Understanding Chronology

Gavin M. over at Sadly, No! is a champ with the "Shorter..." motif, and gives us his take on Marsha West's screed against John Edward. I am terrible at making anything shorter, but I don't really see a need to go into too much detail about this batshit piece of muddled paranoia. There's just one part of it that reminds me of an issue I often have with Christians who continue to use biblical passages to rail against witchcraft, and I feel compelled to share.

For the record, I believe pretty firmly that John Edward is full of crap. He's a great showman, which is fine so far as it goes, but his brand of terribly sincere world-wisdom reads to me more as charlatan than seer. This, however, does not cause me to agree in the least with Marsha, who gives the following lesson on why John Edwards is obviously in league with Satan.

"When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead" (Deuteronomy 18:9-11).

Could God be any clearer than that?

The Greek term used for contacting the dead is "necromancy." According to Wikipedia.com, "Necromancy is a form of divination in which the practitioner seeks to summon 'operative spirits' or 'spirits of divination,' for multiple reasons, from spiritual protection to wisdom. ... [S]ince the Renaissance, necromancy has come to be associated more broadly with black magic and demon-summoning in general, sometimes losing its earlier, more specialized meaning."

Now for the definition of witchcraft: "Witchcraft (from Old English wiccecræft "sorcery, necromancy"), in various historical, anthropological, religious and mythological contexts, is the use of certain kinds of supernatural or magical powers."

Now, I would bet that Marsha is one of those ignorant fundamentalists who believes that her chosen translation of the Bible is the actual Word of God™, superior to all other translations, including the ones it was translated from. I can't do anything with that. That's the kind of conversation-ending stupidity that fundamentalists always run to, driving rational Christians like myself crazy. But whatever. Marsha has probably already been informed that English translations of the Bible were targeted to turn people against regional pagan religions in the drive to convert England completely to Christianity, and that different translations of Hebrew words create profound differences between biblical interpretations. She can't hear that. Okay. But surely she can understand a simple timeline.

Deuteronomy was not written in Greek or in Old English. Etymology does not apply, since these are not examples of language slowly changing over time but being translated from one established language to another. No matter how many links you can conjure up between the meaning of the modern word "witch" and Hebrew words like "m'khashepah", the simple fact remains that the Celtic pagan earth worship of Europe, which is what the word "witchcraft" commonly refers to, did not exist at the time Deuteronomy was written. The concept that the Old Testament references celtic paganism, or eastern mysticism for that matter, is about as believable as the concept of Jesus the carpenter giving lessons on using a table saw. Regardless of how you feel about translation, it's just not plausible based on simple chronology.

I'm always amazed that, when questioned, these people can't adequately explain why celtic pagan rituals count as witchcraft, but similar rituals of Shintoism, Hinduism, Native American religion, Kabbalah and even Christianity do not. You'd think this is something you'd have to ponder before damning the followers of a belief system.

Frankly, it's astounding how many people believe that the bible literally condemns any actual or believed communication with the dead, and yet pray to Jesus on a daily basis.

Going back to Familiar Ground

Okay, not only have I not had the time I'd hoped for, but now that I do, I'm going back to the old standby instead of doing something new. Sue me.

I still check out the Syracuse Post opinion pages on occasion, because I still find them fascinating. I haven't found another paper that gives so many ill-informed sociopaths a public forum. And they still manage to irk me, especially when they state complete fiction as unquestionable fact. William Davies was always a champ at this, and he did it again a few days ago. I'm not going to bother with the whole letter; it's the same old religion-in-schools rehash. But here's the kicker:

George Washington, in his farewell address (1796) reminded his countrymen "that their experiment in republic government would come to no good without religion." Is the significance that Washington placed on our religious base . . . and founding principles too dangerous for American students to learn in the classroom?
-William Davies

Okay, first of all, those quotation marks are misused because 'that their' is included inside them. They are also misused because it's not a quote by George Washington. Not from his farewell address of 1796 or any other address. At all. He never said it. Is William aware of this and simply trying to pull one over on us, or did he hear it from some other peddler of misinformation and simply believe it blindly? I don't know, but either way, he's full of it.

In fairness, here is what George Washington did say regarding religion in that address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
-George Washington, 1796

So can we pick that apart to mean basically what William passed off as an actual quote? Not really. Washington is not saying here that religion should be in any way combined with law or education. Washington states that religion should not be subverted, which is fair. Religion should never be taken away from the people. Note the use of the word religion, as opposed to Christianity. Forcing students to learn the principles of Christianity in schools as fact would, by its very nature, take away the religion of the child's home at the government's hand.

That bit of mythology debunked, I'd like to point to a few other passages from that address that nationalist warhawks like William Davies may have overlooked.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
- George Washington, 1796

Washington doesn't much care for the idea of supporting a particular party with great fervor, nor does he advocate an administration that consolidates powers to itself and ignores checks and balances in the guise of, oh, something like an 'executive privilege' or something. Interesting. I wonder why William doesn't write a letter about this passage.

Or this one:

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it. It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
- George Washington, 1796

I hope I don't have to point out the relevance of this one. Leave it to say that I don't think labeling a handful of nations as an 'Axis of Evil' and engendering a cultural enmity in Americans through racist and ethnocentric propaganda falls within the spirit of Washington's advice. Additionally, Washington cautions a young nation against the dangers of short-sighted violence to gain 'temporary advantages' instead of holding fast to policies of peace and harmony. 'Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here' is not a motto our first president would have likely endorsed.

I guess my point is this: It's good to read. If you find a quote you want to use in a public forum, it's generally a good idea to find the source of the quote, verify it, and maybe make sure the entire context of the quote actually supports your point and philosophy. Falling for bullshit is exactly what I fault supporters of the current administration with, and here's a glaring example of exactly that.