this whole tract has been building towards. It explains why the figure of the Christian messiah, Jesus, is so special, and explains how he was/is able to absolve the reader of their "sins". The symbolism used is that of blood and purity, and the dichotomy between the "first sinner", the progenitor of humanity in Abrahamaic myth, Adam, and that of the figure of Jesus, is made abundantly clear. It ends, once again, by asking the question of if the reader wishes to be "saved". Again, snippets of scripture are liberally sprinkled throughout, providing a "Biblical" basis for the points being made.

The fourth, and final title, "The One Sin", offers a final bit of explanation. The witness lays out why people go to "hell", which it turns out is because they reject the offer being made in this tract; namely "salvation through Jesus". It ends with the line, "It's your decision."

The final bit of text on the back is separated into two sections; the "prayer" and the "mailing address". The prayer is provided for those who have read through the tract, found it convincing, and have decided to "accept Jesus into their hearts". This is followed by a small note, asking that if you have been "saved", to write to the ministry which provided the tract. This is usually left blank by the publisher, and stamped with the name and address of the aforementioned church. Subsequently at the very bottom is the publishers information and some disclaimers about how the tracts are not to be sold.

So there it is, a quick overview of a four page Christian tract with a little bit of analysis as well. To continue on with that; I've mentioned it a couple of times, but this format is the "gold standard". A question is presented, it is then elaborated on and some evidence in the way of scriptural references are used to support a foregone conclusion. The context is then personalized by explaining why the reader ought to be concerned with the question, which is again backed up with scriptural references. The answer to the question is then provided, and the answer (regardless of the question) is conversion to Christianity, or at least which ever version of Christianity is providing the tract. Finally the personalization is reinforced and the choice is left to the reader. For those who have been convinced, a prayer and contact information is then provided. I can not think of a tract that doesn't follow this pattern, even Chick Tracts, wacky as they are, follow this basic format.

So now the fun part; because nothing says fun like a disembodied stranger explaining how awful you are and why they know better than you. I mentioned it before, but despite their simplicity, a lot can be gleaned about the worldview of the author (and generally the church distributing them). So from this tract I've picked out a couple of aspects I touched on in the summary: the logical fallacy of bifurcation, appeal to sola scriptura/ Biblical literalism and anti-intellectualism.

Fallicious bifurcation:

The reader is presented with a choice, but the choice is bifurcated: on/off, black/white, "saved"/"unsaved". In this case either you "accept Jesus as your personal saviour" or you are "doomed to hell". As complex as an entire worldview can be, it turns out many people seem to have a very simplistic perspective, and this is exemplified by this (and other) Christian tracts. Of course, what the publishers and distributors have going for them is western culture in general. The assumption is that whoever picks up the tract will have some degree of familiarity with Christianity or the figure of Jesus. With that "hook", the entire discussion is couched in terms which take for granted the model of the cosmos where you are either "saved" or "unsaved". Any other perspectives are soundly ignored, never entering into the equation. Those other perspectives, or more accurately, strawman depictions of them, are fodder for other tracts.

Sola Scriptura/Biblical Literalism:

The tract takes every opportunity to try and support the points it makes, or ground its explanation in Biblical scripture. As such, all arguments made are followed by some citation of a verse from the Christian Bible. Once again, the assumption made by the author, is that this will have some weight behind it. Which is not as odd as it may appear at first blush. Remember these tracts are written for an audience that is inundated, even infused with a cultural view which is coloured by the prominence that Christianity has had historically. Most readers of the English language will know what a "Bible" is, and so too its status as A, if not THE, most important book on religious matters. The author, however, takes it a step further, and here is where an observation can be made about the special place of privilege the Bible inhabits in the authors world view. The arguments do not rely on logic, or rhetoric, or even established facts; they rest on the trustworthiness of the Bible. Actually this needs to be taken a step further, the inerrancy of the Bible is the basis for all arguments. To quote, "God knew we needed something to go by, so He put everything there is to know in His Bible." This simply screams sola scriptura, that is in religious (and I suppose in every matter actually), the Christian Bible (and I think it is safe to say that it can be specified to whichever interpretation of whichever version of the Christian Bible the author accepts) is the final arbiter. It is the basis upon which their world view is constructed, and so is obviously going to be the standard upon which the writer bases their arguments. Regardless of how nonsensical or facetious the claim may be; after all there is nothing written about making ink, making paper, printing presses, computers, bus seats or telephones within the pages. This does tie into the final aspect of the world view.

Anti-Intellectualism:

This is the bit that got me hooked into collecting tracts in the first place, the sheer asininity of the arguments or statements contained within the tracts. Long before I realized they were small windows into the minds of their authors, statements like "Saved is a Bible word, not a term thought up by man.", "Plato, Aristotle, or Einstein could only think as far as their finite minds were able. They could not even solve the problems of this life, such as sickness, disease, pain, hunger, and death, let alone know anything about eternity." Though I think it is summed up perfectly in this quote, "Believing must come from the heart, not the head." So lets unpack these statements. The first one is a good example of cognitive dissonance; to claim that the Bible is not the product of human hands, human minds, human writers and editors, that the concept of "salvation" simply appeared ex nihlo, betrays a very basic ignorance of history and reality. The middle quote is as anti-intellectual as this particular tracts gets, and makes use of three very well known thinkers. Completely unaware of the fact that the writings of two ancient philosophers not only predate the Christian Bible, but are still in print and have been hugely influential in western thought, they are trotted out and shown to be lacking because they did not solve any of those problems. But hold on, if Jesus solved those problems, why are they still around? Is 2000+ years not enough time then? This is a very good example of "special pleading"; that these points disqualify these people, but not this other person. Why? Because I said so. That's really all there is to offer as a rebuttal, and advocates will fall back on a combination of jargon/rhetoric (Biblical ages, physical v. spiritual death, Biblical innerency, etc.) while offering nothing else as a basis to support their perspectives. The last quote is pretty clear in its intent, and while probably not a literal belief that "belief" comes from ones heart; the sentiment that feelings matter more than reason is implied. Of course, that goes by the wayside the minute ones "heart" finds itself at odds with "scriptural knowledge".

Well that about wraps it up, I hope this has been enlightening, or at least entertaining. Perhaps the next time you find yourself on a bus or walking past a phone booth and you spy one of these little pamphlets, you just might spend the two or so minutes it takes to read them. If not for the laudable goal of understanding someone else's perspective, then do it for the lols.