|
|
|
September 27, 2006 • Wednesday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
Being a Christian, I am often surrounded by friends and family members who abhor South Park. They often expect me to hold the same sentiments they do, and yet I must admit that I like South Park. They think that South Park is a boldfaced attack on Christianity and morality. I don't, and I do not think that liking South Park is a contradiction of my faith or that enjoying it makes me less of a Christian.
I once got in an argument with some family members about South Park. I was told that South Park was evil and wrong because it is a cartoon aimed at children. But South Park is not aimed at children. It is aimed at adults and has a warning at the beginning of each episode saying that the film should not be viewed by anyone. I was then told that it doesn't matter whether South Park is aimed at children or not, that because it is an animated program that it therefore falls into the "children's programming" category, for all cartoons are aimed at children. Again, I had to disagree. After all, some of the earliest cartoons were made for adult audiences. The early Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies cartoons were played in theaters and targeted adults. As Wikipedia says, "…the early thirties cartoons never directly catered to a younger audience… By the late thirties, the series had become edgier, and was more obviously targeted to the adult moviegoers of the time." It wasn't until the 1970s that Looney Tunes "…began to be edited to remove scenes featuring innuendos, ethnic stereotypes and extreme violence." The history of the animated program being targeted towards adults is very clearly established, and one must not restrict a certain type of programming to a certain type of audience.
It is true, however, that many children are naturally drawn to South Park and other animated programs like it because they enjoy cartoons. Many children are raised watching cartoons and gravitate toward animated programs. What, then, should be done? Should South Park be banned, just because some children may watch it even though it isn't targeted towards them? I say no; if explicit documentaries about violent murders and rapes can be shown on cable television, so should South Park. South Park is already shown in the evenings, around ten o'clock my time, which is an appropriate time slot for an adult cartoon. The truth is that it is up to parents, in my humble opinion, to keep their children from watching shows that were not designed for them. It is their responsibility, not the network or the producers or creators, to regulate what their own children watch.
All of this said, South Park is a vulgar show, which I cannot deny. It is also an interesting and intelligent show (at times). While I do not speak for all Christians, it has become my conviction to not deny myself the good for the sake of avoiding the bad, and I believe that this stance is rooted in scripture. We, as Christians, are to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:14-15). Part of being in the world, I believe, is understanding that we cannot seclude ourselves from the rest of society and make nice little "safe places" for ourselves where we will not be bombarded by the evils of the world. This cuts us off from the people of the world with whom we, as ambassadors on this earth, must associate with. If we never watch the news, never listen to music, never watch movies or television, never read secular books or go to public places, we will become alien wraiths who do not fit into the puzzle of humanity, and this is the last thing we want to be. We are told not to be stumbling blocks (2nd Corinthians 6:3) and yet what do you think we become to non-Christians who see a bunch of stuck up and uptight Christians? If one doesn't want to watch South Park because he finds it offensive that is fine, but he must realize that there are a lot of offensive things in this world that can harbor a kernel of good, and it would be a shame to miss these things out of fear of being offended.
It is my conviction, therefore, to allow myself to enjoy the good of South Park and ignore the bad of South Park. I find the social commentaries and political allusions down right hilarious. I find some of the jokes and extreme vulgarity (like killing a Kenny look-alike by suffocating him in the "humidor" of the bus driver) unfunny and pointless. But I don't focus or dwell on that. I find South Park funny for different reasons than others might, and that is fine with me. Now, if a Christian can't get past the vulgarity and see the ingenuity and wit that are often there, that is fine with me too. And as a brother to them I would never talk about South Park or force them to sit down and watch it if it bothers them, for I should not exercise my freedom to watch it around them if it causes them to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:9). But the same courtesy should be extended to me, and I should not be vilified for finding partial enjoyment in something that happens to be partially vulgar.
What is often brought forth as the gleaming pointed argument against South Park are some of the directly anti-Christian episodes. First, I do not consider the show to be against Christianity. I think it is often against Christians, but so am I at times. One thing modern evangelicals (of whom I consider myself a member, though in a technical sense) is that they can't seem to separate the Christian from the faith. Just because a man claims to be a Christian doesn't mean that he is acting like one. Just because a man claims to be representing Christianity properly doesn't mean that he really is. Just because Christians have their own little cultural quirks doesn't mean that those cultural quirks should be representative of Christianity. I have no problem with making fun of Christians because some Christians just need to be made fun of. For instance, the Faith +1 episode was downright funny because it pointed out some blatant truths about the Christian music subculture. There is very little Christian music, from my point of view, that is any good at all, and instead of sitting here and getting mad at Matt and Trey for making fun of Christian music, maybe we should just get better. There was also an episode that had a statue of the Virgin Mary shoot blood out of its hindquarters, and when this episode aired there was a huge uproar amongst Catholics (but mind you, there were no riots, no church, mosque, airport or clinic was bombed, and no one was killed via a suicide bomber in response). And it is true; it was a disgusting and vulgar thing to see. But it also raises an interesting point; why is this vulgar and disgusting, but when people think they see blood pouring out of the eyes of a statue it is fine, dandy and even "holy"? In truth it is just ridiculous and gross, and there is absolutely no scriptural foundation for considering blood pouring out of any orifice, let alone that of a statue or painting, to be holy or spiritual in any way. We as Christians have just attached some sort of traditional and spiritual significance to such things when we don't need to.
And then we come to the direct "mocking" so-called of Jesus himself. South Park has depicted Jesus as a machine-gun wielding Rambo-wannabe, as a vulgar-tongued individual and even as a fool. I can't see why Christians would be upset by this because the Jesus depicted in South Park is, well, not Jesus. There is a reason why the Old Testament tells us not to depict God with an image, and one of the reasons is that if he has no recognizable form, there is no way he can be mocked with images. But because of the iconophiles we have this idea of what Jesus looks like—a long-haired hippie in a robe—and we attach some sort of significance to this image. In truth, no one knows what he looks like, and the likelihood that a Jewish rabbi from Israel had white skin, blue eyes and long brown hair is not very good.
People have gotten upset with Matt and Trey recently because they said in an interview that it was "open-season on Jesus". This did not offend me, however, because if you understood the context of the statement you would see that this was actually a criticism of the disparity between how Christianity and Islam are regarded by the secular world. Why is it just fine and dandy to make fun of Christianity and Jesus, but if we make fun of Muslims and Mohammad we are sure to get beheaded or otherwise assassinated? Does it say something about our culture when it is acceptable to make fun of anything Christian, but if we make fun of anything Islamic it is "insensitive", "intolerant" or not politically correct? This is an injustice and this is not equality. Radical Muslims have a knife to the throat of the entire western world by telling us what we can and cannot do or say, on pain of death. When the Pope said some very innocent remarks the other day in a speech, he was ridiculed by the Muslim world and people were killed. The irony is that the Pope quoted an ancient source who was criticizing Islam's propensity towards violence. This statement offended Muslims and so they reacted… with violence. It took South Park to show us how blatant this hypocrisy is with their Cartoon Wars episodes, for no one else had the guts (or the will) to highlight this disparity.
Lastly, Matt and Trey are not Christians, so we who are should not expect them to act like ones. How can we get offended and upset at them for making fun of that which they don't understand? "The story of Jesus makes no sense to me," said Trey in a recent interview. "God sent his only son. Why could God only have one son and why would he have to die? It's just bad writing, really. And it's really terrible in about the second act." This very clearly demonstrates to me that neither Matt nor Trey understand Christianity, and they can hardly be expected to hold in reverence a faith which makes no sense to them. This was most clearly seen in their episode The Passion of the Jew, which is really one of the only episodes that bothered me, because it made irresponsible conclusions based on ignorance of Christianity.
Father Mackey, the only recurring religious figure aside from Jesus, said that the crucifixion was really a rather small part of the New Testament when in reality it holds an incredibly significant place and was important enough to be repeated in all four gospels. Everything in the gospels leads up to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Indeed, the entire Old Testament leads up to these moments, for the prophets all predicted the arrival of the messiah who would die and rise again. To Matt and Trey, the Bible is just a good book filled with fantastic stories that should be taken with a grain of salt and not actually believed. How then can we expect them to understand the significance and reason behind the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ if they don't believe that the Bible is true? Trey said that he didn't understand why Jesus had to die; well, I will tell you why. If all men sin (Romans 3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) then those who sin must pay the price of death. This is why the Israelites sacrificed animals in the Old Testament. They were transferring their sin onto the beasts and killing them to pay that price. The problem with this is that men continued to sin, even after sacrificing the animal, and so they would have to sacrifice another, and another, and what if you died before sacrificing an animal to pay for your sin? What then? This is why Jesus had to die. He came to earth and while he was on that cross he took on the penalty for the sins of all of humankind, past, present and future (1 Co 15:1-3, John 1:29, 1st Peter 3:18, 1st Peter 1:18-19). The only being who could have paid the price for all of man's sins was God; no man could have done it. And because Jesus rose again, he defeated death, Satan and the grave and bridged the gap between man and God so that all who might seek God would find God. That is why Jesus had to die, that is why God had only one son, and that is why it gets "really terrible" around the second act—because sin and death are terrible things.
The Passion of the Christ was just a movie, but it was a good movie and a fair representation of the crucifixion, though it must be stated that the Bible has far more to it than just the crucifixion. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we are to condemn the Jews for the death of Christ. Jesus and all of his disciples were Jews. The members of the first churches were filled with Jews. The point is that it was man—all of man, not just the Jews—who are responsible for the crucifixion, for it was for all of man that Jesus died. Kyle was incorrect to feel guilty for the death of Christ, because the Bible does not condemn the Jews and neither does Gibson's movie. This is really my biggest complaint with any of the episodes, because it misrepresents the movie and the Bible.
But how can I expect two men who do not understand Christianity to depict it properly? Matt and Trey said in the interview that Christianity was "superfunny" and a "ridiculous religion" story. We can't be surprised at such talk, for this very mentality is predicted in scripture. "…but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong…" (1st Corinthians 1:27). Christianity will always sound like silliness to non-Christians, though it might make perfect sense to those who are Christians. That is the way of the world and that is the way it will always be. We need not be surprised.
I like South Park because it picks at those open sores within our culture that the politically correct refuse to acknowledge. Yes, it is often a vulgar show, but I refuse to let this spoil for me that which is funny, witty and intelligent about the show. This is my decision and others need not necessarily take up the same position as me, but I encourage Christians to not "rabble, rabble" against the show when it says something they don't like, and instead either fix those things within our subculture that are ripe for parody—or ignore it.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
September 17, 2006 • Sunday
 |
Months after the whole Muslim cartoon incident that left many dead, Muslims are again throwing a tantrum, this time over something that Pope Benedict XVI said in a recent lecture. The pope was talking about faith and reason, and during his lecture he made an argument against using violence as a tool of faith, and in doing so he quoted from some ancient sources. The pope quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos as saying, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". He did not agree with this statement and he did not endorse it. He simply quoted the emperor in a scholastic sense to make a point and then explained the quote by saying, "The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God', he says, 'is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.'"
In addition to Islam, the pope made reference to Protestantism, Judaism, the Greeks and modern atheism, and yet there was no outcry from any of the latter. And yet Muslims around the world have had their sensibilities offended and have demanded for a public apology. As can clearly be seen, the pope's lecture was a scholastic one and he used history in order to further his argument. He did not attack Muslims and he did not attack Islam; he simply quoted an ancient source who had commented on Islam and even reflected on that source negatively by saying, "He addresses his interlocutor in an astoundingly harsh — to us surprisingly harsh — way".
Muslim leaders from a round the world have reacted with incredulity. The Organization of the Islamic Conference referred to the pope's speech as a "campaign" and called it "character assassination of the Prophet Mohammed" and a "smear campaign." The Turkish Prime Minister demanded a retraction from the pope and the deputy leader of the Turkish Justice and Development Party compared the pope's remarks to those of Hitler and Mussolini. Morocco recalled its ambassador to the Vatican, Pakistan's parliament criticized him, Iraq called the pope's remarks misunderstood and Iran said that the pope was part of "a series of Western conspiracy against Islam".
Pope Benedict has come forward and expressed his dismay that his remarks were interpreted in such a negative way insisting that they were taken out of context and were in no way meant to be derogatory. But Muslim leaders have rejected his statements as either lies or insufficient and are still demanding an apology. The pope's speech was against violence and he quoted an ancient source that made mention of historic Muslim violence, and the irony that the very Muslims who are so outraged by the very notion that Muslims act violently are themselves becoming violent over this situation. As of today (September 16th, 2006), Indian Muslims have burned an effigy of the pope, a Muslim cleric of the Islamic Council of Somalia has called for the pope's assassination, a Greek orthodox and an Anglican church were firebombed in Nablus, five churches in the West Bank and Gaza have been bombed by Palestinians, and an Iraqi militia has claimed that it will destroy the cross in the heart of Rome and hit the Vatican.
When will we learn that there is no appeasing Islam? When will we learn that there is nothing we can ever say or do that will divert their hatred? The pope has been careful ever since he was elected not to step on the toes of Muslims, and yet after all of this, one misunderstood speech has outraged the Muslim community. Muslims do not afford Christianity or Judaism the same courtesy as the west affords Islam. They do not speak of western religions as glowingly as we force ourselves to speak of Islam. They do not look for the positive and completely ignore the great good Christianity in particular has done to fight disease and poverty throughout the world, but instead bring up the crusades time and time again as if the crusades were some evil that was solely the work of Christianity and was waged against Muslims unprovoked, apparently forgetting that it was due to Muslim instigation that the crusades ever were waged (for indeed, how could medieval Christians ever launch a crusade to free the holy land from Muslim occupiers if the holy land was not already occupied by Muslim invaders?)
It is from this that we see that Muslims are childish and stuck in a 15th century frame of mind. Even if the pope's comments were evil and full of hatred—and they weren't—Muslims would still have no right to react the way they have. Who are they that they have the right to exist in this world without taking criticism? Are they so childish that they have to wage jihad on the infidel every time they get made fun of? We saw this plainly during the Muslim cartoon controversy. I saw the cartoons as most of us did and they were silly. At the worst they mocked Islam, but Christianity has been mocked far more often and in much more hateful ways for years, such as "artists" dipping a crucifix in a jar of urine and "artists" drawing a painting of the virgin Mary and spearing it with feces, and yet no mosque, nation, church, market, airport or art gallery has ever been bombed by Christians in response. This is why Islam must be reformed if it is to exist in our modern world. Reasonable people just can't respond this way every time they feel like they have been made fun of. We westerners must not tiptoe around these immature and rage-filled Muslims in fear of offending their sensibilities for no man, nation or religion has the right to exist without criticism. Muslims want to hold the world hostage by threatening violence upon those who mock, criticize or ridicule them which is why they have already bombed churches and called for the pope's assassination over such an innocent lecture. We must refuse to allow Islam to hold a gun to our heads and censure us for fear of violent retaliation. Such behavior is immature, undemocratic and flat out wrong, and it must be condemned—with gusto.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
August 21, 2006 • Monday
 |
Category: Writing and Poetry
The Discovery of the Third Gender
by General Happenstance
Published in the Journal of Anthropology and Antiquity,
April 2023
came upon a startling discovery during the time I spent last winter in the cradle of civilization. I now present this discovery to you all, my fellow scientists and historians, and I hope it meets with your approval. In order to make the startling claims that I do, the reader must be sure that he understands my credentials so that he does not believe that I am a novice or otherwise find an excuse to dismiss my research. But lest I lose your attention, I will come directly to the purpose of this report.
I have just recently concluded many months of study overseas, in what was once known as ancient Mesopotamia. While there, it was my hope to find out more about the races of man that preceded we Homo sapiens sapiens, and if I had not made these discoveries myself and seen the evidence with my own two eyes, I would have a hard time believing them. As Arlington Tourney, our famed priest and anthropologist once said, "If we delve into the earth, the very blood and clay that man has trod upon for so many years, we will find the ancient links that form the chain of our ancestry", and thus I have striven these many years to complete this chain, starting where man began--in the cradle of civilization. All that can be found in this report I experienced first hand, and my own crew and confidants can attest to its authenticity.
One of the most exciting things I discovered was the real name of our ancestorswhat they called themselves--the race of men we now call merely Homo Sapiens (the race immediately preceding our own). In a deep cave smack-dab between the Tigris and the Euphrates, I found scribbled markings on the wall in a language previously unknown to us, written by the hands of our ancestors. (I will get into the translation of this language in a moment.) They called themselves the Adragunden, or literally, The Fallen and Taken. Yes, that is correct; these Adragunden had a form of writing long before cuneiform ever appeared in our world, and not only that, but it was an advanced form of writing, far more advanced than any language up until the time of the Persian War. How did I translate it? Amazingly, I found within the cave a tablet of laws (called the Stone of Justice) written in this ancient language and on this tablet was written the exact same text, over and over; first in the ancient language, then in some other language I did not recognize, but then in cuneiform and a series of other languages ending in, of all things, Greek. Reminiscent of the Rosetta Stone for sure, but I kid you not. How could such knowledge of our ancestry be known by the Greeks and not recorded by any of them for our own modern eyes to read?
Regardless, because of my knowledge of Greek, I was able to translate the stone. This gave me a working knowledge of the Adragunden's language and I set out to translate everything I could find. In order to spare you the details of my painstaking archeology and translation, I will relay here the most startling discoveries I have made.
Man was first three sexes. Male and Female have carried on into this modern age and are our means of reproducing but, according to my research, there was a third sex called, upon a modern rendering of the name, Omale.
After studying the artwork found in the massive cave system between the Tigris and the Euphrates, I have come up with what I believe to be a fairly accurate depiction of what these Omales looked like. They were human in every sense of the word. They ate and slept, were bipeds and could work. They had two eyes, a nose and a mouth and functioned very much like we do. However, from every image I have seen, I have yet to see an Omale depicted with any hair. Other than that, the only main difference between an Omale and either a Female or Male is, of course, its reproductive organs. It had neither of the genitals that are found on modern humans; rather, it had a series of hard knobs between its legs that would blink and flicker when it was aroused.
Omales could not reproduce with Females or Males. They simply married each other--Omales marrying Omales. Each Omale had the same sexual organs, and as I have concluded, an Omale would stand in front of another Omale, blink its little flickering knobs and in this way they would attempt to impregnate each other. It was a mere matter of chance--or perhaps it had to do with genetics--which of the Omales became pregnant.
The child of such a union was thought of much the same way as we think of our own children. The Omale that happened to get impregnated was considered the mother and was responsible for raising the child, while the other Omale was considered the father and was responsible for providing for the family. Often, however, Omales would have more than one child, and since it was mere chance which partner became pregnant, most married Omale couples were considered both father and mother by their children. It was a complex system, as we would think of it today, yet worked out incredibly simply in their world. In the end, Omales were both mother and father, the primary caretakers and the primary nurturers. If I may be so bold as to state my own personal opinion, I would say that this system of parentage would be preferable to our own; but perhaps I am overlooking something. Perhaps we have two sexes so that the work of parentage can be divided between parents rather than both parents having to do both jobs. Is it far-fetched to conclude that male and female are supposed to be different, each gender with its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and that in a marriage they each depend upon the other in order to wholly function? Otherwise, why would it not be preferable to merely be born an Omale?
Alas, the Omales died off, as we all know since none now exist. As my research indicates, this started about 1,500 years after the appearance of the first written Omale records that I have found. The cause of their decline was due, according to their legends, to a man falling from the sky. He crashed to the earth and left a crater in his wake. When the humans of earth came upon the crater they saw within what appeared to be a winged man, although the feathers had all been stripped from his wings. Pictures on cave walls and even crude paintings on a form of strange canvas depict him as a frail man with dark hair, a crooked back and a long, bony nose. Fear of the man went through the hearts of the humans the moment he turned his glance upon them, and they set him up as a god. They created a temple deep within the earth where he could reside and rule over them, but despite my best efforts I have not been able to uncover this temple.
Evidentially this being was immortal and ruled over humanity for many centuries with a cruel hand. Eventually, the Males and Females united in a rebellion against this sky-faller and cut themselves off from his rule. The Omales, however, remained loyal to the newcomer out of fear and became his priests. The newcomer instructed them in new ways to live, ways which appear to be the first written records of human vice and immorality. He also showed them how to make mirrors, and this became a nuisance to the Omales.
I have mentioned previously the Omales' particular way of reproducing. The Omales, upon receiving the mirrors from the sky-faller, looked into them and became aroused at their reflection. This caused the knobs between their legs to blink, and they would immediately impregnate themselves. The result of self-impregnation was a decline in the nuclear family within the Omale communities. Omales no longer needed each other to reproduce and raise families, and so Omales would impregnate themselves and make little self-clones. The drawback, however, was that the intelligence, physical strength and vitality of these clone-children diminished with each new generation of clone-children. An Omale would impregnate itself, its child would impregnate itself, and its child would impregnate itself with each resulting child becoming a little less capable to perceive, understand and, in the end, live.
When the Omales perceived what the sky-faller had caused them to do to themselves, they also rebelled, but far too late. The Omales sought out the Males and Females and asked for their protection, and the humans were once again--and for the last time--united.
Self-impregnation was outlawed. However, the poison in the words of the sky-faller dissuaded many of the Omales from living harmoniously with the rest of humanity. Some Omales were loath to leave and rejoin the other humans, and when they did were very ill-content. When self-impregnation was outlawed for practicality's sake, many Omales became self-righteous and indignant, saying they had a right to do whatever they wanted with their own bodies and no one could tell them otherwise. This group of Omales, however, succumbed to natural selection and eventually died out as their children became, more and more, less human. These Omales left the human communities after losing their ability to speak and perceive human thought, and it is presumed that they simply died off. Some of my colleagues have theorized that these Omales devolved into what we now know as the primates (after evolving male and female sexes, of course). I do not know if I agree with this assessment.
Peace did not return to the human communities once the fear of self-impregnation had disappeared, however. The venomous words of the sky-faller had seeped well into the Omale conscious, and rebellion stirred within their hearts. Many of the Omales developed unhealthy sexual desires for the Males and Females, whom they had no capacity to mate with. There was a cult to the sky-faller that regularly had a habit of kidnapping Males and Females and molesting them. This enraged the Males and Females, naturally, and they demanded that the Omales leave and return to the sky-faller. The Omales as a whole, however, even those who did not practice cross-gender-manipulation, had become a prideful and indignant sex, and refused to be told what to do by the Males and Females.
And so this leads us to what I have discerned to be the first war. The men and women clashed with the Omales and a war was fought that raged for many decades. In the end the Omales' own pride was their downfall, for they failed to consider the Males and Females a serious threat and did not place guards around their communities. Most were slain in their sleep.
The Omales that survived were rounded up. The ones that had taken Males and Females against their will to satisfy their own sexual desires were executed on the spot. The remaining were sent as exiles into the wilderness. This small band of Omales made their way to the cave that I found, deposited their historical texts and relics and wrote down their story, hiding away their scrolls, artwork and belongings in the depths of the tunnels. I do not know if this is the same tunnel that led to the sky-fallers temple, though I searched for it and did not find it.
Amazingly, the remaining Omales decided upon self-extermination. They made a pact and refused to mate with each other until one by one they died out. The last of these Omales, however, broke his pact and, upon finding a mirror, mated with himself. I found within the caves a series of thirteen graves with the remains of these Omales inside. The skeletons of these Omales look progressively degenerate until the final one looks very much like a primate. My colleagues point to this as evidence of their previous claim, but I find it very hard to believe. After all, such a find would shed doubt upon our theory that man evolved from the orangutan, and of course as scientists we must never fit our theory to the evidence, but the evidence must fit our theory.
This is the end of my report. I attest to the truthfulness of everything I have written here, and am now compiling an organized library of the various Omale texts I found within the caves so that the scientific community can study them and see how I came to my conclusions. Upon reflection, I think I may understand why the ancient Greeks, if they truly did know about the Omales during their day, preferred to let knowledge of them slip away from human memory. After all, the Greeks were not models of morality in their day any more than we are in ours, and to find the history of the decline and fall of another gender of man based primarily on its sexual exploits must have been very unnerving, as no doubt this account will be to many.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
June 24, 2006 • Saturday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
hen I think about the ancient Roman husband, the word love is not the first one to come to mind. The concept of a harsh, tyrannical paterfamilias is deeply ingrained in our concept of a Roman family man. One can easily recall the horrific tales of husbands beating their wives to death for drinking or committing adultery, while husbands were free to have concubines. Taken alone, these stories give a one-dimensional image of the paterfamilias which helps form a stereotype of Roman husbands that still clings with us today. In an environment where the paterfamilias is depicted as a heavy-handed tyrant, it is hard to imagine that the common Roman husband, regardless of class or social stature, could possibly show kindness or fondness towards his wife, let alone harbor genuine, romantic love (or have it returned for that matter). Moreover, the majority of upper class Roman marriages were arranged by parents and it is hard for our culture to imagine love blooming from forced matrimony. It also does not help that many historical accounts concerning marriage are in the form of legal agreements that deal with divorce and the technicalities of dowry ownership, property, power and money. Nevertheless, I believe that there is ample evidence to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Romans had an idyllic expectation of marriage where both parties not only were committed to each other but desired to be with each other and were genuinely in love. Whether or not this was an actual widespread reality is open to debate, but just because the Romans lived in another time, spoke a different language, worshipped different gods and had different customs is no reason to conclude that spouses did not love each other.
Some argue that feelings and expressions of love between Roman spouses were not the norm and that marriage had other, more important purposes than simply romance and affection. Even when we do find examples of a Roman longing for his wife or using flowery adjectives to describe his love for her, argue some, such sentiments take a back seat to more important aspects of the marriage, such as money and political alliances, and indeed, some of the more important players in the marriage who received just as much attention, if not more, were brothers and the father of the wife, not the wife herself. Keith Bradley uses the case of Cicero and his exile to argue that yes, one could use instances like Ciceros longing for his wife Terentia as evidence of a characteristic Roman preoccupation with the nuclear family, but goes on to say that Ciceros sense of familial obligations was not narrowly circumscribed but spanned a wide range of familial connections and involved the whole household, stressing children and fortune. Bradley also notes that the personal letters of the Roman elites, like Cicero, often simply exclude any mention of wives. Because of this, Bradley concludes that the Romans emphasized the arranged nature of most marriages, especially those controlled by the world of politics, and the relative unimportance of sentiment in compacting marital unions. He notes the imminence of the belief that marriage and procreation were culturally induced social obligations, not the result of individual choices.
Brothers and fathers were indeed very important to a Roman husband, but I wouldnt go so far as to say that they were always more important than his wife. Sometimes they were, but I do not think that we can shrug off the numerous records we have of husbands praising their wives, bewailing their loneliness and longing for their wives and expressing romantic, emotional sentiment towards their wives. The cases of Cicero and other Roman elites are problematic in that they give us a glimpse into the ideals held by the Roman elites and not Roman slaves, merchants, soldiers and the lower to middle classes. While certainly important and revealing, I think they are inadequate to paint a picture of how Romans felt about marriage, and that we must first turn elsewhere to see what other Romans say.
Funeral epitaphs show us how a good wife was supposed to act. Husbands or sons go on and on about the same good virtues; beauty, excellence at wool-working, devotion, chastity, modesty, thriftiness, happiness at home, being a mother to many sons, being pleasant to talk to, and so on. The formulaic format of many of these epitaphs and the recurrence of the same good virtues shed doubt onto the truthfulness of their claims and causes me to wonder whether these are examples of how the commemorated actually lived or if they are examples of how the father or son wanted her to live. Indeed, Hanne Sigismund Nielson says that this does not imply that the epitaphs inform us what real life had been for the dedicators and the commemorated persons mentioned in the epitaphs. Nielson gives us a breakdown of the eight most common words used in epitaphs from CIL6, recording every fifth readable epitaph. Of these eight, eighty-four percent of the time bene merens (deserving good), dulcissima (very sweet), carissima (very dear), pientissima or pissima (very discrete) are used to describe the commemorated. This does not mean that the writers of these epitaphs did not mean what they said. As Nielson puts it, they [the epitaphs] express societys expectations, but therefore also the individuals expectations. Just as modern grave stones or plaques are generally small and epitaphs are short, so then might a Roman husband write the obligatory commemoration in what little space was allowed. This is no evidence that the sentiments were not heart-felt.
However, we do find some Roman epitaphs that break from the stilted norm. For example, Paternus, who erected an epitaph to his deceased wife Urbana, calls her sweet and exceptional, adding, I am sure that nothing has been more wonderful than her. He goes on to say that they lived together with married affection in addition to hard work. He concludes: I have added these words so that those who read them may understand how deeply we loved one another. From the tomb of the Statilli we find these words written by a husband for his deceased wife: When I was alive I pleased my husband as his first and dearest wife and I left my soul in his cold mouth. Weeping, he closed my eyes. A butcher described his wife on her tombstone calling her his one and onlya lovely woman who possessed my heart[living] with affection equal to my own These unique phrases reveal husbands who were not simply pleased that their wives worked hard, bore them children and did not quarrel with them. Rather, these men loved their wives most dearly and wanted everyone to know exactly how much.
The Roman jurist Modestinus tells us that Marriage is the association of a man and a woman, and the sharing of every aspect of life; a point where human and divine laws meet. His comment on the divine aspect of marriage suggest that marriage was not simply a legal means of distributing, maintaining and acquiring property; neither did it exist to force women into sexual servitude. I believe this demonstrates that the Romans realized that marriage was not a human invention, but something greater. Indeed, Pomponius tells us that the right of marriage has a moral, not a legal, basis. I believe the Romans perceived this moral basis to be a marriage of mutual affection and love, based on consent from both the husband and the wife, which served legal, political and financial purposes which were (ideally) incidental to the marriage relationship. As Susan Treggiari puts it, [i]mportant as the approval and knowledge of family and friends were in practice, in theory a marriage depended on the will of the husband and wife alone (unless either was in patria potestas).
Despite the ideal of mutual love and affection, we learn that divorce was common and a significant amount of ink was spilled in order to designate who got what in the event of a divorce. Bradley argues that due to the frequency of divorce, death of the wife through childbirth or disease, death of the husband through war and disease and natural death of one partner due to the sometimes extreme age difference between husbands and wives, married couples had no expectation of a life-long partnership. He says that upper-class families at Rome were not composed predominantly of married couples who as individuals expected only one-spousal partner in their lives and continues by saying that, on the contrary, many, perhaps most, men and women would anticipate at least two marriages in the course of their adulthood, the birth of children in each marriage and step-parental association with other children Indeed, we find remorse on the part of Romans that divorce was a sad reality. Not many marriages last so long to be ended by death rather than broken up by divorce, wrote a husband in the eulogy of his wife, Turia. We were privileged that ours lasted for forty-one years, without argument. I only wish that the final end of the marriage had come about through my own death instead The prevalence of divorce and the reorganization of family ties is a certain reality, but I do not think this necessitates that Roman couples predominantly expected their marriages to end with anything other than death by old age, due to their remorse over violent and untimely deaths, and the feeling of loss even from a spouse who was much older and died of natural causes.
Children were an important part of marriage, for men wanted sons in order that they themselves might become immortal in some way. One could therefore argue that one of the greatest purposes of a wife was to bear children. This is indeed true, but I do not think that ceding this point excludes love being a naturally expected aspect of marriage. Some husbands viewed their desire for children secondary to their desire for their wife. I will again refer to the Eulogy of Turia, where her husband recounts this very issue for us. We wanted children. Doubting your own fertility [and] distressed at my being without children, you spoke of [divorce], so that I should not, by remaining [married] to you, forfeit hope of children. I must admit that I was so furious that I was beside myself, so [horrified] at your proposal that I could scarcely recover my composure. To think that divorce between us could be discussedor that [you] could contemplate anything that [made you cease] to be my wife, you who steadfastly remained loyal when I was almost an exile from life. He continues: What desire, what need to have children could I have had that was so great that I should have broken faith for that reason and changed certainty for uncertainty? But no more about this! You remained with me as my wife, for I could not have given in to you without disgrace for me and unhappiness for both of us. But on your part, what could have been more worthy of commemoration and praise than your efforts in devotion to my interests: when I could not have children from yourself, you wanted me to have them through your good offices, and since you despaired of bearing children, to provide me with offspring by marriage to another woman.
This man does not have money and immortality foremost on his mind. A man that did would surely have discarded his barren wife, eager to father children and eager to fool around with a new woman. Instead we find a man who loved his wife so much that he could not bear to be without her. It is not the loss of her money, her family, her status or her sex appeal that upsets him. Rather, she was his friend and loyal companion, a partner whose disappearance has broken him because he loved her as a person. I think this is clearly demonstrated in the length and detail of his eulogy. He goes on and on about her, saying [w]ould that the life-span of each of us had allowed our marriage to continue until I, as the older partner, had been borne to the gravethat would have been more justand you had performed for me the last rites, and that I had died leaving you still alive and that I had you as a daughter for myself in place of my childlessness. along with you I have lost the tranquility of my existence. Natural sorrow wrests away my power of self-control and I am overwhelmed by sorrow. I am tormented by two emotions: grief and fearand I do not stand firm against either. When I go back in thought to my previous misfortunes and when I envisage what the future may have in store for me, fixing my eyes on your glory does not give me strength to bear my sorrow with patience. Rather, I seem destined to long mourning. I do not get the impression that he writes all of this because he feels obliged to or because he thinks it is what his peers would like to hear, but because he is devastated and needs to express his loss.
Sadly, epitaphs and anecdotes are really all we have from Romans too poor to write books. The rich and powerful had enough free time to write and we have a plethora of material left from them. There are two major similarities between the well-to-do Romans and the not-so-well-to-do Romans; they are both Roman and they are both human. As humans they expressed their love and sorrow similarly, and I do not believe that we should disregard the words of the elite when considering Roman marriage as a whole.
Pliny the Younger spoke endearingly of his third wife. She also loves me, a sign of her virtue, he wrote. Because of her love for me, she has even gone so far as to take an interest in literature; she possesses copies of my writings, reads them repeatedly and even memorizes them. She has even set some of my poems to music, and chants them to the accompaniment of a lyre, untaught by any music-teacher, but rather by the best of teachers, love. His wife did not have to do all of this. She did so because she apparently admired him and was proud of his accomplishments. She worried about him when he went to the Senate and eagerly desired his success and well-being.
When Antistius Rusticus died in Cappadocia, his wife Nigrina was inconsolable. Nigrina brought back her husbands bones in her arms and complained that the trip was too short; and as she gave the sacred urn to the tomb, which she was jealous of, she saw herself twice bereft of her stolen spouse.
Some spouses went to great lengths in order to remain together. When Acilius fled Rome after Julius Caesars assassination, he told his wife to remain because he did not want her to be harmed. He fled to Sicily, but she disobeyed him because she did not want to be parted from him and traveled to Sicily to find him. Upon finding him living not as a praetor should, but on a pallet and with disheveled hair and wretched food because he was longing for his wife, she threatened to inform on him if he escaped without her forcing him to take her along.
I never complained more about my duties than when they kept me from accompanying you wrote Pliny to his wife Calpurnia after she left him to go to Campania in order to improve her health. Indeed, I would still worry about you when you were away even if you were not ill; there is an anxious suspense in not knowing about someone you love dearly. Please, then, ease my anxiety and write to me once a day, or even twice. Ill feel more securebut then will start worrying again as soon as Ive finished the letters.
Our evidence, however, represents only one point of view. Men erected monuments and wrote epitaphs for their wives, men wrote the eulogies and men described the emotions of their wives. This leaves us knowing only what men expected from their wives, what they thought marriage was, and their own view of how their wives felt towards them. Sadly, there is not much we can do about this, since we have so little that was actually penned by a Roman woman. Sulpicia is the only Roman woman whose poetry we have in more than fragmented form. The addressee of much of her poetry is a man named Cerinthus, and her poetry primarily concerns her relationship with him. Light of my life, may I no longer be your loves fireif I ever again do such a stupid girlish thing that would make me sorrier than leaving you alone last night, in my desire to keep from you my desire. Here we see a woman expressing her love verbally and lamenting that she did not express that love physically the previous night. What we can deduce from this is that love between Roman couples was not always one-sided, that husbands were not so deluded as to be convinced that their wives loved them when they did not, and that sex was not always forced upon a wife but that it was consensual; indeed, as in Sulpicias case, the wife had power over her lover and could deny him sex if she so chose. Now, we cannot take this one example and assume that this was the way it was with every marriage relationship, but the existence of this womans own writing clarifies for us how at least one woman felt about her relationship with a man, and we have no reason to suspect that her feelings were peculiar or abnormal.
Though marriage served many purposes, such as producing children and legitimate heirs and tying families together for political gain, we must not neglect the existence and prevalence of love between spouses that appears to be just as important to many husbands and wives if not more so. From Roman epitaphs and letters by husbands to wives, to expressions of longing from men and women alike, we clearly find evidence that love was an important aspect of Roman marriage.
Bibliography
1) Bradley, Keith R. Discovering the Roman Family. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991.
2) Gardner, Jane F. and Wiedemann, Thomas. The Roman Household A Sourcebook. New York, NY: Routledge, 1991.
3) Mary R. Lefkowitz & Maureen B. Fant. Womens Life in Greece & Rome a source book in translation. Second edition, London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd, 1992.
4) Rawson, Beryl. Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991. Susanne Dixon.
5) Rawson, Beryl and Weaver, Paul. The Roman Family in Italy Status, Sentiment, Space. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Chapter 8, Hanne Sigismund Nielsen.
6) Treggiari, Susan. Roman Marriage Iusti Coniuges from the time of Cicero to the time of Ulpan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann. The Roman Household A Sourcebook. (New York, NY: Routledge, 1991). 57. Valerius Maximus, 6, 3.9.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2006 • Tuesday
 |
Category: News and Politics
s tired and charged as the topic might be, I still find the whole concept of Choice to be very interesting. I was watching Amistad last night and found the film fascinating. One of the most interesting aspects of the film, in my opinion, was the fine legal line drawn between the Africans that were taken on the Spanish ship Amistad and regular African slaves. The theory went that if the Africans had been slaves then they had no rights and therefore did not have the freedom to choose to rebel against their captors and kill them. On the other hand, if they were not slaves before taken by the Spanish ship, they were free men and women and had the right to choose to rebel against their captors and fight for freedom. Of course, the legal line drawn is depraved at best, but the political climate at the time between those who fought for their right to own slaves and those who fought for the slaves' rights to be free is extraordinarily reminiscent of a certain battle that is being waged in our own time.
Which leads me to wonder exactly how much freedom we, as humans, should have. Societies have dictated the extent of freedoms granted to their citizens since the dawn of man. Our own society values the freedom of the individual nearly above all else. The problem arises when one mans' freedoms clash with another mans' freedoms--take theft, for instance. A man is free to own property, but he is not free to use any means possible to obtain that property. Thus, we, as a society, have declared it wrong and criminal for one man to take the property of another man as his own, and we have labeled this theft. The Choice of the thief is all but disregarded, for we have decided that our citizens must not be allowed to choose to steal.
This flies in the face of some popularly held beliefs--take the case of Robin Hood. The man is generally viewed as a hero because he robs from the rich and gives to the poor; the rich, of course, being a symbol of corruption. There is a vein amongst us who believe that the poor are poor because the rich exploit them and make them poor, and these individuals use this mentality to justify theft. It is ok, they think, to steal from someone who is very well off, because he doesn't need it and won't miss it, whereas I do need it, and I deserve it more than he does. Despite this popular notion, our society has chosen to trample on the Choice of one aspect of its citizenry in order to say that all theft--regardless of who does the stealing and who is the victim--is wrong and is therefore a crime.
The allegory inevitably leads, as I am sure you all have been predicting, to the concept of abortion. Proponents of abortion invariably defer the moral and ethical problems with abortion to the almighty Choice. They have a right to abortion because they have the freedom to do with their bodies whatever they choose to. Therefore, how dare anyone tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? How dare anyone hamper their Choice in any way? Their unborn baby belongs to them, no one else, and they can do with it what they please.
The Spanish slave trade sued America over the Amistad slaves using the same line of reasoning. The slaves were property that belonged to them. They could tie their property to chains and throw them overboard, if they pleased. They could string them up and whip them for acting badly, if they pleased. How dare the American government deliberate over what the Spanish did with its own property? The Spanish had the right to their property because they were free to do to their slaves whatever they chose to.
One striking difference between abortion and the slave trade is that unborn children are unable to rebel against those who would cut them out of the womb. We will never see a fetus on trial for rebelling against those who would kill him because he does not have the capacity to speak out. But what if he could? What would he say? Maybe he would say that he has the right to be born. Maybe he would say that he should be free to live. Maybe he would say that he should be given a choice, and not have that choice made for him. Should we not, then, give him the ability to make that choice?
In the end, abortion isn't about choice at all. It is about property and ownership. Some say that a fetus is a woman's property--therefore she owns it and can do with it as she pleases. It took humanity thousands of years to realize that slavery was wrong and that slaves were human beings, not property. Likewise, infanticide, child exposure and abortion have gone on since time immemorial. How long will it take before we extend this revelation to our children?
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
May 23, 2006 • Tuesday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
he Da Vinci Code, a new movie by Ron Howard starring Tom Hanks and based on Dan Browns mystery thriller novel of the same name, is due out May 19th. It has already been shown at the Cannes Film Festival where it did not receive the praise hoped for. Indeed, [s]everal whistles instead of applause were all that greeted the end of Ron Howard's 125-million-dollar film, and worse than that, the 2,000-strong audience even burst out laughing at the movies key moment. The movie is controversial because of its content, which makes bold claims against the Catholic Church and Christianity itself, shedding doubt upon the divinity of Christ. In order to stave off a potential boycott by Christians around the world, Sony has taken steps to package the movie in appealing wrappings, even going so far as to turn the main character, Robert Langdon, into a man of some faith, a change from the novel where Langdon is a critic of Christianity and is presumed to have no faith at all. Criticism of the film has caused some Christians to demand that a disclaimer be placed at the beginning of the film saying that it is fiction, prompting Ian McKellen, who plays Leigh Teabing in the film, to quip, Well, Ive often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction.
To understand the controversy surrounding the film and the strong emotions that it elicits, one must turn to the only reason the film is being made in the first placethe book. Those who have seen the film have said that it differs very slightly from the book (Langdons faith being the major deviation) and therefore to analyze the film I must first take the book to task. When I first heard about The Da Vinci Code I wasnt that interested. I heard that it was a fictional thriller and I dont read thrillers very often. I had nothing against the book, for I figured that, since it was published as fiction, everyone who read it would approach it as fiction. I was very wrong. I became interested in the book when guests at the hotel where I work began to talk with me about it. They believed that the book was full of facts, despite its being fiction. They are not alone; when polled, one in four French believe that the book is based on fact, Brits twice as likely as Americans, and liberals are more likely to believe it than conservatives and regular churchgoers. Many people do not understand the hubbub over the Code and think that Christians are blowing this thing way out of proportion, as I also thought for a long while. One may wonder how anyone could ever seriously believe the wild claims made in the book, but a little bit of research reveals that the author, Dan Brown, affirms its authenticity.
On the first page Brown writes, All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate. In an interview Brown said, The secret behind The Da Vinci Code was too well documented and significant for me to dismiss. When asked on CNN about how much of his book is truth, he responded, Ninety-nine percent of it is trueall that is fiction, of course, is that theres a Harvard symbologist named Robert Langdon, and all of his action is fictionalized. But the background is all true. One quickly realizes that many people believe the Code to be true because Brown repeatedly claims that it is true.
In preparing this article I bought a used copy of the book and read it. When I finished I had a long list of claims made in the book that were incredibly ridiculous and I was eager to get to work. When I started my research, however, I realized that many people much smarter and more knowledgeable than myself have read the book and debunked it, point by painstaking point. So instead of boring you with a detailed list of everything that is wrong with the book, I will briefly touch on specific topics, chosen to illustrate Browns ignorance of history, his shoddy research and his blatant attacks on Christianity.
The Da Vinci Code claims that there is a secret society known as the Priory of Sion. Its purpose is to guard the secret of the Holy Grail and use this secret as leverage against the Catholic Church. The book claims that the Priory was founded in 1099 and that the grandmasters of the organization include many famous men, such as Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo and Leonardo da Vinci. In reality, the Priory of Sion mentioned in the Code was founded in May, 1956 by a man named Pierre Plantard as a hoax. There was a real Priory of Sion but it dissolved in 1617 when its members joined the Jesuits. The Les Dossiers Secrets which claim the membership of the men mentioned previously were discovered in 1975 and are now determined to be obvious forgeries, based on evidence that the documents were printed on the same press that printed Plantards anti-semetic tracts.
Brown claims that Jesus was never considered to be God until the Council of Nicea. Emperor Constantine (a.d. 272-337) held a vote and decided that Jesus would be God. Until that moment in history, says the Code, Jesus was veiwed by his followers as a mortal propheta great and powerful man, but a prophet nonetheless. A mortal. Brown then goes on to claim that Constantine comissioned and financed a new Bible, omitting other gospels that spoke of Jesus humanity and burned them. In reality, the Old Testament was assembled and recognized as canon by Jewish rabbis at the Council of Yavneh in a.d. 90, 182 years before Constantines birth. Twenty of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were accepted by Christians as canon by the late first or early second century a.d., long before the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325. The final list of books in the New Testament was compiled in a.d. 367 by Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, not Emperor Constantine. In addition, manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament have been found and dated as far back as a.d. 125, 147 years before the birth of Constantine. It is therefore impossible for Constantine to have commissioned a new Bible and burned the original one, for our earlierst mansucripts match our current Bible nearly perfectly and predate Constantine. Likewise, it is absurd to claim that no one considered Jesus to be God before the Council of Nicea because one of the greatest criticisms pagan Romans used against Christianity was that Christians worshipped Jesus as God. We have one common religion with you, wrote Arnobius, a Roman Christian apologist, in a.d. 311, fourteen years before the Council of Nicea, and join with you in worshipping the one true God. To which the pagans reply, The gods are hostile to you because you maintain that a man, born of a human beingwas God and you believe that he still exists and you worship him in daily prayers. Christian authors, writing within the first hundred years after Jesus crucifixion, refer to him as God, such as the writings of Ignatius of Antioch who died by about a.d. 107, 165 years before Constantine: Uncreated, and yet born; God-and-man in One agreed.
Brown refers to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Coptic Scrolls at Nag Hammadi as being our only record of the original version of the Bible that escaped Constantines burning, calling them the earliest Christian documents. In reality, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain many different books, none of them mentioning Jesus or Christianity at all. Some are commentaries of biblical texts, and many others are copies of the Old Testamentthe same one we use today. Only the books of Esther and Nehamiah are missing, and the ones that are there match our current version, written between 21 b.c. and a.d. 61, long before the birth of Constantine. The Nag Hammadi scrolls are really Gnostic texts, which espouse a mythology that drastically differs from Christianity, many of which have not been dated. Some of the ones that have been dated receive a date between the early 3rd century to the late 4th century, long after the composition of the current New Testament books.
In addition to the Codes many historical inacuracies, Brown has written a book that is unabashedly anti-Christian, though he denies this. Using various characters, Brown claims that [u]nbiased science could not possibly be performed by a man who posessed faith in God, that churchgoers are blind, that the religious should not be trusted, and defines faith as the acceptance of that which we imagine to be true. He also attributes many horrific atrocities to Christians or the Church without ever backing them up with a historical reference, let alone a date, such as when he claims that the church burned at the stake an astounding five million women, that [t]he male ego ha[s] spent two millenia running unchecked by its female counterpart (which is absurd; does he really intend to argue that before the advent of Christianity, men did not dominate women?), that the crusades were about gathering and destroying information, and that the early Jewish tradition involved ritualistic sexall claims unsubstantiated and with no references.
Many people are confused as to why The Da Vinci Code has been so successful, and attribute it to the free promotion given by Christians in their criticisms of it. I do not think this is why the book is popular. Rather, I think it is popular because people want to believe that they hold some sort of secret knowledge. They want to be able to pick up one book and glean all the secrets of history in a days worth of reading; they want to be experts without doing the work. In addition, people want reasons to despise Christianity. They want reasons to be able to disregard Christianity and somehow prove it incorrect, thus being accountable, not to God, but to themselves only; they want to be their own little gods, and they believe that the Code empowers them in this pursuit. For some, though, the reason is much simpler, and it is something that Brown mentioned in his book, though not in the same context. Ill quote him here in my conclusion, and Ill use capitol letters and center it, just as Brown does for all of his great, immense, amazing revelations, which are so earth-shattering that the very foundations of existence are held in the balance. Are you ready? Here it comes! Capitol letters!
Everyone Loves a Conspiracy
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
May 15, 2006 • Monday
 |
Category: Writing and Poetry
here was once a girl named Tova who lived in a small village near a grand, snow-covered mountain. She enjoyed playing in the woods around her house and was more often outside than inside. She was playing with a pinecone one day when she threw it high up into the air. The wind caught it and blew it towards the trees. She chased after the pinecone and it fell on top of one particularly gnarled and twisted tree. Tova stopped in her tracks and stared at the massive plant. It was dark and covered with knots. The stubs of ancient branches that had long since been snapped off stuck out of the trunk, pointing in all directions. Not a green thing grew from the tree, and its roots poked out of the earth, reaching their bent arms out in all different directions. As she stared at the trunk, she could barely discern what she thought to be a face, staring back at her. She shook her head. No, it could not be a face. It was probably just the knots and branch stubs arranged in such a way that it looked like a face. Probably.
She crept towards the twisted tree quietly, sometimes glancing at the face she thought she saw. But the tree didnt move and the sky was still light, so she climbed up the trunk to the very top of that stubby tree to look for her pinecone. When she reached the top she gasped. The trunk of the tree was hollow, and went far into the earth, so far that she couldnt see the bottom.
Hello! she shouted down the trunk, and her voice echoed a dozen times, Hello! Hello! Hello!... She whistled lowly and then went up and down in pitch, and the sound reverberated throughout the hollow tree.
Tova laughed and looked around for her pinecone. It sat on the edge of the tree, caught by a small branch. It dangled precariously over the hollow, and Tova reached out slowly to grasp it. The pinecone was just out of reach and she strained her body to grab it. She touched it with the tip of her fingers, but all at once the pinecone fell, down into the depths of the trunk.
No! cried Tova, lunging for the pinecone, and as she leaned forward her legs slipped. She slid head first into the dark, murky depths of the tree, screaming as she fell.
As she tumbled head over heels the light from the sky faded from view, and Tova was engulfed in total darkness. Fuzzy things, stringy things and squishy things brushed by her face as she fell, and soon she could feel the walls of the tree narrowing in on her. Long leafy things, perhaps flexible branches or stiff leaves, reached out to grasp her, and her falling slowed until she stopped in mid air, caught by whatever it was that was holding her. She struggled fiercely in the dark until suddenly she was freed, and she fell a short ways before rolling onto the soft ground. She felt something in her hair and she jumped to her feet, brushing her hair wildly, batting at the air around her. At last she calmed down and looked at her surroundings.
It was pitch black and her eyes had not yet adjusted to the darkness. She tried to walk around but kept on bumping into leafy, fuzzy things and so she decided to wait until her eyes adjusted to the dark. At last she thought she saw a light out of the corner of her eye, faint though it was. It was a green light and was very close to the ground, and she crept towards it in the darkness. The light was round and small, and, not knowing what else to do, Tova reached out and touched it.
The thing was squishy and moist, and Tova recoiled in disgust almost instantly. But just as she did the object sighed, and the green light grew brighter. It was a large mushroom, and it pulled itself inside out, glowing a faint green color. She saw many other mushrooms around it and she lightly touched each one on the umbrella, and as she did they too turned inside out, emitting a dim, green light.
Tova stood up and glanced about her in the faint light. She looked up the hole through which she had fallen. She could not see an end, but stringy vines and thick spider webs crisscrossed back and forth across the opening. Tova shuddered with the thought that a spider might be somewhere in her hair, and she ruffled her head vigorously one last time, just to make sure.
Oh, my pinecone, said Tova sadly, realizing that the pinecone was probably caught in a spider web somewhere. But just then she saw it lying on the ground near her feet, and she cried out happily. She bent over to pick it up, and as she did she noticed a large, gaping black hole in the side of the trunk that went on deeper into the earth. Tova pocketed the pinecone and pondered what she should do next.
Well, she said, I cant climb back up. Looks like this is my only way out! With that, Tova bent down, picked one of the mushrooms and held it up as a lantern. She took one big breath and then stepped into the darkness.
The hole went deep into the earth and sloped downwards. Stringy things brushed by her face and she ducked, trying to avoid them. At length she saw a green light at the very end which grew brighter as she got closer. It was the opening to a large room, and when she reached it she stuck her head into the room to look around.
Inside the room was a sprawling little village. The houses were all made out of mushrooms and the streets were paved with polished pebbles. Large lampposts lined the streets and gave off a green light. From where she stood, a thin trail went down towards the town and turned into a road, which went on and disappeared amongst the numerous houses and shops. Stalactites hung from the ceiling and stone pillars dotted the large chamber. Despite being underground, black and dark purple grasses grew all over the place, weaving between the houses and sprouting out of the rocks. Tova stared in awe at the sight before her, crawled out of the tunnel and slowly walked down the path towards the town.
As she got closer, she realized that the mushroom houses were much smaller than houses up where she lived. The tallest was only about as tall as she was, and the shortest ended at her waist. She reached what appeared to be a town square of sorts, and in the middle was a fountain, made entirely of mushrooms, that spouted water high into the air.
Just then Tova heard a peculiar sound. It was low and loud, and went bing-BONG! bing-BONG! She heard some scuffling and grunts and the doors to the houses opened. Little creatures, only a few feet tall, began to walk towards her. Tova was scared and stepped backwards. She turned to run but stopped in her tracks, for the creatures were behind her too, and all around her. She turned this way and that, looking for a way out, but she was trapped!
Are you one of them? asked one of the creatures earnestly, stepping close to Tova. The speaker looked Tova up and down, evidentially baffled at her presence. The creatures looked like large knobby mushrooms, only they had faces and limbs and wore strange spotted clothing. They didnt walk but rather waddled back and forth, and when they stopped their heads wobbled, showering little green spores everywhere.
Them? asked Tova at last, still amazed at what she was seeing.
Yeah, one of those Saxitans, said the creature.
No, said Tova. I dont even know what a Saxitan is.
Oh, theyre horrible! said the little man, and the mushroom people shook their heads in fear, sending spores all over. They come out of the dark places and stomp on our houses. They chase down our sporelings and smush them.
Smush them! Smush them! said the other mushroom people.
They look like a whole bunch of rocks stuck together, but they walk like we do and are much faster. Oh, how I hate the Saxitans! Are you sure you arent one of them?
Tova looked herself over and then shook her head.
Yep, Im not made of rock, so I cant be one of them. The mushroom people all sighed in relief.
Well then what are you? asked the little man. Because you certainly arent one of us.
Im a girl.
A girl? What is this girl?
Well, me. I am a girl. I came from up there, she said, pointing upwards. The mushroom people all gasped in awe.
Top-dweller, shes a top-dweller! they murmured.
We have never seen a top-dweller before, and only know of them from our oldest of fables. We thought they were a myth, but here you stand! Remarkable.
I never knew you existed, until just now, said Tova, and I dont think we have any fables describing your kind. But what are you?
We are the Svampoids, and we have lived beneath the earth for thousands of years, said the little man. My name is Magsvamp, and I am the ruler of the Svampoids! You have stumbled across our capital city, Svampopolis.
You are all so funny looking! said Tova. You look like mushrooms. The Svampoids all laughed.
That is not surprising, said Magsvamp. Come with me, Ill show you how we are born. Tova followed Magsvamp and the other Svampoids trailed behind making squishy noises and showering green spores everywhere. Magsvamp led her through the city of mushroom houses until he reached a cave. Upon entering, Tova noticed rows and rows of large mushrooms, perfect in size, shape and beauty.
This is our nursery. Whenever we want more Svampoids we sit on a sporeling. Look! Magsvamp pointed to the scattered Svampoids sitting on mushrooms in the room, but most of the mushrooms were not sat upon.
The spores from our heads sprinkle down and are absorbed by the mushrooms. After a few days the mushrooms are ready to either be converted into buildings, lampposts or, if we sit on them long enough, they spring forth limbs and become Svampoids like us. See! There is one now!
Just as he finished speaking one of the mushrooms that was being sat upon started to tremble. The sitter leaped off and the mushroom sprouted two arms, two legs and a then a face appeared. The brand new Svampoid stood up and shook himself, and spores went flying. He then exchanged a little dance and a handshake with his sitter, and then the two Svampoids laughed. The crowd that had gathered around Tova and Magsvamp sighed and wiped their eyes.
Ah, its so beautiful to see a new life brought into the world, said Magsvamp with a sniff.
Wow, I had no idea that mushrooms could be used like this! said Tova.
Well, of course! said Magsvamp. What else would they be used for?
Tova decided not to mention that they tasted pretty good too.
Oh, how I miss the old days, where our Svampoids sprouted from every corner and not a single mushroom went to waste. But things just arent the same since the Saxitans arrived. There arent enough Svampoids around anymore to sit on the sporelings, and whole nurseries go to waste!
What do the Saxitans do that scare you so much?
What do they do? Come, Ill show you what!
Magsvamp led Tova out of the cave and towards the city. He followed a thin road that went downhill towards a part of the town that was darker than the rest. Tova soon saw why. All the lampposts had been knocked over. The houses in this section had all been squashed, and mushroom was smeared all over the place. Tova gasped.
Yes, this is why we fear the Saxitans. They come through the walls and stomp on our houses. Look there! That used to be a nursery, but now it is just slimy.
Why do the Saxitans do this? Why cant they be your friends?
Because they are part rock, and as everyone knows, one of the primal urges of rocks are to stomp on things. Dont rocks stomp on things up top?
Well no, said Tova. Rocks dont generally walk around up top. We move rocks around sometimes, and when we drop them they sometimes smash things.
See! It is the same everywhere, said Magsvamp. All rocks want to do is stomp!
Stomp, stomp, stomp! said the crowd of Svampoids.
And what can we do? We are just soft-bodied fungusoids. We cant defend ourselves against rocks.
Cant you build a wall so that they cant get to your village?
A wall? Hah! If only! said Magsvamp, and he pointed to a dark opening near the back of the nursery. It went deep into the earth.
We used to use this tunnel as a means of connecting with the other Svampoid cities beneath the earth. But then the Saxitans arrived. Tova saw smushed and crumbled mushrooms all over, smeared around the entrance and scattered in piles. We used these mushrooms to block the opening, but it was no use! The Saxitans just blasted through them and wreaked havoc upon our poor city!
Hmmm, said Tova. I think I see your problem. Your answer to everything is to use mushrooms.
The Svampoids looked at her quizzically.
Wellyeah, said Magsvamp. What did you expect?
But you cant use mushrooms to defeat rocks! Rocks are much harder. You need to use rocks against the Saxitans.
But we dont like rocks, said Magsvamp. And even if we did, they are too heavy! We are too small to move rocks.
But Im not! said Tova, and with that she reached for some small rocks nearby and walked towards the opening. She began to stack rocks in a pile in front of the opening, and soon the dark hole was halfway covered.
Hooray for the girl! Hooray for the top-dweller! chimed the Svampoids. But just then they all heard a rumbling. The Svampoids cried out and clutched each other, trembling.
Its them! shouted Magsvamp. They are coming!
As soon as he finished his words the half-built pile of stones exploded outward, and Tova reeled backwards. When she looked up at the hole she saw dozens of funny, walking rock-creatures. They were each made out of six rocks; one big, round rock in the middle, two long thin rocks as arms, two long thick rocks as legs and one small triangular shaped rock as a head. The Saxitans began jumping around and waving their limbs, and then their triangular heads turned towards Tova and the Svampoids, as if noticing them for the first time. A strange, rumbling laughter came from the dark hole and then the Saxitans burst out in what sounded like a song:
Stomp! Stomp! Stompity-stomp!
Romp, stomp, grompi-too!
Smash, bash, glashi-goo!
Rompity-bompity, stompity-gompity,
Frump, bump, dumpy-doo!
Basher, clasher, smasher-too!
Smusher, glusher, flusher-goo!
Smackity-flakity, rakity-dakity,
Tasher, lasher, rasher-doo!
Stomp! Stomp! Stompity-stomp!
The Saxitans jumped from the dark hole and began stomping all over the place. They leapt into the crowd of Svampoids, scattering them all over. The poor fungus folk cried out for help and ran in all different directions while the Saxitans chanted, Stomp! Stomp! Stompity-stomp!
Tova sprang to her feet. She looked around her and saw that the Saxitans were just as tall as the Svampoids and didnt even reach to her knees. She ran into the mess, careful to avoid the fleeing Svampoids, and began kicking the Saxitans.
Take that! said Tova kicking a rock creature right in its center. The creature shattered and its rocky limbs scattered in all directions. You leave them alone you stupid rocks! Tova chose her targets quickly and carefully, giving them swift kicks, scattering them everywhere. Very soon the Saxitans stopped chasing the Svampoids and focused their attention on Tova. They all lumbered towards her shouting Stomp! Stomp! and began to bat at her shins and leap at her. But Tova was enormous compared to the Saxitans, and with one kick she knocked out dozens of the blundering rock-men.
The Saxitans, however, were many in number, and there seemed to be no end to them. With every one that Tova obliterated, two more took its place. Soon she was feeling overwhelmed and backed up towards the gaping black hole. All at once the Saxitans attacked her knees.
Ouch! said Tova, and she fell backwards onto the ground. The Saxitans cheered and leapt upon her, piling themselves higher and higher until Tova was submerged in a sea of wriggling rocks. The Svampoids looked on in horror as Tova disappeared and the pile of rocks got higher at higher. At last the Saxitans stopped chanting, and not a noise could be heard.
Suddenly a fist shot up in the middle of the pile and the Saxitans exploded outward, crumbling as they were dashed against the walls and ceiling. Tova pulled herself up out of the pile and did her own stomping, smashing the Saxitans until they disintegrated. More rock-men emerged from the dark, gaping hole, but before they could get very far Tova was there and kicked and punched them to pieces. Soon the pile of rocks had grown so high that the dark opening was covered. The movement in the room ceased and Tova leaned forward, panting. She could hear the Saxitans knocking about on the other side of the big stone pile, but there was no way they could get through now. Tova had effectively sealed off the entrance, and using the Saxitans themselves to do so!
Hooray for the top-dweller! cried Magsvamp, and the Svampoids all cheered and sprinkled their green spores everywhere.
Ah, it was nothing, said Tova, but the Svampoids cheered nonetheless. Oh no! she said, suddenly. I had forgotten what time it was. I need to get back home. It is getting late, and my parents will be worried!
Magsvamp approached her and gave her a crown made of the tops of purple mushrooms. She placed it on her head and it fit perfectly, smelling of sweet honey with a faint earthy hint.
You are now the Queen of the Svampoids! said Magsvamp happily. Come visit us often and when you do, you will be treated as royalty. All hail the Queen of the Svampoids!
Hail! Hail! Hail! called the Svampoids, and they all began to dance and sing.
How do I get home? asked Tova, and Magsvamp chuckled.
Oh, thats easy! You are now the Queen of the Svampoids, so the mushrooms will do your bidding. See that big one over there? Sit on it and tell it where you want to go! Magsvamp pointed at a large umbrella-like mushroom in the corner of the nursery. Tova approached it and leapt upon it.
I want to go home, said Tova. The mushroom shivered and then began to grow. The Svampoids waved goodbye as Tova was carried upwards by the growing mushroom. The mushroom bent towards the city and soon Tova was looking down upon the mushroom houses and lampposts from the top of the chamber. The mushroom then went into the small tunnel where she had come from until it reached the hollow tree, and then went up the trunk. Tova squinted as the vines and spider webs sped past. Soon a dim light appeared and before she knew it, Tova was cast out of the tree trunk and tumbled onto the grass. As she sat up, a familiar pinecone shot from the trunk and bonked her on the head.
Ooch! she said, but she cried out happily when she recognized it and picked it up. The sun was setting and she heard her parents ringing the dinner bell, and so Tova ran home with her pinecone and mushroom crown, hungry as ever.
She decided never to tell anyone about the hollow tree or the Svampoids, but every now and then, when she missed the damp musky smell and the warm, green glow, she would climb down that tree trunk and visit her little kingdom, and she always received a warm welcome.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006 • Monday
 |
Category: News and Politics
n my reading of the Sunday issue of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (April 23, 2006) I managed to stumble across something that perked my interest. The short article was entitled Would we be better off with Gore? (F5) and then went on to describe a few consequences of an Al Gore presidency that seem certain, including a world where Osama bin Ladin would have been the primary target (and presumably caught), where there would have been no invasion of Iraq, no quagmire, no rupture of traditional alliances and, perhaps, a bit of sympathy rather than pathological hatred for Americans among the Muslim masses. It then goes on to accuse the Bush administration of massive deficits (due to tax cuts), and claims that Gore would have taken the lead in defeating that most malicious of environmental foes, namely, global warming.
All of this is, of course, mere speculation, but I have a secret that may shed some light onto what would have really happened. You see, I have a special little machine called an "alt-o-time-o-later" which I invented in my basement a few years ago. It allows me to bend the fabric of time and space, and I can peer into worlds that are parallel to ours but different due to slight changes in history. I was toying with it one day and managed to discover a world where Gore had won the presidency. I arrived on October 7th, 2001, the day that Bush made an address to the nation in response to the September 11th attacks, but in this parallel world it was Gore who was speaking to the nation instead. I managed to have a tape recorder with me as I viewed this curious spectacle and I recorded his speech. The following is the transcript of Gore's response to the attacks of September 11th, 2001, in this alternate universe:
1:00 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Good afternoon. After long and careful discussion with my top advisors, I have now realized all the terrible atrocities that this great nation has inflicted upon the many smaller nations of this world. It is hard for one to imagine a people who hate America so much, and thus it is a gut instinct of ours to react with horror and a desire for presumed justice upon those whom we think have attacked us without provocation. But I have just recently learned that they were indeed provoked, and the attack on our nation was just as much our fault as theirs.
You see, America has existed for merely a couple hundred years, and in that time we have done so much hurt to the nations around us, especially in the Middle East. We have running water, clean and fresh food, and schools in which to raise our children. Why do we have these things? Because we have taken from those countries that are weaker than us, exploited their resources, killed their children and generally been just nasty people. I like to think of the world as a pie. America started as a small sliver of the pie, but as of late we have gone on to consume a great quantity of that pie. We can only do this by taking from those nations around us, and only now do I see how great a wretch we really are!
And so as I stand here in the White House, I want to make a public apology on behalf of America to the whole world, but particularly to those Islamic nations of the Middle East who have suffered so much under our tyranny. We are sorry. We are sorry for living in this beautiful land. We are sorry for having nice things and eating three times a day. We are sorry that we have the freedom to say whatever we want, even if it is something that you dont like. We are sorry for our religious freedom, even if that means that people can worship religions other than Islam. We are sorry that we brought you to the point where your only option was to send planes at our buildings, killing thousands of our pampered citizens. We now understand the reasons behind your attack, and can hardly blame you. Do accept our apology.
In an act of good faith towards those Islamic fundamentalists that have so opened our eyes to our own evil ways, I am now declaring September 11th a national holiday. Every year on this day we will dress our women in burkas and play the Muslim call to prayer from our street corners. Three times a day we will stop what we are doing and lie prostrate, facing the east, where the terrorists--er, freedom fighters came from who so alerted us to our inferior morality. In an act of celebration of the Islamic culture, we will round up all Christians and Jews and imprison them, only for the day. We will ban all movies from Hollywood and declare it a day of celebrity hunting, since we certainly can't have any idols before Allah. All movies and books that are not the Koran will be burned, and we will sing and dance around the fires. On the following day we will put away our costumes and resume our daily lives, being content in our own great diversity, patting ourselves on the back for being so culturally aware. I am sure the victims of the attack would want it this way.
Thank you, O radical Islam, for opening our eyes. As a nation we again apologize, and hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive us. If you will excuse me, I now have an appointment to go sailing with my friend George Clooney on his private yacht. Unless, of course, George Clooney offends Muslims, in which case I do not know him, nor have I ever met him.
Thank you all. May God or Allah or Buddha or the fuzzy bunnies continue to bless America. But not any more than they bless Pakistan.
END 1:03 P.M., EDT
There, I believe that answers the question as to what the world would be like with a Gore presidency. I found many other interesting alternate universes with my "alt-o-time-o-later", including a world with Al Sharpton as president, Ted Kennedy as president and Alec Baldwin as president, but those are far too horrible to recount here.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
April 3, 2006 • Monday
 |
A friend of mine posted a "naughty" quiz on her bilboard and asked me to take it. Here are my responses to her quiz:
1. Would you have sex with me? Answer: I don't understand. After all I already have a sex. I am male. Surely you have a sex too. Aren't you female?
2. What positions would u want to b in? Answer: I would want to be in whatever position is the best paying.
3. Would u suck/LICK me ? Answer: Only if you were made of chocolate. But you aren't. So I wouldn't.
4. Would u f*** me hard? Answer: The word "f***" confuses me. After all, it can be used in so many different ways; do you want to "f***" me up, do you want to "f***" around, I don't give a flying "f***", etc. and so forth.
5. Would u hav sex with me the first night u met me? Answer: Again, this is rather confusing. As I mentioned above, I am already male, and I can hardly have another sex. That would be... weird. As far as you go, I already know you, and the first time I met you I didn't have this additional "sex" that you keep referring to. So this question is rather pointless isn't it?
6. Would u let me pull your hair while i did you? Answer: Did me what? Are you asking me what I did while you did something? Or are you wanting to pull my hair while I'm doing something else? Well, I suppose my hair is rather glorious and is an object worthy of admiration. Especially my beard. So Yes, I suppose you can pull on it, just once, to satisfy your curiosity. But not while I'm driving a car. That would be distracting.
7. Would u do me in the shower? Answer: Ok so I need to just comment here on your grammar and spelling. First of all, it is spelled "you" not "u". Sorry, but that is just very frustrating. Now that we have that settled, I think I need to inform you on the proper usage of the words "do" and "did". They work best in sentences like the following: "Did you see what I did while in the shower?" or "You dont mind me taking a shower, do you?" "Would you do me in the shower" just doesn't make sense. So, in answer to your question, I would have to know what it is I would be doing while in the shower.
8.Would u hancuff me or tie me up to the bed and then do me? Answer: Um, why would I handcuff you? Did you do something wrong? If you did, you had better call the police and turn yourself in. Or, if you prefer, head to Canada, but do it fast because the cops are pretty tricky when it comes to hunting down convicts. You will have to learn a new language and customs in order to adapt to life in Canada. I refer you to many episodes of South Park, for they depict Canadians correctly.
9. Would u have 3-some with me? Answer: I would have a three-some sub sandwiches with you. I could have one and a half sandwiches and you could have one and a half sandwiches. But the third sandwich that we split would have to be without tomatoes. Oh, how I hate tomatoes.
10. What about me makes u want to hav sex with me? Answer: ARG ok its spelled "have" not "hav" and "you" not "u"! Ok? Ok. And as I have said already so many times in this ridiculous thing, I already have a sex; I am MALE. Don't you listen? Bah!
11. Would u talk dirty to me while we sexed? Answer: ...um, I am at a complete loss for words. What is this "sexed"? Are you talking about copulation? Where did this come from! Here we are talking about Canadians and sub sandwiches and all of a sudden you start talking about sexual intercourse? That is a bit sudden! And no, I wouldnt. Thats just gross. Besides, my "dirty" talk doesnt go much farther beyond, "Oh, youre a grimy little urchin, arent you? Yeah, thats right, youre so dirty you had better... shower, or something...yeah."
12. Where would you do me? Answer: *sigh* LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH
13. Would u do me in front of people? Answer: REFER TO ABOVE COMMENT
14. Would u do me again and again? Answer: Wait a minute... I think I may have just had an epiphany. When you say "do me" are you again referring to sexual intercourse? It all makes sense now. Granted, I had to take quite the mental leap to convert "mutual genital copulation" to "do me", but I think I see the connection. So all this time you have been asking me to... "do" you? AHHH what the heck man? NO I WONT DO YOU. Stop asking. Please.
15. Would u do me in the rain? Answer: If I wont "do" you in the shower, what makes you think I'll "do" you in the rain? Water is cold.
16. Would u mind if we did it like a porn star? Answer: Yes I would mind! Porn stars have diseases! I know of one highly contagious disease they all have and it is called "gopher-itus". At any moment a gopher will pop out of some random orifice and sing "blue moon" before ducking back inside. It is a horrible, horrible disease, and I do not want to catch it!
17. Would u have phone sex with me? Answer: I...wha...what the hell is phone sex?? I am so, so confused right now. I was barely able to wrap my mind around your vulgar concept of the word "do", but phone sex? Are you talking about having intercourse with a telephone? IT IS AN INANIMATE OBJECT! It is plastic and coursing with electricity. Are you crazy? Ugh!
18. Would u cheat on me? Answer: Normally I don't cheat when playing board games. I was tempted one time while playing monopoly to cheat, but I didnt and ended up losing Pine Street. It was very disappointing. But you are a special case. I find your grammar and obtuse concept of sexuality so annoying that, yes, if we were playing monopoly, I would indeed cheat on you. You deserve it.
20. If I gave u my heart would you love it or let it go? Answer: Um, if you gave me your heart you would be DEAD. You see, the heart is the funny little organ in your chest, that pumps blood throughout your body, and you cant very well live without a heart, now can you? If you gave me your heart I would probably just donate it to science so someone could use it. Or feed it to my dog.
21. Would you do me once and leave me the next day? Answer: *sigh*
22. Would u tell me the truth no matter what it is or what you do? Answer: I'm afraid to answer this one, because, remembering your strange conception of the word "do" from the past twenty-one questions, I am concerned about your usage of the word in this sentence. But after careful consideration, I think you mean to use it correctly. So to answer your question, no I wouldnt. Do you really want me to? Think about it. If you came up to me and said, "Does my butt look fat?" and I answered, "Why, yes it does. In fact, it reminds me of the profile of a hairy yak grazing on some grass" you would undoubtedly be upset with me, even though I was speaking the truth. Women generally don't want men to speak the truth.
23. Are u gonna re-post this to see if and how I want to do you?? Answer: Honestly, after all of this, I could really care less.
24. How big is ur d***/b***s? Answer: I don't know. How big is your clavicle? How big is your appendix? For surely, the size of body parts are sooooooo important.
 | Currently reading: The Silmarillion By J.R.R. Tolkien Release date: 15 November, 2004 |
|
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
March 27, 2006 • Monday
 |
Category: Writing and Poetry
och Gerden was a beautiful house that sat on a small, grassy hill overlooking a slowly moving lake. The house and lake were nestled in the woods, which were full of many tame and beautiful animals that would drink from the lake and sleep on the grass. Loch Gerden belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Stout who had lived there ever since they were married. Their children were named Kyle and Luke, and the two boys had lived there since before they were born.
Kyle and Luke would spend their days making forts in the woods and trees, dressing up like animals or forest men, inventing secret calls and shouts that only each other could understand and swimming in the lake. There was a small sunken boat at the bottom of the lake which provided endless fascination for the two boys. They would take the biggest breath they could hold and swim to the wreckage to poke around in hopes of finding treasures. They once found an oar (which became a spear) and a wheel (which became a shield) but never anything of value. That didn't matter to the boys however, for the real treasure was the swim and the search and the mere hope of finding something lost and forgotten.
The house itself was also a source of intrigue to Kyle and Luke for, unbeknownst to their parents, it was filled with secret tunnels, trap doors, movable walls and cracks that only the boys could fit through, and when the weather was too nasty to play outside the boys would lose themselves in the endless tunnels and passages beneath and within the house.
But one day Dad came home from work wearing a sad face. He was a teacher at a local university and spent his time in his study, thumbing through ancient books covered with dust, or sitting in his favorite easy chair by the fire smoking his pipe and reading. But this day he didn't thumb through any books and he didn't light his pipe. Instead, he and Mom took the boys aside and sat them down.
"Kyle, Luke, I am afraid we have some bad news," said Dad. "We are putting the house up for sale and moving to the city."
"Selling the house? What for!" cried Kyle in dismay.
"Well son," said Dad, "some of my colleagues at the university do not like the fact that I live so far away from the school. They say that I need to keep up with the times, and that I need to move into an apartment in the city so that I will be closer to the university. They say that I need to immerse myself in an urban culture and that I am too out of touch with reality all the way out here in the forest."
"But we don't care about all that," said Luke. "We like this house and have been here all our lives. You can't sell the Loch!"
"Now, now, boys," said Mom. "Your father and I don't like the idea any more than you do. But Dad is next in line for a big promotion. He could become chair of his entire department, and that is a very important position. He needs to do what the school says or they may give his position away."
"B-but we don't care about that," said Kyle. "What lake will we swim in? What forest will we play in? We can't do that in the city!"
"I know this will be a tough transition for you," said Dad solemnly. "But in the end, I have to do what the school says or I won't get the promotion."
"But we don't care about all that!" said the boys in unison, so upset that they started to cry. Mr. and Mrs. Stout held the boys and reassured them that everything would turn out for the best, but it was no comfort. They spent the night wide awake, trying to imagine their lives in a place other than Loch Gerden. They couldn't.
The next day brought a light drizzle, and the boys stayed inside to finish their homework and to play. At around noon there was a knock at the door, and from their room the boys heard a creak and some light chatter. A moment later their mom came in with a young man and his young wife.
"Kyle, Luke, these are the Tweeds, and they are here to look at the house."
"Pleasure to meet you lads!" said Mr. Tweed and he shook their hands. The boys nodded, trying to be as polite as they could, but it was plain that they were not excited to see the Tweeds. Mom led them away to view the house and the boys sat down on the floor to sulk and pity themselves.
"Oh, what a load this is!" said Kyle at last. "How could they sell our house? We've been here for so long!"
"It's criminal that's what," said Luke. "Parents shouldn't be allowed to sell their kids' home! There should be a law against it."
"Maybe we should write to the governor. I am sure he would side with us."
"True, but it takes so long for the mail to come. If we want to do anything about it, we need to do it ourselves."
"Do you have any ideas Luke?"
"Hmmm, let me think…"
Luke and Kyle thought about how they could save their house for a long time until Kyle leapt to his feet and snapped his fingers.
"I've got it! I know how we can save the house!"
"How? Tell me!"
"Quick, to the chest!" said Kyle. The two boys ran to their chest of drawers. Kyle opened the bottom drawer and climbed in. Luke pushed it close and waited until he heard a soft knock. He opened the drawer. Kyle was gone! Quickly Luke climbed inside and knocked softly on the floor of the drawer. Slowly the drawer began to close, Kyle's huffing and grunting barely audible from behind the chest.
Kyle and Luke found themselves in a cramped passageway below the floor.
"This way, I think they are in the parlor," said Kyle, and he scuttled off, following the cracks between the wooden floorboards. A small stair appeared before them and the two boys quietly clambered up it. The path before them split, and they veered right, dodging the cobwebs that grasped at them from the floor. It sloped upwards and grew narrower and soon the boys were behind a wall of the house, crawling ever so quietly. At last they reached their destination and Kyle came to a halt. He put his finger to his lips and said, "Shhh!" and pointed towards a few gaps in the walls. Luke grinned mischievously and the two boys peered through the cracks.
"Yes it is a fine house," said Mom to the Tweeds. "There are no drafts and it is easy to maintain. Do have a seat, I will make some tea." The Tweeds sat on a couch resting against the wall and Mom left the parlor. Dad was no where to be seen.
"It is such a charming place!" said Mrs. Tweed. "It would be the perfect place to raise a family. We must buy it!"
"It is truly a gem of a find, I must say," said Mr. Tweed. Suddenly he spun around and looked at the wall behind him.
"Did you hear that hun?" asked Mr. Tweed, but his wife shook her head. "I could have sworn that I just heard some scuffling…"
"Rats, maybe?"
"Oh, I sure hope not."
Just then there was a loud bang on the opposite side of the room and the startled Tweeds leapt to their feet. They stared at the far wall but saw nothing.
"I-I heard that one," said Mrs. Tweed.
"Must be a really, really big rat." The words barely left his mouth before the two of them heard loud scraping and shuffling coming from the walls. The Tweeds held each other tightly and followed the noises with their terrified eyes. One set of scraping traveled along the wall clockwise, and the other counterclockwise. The young couple slowly stepped backwards as the noises scraped against the wall behind them and came to a sudden stop.
"M-m-many rats?" wondered Mrs. Tweed, but Mr. Tweed hushed her.
"Do you hear that? It sounds like…"
Mr. Tweed cautiously approached the couch. He heard a soft rustle, perhaps the wind, but as he got closer to the wall he realized that it was no wind at all. It was very soft, barely audible, and Mr. Tweed kneeled on the couch, placing his ear against the wall. Now it was unmistakable. He heard voices whispering, unintelligibly, but every now and then he would pick out a word, stabbing or noose or—could it be?—murder. Mrs. Tweed joined her husband and pressed her ear against the wall. The whisperings grew louder and indistinct, but then all at once they became clear and the cracked voices spoke in unison,
"The couple heard us scrape and crawl
and very soon these two will fall.
With a startled scream
and a clanking chain,
we'll come at them through the wall!"
The terrified Tweeds glanced at each other with gaping mouths and then stared at the wall.
Suddenly two horrible screams pierced the air and the Tweeds tumbled over backwards onto the floor. Something began to bang the wall very rapidly, bam-bam-bam-bam! and the screaming continued, but by this time the Tweeds were no longer curious and leaped to their feet. They dashed out of the parlor and down the hallway towards the door. Mrs. Stout had a tray of tea and was walking towards them. She gasped as the young couple dashed by her recklessly.
"Wait! What's wrong? Don't you want the tea?"
"Good luck selling this terrible place!" cried Mrs. Tweed and her husband took her trembling hand. The two fled out the door as if the house was on fire and it slammed shut behind them. Dad came out of the study holding his pipe.
"What was that?"
"I don't know. The Tweeds just left abruptly. I guess they didn't want the house."
"That is odd then isn't it? I wonder what got them so upset," said Dad, and he walked into the parlor. He heard chuckling from behind the walls and then, "Shh! Shh!" and all was quiet. Mr. Stout's eyes narrowed and he puffed on his pipe.
"Mmm-hmmm."
* * *
week or so later, Mom came into the boy's room with some strangers and their children. Kyle sat in the middle of the room coiling some rope.
"Kyle, these are the Cornishes, the family we told you was coming to view the house today." Kyle stood and smiled.
"Pleasure to meet you!" he said and then two children stepped forward.
"My name is Sarah," said the girl, "and this is my brother Toby."
"You children have fun playing while we look at the house!" said Mr. Cornish.
"Yes daddy," said Toby, "but do not take too long for I am hungry and want some ravioli."
"Well, it may take a little while, but I am sure we can—"
"I said I want ravioli!" shouted Toby and his sister shouted, "Me too!" Mr. Cornish nodded.
"Very well, we will be quick and then go for Italian afterwards." Mom eyed the Cornishes curiously but then shrugged.
"Where is Luke at?" she asked and Kyle looked nervous for a brief moment.
"Ah…" he said, "He—that is, I haven't seen him for a while. I'm sure he will be along shortly." Mom nodded and led the Cornishes away to show them the house. Kyle sat back down and continued to coil his rope, ignoring Toby and Sarah.
"Hey, boy! Is there anything to do?" said Toby. Kyle looked up, as if noticing them for the first time.
"Hmm? Oh, to do? Why yes, there is plenty to do. For instance, I am coiling rope. Feel free to watch."
"No, no, I meant, is there anything fun to do?"
"Sure. I'm having loads of fun. There's nothing like coiling rope!"
"What do you need the rope for?" asked Sarah, and the faintest gleam of a smile flickered across Kyle's face. He looked up at them and then quickly glanced around, as if making sure no one was listening. He stood up and tiptoed towards the door, peered outside for a moment, and then quickly shut it.
"I'll tell you, but you have to promise to keep your voices down," he said. The Cornish children glanced at each other curiously.
"What do you mean?" asked Sarah but Kyle shushed her.
"Not so loud! He may be listening."
"Who?"
"Why, Luke of course."
"Luke?" asked Toby. "Is he your brother or something?" Kyle laughed.
"Oh, no! I am an only child. Luke is the name of the… the creature."
The children's eyes went wide.
"The c-creature?"
"Yes, we call him Luke because we thought it was a fitting name. As you heard, Mom wanted me to keep an eye out for him. That is why I am coiling this rope, see. I'm preparing a trap for that accursed creature!"
Just then there was a low pitched moan and a short, muffled growl. Sarah clung to her brother in fear.
"Shhh!" said Kyle. "That's him! You two noisy kids awoke him, and now he is coming!" A repetitive thumping started at the chest along the right wall, and slowly started to circle the room.
"Quick, get to the center of the room!" instructed Kyle. The terrified siblings ran to the middle of the room and Kyle picked up his rope. "All right you evil little varmint, I am here for you! Come out and prepare to be caught!" The thudding continued until it reached the wall behind the bunk bed and then stopped.
"What did it—where did it—how's it—"
"Shhh! He's just trying to catch us off guard." All was quiet for a long time and Kyle frowned.
"Where did he go?" asked Sarah with a trembling voice.
"I don't know," said Kyle. "He usually doesn't take this long to make his move."
"How long has he been here?"
"Oh, for many years now. We first discovered him eating a dead raccoon in the lawn, and when we scared him away he barred his teeth at us and gave the most horrible screech." Sarah gasped and Toby grabbed Kyle.
"Now look here, you're scaring my sister!"
"Sorry, I can stop if you want. I just thought you would like to know what we are up against."
Toby and Sarah glanced at each other and then reluctantly nodded.
"After that we didn't see him for a while, but one day we heard some noises behind the walls. I followed the noises into the basement and turned on the lights. It was then that I saw his face for the first time. He is covered from face to foot in brown, prickly hair! He has a long nose, like a possum, and ears like a raccoon. He has a tail like a squirrel and razor sharp teeth. He is very fast, and can leap from one side of a room to another as easily as breathing. He has a shrill screech that can make the strongest of men stop cold in his tracks and he has claws so sharp that he could shred through a heavy door in minutes. I've been trying to catch him for months and have had little success. But today I will not fail!"
Just then there was a hiss from behind the bunk bed. Sarah squealed but Toby hushed her and held her tight.
"There he is," said Kyle, and he let out a low chuckle. "This time I will get you Luke, this time I will get you!" He crept towards the bunk bed ever so slowly.
"What are you doing? Don't go near it!" said Toby.
"Ha-ha-ha, this day he will be mine!" said Kyle with an evil laugh and he crouched down, peering beneath the bunk bed.
"What do you see?" asked Sarah.
"I see… a crack in the wall, and a furry tail. I feel a slight breeze. I bet he has been working on this hole for months, just so he can eat me! But he won't eat me this day, no, not today! I see a pair of gleaming yellow eyes…"
"Oh!"
"I can get him… now!" shouted Kyle, and he lunged underneath the bed. There was a piercing squeal and a hiss and a growl, and Kyle began struggling with something.
"Toby! Help him!" shouted Sarah.
"You help him!"
"No, stay there, I have him!" said Kyle and he groaned and wriggled beneath the bed. "I've got you Luke, you will not escape!" There was a scared shriek and Kyle laughed, but all of a sudden his legs were pulled underneath the bed.
"Kyle!" shouted Sarah, but all the children could do was hold each other and listen, their mouths agape in terror. The bunk bed shuddered and there was a terrible thumping and clattering, and then all of a sudden Kyle screamed. Instantly the room got silent.
"Kyle? Kyle!" said Sarah, but there was no answer. "Toby, see if he's all right!"
"No! Luke may be in there still."
"But Kyle may be hurt!"
The children stood motionless in fear. After a brief moment they heard a soft growl and then a loud belch. A coil of rope shot out from under the bed landing at their feet, and along with it came a soft, low, and evil chuckle.
The children screamed and raced out of the room. They met their parents in the hallway and clutched their legs.
"We are not buying this house!" said Toby in tears.
"What? Why? What happened?" wondered Mr. Cornish.
"There are evil creatures in the walls daddy!" said Sarah. "We will not live in this house!"
"Oh come now," said Mrs. Cornish but the two children stomped their feet and squealed.
"Leave now!" they demanded and Mr. Cornish sighed.
"All right, I guess we don't want this house then. Thank you for showing it to us, and I wish you luck selling it!" The Cornishes left in a hurry and Mom thanked them for coming. She closed the door and turned to her husband.
"What do you think the children meant?" "Oh, they probably just played a silly game with the boys and took it too seriously. They were a fussy bunch. I'm not terribly upset that they're leaving."
"Neither am I. Who lets their children act in such a way? Well never mind. I'm going to make some sandwiches." Mom walked off and Dad took out his pipe. He walked to the boy's room. Kyle and Luke sat in the middle of the room coiling rope wearing broad grins. They looked up and waved at their father as he leaned against the wall. He took two puffs from his pipe and his eyes narrowed.
"Mmm-hmm."
* * *
et dressed boys, the Grimbolds are here," said Mom from the door. Kyle pushed aside his bedroom window curtains. A tan station wagon had pulled up in front of the house. A man and a woman got out and puttered around, looking at the trees and the house, taking pictures and laughing.
"Looks like two retired old people," said Kyle.
"Ah! Perfect. We should be able to have fun with them! What should we do this time?"
"I thought of the last two ideas, you think of one."
"Hmmm. Do we have any hair-spray?"
"Mom may. Why?"
Luke giggled mischievously.
"I just came up with the greatest idea!"
"Come boys! Say hello to the Grimbolds," called Mom. Luke and Kyle trudged out of their room towards the door. The Grimbolds stood in the tiled entryway gazing with open mouths at the inside of the house. Mrs. Grimbold wore a pink and purple dress with flowers on it, and had a white straw hat. Mr. Grimbold wore tan slacks and a flowery shirt, and around his neck was a camera which he picked up frequently to snap a picture.
"Why, the house is just lovely!" said Mrs. Grimbold.
"Yes dear, almost as lovely as the condo we stayed in last summer."
"The one in Aspen?"
"No, no, the one in Florida. It was too cold in Aspen. Ooo, look! Such handsome wooden beams! Is this cedar?"
"No, it's rowan," said Dad. He walked up and put his arm around Mom and smiled.
"Here, come to the living room," said Mom, "I'll get some drinks and he can tell you about the house's history."
The adults walked into the living room talking, but the boys stayed back. When the grown ups were out of sight the boys quickly ran to the door. They lifted up the entryway mat and began fingering the edges of the floor tile beneath it. Finding a firm hold, the boys grunted until the tile groaned and began to move. The boys dragged it across the floor to reveal a square hole that lead underneath the house. Luke jumped down and then Kyle after him, and it didn't take long for them to replace the tile. Only the displaced floor mat gave any hint of their secret.
"I'll be right back with some drinks, but do sit," said Mom, motioning to the couches by the fire. The Grimbolds sat and gawked at the beautiful wooden walls and the magnificent stone hearth. Dad sat in an easy chair on the other side of the coffee table and lit his pipe.
"My, this is a cozy place!" said Mr. Grimbold. "It would be perfect for a summer home."
"Oh yes, and then we could rent it out as a condo during the winter," said Mrs. Grimbold. Dad sat in his chair puffing his pipe, staring at the fire.
"Tell me," said Mr. Grimbold. "Your wife mentioned the history of this place. Is it at all interesting?" Dad glanced at them for a moment without answering, but then quickly sat up in his chair.
"Interesting? Yes I suppose, if you like that sort of thing."
"What do you mean?"
Dad sighed and set down his pipe. He leaned towards the Grimbolds as if about to tell them a secret.
"Well since you asked, I'll tell you. You see, when we chose this land to build the house, there was already an old hermit named Gerden who lived by the lake. He lived in an old stump that he had hollowed out, and he lived off of fish and squirrels. We bought this land from the government, and when we arrived to start building the hermit got awfully upset. 'Get off my land!' he would shout and he would chase the carpenters around with a large stick. I took him aside one day and explained to him that the property belonged to me and that I was going to build a house, but he didn't listen. He insisted that the land was his and promised to sabotage my efforts whenever he could."
"Goodness, is that so?" asked Mrs. Grimbold, and Dad nodded.
"Yes, but the story doesn't end there. The hermit would come onto the construction site at night and set fire to the tools, break apart the foundation and cause all sorts of mischief. But he was a clever hermit and I could never get my hands on him. He was far too swift and he knew these woods better than anyone. I called the police but they never caught the fellow, and so I placed guards around the house at night. Most of the time the guards would catch him and chase him off, but every now and then the hermit would get the better of my guards and tear down a wall or ruin the foundation."
"How on earth did you get the house up then?" asked Mr. Grimbold. The two retirees sat at the edge of the couch listening to the story intently. Dad smiled.
"We just rebuilt whatever the hermit tore down, until finally one day we managed to complete the house. The day we were to move in the hermit arrived with a box of matches, saying that he would burn it down. 'I'll raze this thing to the ground you scoundrels; this is my land!' he cried. By this time I was, of course, very frustrated with the hermit, and I told him in no uncertain terms that he would not touch my house, and if I ever saw him on my property again I would come at him with my shotgun. 'That doesn't frighten me!' he said, and he raced towards the house ready to burn it down."
Dad leaned back in his chair and chuckled, taking a puff from his pipe.
"Well? What happened!" demanded Mr. Grimbold.
"He never burned down my house, and I never got to chase him with my shotgun," said Dad coolly. "Before he could reach the house a loud roar came from the woods. It stopped the hermit dead in his tracks and he slowly turned to face the trees. An immense bear came cantering out of the woods at great pace, and charged the old hermit. 'Now, Lucky, I don't have time to play with you right now!' he shouted, but the bear didn't intend to play. When he reached the hermit, the bear gobbled him up in one giant gulp!" the Grimbolds gasped.
"Oh, what a fright!" said Mrs. Grimbold. "That poor hermit. Did you ever see the bear again?" Dad wore a peculiar grin and nodded slowly. He took one puff from his pipe and the smoke slowly escaped his mouth. Then he pointed with is pipe at the wall behind the Grimbolds. Mr. Grimbold frowned and looked behind him. Affixed to the wall above where the Grimbolds sat was the head of an enormous bear. Its mouth was open and its eyes were wide.
"Ah!" screamed Mrs. Grimbold and she stood to her feet. Dad laughed.
"Do not be frightened! He is long dead. As soon as the children were born I realized that there was no way I could let a bear wander around freely in the woods. So I went out with my rifle and hunted Lucky for days, until finally I found him fishing in a nearby stream. I shot him and dragged him back here. Just so you know, bear meat doesn't taste very good. It's too… gristly. The peculiar thing is, as I was removing the head I could have sworn I heard a gruff voice quietly whisper, 'Get off my land!'" Dad shook his head and sighed. "Must have been my imagination."
The boys sat behind the fireplace listening to the story.
"Do you remember Dad ever telling us about this before?" asked Luke.
"No, this is the first time I've heard it. I always wondered where he got that bear head."
"Get ready!" whispered Luke. "Dad is leaving!" The boys looked through the flames to where their father sat in the living room. He had stood up and was excusing himself, mentioning that he forgot about something in his study. With pipe in hand, he left the living room leaving the Grimbolds alone with the bear head. The couple stood and walked around the room examining the pictures and tapestries, avoiding the bear but glancing at it every now and then nervously. To the left of the fireplace was a mahogany chest with a beautiful globe of the earth resting on it. When they reached the fireplace they stood and stared into the lazy orange flames.
"This fireplace looks like it could warm the whole house," said Mr. Grimbold. "I've always enjoyed a real, honest fireplace rather than those silly gas fireplaces."
"Flee."
"What was that dear?" he asked.
"Hmm? I didn't say anything," said Mrs. Grimbold.
"Are you sure? I thought I heard you say—"
"Flee."
"Yes, exactly."
"Um, that wasn't me," said Mrs. Grimbold.
The two retirees stared at each other for a moment and then their eyes went wide. They heard a low chuckle coming from the fire.
"Flee!" shouted a voice from the flames, and all at once the fire roared up, shooting flames up the chimney. The Grimbolds shrieked and stepped backwards.
"Do it again!" said Kyle laughing, and Luke sprayed the fire with the hairspray.
"Flee! Flee!" shouted Kyle, but then he heard a clank. Luke recoiled from the flames.
"I dropped the can!" he said in horror. The two boys scrambled to their feet.
A huge bang! went through the house, and the fireplace roared. Flames spewed up the chimney and the heat filled the room. Mom came in carrying a tray of drinks.
"What on earth was that noise?" she asked setting the tray down on the coffee table.
"There are demons in the flames!" screeched Mrs. Grimbold clutching her face.
"Come dear, let's get out of here!" said Mr. Grimbold, but before they could flee they heard loud coughing coming from the fireplace. The globe nearby spun wildly and then the chest on which it sat moved to the right, revealing a short, dark passageway behind it. Smoke poured out and then two boys charged into the living room, covered in ash and coughing profusely.
"Luke! Kyle!" cried Mom and she rushed to them. "Are you hurt?"
"No Mom," said Kyle and the two boys shook the soot off their clothes. The boys glanced at the Grimbolds nervously. They weren't smiling.
"These boys scared us half to death!" said Mr. Grimbold angrily.
"They did?" asked Mom and Mrs. Grimbold put her hands on her hips.
"Yes! They made noises at us from behind the fire and told us to leave!" Mom laughed but the Grimbolds didn't smile, and so she coughed and faced the children.
"Now boys, that wasn't a very nice thing to do. I know you don't want to sell the house, but you can't go around scaring people. Apologize to Mr. and Mrs. Grimbold." Kyle and Luke stared at their feet, utterly defeated.
"Sorry for scaring you," they said sheepishly.
"You had better be sorry," said Mr. Grimbold. "And just for that, I think I would like to buy the house. How much—" he started, but he paused. A low growling could be heard in the room, very quiet, but slowly gaining volume.
"Does anyone else hear that?" he asked and everyone in the room nodded. The boys glanced at each other with wide eyes, and then looked at the bear. The bear's head was trembling, and the growling grew louder and louder. Mrs. Grimbold clutched her husband's hand and gasped. The growling was very loud now and the mouth of the bear began to move. At length the head came to life and the mouth opened up with a loud roar. It jerked and faced the Grimbolds, and with eyes open wide it shouted in a gruff voice,
"Get off my land!"
The Grimbolds screamed and scrambled for the door. They flung it open and dashed out of the house, raced to their car and sped away from Loch Gerden faster than the car had ever gone before.
Mom and the boys faced the bear with open mouths, but it had stopped growling. Instead a jolly laughter came from the bear's mouth, but then left and traveled the wall until it was behind a tapestry. There was a scraping sound and then suddenly the tapestry rolled up. Standing in its place was Dad, pipe in hand and laughing up a storm. The boys cheered and raced to their father, hugging his legs.
"You sneaky goat!" said Mom, but then she too laughed.
"Ah, I couldn't help it," said Dad.
"But what about the house?" said Luke. "Do we still have to sell it?"
"I've decided that I don't care whether I get promoted or not. This is our house. We built it and it is our home, and no little administrator from the university will make me sell the place."
The boys cheered and Mom walked over and kissed him.
"I wish you would have told me what you were going to do."
"I'm sorry, but half the fun was seeing your face!" Dad laughed and Mom punched him in the gut.
"Hey let's eat out tonight," said Dad. "I know a place that has the best pot pies in town!" The boys ran off to get their coats, Mom kissed him and went to get her purse, and Dad smiled, puffing his pipe. After a moment he turned around and looked at the bear.
"Thanks Lucky," he said with a wink.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
March 2, 2006 • Thursday
 |
Category: Writing and Poetry
Ode to My Beard
It may seem strange to smooth-faced folk,
To see me miss it so.
The fuzzy thing that graced my face,
And kept me from the snow.
It shielded me from blowing winds,
And rain so downward falling.
I went and cut it from my face,
And now you find me bawling!
O woe is me! for I have lost
A friend so warm and true.
My beard now lies in a tattered pile,
And I am wholly blue.
I'm singing in a concert, see,
And thus I hacked it off,
For I must look my boyish best,
Lest smooth-faced people scoff.
When night falls I miss it so,
And grope at my face in vain,
To find some remnant of my beard.
I have only myself to blame!
Women gaze at my smooth cheeks,
But this gives me no joy.
They're all attracted to child-like youth,
But I am not a boy!
A beard is the glory of man,
And is his best feature.
Alas, I destroyed my facial silk,
And am now an ugly creature!
But someday soon, when the snows have gone,
And the trees begin to blossom,
My beard will emerge once again,
And then I'll be quite awesome!
 | Currently listening: Irish Heartbeat By Van Morrison & The Chieftains Release date: 14 July, 1998 |
|
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
February 16, 2006 • Thursday
 |
Category: Writing and Poetry
here was once a town in a low valley called Burningham. At one time it had been nestled in the middle of a large forest, filled with animals that were so tame they would come up to the villagers doors. A river had run along side of it, and it had been filled with fishes of all kindssilver fish, blue fish, red fish and spotted fish. The townsfolk of Burningham had lived well off the land, but things had changed since then.
The forest had been burnt away, and all that remained were smoking stumps. The animals all ran off and the river flowed slowly, without a fish to be seen. The cause of all this mayhem was a particularly nasty dragon named Glowscale. Glowscale lived in a cave at the top of the valley and every now and then he would fly out of it during the night. When the moon was full his shadow would engulf the entire town and he would bathe the farms and gardens in flames.
Every time the dragon burned down their farms the townspeople would sow them again, for the valley was their home and they refused to leave. And so one night, as was his custom, Glowscale arrived in all his fiery terror and burnt the farms and gardens to the ground. The dragon screeched and snorted and swept up, high into the air, and flew back towards his cave with mighty a roar.
The townspeople cried and moaned and set to work mending their farms, but there was one girl who had had enough. Her name was Lanette, and she was the daughter of the local cobbler. The cobbler made the finest shoes in the region, and Lanette helped her father with the sewing. But Glowscales latest attack had burnt the cobblers supply shed into ashes, and all his leather and cloth and threads were destroyed.
O, what will I do! cried the cobbler in dismay, sifting through the charred ruins of his shed. I fear that at last we will have to leave Burningham forever and set up shop elsewhere.
No we wont! said Lanette to her father, and she wore a stern frown. I grew up in this town, and I know everyone by name. I will not let this dragon push us out of our homes! With that, Lanette put on her most comfortable pair of shoes and walked to the blacksmith to ask for a weapon.
What will you do with a weapon? asked the blacksmith, eyeing the young girl curiously.
I am going to confront that dragon and make sure he never burns our homes again!
But that is such a dangerous task for someone so small, said the blacksmith very worriedly. We villagers are no match for such a large, angry dragon, and he could eat you whole!
When the big are afraid, the small will do what they can, said Lanette.
The poor blacksmith did his best to convince the girl to stay behind, but she would hear nothing of it. And so he gave her a sharp metal hook to use against the dragon.
Thank you, she said, grasping the hook, and next she went to see the tailor.
I need some clothes, said Lanette to the tailor, that will allow me to sneak around quietly.
What will you do with them? asked the tailor.
I am going to sneak into the dragons cave and I dont want him to hear me coming.
You cant do that! said the tailor, and he clutched his face in fear. Leave that to the boys of the town, for the dragon would stomp you into dust!
When the boys are afraid, the girls will do what they can, said Lanette, and she again asked the tailor for some clothes.
If I cant talk you out of it, I had best find something nice for you, said the tailor, and he rummaged through his box of clothes. He found a soft, roomy shirt and a pair of comfortable britches, which delighted Lanette very much.
Thank you, she said, putting on her clothes, and she moved so silently that the tailor didnt notice her leaving his shop. Lastly she came to the chandler of the town, who made candles and lanterns. She asked the chandler for a bright candle to light her way, for the path up the hillside was long and winding.
What will you do with a candle? asked the chandler in wonder.
I will use it to light my path to the dragons lair, said Lanette courageously.
Dont go there! exclaimed the chandler, trembling in terror. Leave such things to the adults, and stay in the village where it is safe. When the adults are afraid, the children will do what they can, said Lanette, and the chandler could not make her change her mind. And so he gave the girl a small lantern with a bright candle inside, and he said that it would last as long as she did.
Lanette walked over to the path that led up the hill and gaped with wide eyes at its twists and turns. It was a steep path littered with many rocks, but she lifted her lantern up high and marched forward.
The night was dark and the winds howled. The winter trees were all bare of leaves and black birds perched on their limbs, staring at Lanette curiously. Brush and leaves clattered across the path and the full moon was obscured by thick, dark clouds. But her lantern was strong and bright, and she saw her path clearly in the night.
It wound up, up and up! and it hugged the valley closely. At times the path narrowed so that Lanette had to step sideways with her back to the valley far below her, and she moved slowly and carefully so as not to fall. At other times the trail widened and tall, barren trees made it hard to follow. But her lantern was not daunted by the trees and always found the path.
At last she reached the top and turned around. Burningham was far below her now, and she could not make out the houses. A mist had formed and filled the valley, making everything within it murky. A chill wind rose up and she shuddered, but she held her roomy shirt closely and turned away from the valley.
She stood before a large cave, the inside being black as coal. Large boulders and chipped stones were scattered all over the place, and the mouth of the cave had large gashes in it. A light smoke trickled out of the cave with a huff! and a puff! but Lanette shook her head and stepped forward bravely, ready to face the dragon.
She put her foot down on a wobbly rock and it gave way beneath her. She slipped with a shriek and fell down hard on the rocks. The lantern clattered away from her and went out with a flicker.
Oh no! said Lanette, and she crawled on her hands and knees, searching for the lantern. What will I do if I cant see in this darkness? She fumbled around the rocks until her hand hit something with a clank! The lantern! She grasped its handle and stood up. As soon as she did, her lantern lit up brightly, and the flicker of the flame inside danced about.
Thank you Mister Chandler, for the wonderful lantern! said Lanette happily, and with a grin she crept towards the mouth of the dark, charred cave.
She chose her steps carefully as she tiptoed through the smoking cave. Inside, the walls had all been rubbed smooth by the belly of Glowscale, and the light from her lantern reflected brightly down the cavern. As quietly as a beetle she crept deeper and deeper into the cave until the dim light from the moon had disappeared behind her. She could hear her own heavy breathing and so she calmed herself down by thinking about cherry trees in spring. Oh, she loved to play in the cherry trees, for their flowers were so bright and pink! The tree near her house had thick, sturdy limbs, and she would climb to the very top for the best cherries were always at the top of the trees. A little bird had made a nest in her tree, a green bird with white tips on its feathers, and it never flew away when it saw Lanette coming. She would stay up there with the bird and pick the cherry blossoms and weave them into necklaces for her father. But the tree had long since stopped blooming and the bird had been scared away. It was all because of Glowscale, that mean old dragon!
Before she knew it, the cave opened up into a wide chamber. It dimly glowed red so that she didnt need her lantern anymore. She set it down on the ground and it blew itself out. Now, when most people think of dragon caves they imagine large piles of gold and jewels everywhere. But it was not so with this dragons cave at all. A pile of nuts filled the center of the chamber, and there were many kinds of nuts. Big golden nuts, small brown nuts with hard shells, long curly nuts and round melon-shaped nuts. But what caught Lanettes attention and made her eyes open wide was the dragon himself.
Glowscale sat on his large pile of nuts and every time he exhaled a small tongue of flame burst from his nostrils. The nuts before his nose got all warm and toasted so that the chamber filled with the wonderful smell of toasted nuts. Lanette inhaled deeply and it made her smile, but she remembered her mission. She took out her long, hard hook and crept up to the snoring dragon. She tiptoed around the beast until she saw his back. The dragons scales were thick and grooved and so Lanette crept closer and took hold of them. She stopped for a moment to see if the dragon would stir, but he snored away, toasting his pile of nuts and she sighed in relief.
Thank you Mister Tailor for the sneaky clothes! she said to herself, and with the hook in hand she began to climb up the dragons scales. It was a long climb and the dragons back heaved up and down, but Lanette made it to the top, right above his shoulders and lifted her hook up high.
This is for my cherry tree! she said out loud, and she brought the hook down as hard as she could between the dragons wide shoulders.
The hook struck the scales and sparks flew.
Ouch! shouted Lanette and the hook flew out of her hand. She held her hand in pain and looked at where she had struck the dragon. No mark was there, not even a scratch, and she wondered why the hook had failed to harm the dragon. But she didnt have time to think of such things, for the cave around her rumbled. The pile of nuts clattered and the dragon moaned and yawned. A gust of flame burst through the cave and it was so hot that Lanette covered her face. The dragon rolled over onto his back and Lanette was cast aside. She fell onto the pile of nuts and watched in amazement as the dragons face appeared before her.
It was a blunt face with a short snout. It was all black with hard, small scales, and it had long, white eyelashes. His ears were round and they twitched every now and then. His teeth curved up from his lower jaw and seemed very impractical, but scary nonetheless. The dragon yawned and smacked his lips and then opened his large eyes. They were black eyes with white pupils, and they changed shape until they were vertical, peering right at Lanette. The poor girl had found her hook and lifted it up to protect her, but her mouth gaped wide and she couldnt say a word.
Mmm, arrr, whats this now? said the dragon tiredly. He blinked a few times and peered at the girl. Whats this I have in my cave? Is it food?
Glowscale reached over with one of his clawed, stubby hands and picked up Lanette by the shirt. The girl shrieked as she was lifted into the air, but the dragon did not eat her. Instead he rolled onto his back, supported by his pile of nuts, and placed her on his belly.
No, no, you are not food, said Glowscale in his deep, dark voice. You look like a girl. A human girl. What are you doing in my cave, human girl?
Poor Lanette was trembling all over, but she managed to stand herself up. She looked right into the eyes of the massive black dragon and raised her pointed hook.
Im here to kill you, mean dragon, for burning down my trees and fields! The dragon blinked.
Trees and fields, trees andoh! I remember. You must be from that little town down there. I remember trees and fields being in the valley, but that was a long time ago. I never pay much attention to what crawls on the ground though, because Im always too busy playing in the clouds. Its so much fun to play in the clouds! The dragon laughed a jolly, scorched laugh and his belly wobbled around. Lanette managed to keep her feet and she stomped real hard on his belly.
Ow! Whyd you do that? said Glowscale.
Because you are a mean dragon!
Mean? Im not mean. Im a nice dragon.
No you arent! Nice dragons dont burn down fields and trees. Nice dragons dont burn down gardens and sheds.
But I thought that started Glowscale, but he stopped. He thought about it for a minute, and the light of realization glinted in his eyes. I thought that no one would mind.
Of course we mind, you silly dragon. You ruined our pretty land. You chased all the animals away and everything is charred and black now! I cant play in the green grass anymore, and I cant play in the fields. I cant climb the trees or swim in the streams, and I cant run with the deer or wrestle with the bears. Because of you there is no grass and there are no fields. There are no trees and the streams are all dry. The deer and the bears have all left this place, and its all because of you.
The dragon sniffed and he scratched his round nose. A big, watery tear filled his eye and it splashed to the nuts below.
I-Im sorry, said Glowscale, and he rubbed his face. You see, I have been alone up here for a very long time, and all Ive wanted were some friends. The last friend I had was a squirrel named Nugget, but he left a long time ago. Before he left I asked him if he knew how to make friends. Sure I do, he said to me, and its really easy too. Just fill your home with nuts aplenty, and friends will come to you! And so I did, I found lots of nuts, but no one ever came. Nugget used to scratch underneath my scales for me, but now there is no one to scratch my scales. I fly out, every now and then, to cry in the moonlight. But when Im crying I breathe lots of fire, and I never know where it falls.
Ill tell you where it falls, said Lanette. It falls onto my fathers shack and my friends fields. It burns everything away. You have no friends because the squirrels have all left, and they left because there are no trees!
Glowscale cried a big wet sob and flames burst out of his nose.
Oh, what have I done! he said with a snivel. You are right, young girl, to come here and kill me, for I have been a bad dragon. Glowscale lifted up one of his scales that was nearest to Lanette, exposing the soft white skin underneath. Do what you came to do, he said, and he turned his face away.
Lanette walked up to the scale and kneeled before the soft, white skin. She lifted up her hook but stopped. She peered at the dragon who was looking away, and he whimpered. Lanette felt awfully sorry for the big brute and she couldnt bring herself to kill him. Instead she took her hook and lightly scratched underneath his scale.
Ooo! said the dragon, and he giggled. Lanette smiled and scratched harder.
Ahh! said Glowscale, and he chuckled. Lanette got on her feet and grasped the hook with both hands. She scratched as hard as she could and the dragon rumbled beneath her.
Hahaha! Ooo! said the dragon, and he belched a fiery laugh.
Thank you blacksmith, for making me such a fine scratching hook! she said to herself. Before long the two of them were rolling around laughing, until the dragon was well enough scratched.
Lanette crawled up to the face of the dragon and planted herself on his nose.
You must promise me, she said, never to cry in the moonlight again. In return I will come here every day and scratch underneath you scales for you, for no dragon should ever be without a good scale scratching.
Oh, little girl, you are so kind to me, but I do not deserve it.
Good people are nice, even to those who dont deserve it.
Glowscale smiled and his belly rumbled.
You have a deal, little girl! I will never cry in the moonlight again.
As the years went by the land healed, and the trees all grew back. The cherry tree blossomed again, and the green bird returned to make a nest. The bears and the deer came to play in the fields, and the stream surged back to life. The farms and gardens bore much fruit, and the town of Burningham flourished.
Lanette was hailed as a hero, and when she grew up she became mayor of the town. The poets made songs about Lanette the Dragon Tamer, and the children always came to her house to hear her stories. But every day before the sun had set, Lanette would put on her soft walking shoes, take her hard scratching hook and hike up the valley to the home of her friend to scratch underneath his scales. The valley would fill with their laughter, and when she returned home she always smelt of warm, toasted nuts.
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
January 23, 2006 • Monday
 |
Category: Religion and Philosophy
The following was a letter I wrote to a friend of mine, after having had a discussion on Islam. Being a Muslim, he did not believe many of the historical accounts I recalled, and so he asked me to come up with a well researched and documented presentation. This post is that presentation.
efore I begin, let me briefly state that I am not in any way attacking Islam; I aim merely to state what is, to reach a truth about history that does not cater to Muslims or Christians, but merely states what has happened. Therefore, none of the sources I cite are from Christians or Muslims, but from secular scholars and experts who have no religious affiliation. I hope the following can be considered honestly and not merely disregarded because it may not be what one wants to hear.
The translation of the Koran I will use was translated into English, directly from the original Arabic, by J.M. Rodwell in 1861. The historical accounts I will be referring to are according to Alan Jones, a professor at Pembroke College, Oxford, who edited the Koran I quote from, has taught Arabic and Islamic Studies since 1957 and is a specialist in pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabic and in Quranic Studies.
Violence has been the means that Islam has used to achieve its goals since its very inception. Muhammad himself was the first to invoke and condone violence to get his way. After his revelations from Gabriel, Muhammad was convinced that he was a prophet and began to convert friends and family to Islam. He lived in Mecca, but when he started to preach in public he was viewed with disdain. The people of Mecca were affluent merchants; some were Christians, some were Jews, but most were pagan idol-worshipers that had grown rich on trade. They did not want to listen to Muhammads message and did not like hearing him preach. In our own day we would say that they have a right to not believe in Islam, but Muhammad believed that they did not have that right.
Because he could not convert anymore people from Mecca to Islam, he and his followers (two-hundred or so) left Mecca and went to live with some tribes that lived in the surrounding lands. He was hired as a mediator between two warring tribes and managed to get them to be friends by converting them to Islam. After a while his eyes fell upon Mecca again. Since the Meccans were idol worshipers and had resisted Islam, Muhammad decided that it would be easier for him to spread his faith if Mecca was no longer there. And so in 624 A.D., Muhammad and his small band of Muslims began to attack Meccan trading caravans to try to seize the booty and keep it from the Meccans. Not long afterwards, a large caravan that had just finished trading in Syria was on its way back to Mecca. The goods and money it carried were incredibly valuable to the Meccans, and so they sent a force of 1000 men to protect it. The Muslims attacked the caravan and defeated the Meccans, 300 against 1000 in March of 624. This had been the first open violence between Mecca and Islam, and Muhammad was the one to strike the first blow.
They then attacked and crushed a group of Jews that lived nearby, which increased their popularity with the local Arabs, who hated the Jews, bringing Muhammad more converts. After this open aggression by Muhammad and his Muslims, Mecca mounted an offensive against Muhammad in 625. They defeated the Muslims, even wounding Muhammad, but did not utterly destroy the Muslims, which ended up being their downfall much later. Realizing that they would never be at peace with the Muslims, the Meccans laid siege to Medina (where the Muslims were staying), but finding the siege too difficult, retreated. Some Jews in Medina, called the Banu Qurayza tribe, were accused of having Meccan sympathies. In response, Muhammad slaughtered all the men and enslaved the women and children.
Since the Muslims had grown to be so large so fast, the Meccans decided that it was wisest to make a deal with the Muslims. The Meccans allowed Muhammad and his Muslims to enter Mecca for three days during the yearly pilgrimage, and vacated the city during those days. In 629, just before the pilgrimage began, Muhammad led his Muslims in a battle against the city of Khaybar, which was largely Jewish, and included many Jewish refugees that had been forced out of Medina by Muhammad already. When Khaybar resisted the Muslims, the city was overtaken by force and the Jews were driven out or killed. Muhammads policy of capturing strategic cities in and around Media had two aims; control of strategic routes and direct contact with northern tribes to convert them to Islam. Because of Muhammads success in conquering the nearby Arabs and in fear of him, many Arabs throughout the region sent delegations to bargain an alliance. Muhammad was very willing to make an allegiance, as long as one condition was met: that they would convert to Islam.
Towards the end of 629, the Meccans broke their agreement with the Muslims, which gave Muhammad an excuse to attack the city. He assembled a very large army and set out for Mecca. When he reached the city he threatened to attack them, and out of fear the Meccans surrendered the city to the Muslims. After Mecca fell, there were only a few tribes in and around Medina that had not yet been assimilated, and Muhammad set his eyes on them. In the succeeding years he conquered the towns of al-Taif and Hawazin. He crushed Hawazin in a pitched battle and besieged al-Taif, but the siege was fruitless and the Muslims ended up taking the city by negotiations.
The preceding was the account by Alan Jones, and to be fair it is the account of just one man (a man who has devoted is life to the study and teaching of Islamic history.) And so I will find another source and see if it agrees with Mr. Jones. The following is taken from a secular college textbook on the history of western civilization, as told by Jackson J. Spielvogel. Mr. Spielvogel is an associate professor of history at The Pennsylvania State University and got his Ph. D from The Ohio State University. He has been published in many academic journals and has co-written dozens of books. He has won five major university-wide teaching awards. He has held the Penn State Teaching Fellowship, which is the universitys most prestigious teaching award.
According to Mr. Spielvogel, [Muhammads] political and military skills enabled him to put together a reliable military force, with which he returned to Mecca in 630, conquering the city and converting the townspeople to the new faith. In order to spread Islam throughout the Arab world, Muhammad and the early caliphs who succeeded him took up the Arab tribal custom of making raids against ones enemies. The Quran called this activity striving in the way of the Lord, or a jihad. Since his is a textbook on the whole of western civilization, Mr. Spielvogel does not go into as much detail as Mr. Jones does, but instead covers all Islamic history. He recounts battle after battle, where Muslims, like Muhammad before them, took nation after nation until they secured for themselves dominion of the entire Byzantine Empire. It was the Muslims who brought the Eastern Roman Empire down by defeating Persia, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, sacking Constantinople in 1453.
When desiring to point out the sins of Christians, many people love to mention the crusades. I believe that the crusades were wrong and should never have happened. The fact was that the nations in power at the time used Christianity as a means to get a war going, since it was profitable for them. But one distinction I would like to point out is that the crusades were run by men who did not have an understanding of Christianity and had been obsessed with their own traditions. Jesus was not a violent man and never condoned violence, and there is no place in the New Testament where one could ever get the idea to attack and kill a people simply for not being Christians. If anything we are to love all people, regardless of faith. That is why the crusades were wrong, because they violated that Christianity they supposedly represented. But I might add here that, in truth, the crusades were a response to Muslim aggression, for in 1070 the Muslims conquered Jerusalem and crushed Byzantium at Manzikert a year later.
But now I suppose I must turn to the Koran itself. According to Alan Jones, the Koran is a beautifully written book of poetry that was meant to be read to an audience, and is one of the most fantastic works of literature ever to come out of the Arab world. Much of the book retells many stories from the Bible, for Muhammad, having supposedly never read the Bible or Torah himself, questioned many Jewish and Christian peoples he conquered and heard biblical stories. He then retold them in the Koran and added to them, or rearranged the stories so as to sound better poetically. In addition, there is much in the Koran that is in neither the Christian New Testament, nor the Jewish Torah. Muhammad regards Jesus as a mere prophet, like himself, and considers himself Jesus successor. He believes in the virgin birth and in Jesus death and resurrection, but also believes that Jesus then died of natural causes many years after his resurrection. Whereas Christians believe that Jesus is God Himself, Muhammad taught that Jesus was a mere prophet.
Due to the translation of the Koran from Arabic to English, the Koran lost much of its impact and force. Let us not confuse, however, impact and force with meaning. It is my belief that, when arguing about religion, many people find it far too easy to simply dismiss an opponents argument based on language translation alone, using the excuse, the interpretation is corrupt, imperfect, the meaning has changed, the translator changed some things, and so forth. But we rarely have such issues brought forth when dealing with translations of other historical texts, like the Iliad or the Odyssey for instance. This, then, is hypocritical, and the argument is merely a crutch used by those who do not want to believe what they are hearing, regardless of its truth. Since we are all honest men here, I know that this will not happen. The meaning of a document more often than not will stay the same regardless of the language it is written in, for words are simply ideas expressed in varying ways, and it doesnt matter which word is used to spark an idea in a mind, just as long as that idea is sparked. I also argue that there are many verses in both the Koran and the Bible that cannot be misinterpreted, no matter how much people would like to say they could. For example, there is a very short verse in the Bible which says, Jesus wept. Its meaning cannot be misunderstood. Similarly, there are just as many verses in the Koranas in any ancient documentthat simply cannot be misinterpreted and mean exactly what they say. I will add that the man who translated the Koran, Mr. Rodwell, and his editor, Mr. Jones, have dedicated their lives to the scholarly pursuit of Islam. It would not be in their interests to poorly translate the Koran, for they would then lose credibility. The translation I am using is considered one of the most credible and scholarly translations to have ever been written in English. So then, I urge those who read the following verses to be honest and realize that, even though it is written in English, it is still a credible, true account of what the Koran says.
Much of what it says is very forceful, and it uses strong language to command, denounce and proclaim. Even still, there are passages too numerous to mention about fighting the infidel and the sharing of booty. Because of this, I cannot recount them all here, but I will cite a few of the most plain commands to Muslims to kill or forcibly convert Christians and Jews.
And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pray the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful. (Sura 9:5)
When thy Lord spake unto the angels, I will be with you: therefore stablish ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger-tip. (Sura 8:12)
Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they are humbled. (Sura 9:29)
Believers! Wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors, and let them find you rigorous and know that God is with them who fear him. (Sura 9:124)
O Believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one anothers friends. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not guide the evil doers. (Sura 5:56)
The next verses are about the treatment of slave women. The Koran clearly gives Muslims the ability to not only own slaves but have sex with them as well.
Forbidden to you also are married women, except those who are in your hands as slaves. (Sura 4:28)
Happy now the believers, Who humble them in their prayers, And who keep aloof from vain words, And who are doers of alms deeds, And who restrain their appetites (Save with their wives, or the slaves whom their right hands possess: for in that case they shall be free from blame: But they whose desires reach further than this are transgressors:) (Sura 23:1-7)
I will leave it at that for now. I believe the examples I have provided are sufficient. I want to make clear that I in no way consider all Muslimsnor even the majority of themas extreme fascists who are trying to take over the world. I know that Islam can be and has been practiced peacefully, and that Muslims are often very good, honest, decent human beings that are just as loved by God as any other people. But the pure and simple truth of the matter is that Islam and its founder have a history of violent conversion, and that the Koran not only condones violence but orders Muslims to forcibly convert or kill infidels, calling out Jews and Christians by name.
It is true that the Old Testament of the Bible recounts much violence. But the difference is that God, in the Torah, was speaking to a very specific group of people (Israelites), not the whole world, and telling them to attack another certain group of people (Philistines, Hittites, Canaanites and so forth; there is never anywhere in the Bible that tells Jews to attack Muslims or Christians, and nowhere in the Bible that tells Christians to attack Jews or Muslims.) In the Koran, Muhammad or Allah are speaking to Muslims, all Muslims, and telling them to attack Christians and Jews, unless they convert. In addition, Christians are under a new covenant, called the New Testament; you could say that Judeo-Christian thought reformed itself when Jesus came onto the scene by shunning violence and promoting love and peace, even between enemies. If Islam is to be practiced peacefully, the religion must be reformed as well. One cannot argue that Islam has always been peaceful and has never instigated violence, for it is simply untrue. One cannot argue that the Koran is a book of peace and that it does not order its followers to kill unbelievers, for it is simply untrue. The step a Muslim must take if he wants to justify his religion is to admit these things and put them behind him, change the Koran and reform his faith. Otherwise it will remain a religion that desires to convert the world to Islam by any means necessary.
I will stop here at five pages. I tried to be as concise as possible. Please cross-reference the verses I quoted with your own Koran, for I would be very interested in the result. I look forward to more fun conversations!
Your friend,
Brandon
2006, Brandon M. Dennis
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2005 • Saturday
 |
Category: News and Politics
hen talking about race and culture, it becomes very easy to slip into stereotypes and to placate entire peoples. It is far better, in my opinion, to refrain as much as possible from using broad generalizations and second-hand observations, but rather to use first hand personal experiences to for | | |