Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kevin_shepherd's Reviews (563)
Were it fiction, I would have thought it outlandish and far-fetched. As a truthful memoir, it's mind-blowing. This is a recounting of piss-poor parenting of astronomic proportion. Who does this to a child?! And yet Augusten perseveres, his sense of humor (and fashion) intact, even when everyone around him seems destined for a mental or penal institution.
There were times when I had to put this book down and step away, but credit Burroughs' skill as a writer, interweaving levity into an often dark and tragic biography, I always came back.
There were times when I had to put this book down and step away, but credit Burroughs' skill as a writer, interweaving levity into an often dark and tragic biography, I always came back.
As opposed to professional hit men who tend to murder for extrinsic motives such as money, the serial killer operates on a more intrinsic level.
In his study of 179 serial and mass murderers, author David Lester determined that the need to control and dominate the victim was the most common theme. This often manifested itself in the form of torture (pg 50). Psychological profiles drawn from these case studies indicate that serial killers rarely show any remorse or regret for their atrocious acts. Most of the subjects interviewed were unable or unwilling to empathize with their victims and thus showed no sympathy or mercy for them.
Of the 30 “sadistic criminals” in Lester’s study, over half of the men (yes they were all male) documented their crimes with journals or calendars and 43% kept personal items from each victim (trophies, pg 55). Lester’s findings coincide with other studies suggesting that, after the act of murder is completed and their triumphant feeling of euphoria starts to fade, many serial murderers will collect items from slain individuals in a totemic effort to capture and prolong the moment.
The Visionary Type
According to the author, the “visionary type” of serial killer is one who claims to kill in response to voices or visions from a higher power, usually God or the Devil (pg 73). Visionary type killers are not prone to torture their victims and their murderous acts are generally spontaneous and almost never planned in advance.
The Mission-Oriented Type
“Mission-Oriented types” kill people who are perceived to be repugnant or loathsome (pg 74). MO murderers generally prefer to kill their victims swiftly and never leave weapons at the scene of the crime.
The Control-Oriented Type
“Control-Oriented types” derive a sense of excitement and gratification from having the power to decide whether a particular person lives or dies (pg 77). CO types don’t usually confine their crimes to any specific geographical area, their victims tend to turn up in widely dispersed locations (pg 79).
Anyone looking for thrilling “true-crime” drama is destined to be a little disappointed with Dr. Lester’s methodology. This isn’t sensationalistic journalism or melodramatic fluff. This is a study in abnormal psychology, albeit a problematic one, that attempts to assemble rational data from irrational human behavior.
In his study of 179 serial and mass murderers, author David Lester determined that the need to control and dominate the victim was the most common theme. This often manifested itself in the form of torture (pg 50). Psychological profiles drawn from these case studies indicate that serial killers rarely show any remorse or regret for their atrocious acts. Most of the subjects interviewed were unable or unwilling to empathize with their victims and thus showed no sympathy or mercy for them.
Of the 30 “sadistic criminals” in Lester’s study, over half of the men (yes they were all male) documented their crimes with journals or calendars and 43% kept personal items from each victim (trophies, pg 55). Lester’s findings coincide with other studies suggesting that, after the act of murder is completed and their triumphant feeling of euphoria starts to fade, many serial murderers will collect items from slain individuals in a totemic effort to capture and prolong the moment.
The Visionary Type
According to the author, the “visionary type” of serial killer is one who claims to kill in response to voices or visions from a higher power, usually God or the Devil (pg 73). Visionary type killers are not prone to torture their victims and their murderous acts are generally spontaneous and almost never planned in advance.
The Mission-Oriented Type
“Mission-Oriented types” kill people who are perceived to be repugnant or loathsome (pg 74). MO murderers generally prefer to kill their victims swiftly and never leave weapons at the scene of the crime.
The Control-Oriented Type
“Control-Oriented types” derive a sense of excitement and gratification from having the power to decide whether a particular person lives or dies (pg 77). CO types don’t usually confine their crimes to any specific geographical area, their victims tend to turn up in widely dispersed locations (pg 79).
Anyone looking for thrilling “true-crime” drama is destined to be a little disappointed with Dr. Lester’s methodology. This isn’t sensationalistic journalism or melodramatic fluff. This is a study in abnormal psychology, albeit a problematic one, that attempts to assemble rational data from irrational human behavior.
A chronicle of the life of Ron Kovic, a young man from Massapequa, Long Island who grew up in a typical American home, immersed in typical American values, and, in the late 1960s, did a typical American thing: he went off to war.
The Warrior Archetype
To begin the transition from civilian to soldier, it is necessary to draw out the “warrior archetype,” to arouse that primordial element responsible for the ferocity, tenacity, and ethnocentric unity that makes human warfare possible. For Kovic, this transition began early when he took to playing war games* with his childhood friends.
*NOTE: If I can interject a little Jungian philosophy here - regardless of the culture in which children are raised, the playing of warlike games has been observed in male adolescents around the globe. Carl Jung took this as a testament to his theory of the archetypal nature of the human animal and how such a nature is shaped by man’s evolutionary history.
By the time Kovic reached the age of eligibility for military service, the psychological foundation of the soldier mentality was already set in place. Immediately after high school, he enlisted in the U.S. Marines. His decision to become a marine, a military branch with a tough reputation, may have been rooted in a desire for self-validation. Whatever the reason, Ron soon found himself in combat.
The Deconstruction of an Archetype
On the 12th day of October, 1967, Kovic and his marine platoon engaged in battle with Viet Cong soldiers near the Cua Viet river. During this confrontation, several Vietnamese civilians, including women and children, were killed. In addition, Kovic accidentally shot and mortally wounded a fellow American marine, 18 year old William Charles Wilson.
Kovic felt a deep sense of regret and empathy toward the massacred civilians and debilitating guilt over the death of Private Wilson. Yet, when he reported the incidents to his commanding officer, his confession was sharply rebuked and he was turned away. The realities of war were quickly obliterating his gilded, youthful ideals.
Coming Home
Sentenced to a lifetime in a wheelchair by a Viet Cong bullet, Ron returned to Massapequa in 1969. His internal struggle, however, continued. He first sought refuge in drugs and liquor, but later found solace in the constructive outlet of political activism.
For Ron, the duality of self - the creation, integration, and bonding on one side, and the disintegration, destruction, and dissolution on the other - was split apart by the reality of Vietnam. His story is, in effect, a microcosm of what went on within the collective conscience of American society during that time.
Ron Kovic’s autobiography is unsavory but honest. He started out as a standard bearer of American exceptionalism and ended up as a casualty of a very unpopular war.
The Warrior Archetype
To begin the transition from civilian to soldier, it is necessary to draw out the “warrior archetype,” to arouse that primordial element responsible for the ferocity, tenacity, and ethnocentric unity that makes human warfare possible. For Kovic, this transition began early when he took to playing war games* with his childhood friends.
*NOTE: If I can interject a little Jungian philosophy here - regardless of the culture in which children are raised, the playing of warlike games has been observed in male adolescents around the globe. Carl Jung took this as a testament to his theory of the archetypal nature of the human animal and how such a nature is shaped by man’s evolutionary history.
By the time Kovic reached the age of eligibility for military service, the psychological foundation of the soldier mentality was already set in place. Immediately after high school, he enlisted in the U.S. Marines. His decision to become a marine, a military branch with a tough reputation, may have been rooted in a desire for self-validation. Whatever the reason, Ron soon found himself in combat.
The Deconstruction of an Archetype
On the 12th day of October, 1967, Kovic and his marine platoon engaged in battle with Viet Cong soldiers near the Cua Viet river. During this confrontation, several Vietnamese civilians, including women and children, were killed. In addition, Kovic accidentally shot and mortally wounded a fellow American marine, 18 year old William Charles Wilson.
Kovic felt a deep sense of regret and empathy toward the massacred civilians and debilitating guilt over the death of Private Wilson. Yet, when he reported the incidents to his commanding officer, his confession was sharply rebuked and he was turned away. The realities of war were quickly obliterating his gilded, youthful ideals.
Coming Home
Sentenced to a lifetime in a wheelchair by a Viet Cong bullet, Ron returned to Massapequa in 1969. His internal struggle, however, continued. He first sought refuge in drugs and liquor, but later found solace in the constructive outlet of political activism.
For Ron, the duality of self - the creation, integration, and bonding on one side, and the disintegration, destruction, and dissolution on the other - was split apart by the reality of Vietnam. His story is, in effect, a microcosm of what went on within the collective conscience of American society during that time.
Ron Kovic’s autobiography is unsavory but honest. He started out as a standard bearer of American exceptionalism and ended up as a casualty of a very unpopular war.
Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage
Sherry Sontag, Annette Lawrence Drew, Christopher Drew
I did time on two submarines during my six year naval enlistment, first in the Atlantic (USS Simon Bolivar) and then the Pacific (USS Ohio). As a nuclear missile technician, MT2/SS, I have a few Cold War stories of my own. Nothing I have though would rival the events Sontag & Drew describe here.
Declassification and the Freedom of Information Act cleared the way for public disclosure of these covert, top secret ops. This is Spy vs Spy played out on a global scale, with dire consequences for anyone who makes an error or miscalculation (ref: USS Scorpion).
I'm obviously biased, but I found this much more interesting than any fictional scenarios dreamed up in the minds of Tom Clancy or Patrick Robinson.
Declassification and the Freedom of Information Act cleared the way for public disclosure of these covert, top secret ops. This is Spy vs Spy played out on a global scale, with dire consequences for anyone who makes an error or miscalculation (ref: USS Scorpion).
I'm obviously biased, but I found this much more interesting than any fictional scenarios dreamed up in the minds of Tom Clancy or Patrick Robinson.
The analysis and examination of overt behavior has raised some very interesting and intriguing questions concerning the structure of the human personality.
Building on the theoretical foundation laid by Sigmund Freud and his concept of psychoanalysis, behavioral and learning theorists have concentrated their research on empirical observations and scientifically verifiable data in order to better test and evaluate their ideas. Even with the limitations imposed by strict, controlled, laboratory experiments, behavioral theorists reached some surprisingly diverse conclusions about the nature of personality.
Psychoanalytic Learning Theory
Developed by John Dollard and Neal Miller, psychoanalytic learning theory combined empirical lab experimentation with Freudian psychoanalysis (pg 193). Dollard and Miller theorized that human personality is composed of an intricate and interconnected structure of learned associations between a given stimulus and a person’s response to that stimulus.
Radical Behaviorism
In contrast to the ideas of Miller and Dollard, B.F. Skinner discounted Freud’s concepts and postulated that all human behaviors can be accounted for by learning theory principles (pg 203). Skinner disliked the term “personality” altogether. He felt that efforts to rationalize and explain a person’s behavior based on the abstract concepts of internal underpinnings, such as an id or an ego, were absurd and of no real value in empirical analysis. Skinner proposed that an individual’s behavior could be completely and entirely explained based on the forces in the surrounding environment (pg 205). His methodology represents learning theory and behaviorism in its purest form. Skinner’s ideas came to be known as “radical behaviorism” because of their complete omission of psychoanalytic philosophy and its associated abstract concepts (pg 193).
Reciprocal Determinism
Skinner’s extreme expression of Dollard and Miller’s behavioral theory “led to the development of an alternative approach to learning and behavior which, while emphasizing situational factors, also reintroduces covert factors such as cognition” (pg 218). Two of the key theorists who developed and promoted these new ideas were Albert Bandura and Julian Rotter. Bandura and Rotter sought to overcome some of the shortcomings of Skinner’s radical behaviorism by incorporating cognitive and social dynamics into the overall structure of personality (pg 223).
Bandura introduced an interactive view of personality structure and behavioral determinants which he called “reciprocal determinism.” He believed that the individual, the individual’s behavior, and the individual’s environment all influence and affect each other (pg 225). In essence, Bandura’s theory realigned Skinner’s concepts with the more Freudian views of Dollard and Miller.
In contrast to Bandura’s notion of the reciprocal nature of personality development, Julian Rotter’s research and empirical observations led him to conclude that human behavior was generally motivated by more specific variables (pg 242). Although Rotter also based his principles of behavioral development on the ideas set forth by Skinner, his position represents a very different approach to traditional learning theory. Rotter expanded the theoretical realm of cognitive social learning while still maintaining Skinner’s strict emphasis on controlled and detailed methodology (pg 250).
What We’ve Learned
While the learning and behavioral theories outlined by Dollard, Miller, and Skinner are all able to account for learned habits and simplistic human behaviors, they fail to account for the cognitive elements of man’s interaction with his environment.
Bandura and Rotter sought to build on behaviorist foundations by introducing internal thought processes into their respective behavior and learning theories.
Neither ‘radical behaviorism’ nor ‘cognitive learning theory’ promote philosophical introspection or abstract reasoning. They do, however, provide a basis for the concrete and empirical study of human personality and its developmental processes.
Building on the theoretical foundation laid by Sigmund Freud and his concept of psychoanalysis, behavioral and learning theorists have concentrated their research on empirical observations and scientifically verifiable data in order to better test and evaluate their ideas. Even with the limitations imposed by strict, controlled, laboratory experiments, behavioral theorists reached some surprisingly diverse conclusions about the nature of personality.
Psychoanalytic Learning Theory
Developed by John Dollard and Neal Miller, psychoanalytic learning theory combined empirical lab experimentation with Freudian psychoanalysis (pg 193). Dollard and Miller theorized that human personality is composed of an intricate and interconnected structure of learned associations between a given stimulus and a person’s response to that stimulus.
Radical Behaviorism
In contrast to the ideas of Miller and Dollard, B.F. Skinner discounted Freud’s concepts and postulated that all human behaviors can be accounted for by learning theory principles (pg 203). Skinner disliked the term “personality” altogether. He felt that efforts to rationalize and explain a person’s behavior based on the abstract concepts of internal underpinnings, such as an id or an ego, were absurd and of no real value in empirical analysis. Skinner proposed that an individual’s behavior could be completely and entirely explained based on the forces in the surrounding environment (pg 205). His methodology represents learning theory and behaviorism in its purest form. Skinner’s ideas came to be known as “radical behaviorism” because of their complete omission of psychoanalytic philosophy and its associated abstract concepts (pg 193).
Reciprocal Determinism
Skinner’s extreme expression of Dollard and Miller’s behavioral theory “led to the development of an alternative approach to learning and behavior which, while emphasizing situational factors, also reintroduces covert factors such as cognition” (pg 218). Two of the key theorists who developed and promoted these new ideas were Albert Bandura and Julian Rotter. Bandura and Rotter sought to overcome some of the shortcomings of Skinner’s radical behaviorism by incorporating cognitive and social dynamics into the overall structure of personality (pg 223).
Bandura introduced an interactive view of personality structure and behavioral determinants which he called “reciprocal determinism.” He believed that the individual, the individual’s behavior, and the individual’s environment all influence and affect each other (pg 225). In essence, Bandura’s theory realigned Skinner’s concepts with the more Freudian views of Dollard and Miller.
In contrast to Bandura’s notion of the reciprocal nature of personality development, Julian Rotter’s research and empirical observations led him to conclude that human behavior was generally motivated by more specific variables (pg 242). Although Rotter also based his principles of behavioral development on the ideas set forth by Skinner, his position represents a very different approach to traditional learning theory. Rotter expanded the theoretical realm of cognitive social learning while still maintaining Skinner’s strict emphasis on controlled and detailed methodology (pg 250).
What We’ve Learned
While the learning and behavioral theories outlined by Dollard, Miller, and Skinner are all able to account for learned habits and simplistic human behaviors, they fail to account for the cognitive elements of man’s interaction with his environment.
Bandura and Rotter sought to build on behaviorist foundations by introducing internal thought processes into their respective behavior and learning theories.
Neither ‘radical behaviorism’ nor ‘cognitive learning theory’ promote philosophical introspection or abstract reasoning. They do, however, provide a basis for the concrete and empirical study of human personality and its developmental processes.
"If you are searching for sacred knowledge and not just a palliative for your fears, then you will train yourself to be a good skeptic." ~Ann Druyan
Believe in something without evidence and you are superstitious. Believe in something that runs counter to mountains of existing, quantifiable evidence and you are religious.
One of the most preposterous tenants of western theology is that everything exists for the benefit of man. The prevalent fundamentalist philosophy is one of anthropocentric smallness and irrefutability, a philosophy that only works if truths are somehow distorted or ignored. Carl Sagan, himself well versed in scripture, plows through these ideological conundrums to reveal a universal order many times more vast and awe-inspiring than anything the pulpit propagandists would like you to believe. Sagan's contention here is simple - if something as important as religion cannot withstand rational scrutiny, then it has no more validity than Greek mythology or Mayan astrology.
"If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would he prefer his votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy? I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves." ~C.S. (pg 31)
Believe in something without evidence and you are superstitious. Believe in something that runs counter to mountains of existing, quantifiable evidence and you are religious.
One of the most preposterous tenants of western theology is that everything exists for the benefit of man. The prevalent fundamentalist philosophy is one of anthropocentric smallness and irrefutability, a philosophy that only works if truths are somehow distorted or ignored. Carl Sagan, himself well versed in scripture, plows through these ideological conundrums to reveal a universal order many times more vast and awe-inspiring than anything the pulpit propagandists would like you to believe. Sagan's contention here is simple - if something as important as religion cannot withstand rational scrutiny, then it has no more validity than Greek mythology or Mayan astrology.
"If a Creator God exists, would He or She or It or whatever the appropriate pronoun is, prefer a kind of sodden blockhead who worships while understanding nothing? Or would he prefer his votaries to admire the real universe in all its intricacy? I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves." ~C.S. (pg 31)
"One of the works of literature for which [Russell] was awarded the Nobel Prize is a widely read essay first delivered as a lecture in 1927 entitled, 'Why I Am Not a Christian.' ...I haven't forgotten it yet, and I have promised myself that I never will. ...If you were to read his essay, and in the interest of open-mindedness I would urge you to do so, you would find that Bertrand Russell, who is one of the world's foremost logicians as well as a philosopher and mathematician, undoes with logic that is beyond dispute the first-cause arguement, the natural law arguement, the arguement from design, the moral arguements for a diety, and the arguement for the remedying of injustice." ~Philip Roth, Indignation
It is of some importance to note that this is a collection of essays spanning, in my edition, some 267 pages. The title piece, 'Why I Am Not a Christian,' is just 20 pages, leaving roughly 92.5% of the volume for other engrossing bits such as 'Life in the Middle Ages,' 'The Fate of Thomas Paine,' and 'Our Sexual Ethics.' All of which I found fascinating!
Russell's assertions on religion and related topics aren't necessarily earth shattering, at least not anymore. I think that only goes to show what an enormous influence he has had on modern secularism and free thought. You can hear his words, rephrased and reiterated, in the works of Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, and Victor Stenger (just to name a few).
"The attitude that one ought to believe a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices." ~B.R.
Speaking for myself, I made my break with religious dogma years before I had ever heard of Bertrand Russell, so it should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I find his wisdom and scrupulous logic life-affirming. His reputation for brilliant and intelligent 'heresy' is justly deserved and his work is as relevant now as it was when it was written almost a century ago. In fact, in this era of American oligarchy and the increasing politicalization of faith, it is possible that Russell is more relevant now than ever.
"One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." ~B.R.
It is of some importance to note that this is a collection of essays spanning, in my edition, some 267 pages. The title piece, 'Why I Am Not a Christian,' is just 20 pages, leaving roughly 92.5% of the volume for other engrossing bits such as 'Life in the Middle Ages,' 'The Fate of Thomas Paine,' and 'Our Sexual Ethics.' All of which I found fascinating!
Russell's assertions on religion and related topics aren't necessarily earth shattering, at least not anymore. I think that only goes to show what an enormous influence he has had on modern secularism and free thought. You can hear his words, rephrased and reiterated, in the works of Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, and Victor Stenger (just to name a few).
"The attitude that one ought to believe a proposition, independently of the question whether there is evidence in its favor, is an attitude which produces hostility to evidence and causes us to close our minds to every fact that does not suit our prejudices." ~B.R.
Speaking for myself, I made my break with religious dogma years before I had ever heard of Bertrand Russell, so it should come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I find his wisdom and scrupulous logic life-affirming. His reputation for brilliant and intelligent 'heresy' is justly deserved and his work is as relevant now as it was when it was written almost a century ago. In fact, in this era of American oligarchy and the increasing politicalization of faith, it is possible that Russell is more relevant now than ever.
"One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it." ~B.R.
It’s probably important to note that the author, Candida Moss, is a graduate of both Oxford and Yale universities. She taught Christian History and the New Testament at Norte Dame and is currently a professor of theology at the University of Birmingham. She is herself a Christian and refers to Christians with pronouns like ‘we’ and ‘us.’
we /wē/ pronoun: we • used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.
“What if Christians weren’t continually persecuted by the Romans? ...would we be more compassionate? Would we be less self-righteous? How would we think of ourselves if that history were not true? ...without this posture and the polarized view of the world upon which it relies, we might - without compromising our religious or political convictions - be able to reach common ground and engage in productive government, and we might focus on real examples of actual suffering and actual oppression.”
Moss methodically and meticulously dismantles the myth of christian persecution by scrutinizing and analyzing church histories. Some are obvious plagiarisms of pre-Christian texts. Others are borrowed from Jewish and Pagan traditions. Most were written decades or even centuries after the fact, and those that purport to be firsthand accounts are often forgeries or complete fabrications.
It is undeniably true that, over the centuries, there were indeed Christians that were put to death, some in horribly hideous and painful ways, but never in the numbers purported by the church. And there was never any sustained, state sponsored persecution that specifically targeted Christians. None. Nada. Nope.
There is but one brief period of time that even comes close to the popularly held perceptions about Christian persecution. In the year 303, the Roman emperor Diocletian issued the first of a series of edicts making Christian gatherings, Christian places of worship, and Christian scriptures illegal. This period, known as “The Great Persecution” lasted until Diocletian retired in 305, a period of less than three years.
Making a clear distinction between ‘persecution’ and ‘prosecution,’ Moss puts Roman governance in perspective without minimizing or condoning Roman brutality:
“From an ancient perspective, the presence of a religiously noncompliant group in any community was a threat to that community.” Still further, “If the Roman emperors had a problem with Christians and Christianity, it was because they threatened the stability of the empire and appeared to make divisive political claims. Roman emperors did not take issue with nonthreatening things like baptism or hymns; they had problems with those aspects of Christianity that sounded like treason or revolution.”
The evidence Moss presents is overwhelming. The fashionable presumption of a sustained and relentless persecution of Christians, still taught in American Sunday schools and perpetuated at republican party rallies, is a fiction. It is nothing more than rhetorical propaganda, a tool used for political gain and to advance agendas. In worst cases, it becomes a call to arms for unnecessary violence and tragic bloodshed.
“No longer are reasoned argument, good judgement, or logic able to win the day... Framed by the myth that we are persecuted, dialogue is not only impossible, it is undesirable... Heaven help us if this worldview, which pervades political commentary and activism as well as religion, wins the day.” ~Candida Moss, 2013
*************************************
Notes:
“...most of the pagan opposition to Christians during the church’s first two centuries happened on the grassroots level rather than as a result of organized, official Roman persecution. Contrary to what many people appear to think, there was nothing “illegal” about Christianity, per se, in those early years. Christianity itself was not outlawed, and Christians for the most part did not need to go into hiding. The idea that they had to stay in the Roman catacombs in order to avoid persecution, greeted one another through secret signs such as the symbol of the fish, is nothing but the stuff of legend. It was not illegal to follow Jesus, it was not illegal to worship the Jewish God, it was not illegal to call Jesus God, it was not illegal (in most places) to hold separate meetings of fellowship and worship, it was not illegal to convince others of one’s faith in Christ as the Son of God.” ~Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 2005 (pg 196)
we /wē/ pronoun: we • used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.
“What if Christians weren’t continually persecuted by the Romans? ...would we be more compassionate? Would we be less self-righteous? How would we think of ourselves if that history were not true? ...without this posture and the polarized view of the world upon which it relies, we might - without compromising our religious or political convictions - be able to reach common ground and engage in productive government, and we might focus on real examples of actual suffering and actual oppression.”
Moss methodically and meticulously dismantles the myth of christian persecution by scrutinizing and analyzing church histories. Some are obvious plagiarisms of pre-Christian texts. Others are borrowed from Jewish and Pagan traditions. Most were written decades or even centuries after the fact, and those that purport to be firsthand accounts are often forgeries or complete fabrications.
It is undeniably true that, over the centuries, there were indeed Christians that were put to death, some in horribly hideous and painful ways, but never in the numbers purported by the church. And there was never any sustained, state sponsored persecution that specifically targeted Christians. None. Nada. Nope.
There is but one brief period of time that even comes close to the popularly held perceptions about Christian persecution. In the year 303, the Roman emperor Diocletian issued the first of a series of edicts making Christian gatherings, Christian places of worship, and Christian scriptures illegal. This period, known as “The Great Persecution” lasted until Diocletian retired in 305, a period of less than three years.
Making a clear distinction between ‘persecution’ and ‘prosecution,’ Moss puts Roman governance in perspective without minimizing or condoning Roman brutality:
“From an ancient perspective, the presence of a religiously noncompliant group in any community was a threat to that community.” Still further, “If the Roman emperors had a problem with Christians and Christianity, it was because they threatened the stability of the empire and appeared to make divisive political claims. Roman emperors did not take issue with nonthreatening things like baptism or hymns; they had problems with those aspects of Christianity that sounded like treason or revolution.”
The evidence Moss presents is overwhelming. The fashionable presumption of a sustained and relentless persecution of Christians, still taught in American Sunday schools and perpetuated at republican party rallies, is a fiction. It is nothing more than rhetorical propaganda, a tool used for political gain and to advance agendas. In worst cases, it becomes a call to arms for unnecessary violence and tragic bloodshed.
“No longer are reasoned argument, good judgement, or logic able to win the day... Framed by the myth that we are persecuted, dialogue is not only impossible, it is undesirable... Heaven help us if this worldview, which pervades political commentary and activism as well as religion, wins the day.” ~Candida Moss, 2013
*************************************
Notes:
“...most of the pagan opposition to Christians during the church’s first two centuries happened on the grassroots level rather than as a result of organized, official Roman persecution. Contrary to what many people appear to think, there was nothing “illegal” about Christianity, per se, in those early years. Christianity itself was not outlawed, and Christians for the most part did not need to go into hiding. The idea that they had to stay in the Roman catacombs in order to avoid persecution, greeted one another through secret signs such as the symbol of the fish, is nothing but the stuff of legend. It was not illegal to follow Jesus, it was not illegal to worship the Jewish God, it was not illegal to call Jesus God, it was not illegal (in most places) to hold separate meetings of fellowship and worship, it was not illegal to convince others of one’s faith in Christ as the Son of God.” ~Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 2005 (pg 196)
The Four Horsemen: The Conversation That Sparked an Atheist Revolution
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris
"You don't have to boast a PhD or have read Thomas à Kempis, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Siddhartha (or indeed On the Origin of Species and Principia Mathematica) to be able to take part in such wrangling and disputation. But boy, isn't it wonderful when you can eavesdrop on four who have." ~Stephen Fry
Oh, to have the sagacious chops to merit a seat at that table! A secular Mt Rushmore. An evolutionary biologist, a neuroscientist, a philosopher, and Hitch (sorry, I couldn't describe Christopher Hitchens with just one word. Historian? Journalist? Contrarian? Sage? Even collectively they fall far short.)
One of my utopian fantasies would be to live in a world where all of us could practice and embrace rational discourse at this level. It's a pipe dream that has absolutely no chance, but I like to ponder the implausible. (I have a lesser utopian fantasy where I'm spooning with Uma Thurman, but I digress...)
Oh, to have the sagacious chops to merit a seat at that table! A secular Mt Rushmore. An evolutionary biologist, a neuroscientist, a philosopher, and Hitch (sorry, I couldn't describe Christopher Hitchens with just one word. Historian? Journalist? Contrarian? Sage? Even collectively they fall far short.)
One of my utopian fantasies would be to live in a world where all of us could practice and embrace rational discourse at this level. It's a pipe dream that has absolutely no chance, but I like to ponder the implausible. (I have a lesser utopian fantasy where I'm spooning with Uma Thurman, but I digress...)
"Dying is an art, like everything else." ~Sylvia Plath
Christopher Hitchens had a much longer book in mind when he started writing Mortality. His chronicle of living, and dying, with stage four esophageal cancer is a testament to his tenacity, and it seems fitting that he died as he lived: brilliant, irreverent and completely cognizant of inevitability.
"...the thing about stage four is that there is no stage five"
Christopher Hitchens had a much longer book in mind when he started writing Mortality. His chronicle of living, and dying, with stage four esophageal cancer is a testament to his tenacity, and it seems fitting that he died as he lived: brilliant, irreverent and completely cognizant of inevitability.
"...the thing about stage four is that there is no stage five"