My, how I missed you

Yes, apparently there will be distance between posts… because I’m working on getting my shit together so that I can start teaching at the end of August.

And, for the past three months, I have been reading the (assigned AND most poorly written) Western Civ text.  I have OTHER Western Civ texts from when I took the class (and another called “Ancient Worlds”) in which I am gleaning information from.

It has me thinking about how I first reacted when I took the class.  I had certain preconceived notions about the world and how it came to be.  My American history classes were “teleprompted” (meaning, we watched videos on cable and met once a month for tests or papers… yes, archaic), so I hadn’t had a “real” history class in a “real” college classroom until I took Western Civ.

With each chapter, my eyes glistened and little stars shimmered behind my pupils.  All of this history and I didn’t know any of it.  Sure, I knew the Egyptians built pyramids and that the Romans and Greeks were foundations for “democracy,” but I hadn’t had this course since… oh, MAYBE my freshman year of high school IF that.  And, I don’t recall my teachers making any sort of impression on me that stuck. (Other than my middle school history teacher striking a CRAZY resemblance to Josef Stalin.)

Not that this professor was a GOOD professor.  He constantly reminded us that THIS was not HIS field of study… that he preferred Native Americans to teaching Western Civ.  It wasn’t until I took the second part, with a female professor who would wear sweats to class and sit on the desk sipping Pepsi from a can.  It was this professor who truly opened my eyes to history and caused me to want to pursue it further.

I’m not writing about teachers who influenced my life.  If I were, I’d have to start earlier than that.  And, because I like to throw in the negatives, too, I’d have to list the pile of teachers who told my parents that I would never go to college because I didn’t have “it.”  (I’ll save my bashing for those folks another day.  Maybe.)

What I’m talking about is the first time you learn something that differs from what your church or parents have taught you.  It was like a light from the sky shone on my face and opened my eyes to life.  I don’t know if I’m even doing this experience justice… because most people do not feel that way when they take a history class.  But, I did. 

All of this is leading to my saying this (without reservations, either)… there is a lot of ignorance in the world as far as where we come from.  I’m not talking about your grandmother from Germany or your grandfather from Romania, but where WE, as a human society, come from.

I began to question my professor about things… God in particular.  This is what she said, as she sipped from her fifth Pepsi can: “Herstory, the more you learn, the more you question what you have been taught by your parents.  History is what it is…”

True, I thought, to a certain extent.  I have come to realize that not all history is definite or definitive, but deals with one’s perception and reaction.

Like this text I’m reading.  I’m not really sure what problem the author has with history, other than the fact that she adores giving finite detail about mundane things that mean nothing to me.  I have another textbook that is more “enjoyable” that doesn’t bog my mind down with garbage (Diocletian’s mother’s sister’s father’s nephew’s food taster) and minute details.  If this were MY book (meaning, if I owned it), I would set it ablaze and dump the ashes on the doorstep of the publisher.  (Shame on them!)

Anyway… back to what I was saying.

It wasn’t until I *connected* with something I read… something that I was wrestling with on a personal level… that confirmed my suspicions… or ability to question it.

I asked my mother one day (mind you, I was in my mid-20s when I took this class), “Do you think that the Church Fathers somehow manipulated Christianity so that it would be self-serving to them?”

My mother screamed at me about defying the word of God and then hung up.

I asked my professor, “Do you think that the Church Fathers somehow manipulated Christianity so that it would be self-serving to them?”

She took me into her office and we sat and discussed my question at length.

Last night, I finally got to the Christianity chapter of the textbook and after spending a few days reading it (no kidding, the freaking chapter is over 50 pages long and a 5 font), I remembered WHY I asked that question.

Christianity emerged following the death of Christ.  His followers (apostles and women) began to meet secretly out of fear of being persecuted (or even killed) by Romans and Jews.

Over the course of time, from a few hundred years following Christ’s crucifixion to today, there have been a LOT of changes in Christianity.

I read last night that the Islamic peoples (formerly known as “Moors”) were more accepting of Christians and Jews to their communities because they were the foundations to Islam.  Cool.  Interesting.  Christians revered Jews because they, too, were the foundation for Christianity.  The Jews, on the other hand, did not accept assimilation with non-Jews (Gentiles), as per their custom.

It made me think, once again, about the turmoil in the world, just as I had in the class all those many years ago.  At the time, the U.S. was in Serbia, trying to uproot and remove Milosevic.  Then, Muslims and Christians (and most likely Jews) were all fighting in Kosovo over land and control.

I thought back to the ONLY thing I remember from my European History class in 12th grade:  The First World War began because the Serbian Red Hand organization (guerrilla group) assassinated the Archduke of Austria-Hungry–Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie.

Silly, I thought.  What a weird thing to think about.  Then more things came back to me…

Wars occur because of two things: land and religion.  If a war is a religious war, you can bet they want land, too.  If a war is about land, something about religion is in there, too. 

There have been MORE wars caused by religion than any OTHER reason.

Case in point: 

• The Crusades (Christianity vs. Islam)–8th through 10th centuries
• Spanish Wars (Moors and Christians)–700 to 1492 CE
• Balkan Wars (Christian Europe and Islamic Turks, Seljuk and/or Ottoman)–1300s to WWI
• Thirty Years’ War (Ending with Treaty of Westphalia)–1648
• Conflicts in Northern Ireland (Catholicism vs. Protestantism)–20th c.
• Spanish Inquisition (removal of Jews and Islamics from Spain if did not convert to Christianity)–1400s
• Six Days’ War (Between Palestine and Israel over land)–1967

…and more.

If it’s not due to religion, religion has some sort of influence in the war itself.

There’s been conflicts (Great Schism, the separation between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) that occurred from Christian controls and leadership issues.  People have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed for their beliefs.  The Church in Rome, for instance, has been responsible for MANY religious wars and persecution of non-Christians over the centuries.

And, for as much as my mother opposed Catholicism (since she has become Born-Again), she was QUITE smiffed when I remarked one day that it seemed that the Christian Church as a whole has been responsible for forcing their beliefs on people more than the others (Jews and Muslims).  This isn’t to say that the other two groups haven’t been the purveyor of torment and persecution, because they have.

So… when I finished reading the chapter on Christianity in the Middle Ages, it caused me to question a few things.

• Why are Catholic priests celibate instead of being allowed to marry?
• Why are nuns always taking a vow of poverty while priests drive in luxury cars?
• Why is it SO difficult to NOT be a Christian today?
• And, why is there such a stigmatism in being a Christian?

First of all… Catholic priests were forced to remain celebate because they were having sex with women of “lesser” means who were bearing their illegitimate children (“Bastards”) who the Church feared would “inherit” his father’s position.  To ensure that these illegitimate children did not become bishops and priests, the Church felt it was best to require all priests be celebate.

Ok, I get that.  But, why can’t they be married?  A married priest isn’t unbiblical because Peter (Petra, the founder of Christianity) was married.  The Bible says (I’m paraphrasing), it is better to be married than to sleep around and masterbate.  (I told you that I was paraphrasing, right… it’s better than saying “spilling seed,” right?)  If marriage is a religious right and a Catholic sacrament, then it can’t be a bad thing, right?  In Christianity, God must come first, then the spouse and family.  If a man were to be a priest, he would probably put his family concerns above those of his congregation.  This is purely speculation, however, because truth be told, what is told in history books (not just the one for this class, but FIVE others that I have) that the Catholic Church wanted to control their priests’ corruptive and sinful behavior.  Gotcha.  They would rather the priests masturbate, have sex with nuns or small boys.  At least say that, ya know?  If you don’t think that it is conducive to your religion to have celibate men as leaders of the church without worrying that they will break their vows of celibacy, then have another Council and change the rules.  I’m sure if the Church establishes firm rules regarding this, perhaps there will be less indiscretions whispered about in churches by the congregation.

I worked for a year with nuns.  Nuns come in all sizes: short, tall, big, small, loud, quiet, mean, nice, scary and not-scary.  During lunch one day during the school year, I asked the nun sitting next to me what their “order” was about.  (That means, what type of “vows” did they take as a whole.)  She said, “Poverty.”

Shit.  Why are the nuns poor when the priest in charge of the school drove a new Lexus and lived in an apartment with central air?  They didn’t even GET paychecks for their service (like living NEXT DOOR to the school wasn’t enough to warrant a pay check of SOME sort).

“Herstory,” the nun said to me, “We take the vow out of honor to God.”

“God wants you to be poor?” I asked, innocently.  (I swear.)

“No,” she smiled.  From what I understand, she didn’t smile often, unless of course, she was making a kid cry. “We vow to be poor out of honor to God.”

That’s stupid, I thought.  This woman spent her ENTIRE life living in a convent, teaching randy kids with no respect, wearing paper-thin hand-made skirts and vests so that she could be poor?  Ok, so money is the root of all evil, I get that.  I also understand that money doesn’t buy happiness (for long).  But, what I do not understand is why the priests do not take the same vows as the nuns.  Poverty should be equally distributed.  This isn’t the Middle Ages where parish priests were just as illiterate and poor as their parishoners.  This is the 21st century.

“So,” I asked, because I knew she didn’t mind and knew I wasn’t being mean, “you are ‘ok’ with vowing to be poor with Father Whatshisface driving a new Lexus?”

She smiled this broad smile… her Irish complexion ruddy and her blue eyes glistening under the dim lights of the faculty room… “Oh, he’s a jackass and he’ll get his.”

I love nuns.  I really do. 

“Did you have a choice to take a different vow?”

“Uh,” she laughed, “It’s not like a market where you get to pick and choose… but some DO get to choose other orders with different vows.”

Let’s see… poverty, chastity, poverty AND chastity, and service.  Not a lot of selection.

Women who were sent to convents were usually upper class women who did not marry and whose father’s had several daughters.  Usually the upper class women became Abysses of a convent and occassionally ran a monastery with both nuns and monks.  However, none of them lived in the lap of luxury.  The Church, in order to prevent women from rising in the ranks of the Church, adopted societal views of women… they are to be subjective, be domestic, and stay out of our way.

I dont’ hate men.  I live in a house filled with them (even the damn cat is male).  I do not, however, believe that men are better than women (as I stated in my last post).  That goes for priests and nuns.

Historically, women have been more dedicated, in a spiritual-serving-God way than men.  For instance, Jesus had many followers while he was alive, mostly women.  When he died, his apostles were hiding in fear, but his female followers were with him through his journey to his crucifixion and were primarily responsible for preparing his body for burial. 

Society, in ancient history up until the early 20th century, differentiated women from men.  Men were the providers and women were the nurturers who bore the brunt of the work–bearing and rearing children, tending to the house, supervising staff (if able to afford any), did weaving/sewing (textile industry consisted primarily of women for CENTURIES), as well as nursing, cooking, cleaning, etc.  It was easy for a man to rise up the ranks of society–to run a business, own properties, and run for public office because it was almost expected of men.  Whereas, women were not permitted to participate in public life.  (This dates back to the early Greeks and Romans, as well.)

So, keeping nuns poor in 2008 only proves to me one thing:  men still run the show. 

As far as difficulty NOT being Christian… that’s a historical question.  Since it’s inception in the early centuries of the Common Era (formerly AD), Christianity grew in prominence.  When it became established as the “official religion” of Rome towards the end of the era of the Roman Empire, people were given two options:  convert or die.

Isabella and Ferdinand (Spain, late 1400s):  Isabella, Queen of a united Spain, was a fervent Catholic.  Her motto was, “One king, one law, one faith.”  Isabelle was an ambitious ruler who promoted education, religion, and the arts.  She also was responsible for the Spanish Inquisition. Spain was inundated with Jews and Muslims (for centuries) and she wanted to remove them.  As a result, she instigated one of several inquisitions in which ALL non-Christians were given the option to either convert or leave.  Those who refused to do either were killed.  For a long time, the Church burned people at the sake.  My guess is that they were afraid the person wouldn’t die and wanted to ensure they wouldn’t pop back up and scream something about their religious preference.  There is a religious reason for burning a heretic at the stake– perhaps giving the person being burned (as well as those watching) the idea of what “Eternal Damnation in Hell” would mean.  Over the course of about 600 years, about 40,000 people were burnt at the stake as heretics.  Anyone, woman or man, rich or poor (though, my bet they were mostly poor or “almost” poor), Christian or not, who spoke out against the church would be burnt at the stake.

Another example is “Mary I of England.”  Henry VIII’s oldest child, Mary Tudor, was sent back to Spain with her mother (Catherine of Aragon) after he successfully obtained a divorce from the new Protestant Church.  After his death and that of his only male heir, Edward, Mary became queen of England (and Spain since she was married to  Phillip II, of the Habsburg line)… thereby knicknamed “Bloody Mary,” who burnt 274 people at the stake for heresy (both men and women) over her 5-year reign in the mid-16th century.  One of her “victims” was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer in 1556.  Their crimes?  Being Protestants.

What historically famous people were burnt at the stake?

Let’s see, the first to come to mind is Joan of Arc.  She was burnt for being a heretic and a witch (supposedly she was killed and not kept in prison because she refused to wear a dress as well as regretting renouncing hearing the voices (as I had discovered from reading her trial documents while working on my thesis).  Five hundred years AFTER her death, the Catholic Church makes her a saint.  For what?  Dying?  Bullshit, I say.  That death is a dark smudge on the Church, that’s for sure.

Giordano Bruno, a Dominican monk who studied Aristotelian philosophy (Christian acceptance of certain “doctrines” of Aristotle) was burnt at the stake in 1592 for opposing the Church by writing that the universe was infinite, containing an infinite number of worlds, all inhabited by intelligent beings.  (Remarkably, scientists for the past few decades have been trying to figure out if intelligible life IS out there.  I guess they consider us “UN”intelligible.  Heh.)

John Hus (a.k.a. Jan Huss) was a religious thinker and reformer, born in Southern Bohemia in 1369. He initiated a reform movement based on the ideas of John Wycliffe. His followers became known as Hussites. The Catholic Church did not condone such uprisings, and Hus was excommunicated in 1411 and burned at the stake in Constance on July 6, 1415, having been condemned by the Council of Constance, in an unfair trial.

As far as MY experience with having difficulties NOT being a Christian in 2008 it stems from YEARS of my mother crying that I will burn in the depths of hell unless I get right and get God.  Personally, I don’t know if there is a true religion or if I believe in a higher power or an afterlife.  I want to, in a way, but I’m not sure if the desire is out of expected obligation OR out of fear.  I grew up under that stigmatism and have spent the past 10 or more years trying to pull myself out from underneath it.

Finally, I’m certain that there’s a stigmatism to being considered or called a Christian (regardless of denomination or sect) because of the inquisitions, burnings, crucifixions, and other torments that is part of its history.  As a part of the three major religions in the world (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), it has to bear some responsbility to the past wrongs against others, whom, as the Bible demands, they are to LOVE.  Love doesn’t involve shaming people or killing them because they do not believe in the same thing.  Christianity BEGAN as a persecuted religion, with its early believers being thrown into an actual lion’s den by Romans…

But those who find it difficult to BE Christians are held to this standard… a higher standard, created by the Church, that puts them above the bad and wicked.  To be a Christian in a secular world is hard.  To be able to stand up for what you believe in, regardless of the history of the Church, is difficult.  To be able to confront people and tell them about Jesus, so many years after his death, is remarkable.  In today’s society, one marred by technology, war, and a relative lack of overall spirituality is difficult, and although I do not choose to stand among them any longer, I do not try to turn them to the “darkside” either.  I find it admirable for those who are firm in their faith, who do not chastise others for NOT being like them.  Those who show by example and are overall good people are what I see as a “true” Christian.

Still, it can’t be easy.  Or, just as easy as it is to NOT be a Christian in a Christian family.  *sighs*

Needless to say, thank you for enduring my (almost) endless bantering.  This is why I find history to be so though-provoking.  I don’t know if everyone who reads a book about history will feel the way that I do, but if nothing else, I get to write about it without seeing you roll your eyes.

*grins*