Note to Self: Recursive Apotropaism

It is one of those moments by which the sting probably makes it feel more significant than it is, but still, I just don’t feel like dealing with this, right now:

Oh, for … now I have to go back and … I know the first definition, but have overlooked the second in a way that is actually important but obscure and therefore hard to explain. Stetkevych, “Muhammad and the Golden Bough”. Recursive apotropaism in the analysis that I missed.

[Stetkevych, Jaroslav. Muhammad and the Golden Bough: Reconstructing Arabian Myth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.]

See also: Robert Macfarlane:

Word of the day: “apotropaic” – of an object, mark, gesture or utterance; preventing of evil, warding off of harm. Also, of an image or sight; causing the viewer to turn away, to feel unsettled.
(from Greek ἀποτρέπειν ,”to turn away”, to “avert”)

Brief Notes on American Christendom (Synthesis and Priority)

Some manner of indexing would be a good idea. Mentioning in passing and getting back to it later probably isn’t the best way to collect notes like this.

Western Protestantism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was moving from establishment forms of religion, embedded in traditional, organic, premodern political economies, to individualized and affectional forms adapted to modernizing, rational, and market-oriented societies. Theological manifestations of these changes can be described in several ways. They first reoriented specific beliefs: God was perceived less often as transcendent and self-contained, more often as immanent and relational. Divine revelation was equated more simply with the Bible alone than Scripture embedded in a self-conscious ecclesiastical tradition. The physical world created by God was more likely to be regarded as understandable, progressing, and malleable, than as mysterious, inimical, and fixed. Theological method came to rely less on instinctive deference to inherited confessions and more on self-evident propositions organized by scientific method.

Theological changes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also involved a shift in meaning for key concepts that operated in both religious and political life, for example, “freedom”, “justice”, “virtue”, and “vice”. For theology, the process at work was the same as Gordon Wood once described for intellectual developments more generally: “Although words and concepts may remain outwardly the same for centuries, their particular functions and meanings do not and could not remain static—not as long as individuals attempt to use them to explain new social circumstances and make meaningful new social behavior.” In America as much was happening in theology from new meanings given to old words as from the introduction of new vocabularies.

(Noll, 4)

And it is one thing to say that American Christendom has been transitional pretty much the whole time, but that might not be the question in and of itself. Noll describes a dynamic, oft-unmoored, and even undisciplined synthesis, but it is synthesis nonetheless, and it is virtually impossible to pretend stasis is even possible in this context.

The question of redefinition can orbit its inspiration, or perhaps that, too, is wrong. In any case, the diminishment of “self-conscious ecclesiastical tradition” can also occur in a context of increasing self-assertion, so that new meanings given old words might become more neurotic than religious or theological, as priorities of redefinition become more proximal and personal.

[Noll, Mark. America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.]

Between Man and His God

Via msnbc:

We know that despite Scalise’s claim, Thomas Jefferson didn’t write the Constitution. He was actually in France at the time the Constitution was crafted. Jefferson did write the Declaration of Independence a decade earlier, but that isn’t the same thing. (That’s not to say Jefferson was irrelevant – his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom likely helped influence the drafting of the First Amendment – but to say Jefferson was the Constitution’s “author” is plainly wrong. That title largely belongs to James Madison, who, incidentally, also championed the separation of church and state.)

We also know that while Jefferson’s approach to religion was complex – see the Jefferson Bible, for example – his approach to religious liberty was straightforward: he was an ardent champion of church-state separation. It’s what makes Scalise’s reliance on Jefferson to argue against the principle so spectacularly wrong.

You’ve heard of the “wall of separation” between church and state? The metaphor comes by way of a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, describing the purpose of the First Amendment.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State,” the then-president wrote.

Note to self: ¿The actual letter from Jefferson?

[Benen, Steve. “GOP leader flunks test on separation of church and state”. msnbc. 12 February 2018.]

Pennsylvania Avenue Clowns

President Donald Trump prepares to sign confirmation of James Mattis as United States Secretary of Defense, 20 January 2017, in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington, D.C.  Present for Mr. Trump's first presidential signing are (L-R) Vice-President Mike Pence, Staff Secretary Rob Porter, White House Counsel Don McGahn, and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.  (Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
It is not quite a photograph for the ages, as such. Nonetheless, Jonathan Ernst’s photo from the Oval Office on Day One, as Donald Trump receives Secretary of Defense James Mattis’ confirmation—ostensibly his first presidential signing—the cast of characters assembled really is quite remarkable: (L-R) Vice President Mike Pence, President Donald Trump, Staff Secretary Rob Porter, White House Counsel Don McGahn, and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.

Continue reading “Pennsylvania Avenue Clowns”

Brief Notes on American Christendom (Changes)

Two brief notes.

Andersen explained that he doesn’t think the Republican Party is growing stupider each year; rather that they’re fearful to challenge the chosen reality of their voters.

“I don’t think all of them disbelieve in evolution—some of them—but they were all obliged to say yes to falsehood and magical thinking of this religious kind, and that’s where it becomes problematic,” he said.

“America has always been a Christian nation,” Andersen quoted. “That had always meant a different thing 100 years ago or even 50 years ago than it means today… Christian Protestant religion became extreme. It became more magical and supernatural in its beliefs in America than it has for hundreds of years or for any other place in the world.”

(Burris)

American Christendom has been transitional pretty much the whole time; cf. Noll, America’s God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; p. 4). Also, something about editorial priority goes here, as it’s worth checking the different headlines for the article by Sarah K. Burris:

“Americans are manipulated by fake news because religion has infected our politics: Peabody-winning journalist”. Raw Story. 6 February 2018.

“Can Religion Explain Why Americans Are So Easily Duped by Fake News?” AlterNet. 6 February 2018.

Syndrome

Two words: Of course.

If the food is good, he must bite himself to bleeding, and of course he will, else he might enjoy it and feel, for a moment, happy. If the shower is warm the rod must fall away so that the curtain lands in the toilet, and of course it will, else he might relax and feel, for a moment, happy.

And of course there will always be someone to ask him, as he bleeds, why can’t you just be happy?

Standard Prologue

Clive Barker, Weaveworld:

There is no first moment; no single word or place from which this or any other story springs.

The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator’s voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making.

Thus the pagan will be sanctified, the tragic become laughable; great lovers will stoop to sentiment, and demons dwindle to clockwork toys.

Nothing is fixed. In and out the shuttle goes, fact and fiction, mind and matter woven into patterns that may have only this in common: that hidden among them is a filigree that will, with time, become a world.