Showing posts with label Words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Words. Show all posts

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 

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Answers to Yesterday's Post

Yesterday I posted the first lines of 10 famous, or semi-famous, novels which I have in my own personal library and challenged everybody to figure out where they were from and post their answers. People have been having fun with this, but as it's been about 24 hours since I posted it, I thought it only fair to post the answers and give credit to those erudite souls who got the right ones!











1. "Hapscomb's Texaco sat on Number 93 just north of Arnette, a pissant four-street burg about 110 miles from Houston." Megan got this one right - It's the opening line from Stephen King's The Stand.

2. "In the year 1878 I took my degree of Doctor of Medicine of the University of London, and proceeded to Netley to go through the course prescribed for surgeons in the Army." Citizen K got half of this one - it is indeed by Arthur Conan Doyle. The book? The very first Sherlock Holmes story (and yes, it's a novel, not a short story), A Study in Scarlet. This is the world's introduction to John H. Watson, M.D.

3. "I'll make my report as if I told a story, for I was taught as a child on my homeworld that Truth is a matter of the imagination." Nobody got this one. This is the first line to Ursula K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness, for me the second best book by this author. For me, her best book is The Dispossessed, but the first line in that book is "There was a wall." Somehow I didn't think that would be fair. Heh, heh!

4. "The Mole had been working very hard all morning spring-cleaning his little home." (I know, this one is a giveaway, but I love the book and had to include it!) Well, I did say this one was a giveaway. Stephanie, Citizen K, and Antares got this one: The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame. This is one of my favorite books, and Antares was around when I did a paean to Pan based on Chapter 7, "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn".

5. "I was leaning against the bar in a speakeasy on Fifty-second Street, waiting for Nora to finish her Christmas shopping, when a girl got up from the table where she had been sitting with three other people and came over to me." Stephanie got part of this one; it is indeed The Thin Man, and it was written by the great Dashiell Hammett. I wanted to use the first line of The Maltese Falcon, but Hammett named Sam Spade and his secretary Effie Perrine in that sentence, so that was no good.

6. "The town shone in the snowy twilight like a Christmas window, with the electric railway's lights tiny and festive at the foot of the white slope, among the muffled winter hills of the Tyrol." Nobody got this one, but it's one of the 20th Century's literary classics - The Young Lions by Irwin Shaw. Not only is the book a classic, but a classic movie was made of it in 1958, starring Marlon Brando, Montgomery Clift, Dean Martin, Hope Lange, and others. Shaw actually got to write the script, too.

7. "It was a quiet morning, the town covered over with darkness and at ease in bed." Ahhhh! Nobody got this one either, and it's another 20th Century classic - Ray Bradbury's Dandelion Wine. That man has the most poetic prose style of any contemporary writer I know of!

8. "It was about eleven o'clock in the morning, mid October, with the sun not shining and a look of hard wet rain in the clearness of the foothills." Another one nobody got. This is one of my favorite books by one of my favorite authors: The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler. Huh! Chandler and Hammett, eh? Well, I did warn you I was a freak for noir!

9. "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show." I'm surprised nobody got this one, although Sophie said she guessed this one but forgot to report her answer. A definite classic: David Copperfield by Charles Dickens. This is the second most famous opening line by Dickens, the most famous being the opening line of A Tale of Two Cities; I opted out of that one as just a little too easy!

10. "The full truth of this odd matter is what the world has long been looking for, and public curiosity is sure to welcome." This one's another classic, although it's not this author's most famous book. This is the opening line of Robert Louis Stevenson's The Master of Ballantrae; while not as famous as Treasure Island, it's still treasured as a classic. I didn't use the opening line of Treasure Island because it names Squire Trelawney, Dr. Livesey, and Treasure Island all in the same breath. Not much of a challenge there!.

So those are the answers. In closing, I just want to throw this one at you that I didn't think of until yesterday's quiz was well under way. But this is another classic; see if you can't figure it out.

"On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays it was Court Hand and Summulae Logicales, while the rest of the week it was the Organon, Repetition and Astrology."

Have fun!

Photo © 2010 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Ten Famous (Sort Of) First Lines

My friend Stephanie (Rocket Scientist, Ask Me Anything, Rockets and Dragons) has this great thing going on all three of her blogs; it's not exactly a meme because you're not required to pick more people to take it, but it is something of a quiz, in this case testing your knowledge of literature. She had ten first lines per quiz, and three quizzes, one per blog - classics, science fiction classics, and her personal favorites.

Bookaholic that I am, I loved it, and even managed to get at least one right on each quiz. So I decided to do one of my own, based on books in my own personal library. Be prepared; yes, there are classics in my collection, but I'm also a major fan of mysteries, science fiction, and noir. So some of these may be familiar, but others you may have to dig deep for. In any case, check these out and give me your answers in the comment thread.


1. "Hapscomb's Texaco sat on Number 93 just north of Arnette, a pissant four-street burg about 110 miles from Houston."

2. "In the year 1878 I took my degree of Doctor of Medicine of the University of London, and proceeded to Netley to go through the course prescribed for surgeons in the Army."

3. "I'll make my report as if I told a story, for I was taught as a child on my homeworld that Truth is a matter of the imagination."

4. "The Mole had been working very hard all morning spring-cleaning his little home." (I know, this one is a giveaway, but I love the book and had to include it!)

5. "I was leaning against the bar in a speakeasy on Fifty-second Street, waiting for Nora to finish her Christmas shopping, when a girl got up from the table where she had been sitting with three other people and came over to me."

6. "The town shone in the snowy twilight like a Christmas window, with the electric railway's lights tiny and festive at the foot of the white slope, among the muffled winter hills of the Tyrol."

7. "It was a quiet morning, the town covered over with darkness and at ease in bed."

8. "It was about eleven o'clock in the morning, mid October, with the sun not shining and a look of hard wet rain in the clearness of the foothills."

9. "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show."

10. "The full truth of this odd matter is what the world has long been looking for, and public curiosity is sure to welcome."

Okay, have at it!

Photo © 2010 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Roy's Newport Gumbo

After reading CC Miranda's article about The Sauce Boss, and after doing more research on the man and posting my own article here last week, I got a hankerin' for some gumbo. But I'd paid rent last week and was broke, so I had to wait until this week to make some. So Tuesday I hiked down to the grocery store to buy the fixings.

I started with a basic gumbo recipe, but I adapted to make use of local delicacies, such as substituting the local Portuguese sausage chouriço for the Cajun sausage andouille. [Note: No, I did not replace shrimp with local lobster; shrimp is still a lot cheaper!] Also, although my grocery store often has okra, this week they didn't, so I substituted green squash, and it was lovely! But other changes I made had more to do with personal taste and, frankly, concessions to cholesterol issues, like substituting vegetable oil and olive oil for butter. So with that explanation out of the way, let's get down to business.

Oh yeah, this produces roughly 10 servings of gumbo.

Ingredients:

3 or 4 tbs. cooking oil (peanut oil preferred)

3 cloves garlic, minced

2 large onions, chopped; 3 large stalks celery, chopped; 1 lb. green squash, chopped; 2 large Bell peppers, chopped

1/4 cup olive oil

1/4 cup all-purpose flour

1 lb. boneless, skinless chicken breast, cubed

8 cups water

1 lb. plum tomatoes, diced (and use all liquid and pulp) OR 1 16 oz. can diced tomatoes, undrained

1/2 cup fresh cilantro, chopped; 1 sprig fresh thyme; 2 bay leaves

1 pinch salt; 1/2 tsp ground cayenne pepper; 1 pinch black pepper

1 lb. chouriço (or Spanish chorizo), cut into 1/2 inch pieces

1 lb. medium shrimp, peeled and deveined

1/4 cup Worcestershire sauce; 1/4 cup lemon juice; hot pepper sauce to taste

filé powder

Directions:

1. In a large skillet (or a wok), heat the vegetable oil and sauté (or stir fry) garlic, onions, celery, squash, and bell peppers until golden brown. Set aside.

2. Mix 1/4 cup olive oil and 1/4 cup flour, and cook in a large stock pot over medium high heat, stirring constantly. This is the roux, and it makes or breaks your gumbo. Cook it until it turns a velvet, chocolaty brown. Stir in the sautéed vegetables and the chicken. Cook, stirring, until the vegetables are tender and the chicken is evenly browned. Stir in water and tomatoes. Add the cilantro, thyme, bay leaves, salt, cayenne, and black pepper. Bring to a boil, reduce heat , and simmer for 2 1/2 hours, stirring occasionally.

3. Add the shrimp and chouriço to the stock pot. Stir in the Worcestershire sauce and lemon juice, and splash in the hot sauce to the desired heat level. Simmer an additional 10 minutes, stirring occasionally. Remove from heat, remove the bay leaves, and sprinkle on filé powder. This is crucial: Do not add the filé powder while the gumbo is still on the heat; it'll turn stringy. Remove from the burner first, let it sit for half a minute, and sprinkle on about a palm-full of the powder, and stir. You can add more until you get the desired thickness. But do add it; it acts as a thickener and it adds its own unique flavor to the gumbo. I've seen gumbo recipes without filé powder and I never understood why they left it out!

4. Serve over rice. Chow down time!


© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Friday, June 12, 2009

Looking at the Beatitudes

Last week a friend on Gather.com published an article about the Sermon on the Mount and asked what certain phrases really meant. As someone who reads Koiné Greek and who has also been involved with Biblical Studies for a good long while, I thought I'd lay out some of the things I've come up with, and also discuss some of the existing scholarship on these.


First some decisions had to be made. My friend was dealing specifically with some of the Beatitudes, so I decided to keep it at that rather than tackle the whole Sermon on the Mount. There are also two versions of this sermon, one in Matthew 5 and the other in Luke 6. I chose to go with the Lukan version. Both versions are obviously derived from a common source; they share intent and in places identical wording.

Most contemporary Biblical scholars accept the existence, based on internal textual evidence, of a common "Sayings Gospel", a basic list of the words of Jesus as remembered by those who were around and which were passed down (orally at first) in the early Christian community. Early German scholars called this the "Q" document, from the German word Quelle - source. The authors of Luke and Matthew seem to have shared this document as their primary source.

I'm going with Luke for the Beatitudes rather than Matthew because the author of Luke seems to have stuck closer to the source; the wording is simpler and more terse in Luke while the author of Matthew seems to have done some serious editing, adding to the verses shared with Luke, adding whole new verses, and leaving out other, and in my view very crucial, verses. Luke follows classic Jewish oratorical style - reversal: positive/negative, praise/condemnation, congratulating/warning. The author of Matthew eliminates the reversal pattern by leaving out the negative and ignores the whole original point.

So let's go to the text. First, here's Luke 6:20 - 26 in the original Greek:

20) και αυτος επαρας τους οφθαλμους αυτου εις τους μαθητας αυτου ελεγεν μακαριοι οι πτωχοι οτι υμετερα εστιν η βασιλεια του θεου
21) μακαριοι οι πεινωντες νυν οτι χορτασθησεσθε μακαριοι οι κλαιοντες νυν οτι γελασετε
22) μακαριοι εστε οταν μισησωσιν υμας οι ανθρωποι και οταν αφορισωσιν υμας και ονειδισωσιν και εκβαλωσιν το ονομα υμων ως πονηρον ενεκα του υιου του ανθρωπου
23) χαρητε εν εκεινη τη ημερα και σκιρτησατε ιδου γαρ ο μισθος υμων πολυς εν τω ουρανω κατα τα αυτα γαρ εποιουν τοις προφηταις οι πατερες αυτων
24) πλην ουαι υμιν τοις πλουσιοις οτι απεχετε την παρακλησιν υμων
25) ουαι υμιν οι εμπεπλησμενοι νυν οτι πεινασετε ουαι οι γελωντες νυν οτι πενθησετε και κλαυσετε
26)
ουαι οταν καλως υμας ειπωσιν παντες οι ανθρωποι κατα τα αυτα γαρ εποιουν τοις ψευδοπροφηταις οι πατερες αυτων

And then here's my own translation of the Greek:

20) And he raised his eyes to his listeners and preached: Congratulations, you poor, for God's domain belongs to you.
21) Congratulations, you who starve now, for you will be filled. Congratulations, you who weep and wail now, for you will laugh.
22) Congratulations to you when people detest you and exclude you, and rail at you and drive you out and call you evil because of the Son of Man!
23) Rejoice on that day and leap for joy! Behold, your reward in heaven will be abundant. Remember that their ancestors treated the prophets the same.
24) But beware you wealthy, for you've already received your consolation.
25) Beware you who are filled now, for you will famish. Beware you who laugh now, for you will mourn and wail aloud.
26) Beware whenever everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors regarded the false prophets.

This is much easier to understand than the version in Matthew, because the full pattern of reversal language used in Luke is absent in Matthew. This is the full "the last shall be first and the first, last" treatment laid out loud and clear. You lucky man, you're poor, and that means that God is going to give you everything. But you rich guy, you've already gotten all you're going to get. This is classic Jewish prophetic oratory. It rings like a bell!

It's also a vision of Jesus that many Christians are afraid to deal with. It exalts the poor and powerless and it warns those who are complacent with the status quo that they're heading for a fall. This vision of Jesus condemns the disparity between rich and poor and calls Christians to fix that disparity. If you're the kind of Christian who goes to church every Sunday, tithes, maybe even serves on the church board or the altar guild, and thinks this is all it takes to be a "good Christian", then this vision of Jesus will scare the willies out of you. There's nothing smug or self-satisfied about what he calls his followers to do. He wants to shake things up, turn the world upside down and give it a good tumbling. Stasis, status quo, are the enemies of the spirit; so says this vision of Jesus. A friend of mine who was an Episcopalian priest who considered Daniel Berrigan his role model used to say: "If you're a minister of God and you're not in trouble with the authorities, you're not doing your job."

On the other hand, this vision of Jesus also doesn't sit well with the Christian Right, and you won't notice people like Pat Robertson or James Dobson or any other of their gang preaching this vision of Jesus. Why? Because the very people they condemn, the Jesus of this vision raises up. And what they have become are the very things this Jesus warns to beware of. No, I doubt you'll ever hear James Dobson preach this Jesus. I also think Mr. Dobson would probably be very frightened if this Jesus ever appeared on his doorstep.

That's what I think the whole point of the Beatitudes is - to point out that the world is out of balance and needs to be re-balanced. It gives the poor and oppressed a source of hope, and it warns of disaster for the rich, the powerful, and the complacent. And what more appropriate message for the times we now live in?

© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Friday, April 10, 2009

Good Friday


“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!
How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her
wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. "
– Matthew 23:37 - 38


Music: Samuel Barber, Adagio for Strings



Photograph © 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Monday, March 16, 2009

There's Just One Problem With Crows...

[Note: I published this today on Gather.com as a response in kind to some friends who are involved in a humor-writing exercise.]

I'm not a writer; I came to Gather to share my photography and learn some more about how to take better pictures. So I'm not involved with the Writing Essentials programs, and specifically, I'm not involved with Dame Ruth's Mirthday Monday humor exercises. But a lot of my friends are, and I've been chuckling over the responses to this week's assignment of writing about what makes you angry. It reminded me of a comment I posted on an article by Ina as to why it wasn't a good idea to make her yard a place for Crows to hang out in so that they'd chase away her Hawks. I didn't do that subject nearly enough justice. I'm here today to rectify that.

Now don't get me wrong. I love Crows. Crows are Nature's born comedians; I can't watch them do their thing without cracking up. Crow is one of my totems; I hang out with Crows, we have animated conversations, and we even play together at times. Crows are my buddies, my psychic twins. But I would never, ever invite Crows to make my home theirs. Why is that, you ask? Ah! Time for another Nature lesson.

Crows roost at night. Not as individuals or as little Crow nuclear families, stopping at the nearest tree to rest for the night. Oh no, they roost en masse, all the Crows in a particular territory, all in one place. We're not talking flocks here, we're talking hordes. We're talking "the buffalo blanketed the Great Plains before the coming of the white man" sized populations, literally thousands settling in the trees of one block, maybe two. They descend like an invading army. They are an invading army.

They're noisy. They settle into the trees in the target area around sunset and get to squabbling, fussing, telling jokes and passing them up and down the line, laughing, cursing, and just generally being vocal. And being loud about being vocal. And even after they settle down and drift off to sleep, there are still some holding late-night conversations. Even the sleeping ones make noise all through the night, chortling and chuckling in their sleep, whoofing, sneezing, burping, cutting Crow-farts. A roosting horde of Crows is never silent. And then, about an hour before sunrise, they wake up and hold morning services, chanting to the Crow God, in unison, back and forth, call and response, this group over here taking a chorus, then that group over there. This goes on for an hour, before sunrise, while you're still trying to grab that last little bit of sleep. and at sunrise they scatter to the four winds, yelling and chattering all the way.

Roosting Crows are messy. When they settle onto their branches they start preening. En masse. This lets drop a veritable blizzard of worn out feathers, down, seed husks (food spillage; these guys are really sloppy eaters), dead skin, and Crow dandruff. Unhygenic and indescribably disgusting Crow byproducts fall from the trees in drifts to settle on your lawn, your garden, your outdoor furniture, your house, and your car.

But it gets even worse. Because, you see, Crows crap. All night long. Also on your lawn, your garden, your outdoor furniture, your house, and your car. Unfortunately, not only is this unhygenic and disgustingly filthy, but Crow crap is the most corrosive bodily fluid known to science. It eats the paint right off your car, your house, your nice black wrought iron garden furniture. It'll permanently stain (as in being burnt on) any wooden surfaces like picnic tables, park benches, and cedar shingles. It eats vegetation and renders yard and garden soil acidic, making it unable to support growing organisms.

I've seen whole neighborhoods totally devastated. A one-night stay is disastrous; if they settle in for a week, the place looks like the countryside around the Somme after the invading German armies successfully bombed the allies out of their trenches - burnt tree trunks, shells of houses, cows and sheep feet up in the fields. Its not a pretty sight.

You can take preventative measures. Here in Newport various institutions have installed sound systems which play a "birds in distress" soundtrack here and there in the city, which they turn on about an hour before sunset and play until about an hour after that event. The soundtrack is comprised of clips of various birds screaming in terror, or screaming while being eaten. This gives the impression that this is a very unfriendly environment for birds, and the Crows go look for a less stressful area to sleep. But this is only done around the public parks (so that you'll actually want to sit on the park benches) and various churches and other public venues. If you live back in the residential neighborhoods, you have to fend for yourself. Good luck!

So my advice is - no matter how much the sight of Hawks dining on songbirds offends your sensibilities, DO NOT invite the Crows in to drive them off. The resulting devastation will ruin your life, leave your neighbors in an uproar, and cause your property values to plummet. You'll be the most hated person in your town or city for having opened that particular door. You may even end up swinging from a lamppost. It's not worth it!


© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Theme Thursday - Toy

So what exactly is a toy? Personally, I like Wikipedia's definition:
A toy is an object used in play. Toys are usually associated with children and pets, but it is not unusual for adult humans and some non-domesticated animals to play with toys. Many items are manufactured to serve as toys, but items produced for other purposes can also be used as toys. A child may pick up a household item and 'fly' it around pretending that it is an airplane, or an animal might play with a pinecone by batting at it, biting it, chasing it, or by throwing it up in the air. Some toys are produced primarily as collector's items and are not intended to be played with.
I like that definition because it lets me consider anything I "play" with a toy. For instance...






The Guy Noir bobble-head fits the traditional definition of a toy; it was manufactured specifically to provide amusement. And while the teakwood elephant may be considered an objet d'art, in some places in the world, say India, this would be a child's toy.
















This object also fits the traditional definition of a toy - a hand-held electronic game of Solitaire. Heh, heh! This is my version of worry beads, something to take my mind off whatever I'm working on that has my mind racing out of control, my version of assuming the lotus position and intoning "Aaaaaaauuuuuummmm." [Note: Does anyone actually play solitaire with real cards any more?]














So let's travel a little away from the traditional definition. This is my collection of flutes. They were made to be played in professional musician activities. Ah, but there's that word "play"! And certainly I play with these flutes as often as I play on them.













And of course the same thing applies to my collection of drums; play is definitely a factor here as well.












So now let's move way away from the traditional definition of the term. Here's my camera, a Canon PowerShot S5 IS; as my mother would have warned me had I picked up something like this when I was a kid: "Be careful with that! That's not a toy." This is a moderately expensive piece of equipment, designed to take professional-quality photographs. But for me, photography is as much play as work. I enjoy playing with it as often as possible, and when I first got it it was my "new toy".













And just to prove the point, my friend Bob (actually Elizabeth, but she was the youngest of a family of all girls, and her father had really longed for a boy) caught me "playing" with two of my then new toys: the camera and the Raynox DCR-2020PRO telephoto lens attached to it. The picture was taken this time last year.

















And of course, all of us are here today because we all own one of these "toys." And oh, how we play!









And just to top all this off, how about a little blast from the past? I loved Lene Lovich; I think I have all her albums (yup, on vinyl) here. And of course her song "New Toy" definitely fits today's theme. Enjoy!



Okay, now go play with your toys and have fun!

© 2008 & 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger
portrait of the artist @ work © 2008 by Elizabeth Evans

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Theme Thursday - Library

I've spent my life in libraries. I'm a book-aholic, and as you've seen from some of my photo essays here, I have a decent personal library. But public libraries offer a wider range of reading, and they're a great place to hang out, too. Plus nowadays you can check out CDs and DVDs, and even work on computers; sometimes an idea hits me while I'm out walking, and if the library is closer than my home, I go there and hop on Google to look something up.
The best of my education has come from the public library... my tuition fee is a bus fare and once in a while, five cents a day for an overdue book. You don't need to know very much to start with, if you know the way to the public library.
~Lesley Conger
So here's a tour of libraries here in Newport. Yes, we're not a very big town but I did use the plural. You'll see why below.




This is the Redwood Library and Athenaeum. It's the oldest lending library in America, and the oldest library building in continuous use in the country. It was founded in 1747 by Abraham Redwood and 46 of his friends and associates. Although it's not free - there's a yearly membership fee - it is open to membership to anyone, thus keeping it in the "public library" category.









Here's a different angle shot, showing off more of the architecture. The architect was Peter Harrison, a native-born American architect who introduced the classical style to the colonies. He also designed Newport's Touro Synagogue as well as Boston's King's Chapel and Christ Church in Cambridge, MA.











This is an earlier Newport public library building - known as the Newport People's Library (some of the books in the current library still have that stamp on them). It's right next door to the current public library; now it serves as the offices of several city departments.






And now I give you - today's Newport Public Library!
This is the view from up the hill behind the library, viewing the parking lot entrance. The block to the left in the picture is the original building. In 1999 and 2000 the entrance area and the block to the right was added; the library desperately needed to expand. Part of the expansion was a thoroughly up-to-date computer lab, as well as expanded public meeting rooms on the ground floor (you're actually looking at the second floor from this side - the building is on a hillside - which is the main level).







This is the Spring St. entrance to the library. I've always loved the lines of this architecture, and using a wide-angle lens to get this shot exaggerated the line very nicely!












Ah! Here we are! The whole point of having a library, after all: Books! This is part of the fiction section, which runs around the outer wall of the adult and reference areas.












And more books. This is looking down one of the aisles in adult non-fiction to the reference section. Books, books, books and more books! What more could a book-aholic need!








© 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger

Monday, February 09, 2009

Bad, Bold, and Bodacious!

There's been a little exercise circulating in the blogosphere recently - you get assigned a letter of the alphabet and you have to pick ten words starting with that letter and get creative with it. I read Kim's "K" contribution on mouse medicine and was duly impressed, and since she volunteered to hand out further letters, I raised my hand. I got "B", so here we go!

Of course, living in a summer ocean resort, my first word is

B E A C H !
Easton's Beach in Newport, RI, also known as First Beach, also known as Newport Beach. This is a shot of the beach in January, but even in Winter it's a great place to hang out.






"Bridge" is a good "B" word. This is the Claiborne Pell/Newport Bridge, links Newport on Aquidneck Island with Jamestown on Conanicut Island.













Another apropos "B" word for Newport is "boat". I saw this beautiful schooner hull-down in a stiff breeze off Brenton Point last July.












A "B" word that I have a lot of fun photographing is "building". This is a shot of downtown Providence, RI, taken from Waterplace Park last May. I have a fascination with black & white shots of urban buildings both old and new, and Providence offers a rich treasure of old and new side by side.









Well look at this - now we get two "B" words in one picture: "bowl" and "block". And here we have a beautiful Dansk™ fruit bowl on a bamboo chopping block. I worked for Dansk™ for 11 years, so naturally most of my kitchen and dining table is stocked with stuff I got at work.










The next "B" word is "bottle". This was part of a photo shoot I did to illustrate the four elements, this being a shot for the element Water (you can see the final result of the shoot here). The bottle (yes, there's really only one; it was sitting in front of one mirror and sitting on another) is an antique medicine vial I found in a shop, and it holds water from Gooseneck Cove and sits on my personal altar to symbolize Water.












Of course, considering who I am and what I photograph most, one of my more important "B" words is "bird". You've seen this gorgeous little White-throated Sparrow before, but I thought I'd bring him back for this article anyhow.










Another important "B" word for me is "Buddha". I found this hand-carved Olivewood Laughing Buddha in a booth at the 2005 Newport Folk Festival, and I just had to have it. He now sits in one of my bookshelves. And that's the perfect segue to...












My last and probably my most important "B" word - "books". Here's that same Buddha sitting in his special spot on one of my bookshelves among a collection of books on various world religions. He looks very comfortable there, doesn't he?








And that's my collection of ten words beginning with "B"!

© 2005, 2008 & 2009 by A. Roy Hilbinger