Thanks to the On Notice generator.

Share this with your friends and family if you are upset about the war. Turn up the pressure on the administration to get out of Iraq.

In 1949, Joseph Campbell published what many consider to be his magnum opus_, The Hero with a Thousand FacesFaces. I just finished the book the other day, after reading it off-and-on for two years. Through the course of the book, he analyzes and codifies aspects of the ‘myth of the hero’ from perspectives of cultures around the world. However, in the epilogue he makes clear the larger purpose of the investigation, which is to place in context the similarities among our myths and outline the dilemma of the modern man. What struck me most about his words in the epilogue was their relevance to the current day, even fifty years after their publication. I’d like to quote him a few times below.
h3. On the interpretation of myth

Mythology has been interpreted by the modern intellect as a primitive, fumbling effort to explain the world of nature (Frazer); as a production of poetical fantasy from prehistoric times, misunderstood by succeeding ages (Müller); as a repository of allegorical instruction, to shape the individual to his group (Durkheim); as a group dream, symptomatic of archetypal urges within the depths of the human psyche (Jung); as the traditional vehicle of man’s profoundest metaphysical insights (Coomaraswamy); and as God’s Revelation to His children (the Church). Mythology is all of these. The various judgments are determined by the viewpoints of the judges.

The origin of the modern dilemma

…the democratic ideal of the self-determining individual, the invention of the power-driven machine, and the development of the scientific method of research, have so transformed human life that the long-inherited, timeless universe of symbols has collapsed. In the fateful, epoch-announcing words of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: “Dead are all the gods.”

…today no meaning is in the group-none in the world: all is in the individual… The lines of communication between the conscious and the unconscious zones of the human psyche have all been cut, and we have been split in two… The modern hero-deed must be that of questing to bring to light again the lost Atlantis of the co-ordinated soul.

On the relevance of religion

The universal triumph of the secular state has thrown all religious organizations into such a definitely secondary, and finally ineffectual, position that religious pantomime is hardly more today than a sanctimonious exercise for Sunday morning, whereas business ethics and patriotism stand for the remainder of the week. Such a monkey-holiness is not what the functioning world requires; rather, a transmutation of the whole social order is necessary, so that through every detail and act of secular life the vitalizing image of the universal god-man who is actually immanent and effective in all of us may be somehow made known to consciousness.

The limits of universality

But there is one thing we may know, namely, that as the new symbols become visible, they will not be identical in the various parts of the globe… Therefore, it is necessary for men to understand, and be able to see, that through various symbols the same redemption is revealed. “Truth is one”, we read in the Vedas; “the sages call it by many names.”

(emphasis added)

The way to become human is to learn to recognize the lineaments of God in all of the wonderful modulations of the face of man.

The modern hero

“Live,” Nietzsche says, “as though the day were here.” It is not society that is to guide and save the creative hero, but precisely the reverse. And so every one of us shares the supreme ordeal… not in the bright moments of his tribe’s great victories, but in the silences of his personal despair.

[taken from an ACLU email newsletter]

By Jeremy Gunn, Director, Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, ACLU

A few years ago, a group called Public Advocate for the United States (which claims to defend America’s traditional family values) sent some Christmas carolers over to sing in front of the ACLU offices in Washington. Carrying signs reading “Merry Christmas” and “Please Don’t Sue Us!”—they also seemed to carry with them some rather strange imaginings about an assault on Christmas. I don’t know what the carolers thought might happen.

To tell the truth, the ACLU is not often serenaded by Christmas carolers. More likely, we realize the holiday season has arrived when we start to receive angry phone calls, emails and cards accusing us of trying to destroy Christmas. So it was with some excitement that the staff went outside and joined in the singing. They brought with them cookies and warm drinks to share. One staff member, who is an ordained Baptist minister, did a little witnessing about his faith to some astonished proponents of family values.

This is just one example of how some groups have used a mythical “war on Christmas” to demonize the ACLU, crush religious diversity, and make a few bucks in the process. Not only do they claim that there is a “war on Christmas,” they insist that the ACLU is leading the battle cry. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

The ACLU supports the rights of Christians and all religious people to celebrate their holidays in public spaces. What we do oppose is government action that promotes or endorses particular religions or religion over non-religion. Our views are dictated by the Constitution of the United States and are motivated by our commitment to religious liberty for all Americans.

The ACLU works to ensure that people remain free to choose which religious beliefs (or none) they wish to express and that governments, school boards, and legislatures do not become involved in deciding which religious beliefs should be promoted or in spending taxpayer dollars to support religious activities and symbols. We remain fully engaged in defending a broad range of constitutional rights, including rights related to freedom of religion and belief. It is sometimes wrongly imagined that the ACLU does not vigorously protect rights of freedom of religion, particularly of Christians.

What the people who attack the ACLU don’t understand is that our real strength is sticking to fundamental principles—we know that for true religious liberty to flourish, everyone must be free to practice their religion free from government interference. Thank you for everything you do, and have a peaceful holiday season!

If you’re a Facebook junkie like so many of us, you’re probably familiar with this year’s election-related features. Back in September sometime I joined a bunch of groups to support my preferred issues and candidates. Not long before this, an old friend of mine from University of Tulsa had joined my friends list. When he saw my chosen issues, here’s the conversation that began.

JS

Why you gotta be so moveon.org ? Get a damn hair cut, hippy. :)

SC

Keep talkin, your foot looks good in your mouth. It’ll look even better when the bastard is impeached.

p.s. My hair is as short as ever… except for that time in college when I looked like a cancer patient.

JS

Hey, don’t blame me, I voted nader both times – the progressive who doesn’t hate religion!

Oh yeah, and my hair while i am in london is gonna get SHAGGGY. and a zz top beard too. maybe not.

SC

I don’t think most progressives hate religion, I think they believe in the clear separation of church and state. That is, not only does the state not meddle in religion, but religion does not meddle in the state.

Somehow, neo-conservatives have duped the Religious Right into thinking that they actually care about the same issues, but they’re really just using the RR issues as wedges to get strong reactions from voters and confuse the populace about what’s really important for government. As such, it can appear as if neo-cons are faithful, upright people who care about right and wrong, but are really no better than anyone else in Washington.

Moreover, it’s a distraction tactic from all of the things that people should be concerned about, including the economy, relationships with other nations, individual rights and responsibilities, and political corruption. I think the Abramoff and Foley scandals prove that we constantly have to be critical of our government, one thing that has been lacking in recent years.

(steps down off soapbox)

When and for what are you going to London?

JS

I came to London so I could travel to France and see the destruction from secularists who have so separated church and state as to ban wearing a cross in a public school. Or maybe attend the shrines of the martyrs from the french revolution which endorsed such separation. Then again, I did travel to Cologne, and at the cathedral they pointed out that many religious works were no longer there, again because of the invading secularists who wanted to separate church from the state.

As long as there are people with religious beliefs there will be religion “meddling” with the state. To say that they don’t hate religion – but just think it should pipe down, shut up, move to the back of the bus and take it lying down – is a sick, sick joke. The KKK didn’t hate blacks – they just wanted them to be a permanent underclass with no voice.

The phrase you are referencing was written in a private letter in 1803, then held privately for 150 years when 6 unelected douchebags declared it sacred scripture.

If these “wedges” have no truth, they would have no power. Maybe if there was actual, real discussion and tolerance on the other side, they’d get somewhere on the “real” issues.

You’re right that “neo-cons” haven’t delivered much to social conservatives and religious people who voted republican. However, they did deliver two great supreme court seats.

What you said brings up an interesting point I once heard. One of the greatest disasters for the republican party would be if Roe v Wade were actually overturned. There would much less for orthodox christians to stick around for – using the points you brought up about treatment for the poor, etc. So – the republicans are best served by keeping things right on the edge – but not succeeding. The base stays energized, but they don’t kill the goose who lays the golden egg.

I’ll tell you what I would like to see – more pro-life progressive stuff. Then I’d feel I could trust them more. Or at least progressives who wouldn’t call me “anti-choice.” That really shows their hate for the essence of who I am. I mean – jeez, thanks a lot, i was just trying to be consistent on having human rights and dignity for everyone, and they call me a woman-hater. How can I ever sign up for that?

I’ve actually wanted to start ignoring politics a lot more. As it is, I have to wander in space with no home, and just get irritated at all the crap and lies. It’s not good for my soul. I mean – look at me now, I’m bitching out a good friend who I haven’t seen in years when I should be talking about all the silly things that british people do! Like smoke – everywhere.

SC

I think it’s easy to bitch and moan. What’s hard is figuring out how to turn all the negativity into action. Actually, negativity is probably too strong a word. Quoth Thoreau, “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Most people have an inertia about politics that basically amounts to ignoring it until they’re screwed by the government.

I think it’s neat that you’re in London, I’m sure it gives some perspective on how people around the world live their lives very differently.

I can see both extremes of church/government separation as dangerous, because they both lead to a Procrustean system. Either you must practice one religion (Iran) or you can’t barely practice any (many EU). Both the government and religion must have respect and tolerance for each other. That’s not to say that government leaders and voters can’t make decisions or be mobilized on religious ideals and values, just that each has its place. That’s my opinion at least.

However, one thing that is ridiculous, at least in America, is Christians playing the “I’m oppressed” card. It’s patently false. Christians make up probably 80% or more of the population. I would call that a majority, not an oppressed minority. While oppression, or at least extreme restriction, may be present in EU, it’s not here.

I don’t understand what “phrase [I was] referencing”. Please explain.

“Wedges” do have truth; they have power to move people’s emotions. They just have little to do with the true agendae of the neo-cons. They use them to get people to vote certain ways and then fail to deliver. For example, the “gay marriage” amendment – something that many people are passionate about but making it a Constitutional amendment is more ridiculous than prohibition.

Ironically enough, those Supreme Court seats are turning out to be more independent than first expected. I think it’s funny how time and time again, a Supreme Court justice will go against the grain of what was first expected of their ideology, once on the court.

You hit the nail on the head about RvW. Keep people pumped up, but never deliver… the ultimate tease! (Sorry about the double-entendres.)

Abortion is such a sticky issue. I think the problem with it is the debate is not really about what it appears to be. I think we both know and agree that it is against human nature to be celibate—hence why being a priest is such a supreme obligation. In light of this, it is plainly impractical to provide no alternative to abortion except abstinence. While the Catholic Church’s position is admirable (the protection of all life) and ideologically consistent, it is far from practical.

If we didn’t live in a culture that came from a patriarchal past, we wouldn’t need abortion. But sadly, the debate over it is not really about the life of a fetus, but about women’s rights. A woman is slighted by society if she has a child out of wedlock OR if she chooses to have an abortion OR if she uses artificial birth control. It’s honestly a no-win situation for the woman.

Beyond that, the last thing we need is women trying to give themselves abortions with coat hangers. So basically, I feel that while abortion is a gruesome procedure that damages all parties involved, it is a necessary practice in a society that backs women into such a corner.

Interestingly enough, not all progressives are “anti-life/pro-choice”. John Kerry, although he disagrees with abortion, took the “hands off” approach. I thought that was admirable.

In my personal opinion, what needs to be legislated by government are issues that affect the Social Contract, not issues that reflect personal moral beliefs. That is, is everyone given equal rights and opportunities, is the majority supported while the minority protected, is there appropriate balance of power between all parts of government and the people.

What scare me are the consolidation of power in any authority, be it moral, political, or economic; the ideological polarization of states and religions; the inability to discuss and debate issues (including through satire) without fervent and violent backlash, including the broad categorization of any critics as enemies.

We’re all together on this Earth, and we need to find ways to live with each other rather than against each other. One would think that after thousands of years of bloodshed and now, with the ability to communicate easily to almost anyone in the world, our barriers would be coming down, rather than getting higher.

And that’s where the conversation ended. Unfortunately he hasn’t responded to my last comment, I think I may have scared him off. What was really refreshing about this conversation was that we were able to start a discussion with shutting down or getting defensive; so much of socio-political rhetoric nowadays is in a hyper-reactional, hyper-defensive tone.