Showing posts with label Philosophical Musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophical Musings. Show all posts

Monday, May 25, 2020

Memorial Day


Today in the US we memorialize those who have been claimed by war. It's usually celebrated as a great patriotic event, with martial songs and chest-thumping nationalism, all about the glory of dying for your country. What egregious nonsense! As any battle-scarred veteran can tell you, war isn't glorious; it's a gory, bloody, loud hell of a meat-grinder, and the meat being ground is the young of the nation, fed into it by old men who hold grudges or who see a profit to be made, win or lose. I've always said that if the fat old men who declared wars actually had to fight in them, we'd have world peace overnight.

Here are some potent quotes about the reality of war:
"And I can't help but wonder, now Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you 'The Cause'?
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame,
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain.
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again."
– Eric Bogle, "No Man's Land" 
"Either war is finished, or we are."
– Herman Wouk, War and Remembrance 
"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."
– Jimmy Carter, Nobel Lecture, December 10, 2002 
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, January 10, 1946 
"If civilization has an opposite, it is war. Of these two things, you have either one, or the other. Not both."
– Ursula K. LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness
Probably the greatest antiwar poem ever written is "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen, an Oxford scholar and poet who enlisted at the beginning of WWI, and who was killed just one week before the armistice which ended it. During the war he wrote his poems in the letters he sent home, and as the conflict continued he used these poems to vent his anger and cynicism at the futility, the barbarity, and the stupidity of it all. "Dulce et Decorum Est" could just as well have been titled "The Lie", the lie in question being the quote from the Roman poet Horace that is fed to soldiers in time of war: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"; the English translation is "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country". Obviously Owen disagreed, and I'm with him.
Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen 
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And toward our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. 
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. 
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obsceneas cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
Today we lament the deaths of young people killed by adherence to an anachronism, and pledge to end the scourge that killed them. Here are two songs that lament the deaths of soldiers - Eric Bogle's "No Man's Land" and Mark Knopfler's "Brothers In Arms".





Photo © 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Saturday, April 11, 2020

The Effect of the City on Music - From Gershwin to Joe Jackson


This blog post is a prime example of where my mind goes when I'm off from work for a month with nowhere to go. I was reading the reviews for the movie Resistance about Marcel Marceau's involvement in the French Resistance in WWII, so I went to read about him in Wikipedia. While reading that article I found a reference to Red Skelton, so I followed that link, and while reading that article I saw a reference to David Rose's "Holiday for Strings", which was the theme song for The Red Skelton Show, a TV staple in my house in my childhood. And that set me off on a journey which we will now embark on below.

"Holiday for Strings" by David Rose

The reference to this music in the article on Red Skelton lit a lightbulb in my head because it played a significant role in my childhood. When I was five years old I came down with pneumonia and ended up in the hospital. Apparently I passed out while my father registered me at the front desk, and I stayed out for three days. During that period of unconsciousness I had a dream/hallucination/whatever that has stayed with me my whole life: a vision of two cartoon chipmunks, a boy and a girl (hey, I was five years old; what other symbolic figures did my brain have to work with at that age?), on swings, and the girl chipmunk began moving off, rising into the air, while that very emotional legato section of the music was playing. I had a very strong feeling of longing and loss at the time, and even now when I hear it I get that same feeling. And I still love that piece. Here it is:


"Slaughter on Tenth Avenue" by Richard Rodgers

That got me to thinking about other music from my childhood that had a strong emotional impact on me, and what popped up immediately was Richard Rodgers' "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue" from his musical "On Your Toes". We had that recording when I was a kid, and I think it was my mother who really loved the piece. I got to love it, too, and still do. But thinking about it today, it struck me that both these pieces are very much "city" music, and specifically New York City. They reflect the rhythms and sound of a busy city, and in this piece even incorporating car horns and police whistles. 

Hmmmm... Car horns! Now who does that conjure up? But of course - George Gershwin! But first let's listen to Richard Rogers:


"An American in Paris" by George Gershwin

George Gershwin was the ultimate composer of city inspired music. He was a native son of Manhattan and you can feel and even smell the streets of New York in his music. And of course both David Rose and Richard Rodgers show the influence of America's first modern composer of significance in their music. Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" and especially his "Concerto in F" are very much New York pieces; in fact the concerto's working title was "New York Concerto". But for me Gershwin's most city-ish piece is "An American in Paris", and even though it's named after the city in France, it still feels very New York to me, full of the bustle and noise and "busyness" of America's city of record. Listen and see if you don't agree:


"West Side Story" by Leonard Bernstein

After Gershwin, no American composer says "New York" more loudly than Leonard Bernstein. And no work of Lenny's shouts "New York" louder than "West Side Story", not only reflecting the rhythms and bustle of the city but also the ethnic diversity as well. Jazz and Latin, Duke Ellington and Tito Puente, with a touch of the Great American Songbook - that's "West Side Story". Here's the prologue to the Broadway stage show:



"Black, Brown and Beige" by Duke Ellington

For me, Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington is as important an influence on American music as George Gershwin. Both were sons of Manhattan and started their music careers writing Jazz-based popular music (Gershwin started out as a "song plugger" in Tin Pan Alley) and went on to expand their musical knowledge and technique to create timeless music that goes beyond definable barriers. And both were outsiders - Gershwin a Jew and son of immigrants, and Ellington an African American and a descendant of slaves. But both rose to dominate the music of their time. 

After establishing himself as a major force in the Jazz-based swing band world, Ellington went on to compose concert music and movie scores. His three "Sacred Music Concerts", his Jazz concerto "The River", "A Drum Is a Woman", "Three Black Kings"... It's a long list. But for me the best of them is his "Black, Brown, and Beige", a musical history of the African American in this new world. Take a listen:


"Loisaida" by Joe Jackson

And finally we come to Joe Jackson. One of the "New Wave" or "Second British Invasion" Pop/Rock musicians, he came to fame in Great Britain for such hits as "Look Sharp" and "Is She Really Going Out with Him" (I love the first line of that one - "Pretty women walking with gorillas down my street..."). In the 1980s he started hanging out in New York, where he started absorbing that New York musical atmosphere that so inspired the previous composers in this article. Three of his albums especially reflect that "city" feel - "Night and Day", "Body and Soul", and "Night and Day II". There's a lot of Gershwin, Ellington, and Bernstein influence in these three albums, even though they stay well within a Pop context. But it's there, and nowhere more evident than in "Loisaida" (the Hispanic name for the Lower East Side, the main Hispanic center in the city). When I first listened to it I immediately thought of "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue", and in further listenings I could hear a little of the Ellington and Gershwin hints in it. This is definitely one of my favorite Joe Jackson tunes.Have a listen:


And there you have it, where my mind goes when it has nowhere else to go. I hope this has been as fun for you as it was for me! 

Photo and text © 2020 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Friday, January 24, 2020

Revisiting "A Christian Nation? The Founding Fathers Didn't Think So"

[Note: I wrote this post in 2011, but I decided to repost it along with an updated addendum because for me this is an important issue, especially important in these times when the US Constitution is under attack. The claim that this country is a "Christian nation" and the founding fathers were devout Christians is false. Below I include the history of the famous "establishment clause" of the first amendment, including transcripts from the discussions at the original constitutional convention, with quotes from James Madison and others involved in the discussions. Also included is the wording of the nation's first diplomatic treaty in 1797 which declares that the United States is not a Christian nation and is not founded on the Christian religion. In the addendum I include further quotes from the founding fathers, most especially from Thomas Jefferson, the man whose philosophy created the Constitution. It all very firmly establishes the idea of the "Christian nation" as a myth concocted by those who would return us to the very kind of autocracy this nation was created to oppose.]


There's a claim by the Christian Right and some members of the Tea Party movement that the United States was consciously and deliberately created as a Christian nation to spread the Gospel to the new world and create a beacon of light and salvation to the rest of the world. They haven't much evidence to back up this claim; just some scattered quotes from people like George Washington, made in their private capacity and not as spokespersons for the government or the nation.

Granted, we had plenty of people settle here in the early days in a quest to believe and practice those beliefs away from the oppression of the established churches of Europe, but they weren't the only people to leave Europe and settle here. There were plenty of people who were only nominal members of any church, or followers of the Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire who emphasized reason as the primary source of authority and knowledge. Or they were just farmers and trappers and whatnot who had no real use for religion in their life and were happy to go about their daily lives and work without need for religion. There was a lot of philosophical diversity in the early colonies which became the United States.

And in fact the the lawyers and merchants who formed the intellectual class from whom the founding fathers of this nation emerged were mostly followers of the Enlightenment, men such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Hancock, the Adamses of Boston, and Benjamin Franklin, self-declared Deists who believed in a higher power but denied the legitimacy of any formal religion. Even that ultimate gentleman farmer cum soldier, George Washington, considered himself a Deist. And it was these people who wrote our founding documents and created a purely secular, not religious, government.

The U.S. Constitution is the rock-solid foundation of the government of the United States; it establishes and guides our whole form of governance, from the legislative to the judicial to the administrative. It is, to use a Judeo-Christian reference, the Ten Commandments of the nation. It was written by men dedicated to reason and the Age of Enlightenment (principally James Madison, who himself was a protegé of Thomas Jefferson, probably the prime advocate of Enlightenment thinking, along with Benjamin Franklin, among the founding fathers), and it never mentions God, Jesus Christ, the Church, or the Bible. Never. Not even once. It only actually mentions matters pertaining to religion once, in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [2020 note: Actually, there is one reference to religion in the main text of the Constitution, in Article VI: "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."]

The key phrase in that amendment is known in U.S. jurisprudence as the Establishment Clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." - which at the very beginning of our national existence says that the government cannot sponsor or enforce a religious belief and practice on the American people. There are people who argue that it does no such thing, that the amendment only says that the government can't favor one religion over the other. But the evidence, from the very records of the Constitutional Convention itself, along with the writings of the men who wrote the document, says otherwise.

The Library of Congress's Congressional Research Service (CRS) has released an annotated Constitution, and the Columbia University Law School has put a hyperlinked version online, which you can find here. The annotations quote the debates and discussions entered into at the convention, as well as the documents which express the ideas of those attending. The annotation page for the First Amendment can be found here, but I want to include passages from the "overview" section along with the footnotes for that section (included in brackets after the passage) that speak directly to the matter.
Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed." [1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).]

The language was altered in the House to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." [The committee appointed to consider Madison’s proposals, and on which Madison served, with Vining as chairman, had rewritten the religion section to read: “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” After some debate during which Madison suggested that the word “national” might be inserted before the word “religion” as “point[ing] the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent,” the House adopted a substitute reading: “Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 729–31 (August 15, 1789). On August 20, on motion of Fisher Ames, the language of the clause as quoted in the text was adopted. Id. at 766. According to Madison’s biographer, “[t]here can be little doubt that this was written by Madison.” I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800 at 271 (1950).]

In the Senate, the section adopted read: “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . ." [This text, taken from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789, appears in 2 B. Schwartz (ed.), The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1153 (1971). It was at this point that the religion clauses were joined with the freedom of expression clauses.]

It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some[p.970]what more indefinite “respecting” phraseology. [1 Annals of Congress 913 (September 24, 1789). The Senate concurred the same day. See I. Brant, James Madison—Father of the Constitution 1787–1800, 271–72 (1950).]

Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear... [During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789). That his conception of “establishment” was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, “comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.”’ 8 The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.) 132–33 (1904). Madison’s views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the Virginia legislature in 1784–1785 in which he successfully led the opposition to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of which he drafted his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” setting forth his thoughts. Id. at 183–91; I. Brant, James Madison—The Nationalist 1780–1787, 343–55 (1948). Acting on the momentum of this effort, Madison secured passage of Jefferson’s “Bill for Religious Liberty”. Id. at 354; D. Malone, Jefferson the Virginian 274–280 (1948). The theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support of any religion in particular or of religion in general.]
Obviously Madison and the others were intent on keeping the U.S. government out of the business of religion. Note especially this quote from Madison in the Annals of Congress:
During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that “he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789).
This is a clear declaration of a hands-off policy toward religion by the government, expressed by the architects of the document which is the foundation of that government.

There have been many acts by the government which have highlighted the thinking of these founding fathers, a philosophy that has come to be known as the "separation of Church and State", but perhaps one of the clearest actions on that philosophy came early in the history of the U.S. government with the 1797 treaty with Tripoli in the Barbary States of north Africa.

Joel Barlow was the consul-general to the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli, and Tunis; he was assigned by Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the U.S. David Humphries to broker a treaty with Tripoli in 1796. Most of the treaty concerns trade agreements, tariffs, rights-of-way for shipping, etc.; mundane stuff. But Article 11 of the treaty makes a bold statement regarding the attitude of the U.S. toward the religion of Tripoli and the other Barbary States:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
There it is, right out in the open in black and white on an official document of the U.S. government: "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." In 1796, only seven years after the ratification of the Constitution. You can't get any clearer than that.

There's been an argument advanced that Article 11 says no such thing in the original Arabic document, and that it was a late insertion by the Dey of Algiers to allay the fears of the Pasha of Tripoli. But that's irrelevant, a straw man put up by opponents of church-state separation. No matter what the Arabic document says, Joel Barlow's English translation - including that eleventh article - is what was presented to President John Adams, who then presented it to the Senate, in printed copy and read aloud on the floor of the Senate. These were men who were in at the beginning of the nation, many of them former members of the Continental Congress, signers of the Declaration of Independence, and members of the Congress which wrote the Constitution. They ratified the treaty by unanimous vote on June 7, 1797, and President Adams signed it. They had all heard and read that phrase - "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - and no one objected; in fact no one said anything at all about it. Why? Because this is what they believed.

So those who would want to rewrite our history to conform to their particular, sectarian ideology, led most notably by David Barton (who interestingly has no degree in history but rather a bachelor's degree in religious education from Oral Roberts University) and his Wallbuilders organization, haven't a leg to stand on. By their own private writings and in the national documents they inspired and helped create, the "Founding Fathers" of the United States were not intent on creating a "Christian nation", but rather a fully secular government with a clear hands-off policy toward religion. There's really no question of that at all.

© 2011 by A. Roy Hilbinger. Images owned by the United States and are public domain.

2020 Addendum:

Of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson had the most to say about the separation of church and state, starting with inventing that very phrase in his famous letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association in 1802:
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State (emphasis mine). Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
 Jan.1.1802.
This isn't the only incident when Jefferson addressed the issue. Here are some more of his thoughts on that "wall of separation":
“Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson

“But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”
― Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia
“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
~Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists (1808)

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
~Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
James Madison was Jefferson's protegé, and in a way he further distilled Jefferson's thinking:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
[Letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803] ― James Madison

“Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
[Letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822 - Writings 9:100--103] ― James Madison: Writings

“Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.”
― James Madison
In many ways Thomas Paine was one of the inspirations of the American Revolution, publishing and distributing pamphlets that had him constantly under a warrant for sedition from the British colonial government. Paine was no friend of religion!
“One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”
― Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason 
George Mason was another Virginian with strong beliefs about church and state:
“It is contrary to the principles of reason and justice that any should be compelled to contribute to the maintenance of a church with which their consciences will not permit them to join, and from which they can derive no benefit; for remedy whereof, and that equal liberty as well religious as civil, may be universally extended to all the good people of this commonwealth.”
~George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776
Of course, the prime disciple of Voltaire and the French Enlightenment in the colonies was Benjamin Franklin, and he had a few things to say about the subject as well:
“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
— Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [in England] and in New England.”
—Benjamin Franklin
John Adams, the curmudgeonly Founding Father from Boston, also commented on the subject:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
— John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
— John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)
And finally, Declaration of Independence signer Elbridge Gerry, James Madison's vice-president, sums it all up:
“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
~Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731
The point of all this is that contrary to the claims of the evangelical culture warriors, the United States wasn't intended to be a "Christian nation" and the Founding Fathers were not devout believers but critical thinkers who valued reason over religion. And the principles of that Enlightenment thinking were hard-wired into the Constitution they wrote, intent on keeping government and religion as far apart as possible.

It's really not all that hard to understand. If your church opposes abortion, let it deal with it among its members. If your church opposes same-sex marriage and considers homosexuality to be a sin, let them enforce that within their own congregations. But to try and force that on people who are not members is a violation of the Constitution. To force any version of Christianity, or Islam or Judaism or Buddhism or even Scientology for that matter, on all Americans is a violation of the Constitution. It is, in effect, un-American.

© 2011 and 2020 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Friday, October 04, 2019

Walking On the Path

Ritualized, patterned walking is probably as old as the human race; walking a prescribed path, sometimes with pauses for specific sites or actions, until one reaches the intended goal - a sacred site, a spring, a grove of trees, the center of the labyrinth. They can be large, as in the world's celebrated pilgrimages - the walk to Canterbury, the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem, the Via Santiago across northern Spain to Santiago de Compostela. They can also be smaller, such as the stations of the Cross in a Catholic cathedral, or a labyrinth. In fact, those beautiful labyrinths in the cathedrals of Europe are said to be mini substitutes for the grand pilgrimages. Whether large or small, they are a way to focus the thoughts, to slow the pace, to enable meditation. At the end of these walks one always feels the command from God to Moses on Mount Sinai: "Take off your shoes, you stand on holy ground!"

I've been practicing patterned walking for years now. In Newport it was my habit to walk the trails in Ballard Park, stopping at various overlooks, grand old trees, and boulders, and ending up at the Aspen grove on the floor of the quarry. Here in Shippensburg that walk has been replaced with my walks in the Dykeman Spring Nature Park, walking the trails through the woods and the wetland, and ending up on my favorite bench under the Kentucky Coffee Tree by the north duck pond, where I watch the ducks and contemplate the reflection of the trees and the sky on the surface of the water.

I walked that labyrinth today, a gentle walk ending at the bench and then walking back out the way I came in. Come along with me!










© 2019 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Thursday, October 03, 2019

Home Again


I guess you've noticed that I haven't posted in a while. Last Friday I ended up in the hospital after experiencing a frightening shortness of breath while walking up the hill on the way to work. It turns out that the quintuple bypass I had back in 1999 has deteriorated a good deal in the last twenty years, and just one of the five grafts is in working condition. After a catheterization at Chambersburg Hospital and a series of scans and other tests at Penn State/Hershey Medical Center, the determination was that we had two choices - another bypass operation at Hershey, or a series of strategically placed stents to be done back in Chambersburg. Interestingly enough, the thoracic surgeon at Hershey, in consultation with his team and other surgical colleagues, thought that surgery in my case might be a little too risky because of the location of the remaining graft - it was too vulnerable to inadvertent damage that might occur while placing the new grafts. So we all decided that the stents are the way to go. So now I'm back home waiting for the Chambersburg doctor, who did the heart catheterization in the first place, to set an appointment to come back for the stent placement.

I arrived back here late yesterday afternoon, and what a joy it was to come home! Last night I had a meal cooked by me (Portuguese Kale Soup) with real coffee, and slept in my own bed without IV ports in my arm, and woke up to the sound of gentle rain coming in through my open windows. I'm definitely a homebody, and this was heaven! 

The photo above is the little gazebo across the street from me, taken this morning soon after the rain stopped. Seeing that gazebo as I come up or down King Street always says "I'm almost home." And below is my favorite song about a quiet night at home. Now if only I had a fireplace!


© 2019 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Monday, May 27, 2019

Memorial Day 2019

[Note: I wrote this piece last year for Memorial Day, and I like it so much I decided to reprint it this year.]


Today in the US we memorialize those who have been claimed by war. It's usually celebrated as a great patriotic event, with martial songs and chest-thumping nationalism, all about the glory of dying for your country. What egregious nonsense! As any battle-scarred veteran can tell you, war isn't glorious; it's a gory, bloody, loud hell of a meat-grinder, and the meat being ground is the young of the nation, fed into it by old men who hold grudges or who see a profit to be made, win or lose. I've always said that if the fat old men who declared wars actually had to fight in them, we'd have world peace overnight.

Here are some potent quotes about the reality of war:
"And I can't help but wonder, now Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you 'The Cause'?
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame,
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain.
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again."
– Eric Bogle, "No Man's Land" 
"Either war is finished, or we are."
– Herman Wouk, War and Remembrance 
"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."
– Jimmy Carter, Nobel Lecture, December 10, 2002 
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, January 10, 1946 
"If civilization has an opposite, it is war. Of these two things, you have either one, or the other. Not both."
– Ursula K. LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness
Probably the greatest antiwar poem ever written is "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen, an Oxford scholar and poet who enlisted at the beginning of WWI, and who was killed just one week before the armistice which ended it. During the war he wrote his poems in the letters he sent home, and as the conflict continued he used these poems to vent his anger and cynicism at the futility, the barbarity, and the stupidity of it all. "Dulce et Decorum Est" could just as well have been titled "The Lie", the lie in question being the quote from the Roman poet Horace that is fed to soldiers in time of war: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"; the English translation is "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country". Obviously Owen disagreed, and I'm with him.
Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen 
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And toward our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. 
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. 
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obsceneas cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.
Today we lament the deaths of young people killed by adherence to an anachronism, and pledge to end the scourge that killed them. Here are two songs that lament the deaths of soldiers - Eric Bogle's "No Man's Land" and Mark Knopfler's "Brothers In Arms".





Photo © 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Monday, April 22, 2019

Earth Day 2019

“The sun shines not on us but in us. The rivers flow not past, but through us. Thrilling, tingling, vibrating every fiber and cell of the substance of our bodies, making them glide and sing. The trees wave and the flowers bloom in our bodies as well as our souls, and every bird song, wind song, and tremendous storm song of the rocks in the heart of the mountains is our song, our very own, and sings our love.”
John Muir 

Today is Earth Day, and luckily I'm off work, the first day of my "weekend". This year I decided to dedicate my Earth Day photo shoot to the small gems of Mama Gaia's palette, the myriad flowers bursting into bloom this time of year, and especially the small, even tiny, ones that require that I use my camera's macro setting and get down on my belly and elbows to get close enough to reveal their beauty. This approach was partially inspired by Peter Mayer's song "Awake", which approaches Nature from a child's perspective. I posted it on Facebook this morning, and it's also posted here below the photos. Happy Earth Day, friends! Get out and wrap yourself in Mama Gaia's beauty; your soul will thank you for it.

Tulips and Narcissi in the gardens at McLean House
Garlic Mustard along the Dykeman Walking Trail
From death springs life - a seedling sprouting in a rotten log
Common Violets in the Dykeman Spring wetland
Ground Ivy, aka Creeping Charlie, along the Upland Trail on the way to the meadow
A sea of Wild Mustard up on the meadow

Photos © 2019 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Thursday, February 14, 2019

Getting Sentimental

I took part in an interesting conversation on Facebook the other day. A friend was complaining that her significant other was objecting to doing something special for Valentine's Day, saying that the holiday was invented by commercial concerns looking to make money, and my friend was asking everyone else's opinions on the holiday. My own contribution was that considering that the celebration of the saint's day as a holiday dedicated to love was a fairly recent development, one has to wonder, and repeated the widespread opinion that it's a "Hallmark holiday". After considering that for a while and reading others' responses to her query, I decided to take a closer look at all this.


It appears that I was partially right. One of the two Valentines celebrated on February 14 was an early bishop who performed Christian weddings at a time when the powers that be in the Roman Empire objected to such a thing, and he was executed for it, thus making him a "hero for love". But the holiday was never really celebrated as such until medieval times, and then really only among the aristocracy as part of the cult of chivalry. Among the peasantry and the developing middle class it was pretty much ignored. Until the Victorian era in the 19th century. And therein lies a tale.

In 1861 Victoria's consort Prince Albert died, leaving the queen heartbroken. And in 1860 in the US the Civil War broke out, ending up decimating a large part of a whole generation of young men in the bloodiest conflict ever fought on American soil. The reaction to these events was the rise of a cult of sentimentality on both sides of the Atlantic.

I've written about this before on this blog, in reference to the change in cemeteries that took place at this time. In the US especially, graveyards were crowded, unpleasant places where the dead were basically dumped; they weren't called boneyards for nothing! But after the Civil War cemeteries became park-like, with shade trees and monumental sculpture, and benches for the mourners to rest on. They became restful places for the living to come and spend time with the beloved departed, and families even began having picnics there.

But this sentimentality wasn't restricted to cemeteries. Christmas benefitted from this; Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and Clement C. Moore's poem "A Visit from St. Nicholas" were reflections of this mood as well, creating a sentimental, nostalgic, family-oriented holiday. Christmas wasn't the only holiday; holidays like Valentine's Day and Mothers' Day, holidays built on sentiment, also popped up. And the rise of spiritualism, the belief in communicating with the dead, also started during this time. If the Victorian era had a watchword, it was "sentiment".

I have a theory about why this happened, one that is based on an already widespread theory about the modern celebration of Christmas in cultural history studies. In Great Britain and consequently its colonies in North America, radical Calvinist Protestantism came to dominance, toppling the Catholic royalty and enforcing their own rather dour version of Christianity on the land, even going so far as banning Christmas and Halloween, calling it "papist heresy" and "pagan frivolity". Catholicism and the Church of England, which retained much of the Catholic liturgy and church calendar, were seen as the realm of the royalty and aristocracy, while the dour Calvinism of the Puritans and their heirs was considered the realm of the working classes.

Then in the mid 19th century the middle class became tired of the joyless attitudes of the Calvinist dominance, and the Oxford Movement arose, a "nostalgic" movement to reintroduce more liturgy and celebration to the Church of England. This movement inspired many, including those involved in the Arts and Crafts movement, the Pre-Raphaelites, and poets like Christina Rossetti and Gerard Manley Hopkins. And while the working class remained in their chapels and didn't accept the theology of the Oxford Movement, they did pick up the sentiment of the movement, and thus Christmas and Valentine's Day came back into fashion. And of course Americans, especially those on the East Coat, Anglophiles that we are, picked up on this and exported it to the US in the wake of the Civil War. People were done with trudging through a joyless life; it was time to love and celebrate!

Of course, it's not all as simple as that. There are a lot of other factors involved. But the main thing was that by the 19th century life had become a dull drudgery to a majority of the population, and the natural movement of the pendulum started to swing back to a more joyful, lighter approach to life. Nowadays those celebrations have been taken over by mercantile interests and have made the holidays more commercialized than a lot of people are comfortable with, but the original sentiment still hangs in there. We still need love, and family, and cozy fires, and roses, and chocolate, and we still look for ways to celebrate them. Maybe we'll get so tired of the commercialism that the people will once again take control and celebrate in the "good old-fashioned way"!


© 2019 by A. Roy Hilbinger  

Monday, December 31, 2018

Nature, with Appropriate Music

As anyone who has been following this blog for any length of time knows, Nature, both here on Earth and out into Universe, is my spiritual source, my "religion" if you will. But this religion has no gods or goddesses to worship and obey; I don't need a transcendent entity to feel wonder and awe at my surroundings. Nor do I need such to tell me the difference between good and evil, or to threaten me with punishment if I do evil; I believe that this is natural to human nature, that we know by instinct what is good and what is hurtful, and that we only do the hurtful out of personal, knowledgeable choice, or out of fear and pain.

The "prophets" of this "religion" are my heroes - Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Rachel Carson, Carl Sagan, Annie Dillard, Stephen Hawking, and others like them. And the "scriptures" of my "religion" are the writings of these people and others like them. The Universe is full of wonder, and these people reflect that wonder as well, whether through poetry or through science, and describe it better than I can, providing further inspiration to the panoply of ongoing creation around us. My photography also reflects this wonder in me at what I see and experience.






Recently I discovered a musician who also reflects this wonder at the Universe around us, from both a poetic and scientific perspective. His name is Peter Mayer. He's Jimmy Buffet's guitarist, plus he has his own solo career. I ran across his song My Soul from his Midwinter album while looking for music for the Winter Solstice, and then featured more music from that album on my Facebook timeline. Plus today I featured his One More Circle on my New Year's Eve session on Facebook. I'd like to introduce you to some of his music that addresses the same things I talk about above. I do believe I've run across a kindred spirit!





Photos © 2008 - 2017 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Monday, May 28, 2018

Memorial Day 2018


Today in the US we memorialize those who have been claimed by war. It's usually celebrated as a great patriotic event, with martial songs and chest-thumping nationalism, all about the glory of dying for your country. What egregious nonsense! As any battle-scarred veteran can tell you, war isn't glorious; it's a gory, bloody, loud hell of a meat-grinder, and the meat being ground is the young of the nation, fed into it by old men who hold grudges or who see a profit to be made, win or lose. I've always said that if the fat old men who declared wars actually had to fight in them, we'd have world peace overnight.

Here are some potent quotes about the reality of war:
"And I can't help but wonder, now Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you 'The Cause'?
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame,
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain.
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again."
– Eric Bogle, "No Man's Land" 
"Either war is finished, or we are."
– Herman Wouk, War and Remembrance 
"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."
– Jimmy Carter, Nobel Lecture, December 10, 2002 
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, January 10, 1946 
"If civilization has an opposite, it is war. Of these two things, you have either one, or the other. Not both."
– Ursula K. LeGuin, The Left Hand of Darkness
Probably the greatest antiwar poem ever written is "Dulce et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen, an Oxford scholar and poet who enlisted at the beginning of WWI, and who was killed just one week before the armistice which ended it. During the war he wrote his poems in the letters he sent home, and as the conflict continued he used these poems to vent his anger and cynicism at the futility, the barbarity, and the stupidity of it all. "Dulce et Decorum Est" could just as well have been titled "The Lie", the lie in question being the quote from the Roman poet Horace that is fed to soldiers in time of war: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"; the English translation is "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country". Obviously Owen disagreed, and I'm with him.
Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen 
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And toward our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. 
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. 
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. 
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obsceneas cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, –
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum estPro patria mori.
Today we lament the deaths of young people killed by adherence to an anachronism, and pledge to end the scourge that killed them. Here are two songs that lament the deaths of soldiers - Eric Bogle's "No Man's Land" and Mark Knopfler's "Brothers In Arms".





Memorial Day 2018 - "Let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me!"

Photo © 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Waiting


 Now is the season of waiting. For Christians it's Advent, the time of waiting for the birth of Christ. For Jews Chanukah is a period of waiting to see if the Temple has survived. For others the time of the Winter Solstice is a time of waiting for the sun to return, a time for the Earth to rest and repair in preparation for Spring and the growing season. But human beings are not a particularly patient race; we hate to wait for anything. This train of thought was inspired by an essay by writer, editor, and publisher Jeff Dunn called "A Lifetime of Advent", published today on the Internet Monk blog. This is how he starts off the essay:
I have a confession to make. I hate to wait. Really. Red lights on the road are a curse of the devil. A line at checkout when I’m buying groceries? I have to ask myself how much I really need the things in my cart. I’m all for patience, as long as I can have it NOW. 
So we enter into Advent, the season of waiting and I hate waiting. We wait for God to appear in a manger in Bethlehem at just the right time. But I want to rush through these days and get to Christmas already. Did I say that I hate to wait?
Jeff isn't alone; this seems to be a common trait of humanity. The traffic light goes from red to green and we lean on the horn if the first car in line doesn't immediately leap forward. We fidget while waiting in line. We pace the floor while waiting for the repairman. We snap and growl at the slow pace of time. Waiting brings out the worst in us.

And yet we consider patience a virtue and view our native impatience as a character flaw. And in this time of year when patience is the theme of life, we create holidays to celebrate waiting. We acknowledge the time needed to rest, we sing hymns and carols and paeans to The Coming Days. We humans are, if anything, a study in contradiction.

I'm not a particularly patient person myself, but I love this time of waiting. I love this time of the sleeping Earth and the contrast between the bare, resting deciduous trees and the still green evergreens. I love walking through the woods and hearing the crunch of the dead leaves underfoot. And I love the snow. My favorite quote about snow comes from Lewis Carroll and applies exactly to this season of rest we call Winter: “I wonder if the snow loves the trees and fields, that it kisses them so gently? And then it covers them up snug, you know, with a white quilt; and perhaps it says, 'Go to sleep, darlings, till the summer comes again.'”

And there's the source of my own impatience - I impatiently await the first good snow of the season, when Mama Gaia will tuck the sleeping Earth snugly in her special white quilt. We haven't had a good snow yet, and I pace and fret at the lack. I wait for the special quality that the blanket of snow adds to the landscape, and the comfort it gives me to see it laying there.

Still, there's a particular austere beauty to the Winter landscape without snow that can make the waiting easier. I went seeking it on a walk this morning, the day before the Winter Solstice, and I found it and brought it back to share with you. Enjoy!






© 2017 by A. Roy Hilbinger 

Friday, January 13, 2017

Wolf Moon

Wolf Moon, January 13, 2017, 6 am

Do not fear the night.
Instead, summon the wolf inside you
and welcome the darkness
like it is home.

– Nikita Gill


"Listen to them, the children of the night. What music they make!" – Bram Stoker, Dracula




The highlight of any Paul Winter concert - howling with the wolves!




Photo © 2017 by A. Roy Hilbinger