Muhammed on a Personal Basis

So who was this guy who started Islam? Exiled from his home tribe, he formed an army: “there were epic battles with the Quraysh and other tribes, and Muhammed was a fighter and tactician.” His military abilities, both to lead soldiers, and to use sword himself, became legendary. After the battle of Badr, he ordered the unarmed prisoners to be executed. He ordered several poetesses and poets in Medina to be killed, because they had expressed doubts about him. He organized the murders of several hundred men in the town of Banu Qurayza, suspecting them of disloyalty.

His family relationships were sometimes problematic: desiring “the wife of his adopted adult son,” he took “her to be his fifth wife.” He seemed to have a total of somewhere between eleven and thirteen wives, of who the youngest was engaged to him at age six, although she did marry him until she was nine years old.

(Quotes from Karen Armstrong at the University of London, and Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times.)

Steps to Fascism?

Psychologist and author R.J. Lifton has analyzed the mental adjustments which people make when forced to live in a totalitarian state - the way in which they attempt to make peace with the fact that they must do things which they find to be immoral: a soldier ordered to kill civilians, a teacher forced to present political propaganda to his class. The clearest examples are Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Hitler's Nazi Party.

Lifton did a psychological study of the doctors who worked under Hitler's rule, and identified five steps by which they were seduced into silence, instead of protest:

First, there was coercive sterilization: Those who were to be sterilized included patients suffering from: mental deficiency, schizophrenia, manic depressive insanity, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, hereditary blindness, hereditary deafness, grave bodily malformation, and hereditary alcoholism.

Second, killing of "impaired children" in hospitals.

Third, killing of "impaired" adults.

Fourth, killing of "impaired" inmates of concentration and extermination camps.

Fifth, mass killings.

Do we find eerie parallels to events in our own society? Consider: In the early to mid-1900s, forced sterilization was legal in sixteen states. Private individuals and prominent foundations supported the creation of the Eugenics Record Office to promote eugenics in American society. Eugenics is "the study of hereditary improvements of the human race by controlled selective breeding." Later, Jack Kervorkian assists over 100 people to kill themselves, Oregon institutes legalized physician-assisted suicide legislation. From 1998 to 2004, 208 persons with terminal illnesses have killed themselves. Eighty-seven percent cited the fear of losing autonomy as one of their concerns, and the death of Terry Schiavo in Florida is brought about through dehydration and starvation by discontinuing the administration of nutritional substances. Finally, New Jersey becomes the first state to legalize (and fund) human cloning experiments. The only reason for having these human cloned embryos is to terminate them in embryonic stem cell research experiments. Experience has shown that cloned animals are "impaired" and it is believed that cloned human beings would be just as impaired: "A review of all the world's cloned animals suggests that every one of them is genetically and physically defective. Ian Wilmut [lead scientist on the Dolly cloned sheep project] said, 'There is abundant evidence that cloning can and does go wrong and no justification for believing that this will not happen with humans.'" The Sunday Times of London reported that "gene defects emerge in all animal clones," indicating that anyone willing to make a human clone would be knowingly imposing a defect upon that human, and would be equally ready to exterminate that human for being defective.

Lifton comments: "The Nazis based their justification for direct medical killing on the simple concept of ‘life unworthy of life'. While the Nazis did not originate this concept, they carried it to its ultimate biological, racial, and ‘therapeutic’ extreme." Have these terrifying views, that human life has little value and can be terminated at will, crept into our culture?

Mephibosheth - Friend or Foe?

Odd and amazing events took place among the monarchs of the Ancient Near East; often, the events are clearly understood, but interpretations offer more than one possible reason for them.

When Saul was king of the Israelites, his son Jonathan was a friend of David. Now, David had been designated as the next king, taking away what might seem to be Jonathan's rightful inherited title. Jonathan didn't seem to mind too much, but his father Saul did, and tried unsuccessfully to assassinate David on several occasions. Both Saul and Jonathan were killed in battle, leaving the way open for David to ascend to the throne.

David now being king, he thinks kindly of his old friend Jonathan, and shows hospitality to Jonathan's only surviving heir, a son named Mephibosheth, who happened also to be physically disabled. David invites Mephibosheth to live near him in the capitol city and even dine with him at the king's table in the royal palace. What a nice guy David was, to show such kindness to the handicapped child of his dead friend!

Or is there another way to view these events?

Not only in the Ancient Near East, but in any government which functions by hereditary monarchy, rulers, and those who want to be rulers, must carefully watch networks of extended family members. With Saul and Jonathan dead, anyone who wanted to oppose David's rule, and perhaps start a revolution, might very well look to Mephibosheth as figure around whom to gather a political movement, being the heir to Saul's dynasty. As long as he lived, Mephibosheth represented a possible threat to David's political power, and even to David's life, inasmuch as any revolutionaries who would use Mephibosheth as a symbolic rallying point wouldn't hesitate to attempt an assassination. So David's kind invitation to Mephibosheth might simply have been a way for David to keep an eye on Mephibosheth, to prevent him from starting any political activities, and to see who might be in contact with him.

As a logical extension of this type of thinking, later on, when David's sons have reached adulthood, they also will become leaders of subversive political groups who attempt to assassinate David and grab power. Sons leading movements to assassinate their own fathers? Yes, again, this is a pattern found among hereditary monarchies.

Two thousand years later, in a typically dysfunctional royal family in England, these same dynamics will take place, as three sons of Henry II attempt to assassinate their father, and each other, supported at times by their mother; in return, Henry will consider assassinating his own sons, and have his wife placed in jail for a number of years.

The net effect of hereditary monarchy is to cause close family members to consider assassinating each other!

History or Propaganda?

In history class, we learn about ancient cultures, read their writings, and generally form some opinion of them. A straightforward process, right? Well, not always.

When we read what these people left behind, it is not always simply a record of their activities. For example, a guy named Pericles gave a famous funeral speech, and Thucydides recorded this speech for us in his book about the Peloponnesian War, written shortly before 395 B.C. In this funeral speech, a glowing description of the Athenian society is given. The Athenians of the era between 450 B.C. and 400 B.C. are, according to Pericles, noble, virtuous, democratic, fair, just, creative, artistic, intellectual, diplomatic, etc. Who wouldn't like Athens? But this speech was propaganda, given during a war, designed to promote a certain image for Athens. When we read how Athenians really described themselves, we see that their government based itself on practices like extortion, blackmail, bribery, intimidation, and ruthlessness toward any sign of weakness.

Or consider the Romans. We might read the speeches of Cicero, where he describes the virtues of the Republic, which is, in his speeches, the fairest and most just system of government ever devised. Cicero's praise for the Roman system is foreshadowed by similar phrases in the books of Polybius, and seem to be embodied in the books of Marcus Aurelius, who, living long after the fall of the Roman Republic, appeared to carry on the tradition of Stoic virtues in the Roman Empire. But again, this is propaganda: reading more carefully, we see that Polybius points out the corruption and flaws of the Republic and its politicians, and Marcus Aurelius acted in ways that directly contradict the peaceful and fair tone of his Stoic writings: he sat at his desk and calmly signed orders to have thousands of women and children executed, for no other reason than that they were Christians.

The lesson? Even when you're reading an ancient book, be aware that it might be shrewd propaganda. The ancient Greeks and Romans spent a lot of time and effort trying to advertise themselves. They wanted to make themselves look good.

Imagine, for a moment, that you lived a thousand years from now in the future. Looking backward as a history student, you might study the two most hateful and cruel governments of our era: the Nazi government which oppressed Germany, and the Soviet government which enslaved Russia. We know the unspeakable atrocities which these two systems committed and the millions of deaths which they inflicted on innocent civilians. Yet, if all you read was the propaganda which they wrote about themselves, you might walk away thinking that they were nice guys!

Junk Science?

Living in a world which, despite a strong post-modern leaning, is still largely modern, most of us have been educated to have a deep respect for the findings of science. But what, exactly, qualifies as “science”? Images of university researchers in which white lab coats, and computers churning out reams of statistics, come to mind. But beyond the physical appearances, there are also the phrases, which at least sound profound, about an "objective spirit of rational inquiry." And, to be sure, the great minds of people like Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, and Michael Faraday deserve our respect, in part because of their noble minds, and in part because their findings have stood the test of time.

Sadly, however, there is a far-less-than-honorable industry, known as “junk science,” which peddles propaganda disguised as intellectual effort.

How can you distinguish “junk science” from the real thing? There are a few clues: first, “junk science” will deal only with topics with immediate political or economic value, not with truth for truth's sake; second, it is funded by individuals or groups with a stake in the outcome; third, it proceeds with an agenda.

Consider a researcher trying to arrive at the most accurate possible value for the atomic weight of copper to fifty decimal places. This is not a social “hot button” topic; let us assume that the scientist doesn't have any preconceptions about the answer; it will be funded by those who desire only to have an accurate body of information for chemistry and physics. This is not “junk” science.

On the other hand, consider those who are paid by political parties and governments, not to find out “if” there is global warming, but rather accumulate evidence to persuade voters that there is global warming. Or those who are supported by governments and political parties, not to objectively and calmly compare Darwinism and Intelligent Design Theories, but rather to undermine and discredit those who question Darwinism. Likewise those who are paid, not to find out what causes some people to engage in homosexual behavior, but rather to support political policies about homosexual activities. None of these are intellectually respectable, and are in fact merely cleverly disguised propaganda. Whatever the word “science” might mean, these last three examples are not it.

One more example: medical research into the efficacy of various drugs is often funded by those who desire a certain outcome from the trials. Such experimentation, and the analysis of the resulting data, is often subject to financial, not scientific, pressures.

So, the next time a politician, a newspaper reporter, or an “expert” on TV or the Internet begins to tell you that there is “scientific” support for some view or opinion, beware!

Samuel Adams: Beer, Jesus, and Revolution

As early as July 1765, Samuel Adams, known mainly for brewing beer in Boston, was identified as a leader in the revolutionary movement which would eventually demand - and get - independence from England.

It was Adams - before Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine - who decided that the colonies could establish their own nation. He was the first American of any real prominence to dispute Parliament's right to tax the colonies.

Samuel Adams was a pious churchgoer who fashioned his arguments with scrupulous devotion to legal precedent, who urged his fellow citizens to refrain from violence except in self-defense, and whose aims, while ambitious, were also finite.

Unlike the French revolutionaries, Adams was no ideologue. In the beginning, his goal, it seems, was simply to ensure that Massachusetts merchants could operate without interference from Parliament or the Crown and without taxes to which they had not consented. As a producer and seller of ale, he had a direct interest in free trade. Such freedom of commerce, it turned out, required political independence, which Adams promoted. He sought no overthrow of established values, however. He wished Boston to become a "Christian Sparta."

Adams was well versed in history, literature, philosophy and legal theory, in addition to being recognized as one of the very best beer-brewers.

To his political opponents, Adams once wrote, "Do you think that your pen, or the pen of any man, can un-Christianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?"

Sir Salman?

In the current era, receiving knighthood from the Queen of England is a purely symbolic gesture; there is no military or political power attached to the office. Why, then, would several governments respond with "diplomatic threats" (an oxymoron), and riots erupt in different cities, when a poet was recently knighted?

Because that author is Salman Rushdie. For those of you with bad memories, Rushdie became famous, or infamous, in the 1980's, when he wrote a book which questioned some of the beliefs of Islam, and was somewhat skeptical of the Prophet Mohammad. In 1988, several Islamic governments issued orders to have Rushdie killed, and rewards were offered to anyone who killed him. He went in to hiding, and was protected by various European governments.

In mid-June 2007 Rushdie was given the title of knight by the British Queen. This action brought much criticism around the world in many countries with Muslim majority populations. Soon after the news of the knighthood was released protests against the honour were held in Malaysia and Pakistan where effigies of Rushdie were publicly burnt. On June 19, 2007, governments in both Pakistan and Iran summoned their British ambassadors to officially protest the award.

After Friday prayer services on June 22, 2007 Prominent cleric Hojatoleslam Ahmad Khatami spoke to worshipers by broadcast on state radio from Tehran. He addressed the death sentence issued by the Ayatollah in the 1980's against Rushdie, saying "In the Islamic Iran that revolutionary fatwa of Imam [Khomeini] is still alive and cannot be changed."

On June 18, 2007 Pakistan's parliament passed a resolution condemning the knighthood and demanding the British revoke it. The resolution was passed unanimously, then the Religious Affairs Minister told the parliament that "insults to Islam were at the root of terrorism", and said "if someone committed a suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act was justified."

It seems that the governments of Iran and Pakistan (among others) are more willing to kill, than to allow anyone to voice questions about Mohammad, or skepticism about Islam.

New Ways to Oppress

Although African-Americans have gained much in the area of civil rights over the last 150 years, racists keep trying to find new ways to oppress them.

Day Gardner is an African-American political activist, and she reports the following statistics:

* 34% of all abortions performed in the U.S. are performed on African-American women.

* African-Americans make up approximatley 15% of the U.S. population

* 98% of abortionists who performed these procedures are white

* over 90% of the donations to Planned Parenthood's abortion clincis are come from white donors

She concludes that abortionist “are trying to suggest that we fix societal problems by reducing the number of black Americans through abortion.” She reminds us that it was Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who managed to get large donations from white people by promising to reduce the African-American population. In short, she points out that rich white people donate money to pay rich white physicians to perform abortions on poor black women to make sure that there are fewer and fewer African-Americans.

Day Gardner is an administator at Georgetown University's medical center, and a lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

Creating Fear

We have learned that one common technique used by would-be fascists or totalitarians is the exploitation of fear. If a large segment of the population is sufficiently afraid of something, they will be willing to give power to a leader who promises to protect them from what threatens them.

If there is no great threat to a nation, unscrupulous leaders can still create fear among the people, and then use that fear to gain power. But the fear must be great, because it has to be powerful enough to convince most of the people to give up most of their rights to a dictatorship: hence the advent of doomsday scenarios.

If a political movement succeeds in convincing the citizens that there is some terrible fate ready to happen to them, like “global warming” or “climatic instability”, and illustrate these fears with notions of catastrophic floods, storms, and droughts, then the voters might be scared enough to turn over their civil liberties to politicians who promise to save them from these terrible threats.

Beware the politician who creates fear!

Population and Economics

A steadily growing population provides the most fruitful economic environment. We learn this by studying the alternatives: an unsteadily growing population is synonomous with lurches in supply and demand, leading manufacturers into erratic business cycles; a population which does not grow at all cannot support the "legacy" costs of retirees, and more importantly, leads to excess management at top levels; a population growing too quickly leads to inflation and shortages; a shrinking population creates a local exodus of talent, and a global shortage of labor.

So the best route to prosperity is a steadily growing, slowly growing, population.

But would that lead to global over-population? Not at all. Since the writings of Thomas Malthus, the question of over-population has resurfaced time and again. Yet we see that, at the present time with earth's population over six billion, we are currently producing too much food, not too little. Food shortages and starvation are not caused by over-population, but by bad government. Likewise, resource management informs us that clean water and air can support billions more than are currently living on the planet. A population of twenty or even thirty billion is easily sustainable, with proper environmental stewardship. The vast amounts of uninhabited, but habitable, land ensure that we could avoid over-crowding. We are nowhere near the "carrying capacity" of our habitat. We simply need better use of resources.

The Other "September 11th"

The date September 11th is clearly engraved on our minds as the date of the terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Whether you characterize the Islamic terrorists as “non-Christian” or “anti-Christian”, in either case, they believed themselves to be attacking a nation which they believed to be spiritually corrupt. They were attacking a nation whose core values (freedom, equality, individualism) were opposed to their worldview.

But there is another September 11th, over a century earlier. In 1857, a group of Christian families were making their way westward as part of a wagon train. Consisting largely of farmers with their wives and children, they had begun in Arkansas, and were mid-way through Utah on their journey toward California. Unfortunately for them, this was at time when the Mormon Church (also known as “Latter-Day Saints”) was feeling somewhat paranoid toward the ordinary population of the United States. Convinced that these peaceful civilians posed some threat, the wagon train was attacked at a location known as “Mountain Meadows”, where over one hundred men, women, and children were slaughtered. Only a few infants remained alive. The Mormons had been ordered not only to attack the Christians, but to ensure that all of them died.

Whether in 1857 or in 2000, September 11th reminds us that the worldview of Western Civilization - a worldview that values each human life greatly and equally - is a culture which will be attacked by other traditions - traditions which don't place much emphasis on the dignity of the individual human.

The Congress of Vienna - Again

Why do we keep returning to the topic of the Congress of Vienna? This brief event, in a beautiful German-speaking city, not only solved a series of social and political problems which had plagued Europe for the preceeding twenty-five years; it not created an international structure which preserved peace for several decades; it also symbolized and articulated a deeper and more abstract philosophy and view of human nature and human society.

The underlying attitudes which led to the outcomes of the Congress of Vienna were the ideas presented mainly by Metternich at the Congress, and by Edmund Burke years earlier. They were reacting to 25 years of continuous violence (10 years of French Revolution and 15 years of Napoleon). The attitude was this: never again can we allow so many people to die, either in mass executions at home (the Revolution), or in battle in foreign countries (Napoleon). In order to prevent this, they had to combat the attitudes which led to the Revolution, and those attitudes were the attitudes which Metternich and Burke opposed in their writings. The Revolutionaries said that you had to work for a perfect society, but Burke and Metternich said that perfection was impossible in this life, that you should settle for 99%, and perfection will come in the next life. The Revolutionaries said that you should make sudden radical changes, Burke and Metternich said that you had to respect tradition, because it represents the accumulated wisdom of human reason and human experience, so be slow and cautious when making changes. In practical terms, then, this meant that the Congress of Vienna wanted to make stable legitimate governments which might change slowly over time to adapt to new circumstances, but which would not make sudden revolutionary changes.

Reacting to the Congress of Vienna, there were those eventually came to disagree with it: J.S. Mill and Liberal movement of the 1800's who wanted free markets; the Nationalists who wanted the people of each nation to be free to express their collective identity and not be restrained by traditional governmental structures; and the Communist/Socialists, who thought that the changes and problems inflicted on society by urbanization and the industrial revolution required different political approaches.

So the Congress of Vienna is important, not only because it solved a specific set of diplomatic problems and preserved peace, but also because it symbolizes an outlook: the ideas, philosophies, views, opinions, and goals of Metternich and Burke, of a Europe tired of the bloodshed and mass murder which arose from the French Revolution and from Napoleon. Their plan was to stabilize Europe by restoring the legitimate governments, and by balancing the power among England, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France, so that none would exercise hegemony over the others.

Equally historic are the movements which emerged, in part, as reactions against the Congress of Vienna: nationalism, J.S. Mill's liberalism, socialism/communism, etc.

Liberals were freemarket people back then; nationalists viewed the identity of the nation as coming from the people, not the monarchs, but the Congress of Vienna supported the monarchs.

What is Luther Really Doing?

Some historians have characterized the struggle between Martin Luther and Pope Leo X as a struggle between “Papal Authority” and “Individual Experience / Revelation”.

The same conflict can be described in a different way: “Is the ultimate source of authority in the Pope or in the Text?” Behind the different wordings lie two different notions of what Luther was really doing.

For the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's, the Pope was the final word: what he said, was to be considered as the final decree on any topic.

For Martin Luther, the Text (i.e., the Hebrew and Greek documents which we call “Tanakh” and “New Testament”) was the final word. Since we can all (hopefully!) read, we can each individually have access to the text for ourselves. It is in this sense that Luther stressed “individual experience.”

Luther is sometimes mis-understood in this matter of "individual experience" - he was not a mystic, although there were many mystics in Luther's time. Luther did not want to place too much emphasis on individual spiritual experiences or revelations, because they retain a mainly subjective element. Rather, Luther located authority in text, because this made it objective. The letters on the page are the same, no matter who reads them! Certainly, there will remain a certain amount of subjectivity, as each person reads a text slightly differently. But the essence of text is objective, and that is what Luther was looking for.

The subjective side of Luther, then, lies in the fact that he empowers each individual to study the text and draw meaning from it; and as different individuals examine the same text, different interpretations will arise.

The objective side of Luther is seen in the fact that he views the text as the location of truth, publicly accessible to all; the ink on the page does not change, even if the readers do. The text is an objective fact.

So is Luther an objectivist or a subjectivist? Or both?

Analyzing Augustine

Augustine of Hippo (354 A.D. to 430 A.D.) is one of the most complex authors of his era. An African, he is part of the Roman Empire; a Christian, he was educated in pagan philosophy. His books deal with a wide variety of topics, and sometimes with more than one topic at the same time. He is defends the Christians who have been blamed for the fact that the Goths from northern Europe attacked and trashed Rome in 410 A.D.; the Roman polytheists said that the presence of Christians had angered the pagan gods and weakened the city. Augustine points out that the City of Rome would have been trashed even worse if the Christian churches hadn't protected both the pagan and Christian citizens of Rome.

Augustine uses the metaphor or image of two cities in his writings, but it is difficult to exactly define what they represent. The two cities are, of course, not actual physical cities, but symbols, for those who embrace Christianity as compared to those who cling to paganism. Alternatively, the can be interpreted, not as those two groups of people, but rather as two sets of ideas, and the interplay between them.

He is realistic enough to say that you will never have a society which is 100% pagan or a society which is 100% Christian, so the two groups have to cooperate, and they have common goals which will help them do this. Augustine pleads for tolerance: the pagans should stop killing the Christians, and stop blaming them for Rome's misfortunes, and simply allow the Christians to live peacefully within the Empire. Augustine echoes, in this way, the Emperor Constantine, who essentially founded the idea of tolerance, when he decided that Jews, Christians, and pagans would all be allowed to study their ideas in Roman society.

Augustine also says that simply being a member of the church doesn't guarantee that a person really has a Christian spiritual desire for peace. Being a Christian is studying and believing the distinctive ideas presented by Jesus (that each human life is valuable, that peace is better than war, etc.); being a Christian is different than merely being a member of a church.

As part of the Christian tradition, Augustine embraces the whole idea of God's unearned favor toward people; nobody earns God's gifts, and the thing that will really get a person into trouble is if she or he thinks that he or she is good enough to earn God's favor. Admitting that you're not perfect (says Augustine) is the basis for Christianity. These concepts apply equally to all people, making Christianity a user-friendly religion.

Augustine criticizes the pagans for thinking that earthly peace can be achieved by human intellect and abilities. Rather, he says, peace has a spiritual origin beyond human beings. Human beings, trying to use their own powers, are imperfect and insufficient to create peace. Augustine is pointing out that human reason is good and powerful, but it is not perfect, and there are some things that human reason can't do. We need to be honest enough with ourselves to admit that we have limits. Centuries later, Augustinian philosophers, who formed one part of the Scholastic movement in the Middle Ages, will apply these ideas in a new setting.

Augustine points out the need to balance both the Christian impulse for societal involvement (helping the poor, founding schools, etc.) and the Christian impulse for meditation and contemplation: both are good, he says, but we should not have too much of either.

The future of human history is, then, societies continually trying to find peace and justice, and sometimes succeeding more, and sometimes succeeding less, depending on how the mix of people works together.

Mill or Blake - Natural or Revealed?

One of the big debates in 19th century was about (no surprize) the character of religion.

J.S. Mill is an example of what is called “natural religion” - meaning that using reason alone, in a priori thought, we can learn about God: who he is, what he does, what he's like. Mill had a lot of company. The idea of “natural religion” was shared by people like Rene Descartes and Thomas Paine. This type of religion is based only on those facts about God which human reason can deduce from pure logical thought. Mill's personal version of natural religion had two interesting features: a great emphasis on hope, and a reminder that there is nothing which forces God to give us a life after this one.

J.S. Mill's essay, “Theism,” is a short work began in 1868 and unfinished when Mill died in 1870. Mill thought that belief in a creator of great power was supported by the design argument, and one could certainly erect the superstructure of hope upon the base of a belief in a creator who would extend human existence beyond the grave: “Appearances point to the existence of a Being who has great power over us — all the power implied in the creation of the Cosmos, or of its organized beings at least — and of whose goodness we have evidence ... ; and as we do not know the limits either of his power or of his goodness, there is room to hope that both the one and the other may extend to granting us this gift provided that it would really be beneficial to us.”

Mill continues: “Hope with regard to the government of the universe and the destiny of man after death ... is legitimate and philosophically defensible. The beneficial effect of such a hope is far from trifling.” (Mill 1874)

On the other hand, people like William Blake embraced what we call “revealed religion” - being skeptical about the powers of human reason to answer all questions. This was a more widely-held view than “natural religion,” endorsed by most ordinary people, as well as physicists like Isaac Newton and chemists like Robert Boyle. They thought that human reason was a good and powerful tool, but questioned whether it could know everything, or be the only source of knowledge. In addition to reason, they saw revelation as a source of truth and knowledge - studying sacred texts.

Blake attacked the institutional church, while enthusiastically endorsing the Christian faith. Blake described the ‘everlasting Gospel’, which he saw as the original revelation that he believed Jesus preached. Jesus, for Blake, symbolizes the vital relationship and unity between divinity and humanity. One of Blake's strongest objections to traditional churches is that he felt they encouraged the suppression of natural desires and discouraged earthly joy. Blake believed that the joy of man glorified God and that stale religions which deny earthly joy are opposed to God.

These two alternatives - “natural religion” and “revealed religion” - have caused creative thinking in debates over the last two or three centuries. Which one do you like?

Private Sector Charity Trumps Government Aid

In modern political and social thought, the role of governmental assistance in various areas of life has grown. A large segment of the population in modern industrial and post-industrial nations expects, and views as proper, the taxpayers to fund efforts in education, health care, anti-poverty efforts, the arts, and other projects.

Such governmental intervention has proven, however, to be both weak and counter-productive.

Weak, inasmuch as private-sector efforts are both better-funded and more effective. When the government sends hundreds of millions to help Tsunami victims in southern Asia, charities send billions more than any world government could hope to send. When the government offers a few beds for the homeless in downtown Ann Arbor, private organizations offer dozens more.

What do these agencies all have in common, these agencies who offer help which is so much more effective than any government program? They receive no taxpayer funds. They are supported entirely by freewill donations from private citizens.

Many, but not all, of these agencies are "faith-based" - mainly churches. Ironically, American churches sent billions of dollars to the Tsunami victims, who were mainly Muslim and Hindu: because one principle of the Christian faith is to help all human beings, not simply those who share your faith. By contrast, the wealthy Muslim nations of Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, sent almost no assistance to Tsunami victims, even though they are members of the same Islamic faith.

Are there numbers to back up these claims? Americans give more money to charities, per capita, than any other country. Americans give over $300 billion annually to registered charitable organizations - and billions more to other charities. That's over $1,000 per person. Consider that many people under the age of 18 are not able to give large sums: that means that the average wage-earner is giving even larger sums.

In addition, Americans donate millions of hour of labor to charities: Ann Arbor's homeless program relies of hundreds of hours of volunteer work each week.

Boyle's Ideal Gas Law and Newton's Gravity

Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”

His scientific fame notwithstanding, Newton's study of the Bible was among his greatest passions. He devoted more time to the study of the Scriptures, Alchemy, and the Christian faith than to science, and said, “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” Newton himself wrote several books about the Bible, based on his knowledge of Hebrew grammar. Newton also placed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ at 3 April, AD 33, which is now the accepted traditional date. His ability to calculate this date so accurately was due to careful cross-referencing between events in Roman history, events in the New Testament, and careful astronomical observations. Despite his focus on theology and alchemy, Newton tested and investigated these ideas with the scientific method, observing, hypothesising, and testing his theories. To Newton, his scientific and religious experiments were one and the same, observing and understanding how the world functioned.

Newton may have rejected the church's version doctrine of the Trinity. His studies of Hebrew texts may have led him to a different understanding of the nature of God's personalities.

In his own lifetime, Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. He believed in a rationally immanent world. Thus, the ordered and dynamically informed universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason, but this universe, to be perfect and ordained, had to be regular.

Newton and Robert Boyle’s mechanical philosophy was promoted by rationalist pamphleteers, and was accepted hesitantly by orthodox preachers as well as dissident preachers. Thus, the clarity and simplicity of science was seen as a way to combat the emotional and metaphysical superlatives of atheism, and, at the same time, to demonstrate the possibility of a “natural religion.” The idea of a “natural religion” is a religion which can be understood inductively from experience, a religion which is reasoned deductively from general principles of human knowledge. A “natural religion” is usually contrasted with a “revealed religion”, which is based upon the careful study of a text. Newton seems to have engaged in both types of religion, and his books had the effect in England of encouraging both types, even though they sometimes competed with each other.

Boyle, who worked to ensure that the Bible would be accurately translated into different Asian languages by competent linguistic scientists, developed a mechanical conception of the universe, most famously with his “ideal gas” law. Newton gave Boyle’s ideas their completion through mathematical proofs and, perhaps more important, was very successful in popularizing them. Newton refashioned the universe into a world crafted by a God who designs along rational and universal principles. These principles were available for all people to discover, allowed man to pursue his own aims fruitfully, and to improve, but not perfect, himself with his own rational powers.

Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. The laws of physics are the God's thoughts, which He imposes on the world. In the Resurrection, Newton saw an absolutely “unique event” - a phrase which carries special importance in physics, because most events are not unique, being in principle reproducible by the re-application of the laws which produced them the first time.

The law of gravity became Sir Isaac Newton's best-known discovery. Newton warned against using it to view the universe as a mere machine, like a great clock.

Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science; he wrote more books about religion than about math or physics.

Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Thus there is a social and political aspect to Newton's thought, but he did not write much about it.

Both Newton and Robert Boyle wrote substantial books about their faith, and worked to ensure that Bibles were distributed among the poor. Boyle's “ideal gas law” was for him a symbol of the perfect organization of the universe, which he said could only arise from a logical intelligent design.

Which Cultures Wage War Against Women?

Leading Demographer Warns UN About Global War on Girls - (NEW YORK — AP) At the UN this week, renowned scholar Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) warned delegates of the growing global gender imbalance due to prenatal sex selection. Calling the trend a “Global War Against Baby Girls”, Eberstadt delivered extensive statistics on the rise of “son preference” in every part of the world.

Refuting the assumptions that preference for baby boys is a localized cultural phenomenon or due solely to coercive population programs, Eberstadt’s research reveals that imbalance is due to several factors: an existing preference for sons, a decrease in overall fertility, and the exponential increase in the use of technology which facilitates sex selection in the prenatal stages. He also emphasized that a rise in education levels does not slow the problem and in some cases is associated with a stronger tendency to choose boys.

According to Eberstadt, natural birth rates are about 105 males for every 100 females born. Some regions of the world are experiencing upwards of 115 boys born for every 100 girls, some are as high at 150 boys born for every 100 girls. He warned delegates that this could just be the beginning and that the world is “moving to the realm of science fiction” as the ratio of baby boys to baby girls was already at levels “beyond nature.” Citing a recent study, Eberstadt said that even now there are 20 million “missing” baby girls in Asia alone, that sex-selection has permanently skewed the demographic balance of China and is in the process of skewing the demographic balance of India. He also showed the way that the trend has crept into Eastern Europe and Latin America, and that almost every African state is showing signs of vulnerability to the phenomenon.

Since 1994, the UN has recognized that “son preference” is discriminatory to women and girls and the Beijing Platform for Action lists female infanticide and prenatal sex selection as incidences of violence against women.

The recent Violence Against Children (VAC) study released earlier this year made no mention of the problem of sex-selection whereby parents are forced or coerced to choose one or two children and almost inevitably choose boys. The 139-page in-depth Violence Against Women (VAW) study also released this year only referred to prenatal sex selection three times.

A delegate at the lecture said, “This is astonishing. The research clearly shows that this is a growing problem all over the world. It is our job as delegates to seek solutions.”

Experts say solutions will be hard to come by. Eberstadt pointed out that when South Korea made sex selection illegal, the practice skyrocketed. Experts also point out that a rising imbalance of boys to girls will lead to trafficking in women and could contribute to an increasing national security concerns.

Culture and Creativity

Whether you call it "Western Culture" or "European Civilization" or simply the "Judeo-Christian Tradition", including much of North America and places like Australia, this stream of history has been an incredibly creative one.

According to the second Arab Human Development Report, which was written in 2003 for the United Nations Development Program by a group of courageous Arab social scientists, between 1980 and 1999, Arab countries produced 171 international patents. South Korea alone during that same period registered 16,328 patents. Hewlett-Packard registers, on average, eleven new patents a day. The average number of scientists and engineers working in research and development in the Arab countries is 371 per million people, while the world average, including countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, is 979, the report said. This helps to explain why although massive amounts of foreign technology are imported to the Arab regions, very little of it is internalized or supplanted by Arab innovations. Between 1995 and 1996, as many as 25 percent of the university graduates produced in the Arab world immigrated to some Western country. There are just 18 computers per 1,000 people in the Arab region today, compared with the global average of 78.3 per 1,000, and only 1.6 percent of the Arab population has Internet access. While Arabs represent almost five percent of the world's population, the report said, they produce only one percent of the books published. Of the 88 million unemployed males between fifteen and twenty-four worldwide, almost 26 percent are in the Middle East and North Africa, according to an International Labor Organization study (Associated Press, December 26, 2004).

This trend continues despite the fact that the Arab nations are wealthier than not only the average nation, but also wealthier than even the average developed nation. In fact, Arab wealth allows them to enjoy the fruit of Western technology: in Dubai, what will soon be the world's tallest building is being built - with engineers and architects from Europe and America, who quickly discovered that local builders were not up to the task.

The excess of wealth in the Arab nations is used to enjoy Western technology, but not to help or advance human needs: when the Tsunami struck a number of Islamic nations, disaster relief and humanitarian aid came largely from Europe and America, with only a trickle from the Arab world.

In contrast with the West, Arabic culture seems to have shut down its creative capabilities.

Dhimmi

The term "dhimmi" refers to a non-Muslim person in a country which has been occupied by Islamic armies. This word, and the concept for which it stands, shaped history in southeastern Europe for several centuries.

Muslim armies steamrolled over North Africa, the Middle East, and Spain for five centuries after the death of Muhammed in 632 A.D.; magnificent basilicas and monasteries in Egypt, Syria, and Mesopotamia were left in smoking ruins by Muslims from the eighth to the tenth centuries.

Spain was pillaged and devastated many times: Zamora in 981, Barcelona in 987, Santiago de Compostela in 997. In 1000, Castile was ravaged, its Christian and Jewish populations either killed, or enslaved and then deported. This was the fate of the dhimmi.

God at the U of M Hospital

During these first few years of the twenty-first century, research hospitals, like Ann Arbor's U of M, having been looking ever more closely at the link between spirituality and wellness.

To be sure, no simple link exists: we cannot simply assert that those who sharpened their spiritual awareness don't suffer from the same health problems as everybody else. They get sick and die like the rest of us.

But it is also indisputable that some fascinating correlations exist among the realms of faith and health. The mediator between those two is sometimes psychology. All three play a role in a recent dissertation, "God in Fatherlessness", submitted in June 2000 by a staff member at Michigan's hospital.

There exists, on the one hand, the established connection between fatherlessness (through death, divorce, or a father who is physically present but emotionally unavailable) and a decreased ability to engage spiritually. On the other hand, there are the indirect links between spirituality and health.

The recent dissertation adds to this already complex mix the notion that fatherlessness pushes the fatherless toward the conclusion that the absent father is "negatively intended"; one possible conclusion is that the fatherless are nudged, not only toward mere atheism, but toward a view that God is somehow malicious.

Final conclusions in these questions will be found only after much more research, but this will clearly be a major field of medical exploration as the century moves forward.

Getting Married in Somalia?

The Associated Press recently (11/11/2006) reported that the Islamic government of Somalia has made it illegal, punishable by death, to get married without the explicit prior consent of the parents of both the bride and the groom, no matter how old they may be. “It is against the teaching of our religion and parents do not approve of it,” said Sheik Mahad Mohamed Sheik Hassan, chairman of Somalia's Islamic court. The fact that the title “Sheik” occurs twice indicates his high governmental position.

The Muslim government has also banned movies, live music, and sporting events. Somalia is currently in the midst of a civil war. Both sides, however, seem to embrace the view that Islamic law should control society.

Persia or Iran?

We tend to think of Iran as one of the large Islamic countries in the Middle East, but that perspecitve is relatively recent in history. The area has been known as Iran for only a few years, but for centuries it has been called Persia. For 600 years, its most popular religion was Christianity.

Persia is home to two large groups of Christians, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church. Although these churches were originally maintaining ties with the Christian churches in the Roman Empire, they were indeed quite different from the churches in the Roman Empire. One reason for this is language.

Another factor was that the churches within the Persian Empire did not maintain such close ties with their counterparts in the Roman Empire. Additionally, there was the continuous rivalry between these two great empires. Quite frequently, Christians in Persia were (often falsely) accused of sympathizing with the Romans, even though the Roman Empire was persecuting and killing Christians, while the Persian Empire embraced Christianity. In Persia, unlike Rome, it was both legal and popular for people to leave Zoroastriansim (the mythological belief system of Persia prior to Christianity).

But it was not until the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. that the vast majority of Christians in Persia broke their ties with the churches in the Roman Empire.

Most of the Christians in the Sassanid empire lived on the western edge of the empire, predominately in Mesopotamia, but there were also important communities on the island Tylos (present day Bahrain), the southern coast of the Persian Gulf, the area of the Arabian kingdom of Lakhm and the Persian part of Armenia. Some of these areas were the earliest to be Christianized; the kingdom of Armenia choose the Christian faith sometime before 100 A.D., and became the first independent Christian state in the world in 301 A.D.; while a number of Assyrian territories had almost become fully Christianized even earlier during the 1st century, they never became independent nations.

Most Christians in the Persian Empire belonged to a number of predominately Christian ethnic groups. Some of these groups were the Assyrians, the Arabs of southern Mesopotamia, the Armenians, as well as some smaller ethnic groups such as the Syriacs. The latter group was taken to Persia as prisoners of war from the many conflicts with the Roman Empire. Conversion was common among ethnic Persians and other ethnicities residing in the empire. Among them were certain small Caucasian and Kurdish tribes which had converted to Christianity.

For approximately 600 years, these groups lived as Christians. In 651 A.D., the first wave of “jihad” from the Islamic Caliphate swept across Persia in a fourteen-year-long bloodbath. Christians could flee, convert to Islam, become enslaved, or be killed. Eventually, the name “Iran” would replace “Persia” as the usual name for the region.

What Does Wikipedia Have to Say about the Renaissance?

Giorgio Vasari was the first to coin the term Renaissance, in 1550, though an awareness of the ongoing rebirth in the arts had been in the air earlier. Since that time, historians have differed in their interpretations of the meaning of Renaissance. Many historians now view the Renaissance as more of an intellectual and ideological change than a substantive one. Marxist historians, for example, hold the view that the changes in art, literature, and philosophy affected only a tiny minority of the very wealthy and powerful, leaving the lives of the great mass of the European population unchanged.

Many historians now point out that most of the negative social factors popularly associated with the "medieval" period - poverty, ignorance, warfare, religious and political persecution, and so forth - seem to have actually worsened in this era which saw the rise of Machiavelli, the Wars of Religion, the corrupt Borgia Popes, and the intensified witch-hunts of the 16th century. Many people who lived during the Renaissance did not view it as the "golden age" imagined by certain 19th century authors, but were concerned by these social maladies. Significantly, though, the artists, writers, and patrons involved in the cultural movements in question believed they were living in a new era that was a clean break from the Middle Ages.

Johan Huizinga (1872–1945) acknowledged the existence of the Renaissance but questioned whether it was a positive change. He argued that the Renaissance was a period of decline from the High Middle Ages, destroying much that was important. The Latin language, for instance, had evolved greatly from the classical period and was still a living language used in the church and elsewhere. The Renaissance obsession with classical purity halted its natural evolution and saw Latin revert to its classical form. Robert Lopez has contended that it was a period of deep economic recession. Meanwhile George Sarton and Lynn Thorndike have both argued that scientific progress was slowed.

Historians have begun to consider the word Renaissance as unnecessarily loaded, implying an unambiguously positive rebirth from the supposedly more primitive Middle Ages. Many historians now prefer to use the term "early modern" for this period, a more neutral term that highlights the period as a transitional one that led to the modern world.

A 4,000-Mile Journey to Nowhere - The Harrowing Journey of Exile under Stalin

Josef Stalin is known as the brutal Soviet ruler, responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians, Poles, Ukranians, Jews, and Germans. What is not so well-known is that also arranged for the deaths of millions of Koreans, long before the Korean War. Researchers at the University of Michigan have made a documentary film about Stalin's mass killing of Koreans.

In 1937, Vladmir Tyan watched as soldiers shot his father and older brother. He had no time to mourn. Chased from their house, the rest of the family lived on the street for three days. Then they boarded a train.

“You’d hear in the neighboring car the cries of children, the elderly, and the sick,” Dekabrina Kim recalls. “They took out the dead, and no one knew where they were buried.”

“The train went to a dead halt, and we were told it was our stop,” says Sergei Yun. “Each family dug a hole to live in. There were no trees or charcoal. We lived that way for two or three years.”

The victims’ stories describe what occurred when Stalin deported some 180,000 Soviet Koreans that he dubbed “unreliable people.” Evicted from their homes and farms and locked into crowded cattle cars headed for Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan - remote destinations nearly 4,000 miles and one month away - they found themselves on desolate lands without housing.

Making history public

These stories are largely unknown outside of Central Asia, and only a small number of scholarly documents have shed light on this chapter of Stalin’s Great Terror. “Few knew that this 1937 episode served as the opening salvo for a series of similar ethnic cleansings and deportations that involved Germans, Jews, Ukranians, Poles, Tatars, and Chechens,” says Meredith Jung-En Woo, an LSA political science professor. With David Chung, co-director of LSA’s Archive of Diasporic Korea and lecturer at the U of M, Woo is making this historical event better known to the world. Determined that LSA would be the site of the world’s first digital archive on the history of these Soviet Koreans, Woo and Chung traveled to Kazakhstan. The team bought Soviet and Kazakh newsreels and film footage, and scanned family photos, letters, and official documents. They did extensive interviews with survivors and their children, exploring the memories of the old and the challenges the young still face.

“Time was running out,” says Woo, “because the last survivors of the deportation, well into their seventies and eighties, were dying.” “With materials as compelling as these, a documentary film practically forced itself on us,” says Woo. With seed money from the U of M, they expanded the project.

The film is the harrowing saga of Koreans who were deported from the Soviet Far East, where they had lived in farming and fishing villages, enjoying their own theater, schools, and Korean language newspaper. Told through the eyes of deported Koreans, the film is also a story of multiethnic and multicultural Kazakhstan struggling to forge a new national identity in the aftermath of independence from the Soviet Union - and the place of the Korean-Kazakhs in this struggle. “We have our own soul, our own aura, and you can’t confuse us with anyone,” second-generation deportee and musician Jacov Khan says in the film. “We certainly all feel some envy when looking at Korean-Koreans or Kazakh-Kazakhs,” adds second-generation deportee Svetlana Nigai, who now lives in Almaty. “They have their own mother land. When people ask us what our native language is, we say Russian. But when they ask our nationality, that is a tougher question to answer.”

Progress with Stem Cells?

Stem cells are producing promising results these days. Adult stem cells, that is. For people with blocked arteries, a growth factor called GMCSF, when injected into the body, stimulates bone marrow to release more stem cells and enables new arteries to be grown. Tests have shown a 60 percent improvement in blood-vessel function as a result.

Blindness caused by outside factors often cannot be repaired with corneal transplants, yet stem cells offer new hope. While not yet producing perfect vision, patients can become self-dependent again. They are able to see well enough to do the basic tasks of life.

Tests in mice have yielded a way to spur the growth of neural stem cells in the brain - possibly paving the way to treating or curing Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis. Key in all three of these stories is that using one's own stem cells, rather than those of another, prevents the body's immune system from rejecting them, much like a transplanted organ. It is becoming clear that the hope for an Alzheimer or Parkinson cure comes from adult stem cells, not embryonic ones.

Outside the U.S., in Portugal, physicians have actually succeeded in partially regenerating various internal human organs, using adult stem cells.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for any success story from the use of embryonic stem cells. We'll try to keep you posted.

Roman Civil War

The late Roman Republic was plagued with civil wars for approximately a century. What made these bloody conflicts possible?

The Roman civil wars were very different than the civil war in the United States. The Roman internal conflicts were not about political issues or moral principles. The Roman civil wars were about personalities.

The typical Roman soldier had a primary loyalty, not to the Roman Republic, but to his general and officers. If two generals decided to compete for power, a civil war arose. This pattern culminated in the Battle of Actium.

Movies and History

For better or worse, Americans gain a significant and increasing percentage of their knowledge of history from movies.

Learning history from movies can be helpful, but there is an even greater need for critical thinking than when learning from books.

Certainly, history books can be loaded with "spin" - history is told in a certain way to advance the author's political agenda.

But movies are subject to double spin - they have the same political spin as books, and then a second layer of spin is added because the movie needs to be entertaining. Movies may contain historical inaccuracies, not only beause of the filmmaker's political views, but also because the filmmaker may change the events simply to make them more entertaining. People going to see movies demand to be entertained, but they don't care if they're accurately informed. Recent films about the Trojan War and Alexander the Great demonstrate this sufficiently.

The informed viewer can exercise critical thinking by watching two different films about the same historical events.

Cleopatra, for example, was the subject of a 1963 film by Elizabeth Taylor, and a 1934 film by Claudette Colbert; view them both, and you'll hopefully "cancel out" the spins of the various screenwriters.

Likewise, Marie Antoinette was the subject of a 1938 film by Norma Shearer, and a 2006 film by Kirsten Dunst. Both are informative.

In either case, it helps to read even a brief, half-page encyclopedia article about the people and events concerned. Reading even a little before the film not only makes you understand it better, it helps you to enjoy it more, because you understand.

More recent events in film include the movie "End of the Spear" (made in 2005), which depicts the murders in the Amazon Basin of several Americans; the same situation was filmed as "Beyond the Gates of Splendor" in 2002. Both films seem fairly accurate.

Women Enter American Politics

In 1917, Jeannette Rankin, a Montana Republican, became the first woman to serve in the House of Representatives. She'd been elected in 1916. Committed to her pacifist beliefs, she was the only member of Congress to vote against entry into both World War I and World War II.

Shortly after Ms. Rankin's election to Congress, the 19th Amendment was passed in 1919. This means that the first woman was elected to Congress before the right to vote was even given to women! The amendment's journey to ratification had been a long and difficult one. Starting in 1896, the Republican Party became the first major party to officially favor women's suffrage. That year, Republican Sen. A. A. Sargent of California introduced a proposal in the Senate to give women the right to vote. The proposal was defeated four times in the Democratic-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed (304-88), over the objections of the Democrats.

When the amendment was submitted to the states, 26 of the 36 states that ratified it had Republican-controlled legislatures. Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were controlled by Democrats. Twelve states, all Republican, had already given women full suffrage before the federal amendment was finally ratified.

The Origins of an American Political Party

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name “Republican” was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's party. Jefferson had called his political party the “Democratic Republican” party. The name “Republican” also reminded voters of the grand era of Rome, before it became an empire. At the Jackson convention, the new party adopted a platform and nominated candidates for office in Michigan.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.” Even though they were considered a “third party” because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.

The Civil War erupted in 1861 and lasted four grueling years. During the war, against the advice of the Democrats, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of the day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1869, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1916.

Presidents during most of the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century were Republicans. The White House was in Republican hands under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. Under the last two, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the United States became the world's only superpower, winning the Cold War from the old Soviet Union and releasing millions from Communist oppression.

Republicans have supported these ideas: Individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home.

The symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. During the mid term elections way back in 1874, Democrats tried to scare voters into thinking President Grant would seek to run for an unprecedented third term. Thomas Nast, a cartoonist for Harper's Weekly, depicted a Democratic jackass trying to scare a Republican elephant - and both symbols stuck. For a long time Republicans have been known as the “G.O.P.” And party faithfuls thought it meant the “Grand Old Party.” But apparently the original meaning (in 1875) was “gallant old party.” And when automobiles were invented it also came to mean, “get out and push.”

Anti-War Protest?

The Crusades were not popular among the Christians of Europe, even if they were considered a military necessity as a counter-attack against the home base from which surprise attacks and invasions had been launched against sleepy and unsuspecting places like Spain, France, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Austria.

During the Middle Ages while the Just War Theory - a debate about when or if a war was ever part of "justice" - was becoming more developed and Crusades were happening. Peace movements among Christians flourished. Francis of Assisi may or may not have been a pacifist, but he lived as if he were. A peace movement known as the "Great Alleluia" involving thousands of people took place in northern Italy in the 13th century, lead by an energetic priest who went from town to town, preaching in public. In 1233 the movement had grown to such proportions that 400,000 people gathered to demonstrate for peace and reconciliation. Another Italian peace movement known as the "Bianchi" moved about in thousands from city to city. Peacemaking was their major work. One chronicler notes that by the time one of these processions reached Rome its numbers had swelled to 200,000. Various groups of monks and priests opposed the Crusades, sometimes with words, and sometimes with actions.

Popular opposition to the Crusades spread, sometimes for these spiritual reasons, and sometimes for more worldly reasons: the Crusades cost money, and the soldiers who were part of them behaved like pagans. Yet the public tolerated these Crusades, even if they didn't like them, because it was understood that the alternative was a massive invasion by the Islamic armies into Europe.

People remembered how a Muslim army took over almost half of France, burning the wheatfields and houses, raping and killing the villagers, before Karl Martell and his army were able to turn them back. Those horrifying memories made the Crusades seem like a necessary, if unpleasant, defensive move.

War in Ireland

The Irish seem to have been at war, off and on, forever, or at least for the last few centuries. Certainly, in the last few years, there have been periodic terrorist or guerilla-style attacks between the those in the northern part of the island, and those in the southern part.

The newspaper and TV routinely report these conflicts as the struggle between the Protestant and Catholic parts of Ireland. To be sure, southern Ireland is largely Roman Catholic, and northern Ireland is mainly Anglican. But is that really what the conflict is about?

Remember, Christianity in Ireland split into the two group in 1532, when Henry VIII started the English Reformation.

But the warfare in Ireland has been going on since the 1100's, and perhaps even earlier, when there was no religious division on island.

The fighting is Ireland is about the same things that most other wars are about: land, power, and money. It is not a religious war.

Sampling Errors

When we study the culture of a different time or place, we read their books, view their paintings, hear their music, and so form for ourselves a concept of what that society was like.

But how much material do we need to form an accurate view? Consider the following:

Shakespeare wrote approximately 154 sonnets, give or take. If I've read only one of them, can I make generalizations about them? What if I've read ten? Or twenty? He wrote around thirty-eight plays; if I've studied one of them, is that enough to form an impression of what his plays are like?

Sophocles penned about 123 plays; if I've read only two of them, can I make categorical statements about what the average Sophocles play is?

The statue of the Minoan Snake Goddess, with her eye-catching topless outfit, is much studied. But that is only one single statue, from a culture that made thousands of statues. Can I make generalizations about their statues from only this one? Or make generalizations about their religions, or about the roles which women played in their society?

Think of it this way: imagine yourself studying history 4,000 years from now, and reading about life in a typical North American city in our era. If you were to read only one magazine from this time, and use it to try to form a general idea about our culture, what would happen if that one magazine were Sports Illustrated? Or Vogue? Or Playboy?

Clearly you need several samples, and various samples, to gain a more accurate concept of a society.

The Gospel of Whom?

The manuscript known as “The Gospel of Judas” has recently been featured in TV shows. Although researchers have studied this document for decades, it has suddenly become popular in the electronic media, after the technical scholars in the university have concluded that it contains little historical information about the actual events of the first century.

The life of Jesus took place in a Hebrew culture in the first century, and the most reliable documents about that era are written by first-century Hebrews; the “Gospel of Judas” is a Greek document, written several centuries later.

Clearly, Jesus remains a controversial and influential figure in history; but whatever their personal beliefs, historians simply seek the most reliable texts about the life of any famous person. There are always plenty of spurious sources concerning any historical event or person.

In recent lectures and articles, James Voelz (Cambridge University, England) and Jeffrey Kloha addressed four aspects of the gospel of Judas manuscript:

1) How the manuscript is portrayed in the media: the “popular media” of TV, radio, and internet isn’t allowed to take the time to do a careful historical analysis of the manuscript, because people want “entertaining” news.

2) Basic features of the manuscript: written much later than the historical accounts of the life of Jesus, it couldn’t possible have been written by an eyewitness to the events. Instead, it relies upon tradition.

3) Gnosticism as a point of reference for the manuscript: “Gnosticism” is belief system, a mixture different Greek philosophical ideas, combined with a few ideas from Judaism and Christianity – interesting ideas, but they can’t be the ideas which were being discussed in Jerusalem in first century, because they are ideas from a later era.

4) The manuscript and canonicity: this manuscript, known to ancient authors and modern scholars, was never taken seriously because of its obvious flaws. Rejected by serious researchers, the TV industry picked it because it is entertaining, if untrue.

“There is nothing of the historical Jesus, the Jesus that walked the earth, in this document,” commented Kloha. “It is important that we know about this document since people are watching and reading media reports about it and being influenced by them.” Instead of a factual account of the actual events that happened during the life of Jesus, this document presents a series of Greek philosophical ideas that flourished during the later years of the Roman Empire. Modern archaeology and ancient texts give us some core facts about events in Jerusalem during the first century; the “Gospel of Judas” is clearly a combination of later traditions.

The gospel of Judas was featured in a National Geographic Society television documentary. It is dramatically different from the four gospels that are contained within the New Testament and purports to provide a secret account of a revelation that Jesus spoke with the disciple Judas Iscariot.

“Jesus is never described as ‘the Christ’ in this manuscript,” commented Kloha. “Instead, an individual named Seth is referenced as the Christ.”

In describing the media’s portrayal of the document, Voelz stated, “They are conveniently omitting a lot of information that would put the manuscript in a bad light. It is important for people to know how odd this document is.” The ideas presented in the “Gospel of Judas” are not the ideas of either Jews or Christians in the first century; the concepts of “Messiah” are different.

There are other documents about these events which are simply more reliable, more accurate, and older, having been written by eyewitnesses to the events in question.

Surprise!

Historians and scientists love to surprise people. For example, most people know that Cleopatra was the queen of Egypt, but did you know that she wasn't Egyptian? She was actually Greek, the descendant of one of Alexander's Macedonian generals; she and her family spoke Greek, and didn't consider themselves Egyptians, although they would engage in the traditional ceremonies of the Pharaohs in order to get the popular support of the Egyptians.

But some reporters go too far in their desire to surprise readers, when the actually falsify sources, and create fictions, merely so that they can say something unexpected. For exampel, the actress who played Jan Brady in the famous TV series did not die of a drug overdose; she's alive and well. But the story about her was created those desiring to surprise an audience.

More serious examples have been uncovered by The Washington Times, in January of 2002:

Hoping to close two national forests, government scientists planted evidence that the forests were inhabited by an endangered species of lynx.

The scientists' dishonesty undermined a three-year study and confirmed suspicions that some government scientists fake studies is order to control environmental policy.

Another example from American history:

Emory University historian Michael Bellesiles apparently believes so strongly in gun control that he invented a history for the purpose of undermining the Constitution's Second Amendment, the right of citizens to own guns.

Professor Bellesiles' politically correct book, Arming America, was awarded the Bancroft Prize, a prestigious award for historians. But scholars examining the work say Mr. Bellesiles' conclusions are based on made-up and nonexistent sources.

Mr. Bellesiles aruges that gun ownership was so rare among early Americans, even on the frontiers, that no one would have cared enough about the right to give it constitutional protection. He claims to have studied many wills and to have found scant evidence of guns being bequeathed to heirs.

When skeptical scholars checked his sources, they found he claimed to have studied wills of people in Colonial Rhode Island known to have died without wills! He also claims to have studied probate records in San Francisco for the years 1849-59. However, the city's librarians say no such records exist. They were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake.

Most historians and scientists are honest. But we need to think critically, especially when they are writing about issues related to modern politics. They might be so interested in keeping tourists out of national forests, or in eliminating the Second Amendment, that they falsify data to support their points. When science meets politics, look for fake evidence; when history intersects with controversial issues, watch for falsified sources.

Which Sargon?

The Ancient Near East included three different rulers, all named Sagon:

The first reigned from approximately 2350 until 2300 B.C., and gained control of both Sumer and Akkad; he united them to form Babylonia, and his empire included all of Mesopotamia, and had significant influence to regions well beyond that area.

The second reigned around 1850 B.C., ruled Assyria early in its heyday.

The third also ruled Assyria, between 722 and 705 B.C., and was responsible for the final wave of attacks on the North Kingdom of Israel, conquering its capitol city Samaria; the Hebrew author Isaiah gives us information about him.

Three men, with the same name, in different countries, living over a thousand years apart!

The Many Sides of John Locke

The writings and ideas of John Locke stand as some of the most brilliant in English history. They are marked by, among other things, their variety.

One aspect of Locke's thought is political; he is famous for his significant influence on the Founding Fathers and their creation of the United States Constitution. A different side of Locke is seen in his purely philosophical essays, in which he ponders questions of human consciousness, perception, and knowledge; his formulations of empiricism and the process by which the mind turns sensations into ideas remain influential to this day.

These two facets of Locke are connected by a third and a fourth.

One connection is the legal implication of Locke's empiricism; if each human being is indeed born as a "blank slate", then the legal defense - used by, e.g., a kleptomaniac caught stealing - of "I was born that way" is illegitimate. Locke denies the existence of innate ideas.

A second connection between Locke's politics and his purely philosophical ideas is the implication of religious belief. Locke took great pains to show that the majority (not all) of humans arrive at their religious beliefs rationally, and that, therefore, we can also rely on the majority to vote on laws that are, on average, good laws. Locke said that, because religious beliefs are most central and essential to human thought, then their rationality ensures the rationality of other human thought. He also pointed out that those occasional instances of irrational religious belief are usually due to a lack of information or a lack of study, and can be corrected by exercise of the rational faculties of the mind upon substantial bodies of fact.

The REAL Martin Luther King

It is most appropriate for students in the Humanities to note a national holiday, Martin Luther King's birthday, because Rev. King was a diligent student of the humanities.

Originally born as Michael King, Jr., in 1928 (his father was named Michael King, Sr.), the father and son both changed their names to "Martin Luther" after studying the works of the German Reformer. One can only imagine how profound the impact of Luther's books was, if they caused father and son to change their names. This is truly a gigantic historical leap - from Germany in 1517 to Atlanta, Georgia in the 1940's.

King went on to do graduate research at Boston University. His dissertation, over 200 pages long, was an analysis of the writings of a German philosopher named Paul Tillich. King's research required him to have reading knowledge of German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. King analyzed Tillich's concept of God, and compared it to the way other philosophers viewed God. King was looking for the perfect balance between a "transcendent" view of God and an "immanent" view of God; the transcendent view is more cosmic and eternal, and immanent view is more personal and relational. King believed that a balanced view of God - not moving to either extreme - would improve both individuals and societies.

Too often, the television gives us the impression that King's main activity was giving speeches and marching. In reality, he spent years of his life in libraries. King's ideals of equality and non-violence came from studying texts.

Paul Tillich was a major influence on King. King also read books by Ghandi; Ghandi, in turn, had been educated in England. It was from England that Ghandi brought to his native India ideals of non-violence and equality, and began to criticize India's "caste" system. Ghandi wanted a "Magna Carta" for India. It's ironic that to get from England to America, these ideas went through India. Ghandi wanted to import the British ideas about the dignity and value of every human life, and about civil justice, into India. He probably did not foresee, at least initially, that they would be then exported to other countries, especially to the USA.

King had also read Thoreau and Emmerson, who in turn had been educated in the seminaries of New England, mainly at Harvard, where the Bible was studied in the context of its original Greek and Hebrew grammar, and in the context of rise and fall of the major ancient empires. This mixed approach - a personal commitment to valuing each human life, a geo-political context of major world powers, and the careful examination of text - would be formative.

So we see what a wide range of texts and authors are wrapped up in the influences which enabled King to take his remarkable place in American history. We see, in his words and writings, how a Humanities education can be powerful.

Statistics, Statistics!

Most of us, at one time or another, have heard something like this: "in the Middle Ages, the average life span was shorter than forty years; today, life expectancy often reaches as high as the mid seventies."

Makes us sound pretty cool, right? I mean, with all our modern technology and science, and good medical care, we're much better off!

Well, not really.

Notice the slightly different wordings: "average life span" and "life expectancy". These are, to statisticians, two very different things.

Average life span is simply the arithmetic mean of a group of human beings, for example, those living in Europe in the Middle Ages. Some of them died as small babies, others lived to be 100 years old or more, and most were between those two extremes. Add them up, divide, and you have the average. You learned to do that in some math class.

But "life expectancy" is a little trickier. For example, the generation of Americans who fought World War Two is now over eighty years old. We look around, and see many of them still living; others have died only recently, having made it into their seventies. And so we say that this generation had a pretty good "life expectancy". But their average life span was much shorter. We forget about the hundreds of thousands who actually died in the 1940's, fighting in the Pacific against Japan. When they are factored into the group, we find that the average life span is much shorter than the life expectancy. Remember, many of those soldiers who died were under twenty years of age.

Your life expectancy is defined, roughly, as how long you can expect to live if you have already made it to a certain age, say 20 or 30, and if there are no major unforeseen catastrophes, say like a war or an earthquake.

It's not meaningful to compare a modern life expectancy to a medieval average life span. That's comparing apples to oranges.

Given that the modern life span is shorter than the modern life expectancy, maybe we're not so much better off than those folks in the Middle Ages after all.

The Backwards Revolution

Sometimes, revolutions fail to make things better; in 1959, the Cuban Communist revolution rejected American-style democracy, and promised to make things better for the "common working" man. What happened after that?

Many economic and social indicators have declined since the 1959 revolution. Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption; today, it ranks last. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels. The number of automobiles in Cuba has fallen since the 1950's - the only country in Latin America for which this is the case. The number of telephone lines in Cuba also has been virtually frozen at 1950's levels. Cuba once ranked first in Latin America and fifth in the world in television sets per capita. Today, it barely ranks fourth in Latin America and is well back in the ranks globally.

Cuba's rate of development of electrical power since the 1950’s ranks behind every other country in Latin America except Haiti. Cuba is the only country in the hemisphere for which rice production today is lower than it was four decades ago.

Cuba's infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th lowest in the world, according to UN data. Cuba ranked ahead of France, Belgium, Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, all of which would eventually pass Cuba in this indicator during the following decades. Cuba's world ranking has fallen from 13th to 24th during the Castro era, according to UN Data.

Japan, with four cars per 1,000 inhabitants in 1958, was far behind Cuba (24) that year, but by 1988, Japan's number had grown to 251, whereas the figure for Cuba remained frozen at its 1958 level. Similar comments could be made for Portugal (increased from fifteen in 1958 to 216 in 1988), Spain (increased from six to 278), and Greece (increased from four to 150). Indeed, Italy's 29 cars per thousand was not far ahead of Cuba's 24 in 1958, but by 1988, Italy boasted 440 cars per thousand, whereas the figure for Cuba was unchanged from the 1950's.

Today, Cuba has only three telephone lines per 100 people, placing it 14th out of twenty Latin American countries surveyed in 1994 and far behind countries that were less advanced than Cuba in this measure in 1958, such as Argentina (today 14 lines per 100 inhabitants), Costa Rica (13), Panama (11), Chile (11), Venezuela (11), and several others.

During the late 1950's, Cuba ranked second only to Uruguay in Latin America, with 169 radios per 1,000 people. (Worldwide, this put Cuba just ahead of Japan.) At that time, Argentina and Cuba were very similar in terms of this measure. Since then, the number of radios per capita in Argentina has grown three times as fast as in Cuba. Cuba also has been surpassed by Bolivia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Honduras, and Brazil in this indicator.

Cuba had 45 television sets per 1,000 inhabitants in 1957, by far the most in Latin America and fifth in the world, behind only Monaco, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. In fact, its closest competitor in Latin America was Venezuela, which had only sixteen television sets per 1,000 people. Today, Cuba has 170 televisions per thousand, behind Uruguay (232 per thousand), Argentina (220), and Brazil (209). Of these three countries, Uruguay in 1957 had less than one television per 1,000 people, and Argentina and Brazil each had five per 1,000 people.

Although Cuba has never been a regional leader in public electricity production per capita, its relative ranking among twenty Latin American countries has fallen from eighth to 11th during the Castro era. In fact, in terms of the rate of growth for this measure, Cuba ranks 19th of twenty countries in the region, with only Haiti showing less accelerated development.

Cuba is the only country in Latin America whose production of rice has fallen since 1958, when it ranked fourth in the region in production of this staple.

Cubans had a choice of 58 daily newspapers during the late 1950's, according to the UN statistical yearbook. Despite its small size, this placed Cuba behind only Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico in the region. By 1992, government controls had reduced the number of dailies to only seventeen.

A Short Snooze for a Short Emperor: Napoleon's Naps

From the time of his self-appointment to the first consulship in 1799, Napoleon had constructed for himself folding field-bed out of iron. On all campaigns and field manouvers, he took one along: either a small one on the back of a mule, or a larger one on a supply wagon. But even when he slept on something more comfortable, Napoleon slept only a short time. Allegedly, he never remained in bed for any longer than four hours at a time. He didn't like those who slept for long periods of time. Sleep experts celebrate him today as a pioneer of the "power-nap", an energizing short snooze. Accordingly, Napoleon is supposed to have slept briefly several times a day - for example, when commanding. Sometimes even during a battle!

Peace in the Middle East?

The recent "heating up" of military action in the area of Israel and Lebanon has brought the ancient conflicts of the Middle East to the forefront again.

Many American politicians are debating about the best way to make peace - but their debates are founded on the presupposition that peace is possible in this situation, and that is an assumption which we must examine more carefully.

First, let's define peace. If, by that word, we mean merely the absense of violence, the lack of shooting, then, yes, peace in the Middle East is possible. Either by diplomacy or by force, it is possible to create a cease-fire, an uneasy and tenuous truce; this can be done by the involved parties themselves, or by external forces. It has been done before.

But if we mean, by the word peace, something more than an imposed restraint on military action, if we mean, perhaps, the creation of a political stable equalibrium, and the conviction on the parts of all involved parties that an even-handed solution to the underlying conflicts has been reached, then one begins to wonder if "peace" is at all possible in the Middle East.

Remember that this recent round of fighting is simply a continuation of fighting that has been going on since 1948. Remember that the fighting that began in 1948 is merely a continuation of the fighting that has been going on since around 1500 B.C.; indeed, the ancient accounts are shockingly similar to today's headlines: the same towns and countries are mentioned, armies move along the same roads.

For those who want to reduce all Middle Eastern conflict to the Israeli situation, remember that this part of the world has hosted nearly ceaseless conflict over the last fifteen centuries between Arab nations, between Islamic nations, even when there was no Jewish state present, even when the number of ethnic Jews living in the region was insignificant, and even when Europe and America didn't intervene in any way.

This part of the world is used to constant warfare as a way of life. They have fought for centuries. One wonders if any rational articulation of the reasons is at all still possible.

Thus it may be foolish to think that the United Nations, or the United States, can intervene with a "peace plan", and resolve the tensions and create a non-agressive co-existence.

Why has a reasonable and fair peace been possible in Europe following WWII? Europe has enjoyed sixty years of peace, interrupted only by the civil war as Yugoslavia disintegrated into six or seven separate nations. The periodic attacks by Soviet soldiers on unarmed civilians were not military wars, but massacres, and fall into a different category. Why the stability and peace in Europe, but not in the Middle East? For the answer, we must examine the underlying cultures and worldviews.

Tristan and Isolde

The ancient story, and recent film, about Tristan and Isolde is one well worth studying. This narrative has inspired poets, composers, and painters over the centuries, leaving us with many different versions of the same basic plot.

But don't be confused: this is not merely a love story. This is an account of the political upheavals caused by the fall of the Roman Empire, and of the beginnings of English national identity. The effort to unite a handful of independent tribes into what would become England, and the struggle between these collected tribes and the Irish, formed the geo-politics of Europe for several centuries. Understanding this story is understanding what England is, how it arose, and what the authentic English identity was prior to 1066. But 1066 is another story.

Going Native

When the British oversaw an empire "on which the sun never sets" - meaning that, because it had large territories around the world, it was always daylight somewhere in the empire - they used the phrase "going native" to describe a certain phenomenon: when an Englishman, sent to work in one of the colonies, would be begin to adapt himself to the ways of the local cultures. An British man who began to dress according to local fashions, converse with the natives, eat their type food, perhaps marry a local woman, learn their languages, and - the ultimate step - begin to identify with them instead of with his fellow Englishmen and to see things from their point of view, they said that he had "gone native."

Now, to be sure, this was sometimes a negative evaluation, and sometimes merely a neutral observation.

The British Empire has faded away, but this concept can help us to understand a current situation.

The politics of the Middle East are very complicated, and it would be foolish to think that they could be completely explained in one small blog posting. How can one ever completely analyze the intricacies of Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, Syria, Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt, with their various languages, cultures, religions, and histories? No, I will not present a comprehensive examination of the entire political situation in the Near East.

But I will examine one small part of this big puzzle.

In 1948, when the modern state of Israel was organized, it was done for several different reasons: one of them a hope to transplant a handful of European Jews, and with them, the western concept of democracy, and of a democratic republic; the hope was that these concepts would take root in the Middle East, and spread the notion of this type of government and society. The dream was that the Near East would begin to look like Europe, and that the nations there would begin to operate on a basis which would allow them to make peace with each other, and with the rest of the world, and to enter into a more normalized relation with the states in the rest of the world. The modern state of Israel was supposed to be a "seed" of a modern democracy republic in the region.

That was one thought behind the founding of the nation. There were others, perhaps more important, or at least more dominate, which we will not discuss here.

How did matters fare? Well, there will be different interpretations of the last fifty years of world history, but one interpretation is to say that some of those European Jews, who were to plant democracy in the region, "went native" - that is to say, instead of changing the region, the region changed them. They may have adopted the ancient attitudes of the Near East, attitudes alien to democratic republics, even alien to the peculiar way in which western civilizations value human life, and value peace over war.

The Middle East, at war for centuries, is, or has become, comfortable with war as a way of life; this is a a worldview which is at odds with Eurocentric ideologies, a worldview in which human life is not necessarily extremely valuable.

Have some of the citizens of modern Israel adopted this viewpoint - have they "gone native"?

Definitions are Everything!

What do Jesus and Karl Marx have in common? Well, to start with, they were both Jewish, and they both were Communists. That may startle you, but this shocking statement also depends on how you define "Jewish" and "Communist" - and reminds us that definitions are the key to understanding confusing episodes of both history and philosophy.

Jesus was spiritually, culturally, and genetically Jewish; Karl Marx merely happened to have Jewish grandparents; so they were both "Jewish", but in very different senses of the word. Jesus inspired his followers to put their money and material possessions into a common treasury, and share equally from it; this would qualify him as a "Communist" - but in a very different sense than Marx. Marx's version of Communism relied on the government as the ultimate power, on material objects as the ultimate reality, and on atheism as the ultimate belief. Jesus, to say the least, was not an atheist.

Many politicians are debating about "immigrants" now - but we must first define whether we are talking about legal or illegal immigrants.

Biologists are discussing "stem cells" these days - but are they examing those taken from adults, or from unborn babies?

It is precisely in these topics - the most emotional, passionate, and political themes - that we must focus most carefully on the definitions of words. Only then can we speak more rationally.

An atheist once attacked a philosopher with the often-repeated question, "can you really prove that God exists?" The philosopher, tired of the game, returned with a question, "can you even define the word 'God'?"