|
June 04, 2006
atrocities begin to fade (I hope!)
In a thought-provoking post at Gay Patriot, Dan (GayPatriotWest) reviews a movie I haven't seen and wasn't planning to see (The Da Vinci Code), and the film made him think about the tension between our joint Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman heritage: Sir Leigh’s insistence on exposing how he believes the Catholic Church misrepresented its own history seems a bit nonsensical to me. He seems to want to expose the church for the atrocities it committed. To be sure, many of his accusations are historically accurate. But, they’re just that — history. The faithful did torture and execute many who did not accept the doctrines they espoused. But, this atrocities began to fade once Christianity began to reincorporate Græco-Roman elements during the Renaissance.(Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian tension is of course a longtime topic here.) Torturing and executing people for refusing to accept doctrines is generally considered uncivilized behavior, and seemed to be going the way of history's dustbins until Communism and Nazism gave birth to a new Renaissance of old evil. I don't know whether torture and extermination are part of human nature that civilization keeps under wraps, and I'd hesitate to make any sort of generalized pronouncement about the role of religion. Depending on the time and place (and the level of civilization achieved by a society), religion can be a force in mitigation of man's darker passions -- or (as we have seen in the past few years) a force in aggravation. There's a common stereotype of the ancients -- especially the people we call "Pagans" -- as being cruel, and the Roman thirst for blood is often cited as an example. Yet Christianization of the Empire did nothing to stop torture or cruelty; all that happened was that the official line changed, and Christians were no longer persecuted for being Christians. However, more Christians were persecuted and killed by Christians than had ever been persecuted by "Pagans." Sigh. I hate to overuse the quotation marks, but I did so because thinking Roman officials tended to be Pagans In Name Only -- basically atheists who saw religion as symbolizing state power who saw true believers of any kind as crackpots. To quote Seneca: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.Ugh. These things are so damned complicated. One of the reasons the early Christians so horrified Roman officials was precisely for the reason that they were true believers. (And educated Romans knew religion was a big scam, with corrupt priests, phony rituals, etc. Something to be used.) With the capitulation of the corrupt Pagans In Name Only crowd, the true believers had control of the government. While they of course took down the Pagan statues and closed the temples, the Pagans were dying out, and were a small threat compared to Christian heretics. Stamping out heresy thus became imprinted on the Church when it was in its infancy. As to bloodthirstiness, torture wasn't any less torture when done in the name of a new God. Crucifixion was abolished, as were the bloody games, but whether people were killed and tortured for public entertainment or in the interests of stamping out heresy made little difference to the victims. A popular form of punishment for centuries was breaking on the wheel, a gruesome punishment which differed little from crucifixion (although the victim's limbs were broken in many places first, then braided into the spokes of the wheel). In Christian England, treason was punished by slow disembowelment. Here's how the much-loved Elizabeth I crushed dissent: Until 1870, the full punishment for the crime was to be "hanged, drawn, and quartered" in that the convict would be:To be fair to Elizabeth (about whom it was said that "More Catholics were hanged, drawn and quartered in Elizabeth's reign for 'treason' than the number of Protestants who had been burnt at the stake by her predecessor Mary I for heresy"), her own mother was beheaded by her father Henry VIII, whose penchant for wife-killing rivaled any of the most bloodthirsty Roman emperors. So a taste for blood ran in the royal family, just as it has always run in the human family -- among all peoples and all times. I'd be most hesitant to state with any degree of confidence that religion always places a damper on cruelty.1. Dragged on a hurdle (a wooden frame) to the place of execution. I do think that as civilization advances, religions age and become more mature and more civilized. As more time elapses, the more religious conflicts tend to be relegated to history and seen as regrettable. Back to Dan's Gay Patriot post: I believe that the greatness of Western Civilization has been its ability, since the Renaissance, to balance the strengths of the Judeo-Christian and Græco-Roman traditions. And to understand that greatness, we need to look at the traditions as they are — and not as they might have been.I think that's fair enough. Western civilization is a product of religious conflict which led to religious tolerance. While I see little to be gained by undermining the positive influence of Christianity, I also see books and films like The Da Vinci Code as a reminder that we live in comparatively good times. Not so long ago in Western history, The Da Vinci Code would have been treated as blasphemy, and its author(s) subjected to precisely the type of punishments our founders prohibited under the Eighth Amendment. Today, it's standard entertainment fare. Personally, I think it's historical fantasy, but what I think is irrelevant to the larger considerations. Still, my dark side still always wonders about others' dark sides. Sometimes I feel morbid; other times it feels like an onerous moral duty to do such wondering. My dark side sees nothing courageous about The Da Vinci Code. What would be courageous would be to make a documentary film exploring the creation of Muhammad cartoons, and the religious warfare that erupted over then. But I don't think Hollywood is about to do that. Interestingly, some of the same groups which launched the campaign against the Muhammad cartoons have launched a compaign (in Pakistan, at least) against The Da Vinci Code: KARACHI - Pakistani religious parties Monday vowed to launch a protest campaign against controversial movie The Da Vinci Code, calling it an attempt to secularise world culture "in the garb of art".While it is ironic that Muslim groups are more upset about Christian blasphemy than Christians themselves, I think this is largely a token effort, and that demonstrations over The Da Vinci Code will not erupt in the Muslim "street." The Hollywood entertainment industry knows a "safe" target when they see one. Even when they're making a "courageous" film. (God, how I'd hate to think that the more things change, the more things stay the same, because I want to believe in the progress of Western civilization.) posted by Eric on 06.04.06 at 10:58 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|