Posts Tagged ‘encyclopedia’

We Need 3000 Sean Tevises

Monday, July 21st, 2008

Look up rational activism in the encyclopedia, and you should find Sean Tevis. If not, slip his bio in there.

Sean Tevis

Last week (on or about July 16), Sean created a web page with some stick-figure action figures resembling Frank Miller’s “300.” These stick figures were yelling something about how the Internet could change the face of political history. Well, it did, and it’s still going strong.

Arlen Siegfreid is a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Although Representative Siegfreid seems a shoe-in for the next election, Sean, a non-politician “Information Architect,” wants to run against him.

With a common sense platform, mostly designed to oppose Siegfreid, Sean readied himself to play the political race game, until he stumbled upon a hurdle that would seem insurmountable for most would-be activists: he needed name recognition cash. According to Sean’s entertaining stick-figured explanation of the situation, 93.4% of the time it’s the candidate with the most advertising money who wins an election. It’s mid-July, and Sean asks, “How much do I need?” The verdict: $26,000. By July 28.

Game over, man! Game over!

No, not for Sean! See, Sean is an educated man. Sean knew that it would require 52 donors, donating $500 each, to meet his goal. However, having spent some time learning basic math in school, Sean figured that he could reduce the amount of individual donations required by increasing the number of donors. Brilliant! Reminds me of the idea I had as a child to send a letter to every resident of the U.S., asking for them to send me a dollar each. I’d have been a millionaire for sure! Except that I wasn’t so great at math, and I didn’t account for the fact that it would actually cost me money to send those letters, and I would have to offset any earnings made by the cost of those letters, and I wasn’t guaranteed to get any money. Even if half of the U.S. sent me a dollar, I’d still end up with a negative return. But, as Sean says, This is the Internet!

Instead of trying to find a handful of very generous donors, Sean would seek out great gobs of very slightly generous donors, via the Internet, which is practically free.

His goal was to acquire 3000 donors, donating $8.34 each.

He drew his stick-figure story, and posted his request website page, with a little button link to donate via PayPal. He even listed the basic campaign finance rules and a list of perks for higher than requested donations (campaign t-shirts, coffee mugs, and Kansas flags, among them).

And then he waited. (I’m sure the waiting involved a bit of “alerting the press”)

BoingBoing (one of my favorite must-visit-daily websites), and a few others got the word. I got the word from BB, and spread it to the Atheist Think Tank forum. I monitored Sean’s website, watching the donors increase slowly. I was getting worried. When I first started watching, he had only acquired a hundred or so. But, probably because of all the latency created by the flood of visitors to his website, I was likely not seeing what was really happening. My forum friends informed me that they had either donated or that the website was sluggish. We started passing out Sean’s direct email so that we could donate via PayPal without going through his website. We sat and watched and cheered and rallied. And, apparently, so did a hell of a lot of others.

And today, July 21, the number of donors is 5,298.

That’s five-thousand, two hundred and ninety-eight donors.

Screw 3000, make 6000!

Apparently no state representative in Kansas history has ever had more than 644 donors.

WIN!1

But you know what has gotten me really excited about all this? It’s not Sean Tevis specifically, although I think he’s established himself as a hero. It’s that this has given us an example of how we can use our resources to make progressive change, to rally against the incumbents who want to tell us that the way to live our lives must conform to their twisted ideologies. It shows us that there are people out there who give a shit, and although they might not all individually be able to stand up and fight, they sure can click a button and send a real representative a few bucks to help do something about this strangulation we’re enduring. And that representative can do what needs to be done without worrying about not being related to an oil tycoon. If you want to phrase that in popular terminology (that, in its spiritual sense, doesn’t necessarily correspond to my rational belief system, but is a close enough word), it gives us rationals some hope.

Sean Tevis needed 3000 of us to help him kick some ass.

What we need is 3000 Sean Tevises.

[Update: At the end of July, Sean had nearly $100,000 in donations. According to his Weblog, he's made more money than his opponent, and since his money hasn't come from lobbyists, he's not tied down by promises that would shaft the voters. Great job, Sean!]

First, go visit Sean Tevis by clicking these words, and see what he’s done, and maybe donate a little.

Second, do something about something. I can’t tell you exactly what to do. All I know is that if we even had ten, twenty more people like Sean Tevis, we could start reversing this trend of government-sponsored, taxpayer funded perniciousness. Donate to a Sean Tevis, run your own campaign, start a local paper or a blog, get active.

  1. or “PWN!” if that suits you [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Morality, Religion, Science | 7 Comments »

Kabbalah Unearthed

Monday, March 3rd, 2008

Kabbalah is a set of esoteric teachings intended to reveal the mystical aspects of Judaism.  Followers of Kabbalah consider its teachings to be the true meaning of Judaism, whereas other Jews consider the doctrines of Kabbalah to be heretical.  Kabbalists believe Jewish mysticism originated in Eden, although historians have noted that virtually all Kabbalistic works falsely claim, or are ascribed, ancient authorship.  Kabbalists believe that over time, Jewish patriarchs, prophets, and sages interwove their knowledge into Jewish writings and culture through oral transmission, resulting in the current teachings and practices.

Kabbalists believe that in ancient Israel in the 10th century BCE, the teachings of Kabbalah were common knowledge and practiced by over one million people.  However, there is very little historical evidence to support this.1  They believe that the Jewish spiritual leaders at that time (the Sanhedrin) were forced to hide these teachings, because foreign conquests posed a risk that the information might fall into the wrong hands.  The Sanhedrin also feared that Jews who were deported on conquest to other countries would be led to practice in incorrect and forbidden ways without proper supervision and guidance by the masters.  As a result, they believe the Kabbalah became secretive and forbidden for two and a half millennia.

The Zohar, a mystical commentary on the Torah written in medieval Aramaic, is widely considered the most important work of Kabbalah.  Torah study is considered an inherent duty of observant Jews,2 and the Zohar divides this study into four levels.  Peshat is the simple meaning of the text.  Remez refers to biblical allusion and allegory.  Derash is Rabbinic scriptural exegesis.  And finally, Sod is the secret inner meaning of the Torah, i.e. the kabbalah.3  Kabbalah teaches that there are hidden meanings contained in every Hebrew letter, word, number, and even the accent on words in the Hebrew Bible.  Kabbalists practice methods such as Gematria to attempt to ascertain these hidden meanings.

Another famous work, and possibly the earliest extant book on Jewish esotericism, is the Sefer Yetzirah, which kabbalists claim dates back to the patriarch Abraham.  Also revered is astro-magical text the Sefer Raziel HaMalach which, according to kabbalists, was revealed to Adam by the angel Raziel.  Yet, the Sefer Raziel HaMalach draws heavily from the Sefer Yetzirah, and it cannot be shown to predate the 13th century.  Skeptical scholars find attempts to date these works to the pre-Israelite Ancient Near East to be implausible.  Much of the central doctrine did not begin to develop seriously until the 12th century CE, and it seems far-fetched to believe that this doctrine existed undocumented within Judaism from the time of the Assyrian empire (which, ironically, some scholars believe is the source of Jewish mysticism) until it “resurfaced” approximately 17 to 18 centuries later.4

Kabbalists can be defined as monistic panentheists.  They envision two aspects of God, (a) God Himself, whom they consider to be impersonal and unknowable, and (b) the revealed aspect of God that created the universe and interacts with mankind.  They believe God’s existence is beyond anything that can be expressed in the material world, yet they believe all things are linked to God in perfect unity.  Rather than viewing these two aspects as a paradox, Kabbalists believe that through divine emanations they can come to see how they complement one another. 5

Kabbalah teaches that there are ten attributes with which God created the universe and reveals Himself, called the Ten Sefirot (literally, the Ten Emanations).  Kabbalists believe that the differences between these levels are not changes in God but in mankind’s ability to perceive God.  The ten levels are: Keter (will), Chochmah (wisdom), Binah (understanding), Chesed (loving kindness), Din (judgment), Tiferet (harmony), Netzach (victory), Hod (glory), Yesod (foundation), and Malchut (sovereignty).6

The Zohar teaches that there are three elements to the human soul: the nefesh, which is the lower “animal” part of the soul linked to instincts and bodily cravings, the ruach, the middle “spirit” soul containing moral virtues, and the neshamah, the higher “intellect” soul, which allows one to have awareness of God and to benefit from the afterlife.  The nefesh is said to enter the body at birth, whereas the ruach and neshamah are said to develop over time depending on the actions and beliefs of the individual.  Most Kabbalistic works assume a fundamental difference between Jewish and non-Jewish souls.  The Zohar posits that Gentile souls have an evil, demonic aspect to them that is not present in Jews.  Two additional parts of the soul, the chayyah (awareness of the divine life force) and yehidah (fullest union with God possible), are mentioned in the Raaya Meheimna, a section of teachings spread throughout the Zohar, but these higher levels of cognition are considered to be within the grasp of only a few chosen individuals.

-Laura

  1. Aryeh Kaplan “Jewish Meditation: A Practical Guide” [<]
  2. The Written Law (The Torah) [<]
  3. Imbued with Holiness [<]
  4. Parpola S. (1993) “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy” Journal of Near Eastern Studies [<]
  5. JewishEncyclopedia.com – Bible Exegesis [<]
  6. http://www.newkabbalah.com/sefirot.html [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Religion, Unearthed | No Comments »

Secrets: Four Centuries of Crusades

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

“Today’s East-West dynamic began when Europe first invaded the Holy Land.”

That was the sub-heading for this article in the U.S. News and World Report. I found this set the tone for the rest of the article, which essentially set out to prove that Muslims are filled with hate and distorting reality in drawing comparisons between the Crusades and modern events.

The author states, “In the Arab and Muslim world, the Crusades have made an unfortunate rhetorical comeback.” He posits that their views have been “distorted almost beyond recognition by rhetoric and misunderstanding.” He accuses “angry Muslim nationalists” of adopting the Crusades as a “convenient metaphor.” He quotes historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, who claims the Muslims “turned the Western memory of the Crusades on its head and demonized it.” But what of the West? What of today’s Christians? After September 11th, George W. Bush told the nation, “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.”1 When Jerusalem was captured from the Turks in 1917, British general Sir Edmund Allenby2 proclaimed, “today the wars of the Crusades are completed.” Surely the author would have similar criticism for statements such as these? No, instead he insists, “Undoubtedly, George W. Bush had a different sense of the term in mind.” And as for Sir Allenby? Well, it was understandable, since the colonial powers considered the Crusaders to be their “ideological forebears.” Besides, according to the author, the Crusades weren’t very important to the Muslims before Sir Allenby’s time: “Before Europe’s colonial expansion into the Middle East, Muslim chroniclers paid little attention to the Crusades.” I see little reason to believe that anyone, from East or West, cannot plainly understand the horrible atrocities committed by Christians during the Crusades, yet according to this article, the East is primarily to blame for “demonizing” our conception of them.

The article refers to the Crusaders as “faithful,” “united under the cross” and “motivated by genuine religious feeling.” Riley-Smith is again quoted: “West European Catholics believed they could aid their salvation by fighting the infidel in the East. [Crusading is] as much a penance as fasting on bread and water.” In researching Jonathan Riley-Smith I found, unsurprisingly, that his views are greatly at odds with many other scholarly perceptions of the Crusades. He believes the Crusades were primarily a response to the aggression of Islam, and that the Crusaders were sincere and pious and demonstrated great personal sacrifice.3 The author obviously agrees when he refers to knights Godfrey of Bouillon and Tancred as “deeply religious.” He claims the belief that Crusaders may have been motivated by greed or land has been overturned. Yet, the history itself tells another story.

In 1095, the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios I Komnenos, sent his ambassadors to Pope Urban II to request help in taking Asia Minor from the Seljuk Turks. The Pope then called for the Council of Clermont, and there preached the First Crusade. Alexios met each leader personally to secure an oath that any conquered lands would be handed over to the Byzantine Empire.4 Yet, not one of these leaders intended on keeping their oath to Alexios. One by one, they each took the captured territories for themselves, and many of them became the leaders of these territories. Tancred actually refused to take the oath at all. So, were these knights “deeply religious” as U.S. News claims? Probably. But was their faith a replacement for greed? Absolutely not.

In one final jab at the Muslims, U.S. News purports that the industry, education, and culture that the Europeans gained as a result of their contact with the Arab world actually overshadows the atrocities they committed. He quotes Georgetown University’s John Voll: “Violent interactions were paralleled by economic and conceptual exchanges. In some ways the Crusades’ positive intellectual dimensions outweigh the negative impact.” He then quotes author Janet Abu-Lughod: “The Crusades…did integrate European travelers and traders into an ongoing world system. By stimulating an interest in the goods of the East, they had a double-back effect on the development of European economics.” U.S. News even takes these two comments a step further: “Even the Europeans’ increasing sophistication did little to redeem them in the eyes of the Muslims whose land they occupied and controlled.” I can’t think of a single reason why it should. Their families had been murdered, their holy sites destroyed, their land and homes stolen, but the author expects them to have been in awe of the Christians’ increasing “sophistication”? It’s hard for me to believe that U.S. News cannot recognize that the only people positively impacted in any way by the Crusades were the Christians, not the Muslims. For the East, the negative most certainly outweighs the positive, but that is not being considered in this article. I would implore anyone to consider the bias displayed here before giving any type of support to the U.S. News and World Report.

-Laura

  1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html [<]
  2. http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/allenby.htm [<]
  3. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanrileysmith.html [<]
  4. A History of the Byzantine State and Society by Warren Treadgold, Stanford University Press, 1997 [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Religion, Review, Unearthed | No Comments »

Stealing the Solstice for Christ’s Sake!

Thursday, December 13th, 2007

Shortly after Halloween had ended, it began. Christmas. Small signs of the impending, inescapable attack of the Christmas season had already begun to appear. The seasonal aisles of my supermarket were cleared of Halloween sweets, supplies, and decorations to be replaced with Christmas sweets, plastic evergreen trees, decorations, and gifts. Soon my mind began to wander: Do the men selling the $5 “Keep the Christ in Christmas” magnets at the supermarket know (or care) that many Christmas traditions are pagan in origin? How much of these traditions and customs are directly related to the actual birth of Jesus? Did I correctly remember that Christmas celebrations were at one time outlawed in Colonial America?

Let’s have a quick look at Colonial America, the Pilgrims, and Christmas.

The Pilgrims were separatists who sought to purify the Church of England by ridding it of all Roman Catholic influence. These Puritans regarded Christmas as a frivolous and wasteful celebration which was unaligned with core Christian beliefs. They had found no historical or scriptural reference regarding the December 25th birthday of Jesus. They denounced Christmas as a pagan ritual that had been disguised in Christianity. Providing further impetus for the Puritan suppression of Christmas was the manner in which the celebration occurred. Raucous behavior, mockery, and excessive consumption of food and alcohol were common characteristics of the Christmas celebration. The celebrations were thought to be so disruptive and unsavory at the time, that the General Court of Massachusetts declared in 1659 that celebration of Christmas was to be a criminal offense (the law was repealed in 1681).1 So, on December 25th, Puritan separatists toiled as they would have on any other day while frowning upon the celebration of Christmas.

It is somewhat of a loss that the Puritanical suppression of Christmas did not catch on. I tire of the annual Christmas bombardment. In the United States, the Christmas holiday permeates the marketplace for at least two full months. This is where I stifle my rant about Christmastime consumerism. I encounter Christmas party after Christmas party, each meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus. This year I have been metaphorically submerged in mistletoe and holly that sometimes I think I may drown. On the other hand, I enjoy the paid Christmas vacation. I enjoy it, that is, until I stop to think about the origin of Christmas and its traditions.

As I mentioned above, Puritans denounced Christmas as a pagan ritual that had been re-wrapped in Christian wrapping paper. In pre-Christian Europe, it was a tradition to celebrate the winter solstice. Celebrating the winter solstice may be one of the oldest winter celebrations in the world. As the winter solstice approached, each day grew shorter, darker, and colder. Ancient peoples may have believed the sun’s power was weakening as the days progressed toward the winter solstice. When the winter solstice finally arrived, this “loss of power” would cease and the days would grow longer and brighter as the sun’s strength was “reborn”. This would certainly be cause to celebrate, consuming the food and drink that had been the fruits of a successful year of harvest. Different pagan festivals were present in pre-Christian Europe, most of these were related to either the sun or the winter solstice. The largest of the Roman festivals was Saturnalia. Near the time of winter solstice, Romans celebrated Saturnalia in honor of Saturn, the god of agriculture and harvest. The celebration was one of feasts, gifts, tom-foolery, gift-giving, and role-reversal. Romans celebrating Saturnalia could be found decorating their homes with greenery and candles. Another Roman festival was Dies Natalis Solis Invicti “the birthday of the unconquered Sun”. The use of the title “Sol Invictus” as it pertained to this festival encompassed several sun gods including Mithras2, the patron god of Emporer Aurelian. In northern Europe, Yule was celebrated by the Celts who believed that the sun stood still for twelve days in mid-winter. During these twelve days, a Yule log was lit to conquer the darkness. Mistletoe was a symbol of life during the dark winter months and was also used in many Druid ceremonies. It was harvested by Celtic priests on or about the winter solstice from holy oak trees. 3

Feasts, frolic, candles, bright evergreens, yule logs, holly, and mistletoe – all are part of our modern Christmas celebrations, all are pagan in origin. Since these festivals were age-old traditions, pagans were extremely hesitant to stop celebrating them as part of conversion to Christianity. Some Christians even enjoyed partaking in the pagan celebrations:

“It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day.”4

The Roman Catholic Church needed a method by which the pagans would more easily accept Christianity. The church found this method in the institution of December 25th as a feast in honor of Christ’s birth. The Roman Catholic Church proposed a December 25th Christian celebration which would actively oppose the Roman pagan holiday of Natalis Solis Invicti “the birthday of the unconquered Sun”. It was to take place on the same day of celebration as the pagan celebration. The first Christmas within the Roman Catholic Church occurred when Pope Sixtus III officiated the first Christ Mass on December 25th, 435.56

Perhaps there is merit to the Christian celebration of Christ’s birth. Unfortunately, the Bible does not mention in what month (or what day) Jesus was born. When reading the nativity story, a December birth seems unlikely. Would shepherds and their flocks sleep outside during a cold winter night? The story also contains a reference to the census requested by Caesar Augustus. According to the story, the census required that people return to their town of origin. Winter months would have been poor traveling for many. Indeed, a winter birth date of Christ is not likely. Since the birth date of Jesus is not known, I suppose that it is acceptable to honor a person on a day other than the day of their birth. However, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus should be the most revered holiday for Christians, seeing as how these events are core to the Christian doctrine. Why create a new holiday to honor his birth? Assimilation. The pre-Christian pagan festivals were too difficult for the Roman Catholic church to combat, so they conveniently began celebrating the birth of Jesus at the same time of year that the pagan festivals had traditionally occurred.

Pagan celebrations of the winter solstice appear to be the real “Reason for the Season”. Without their occurrence, I doubt that we would be celebrating Christmas, and if we did, I doubt that it would take place in winter with the traditions we see today. The celebration of Christmas did not originate as a reverent time of reflection of Christ’s birth. It was a strategy of the Roman Catholic Church to successfully Christianize European pagans. This contradicts the message I had received when growing up in the Methodist church. I had believed that Christmas was a solemn observation of the birth of Jesus Christ. This holiday is misrepresented. Instead of originating as a reverent celebration, it seems to have originated as a Roman Catholic conversion tactic – a tactic which has stolen and repackaged pagan celebrations and customs in an effort to Christianize non-Christians.

  1. The Battle for Christmas, 1996 page 14 [<]
  2. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 “Mithraism” [<]
  3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/paganism/holydays/wintersolstice.shtml [<]
  4. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Ramsay MacMullen. Yale:1997, p155 [<]
  5. Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67 [<]
  6. Encyclopedia Brittanica 1944 edition, “Christmas” [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Religion | 3 Comments »