Amos's River of Justice

Category: Christianity in the World

  • What is the Apocalypse to Us?

    It’s one thing to criticize those who justify a war by using hazy apocalyptic thinking. It’s another thing to act as though the Book of Revelation is not part of the Bible. We have yet to talk about another type of destruction, natural disaster. I can’t say for sure that Revelation is a prediction of natural disaster, but I can’t say it isn’t either. Today there are several known threats capable of causing destruction on an apocalyptic scale. These include two active calderas in the western United States: the Caldera in Yellowstone Park, and the Long Valley Caldera in California; and Planet X, a large planet discovered mathematically after observing its effect on the solar system. If one or both of the Calderas erupts it will cause unheard-of destruction in North America and climate disruption globally. Planet X may bring destruction by way of another phenomenon, a rapid pole-shift in the earth. If you think you can discount the religious aspects of these fears by dismissing the Christian religion forget about it–similar predictions have made by Native Americans.

    But regardless of whether you associate these threats with the Book of Revelation, they are real. So who knows–while we’re busy with our partisan squabbles Planet X might just come along end our illustrious careers. If that thought doesn’t make us humble I don’t know what will.

    So what is to be done? Buy survival gear? Dig bomb shelters? Maybe. But the New Testament has a different take on it.

    Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness…(2Peter 3:11)

    Or:

    But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself? (Luke 12:20)

  • American Religion and the Iraq War

    Considering the un-peaceful tendencies in the Christian religion is it logical for a Christian to work for a peaceful future? The belief in the apocalyptic end of the world seems to work in the other direction. Many American Christians supported the Iraq War and justified their support by citing the Book of Revelation. Were they obeying the internal logic of the Christian religion, or were they mistaken? Considering the fact that Christians outside of the United States were not so supportive it’s likely they were mistaken, but we can’t say for sure until we study it further. You might think this question has already been answered. After all, the Iraq War was a disaster, and therefore a mistake. But the morality of Christian support for the war should not hinge on whether the war was a success. It should hinge on whether Christian support for the war was consistent with Christian teachings.

    In the process of writing this article I’ve learned that Christian teachings are not really central to the problem. If the problem were Christian error we might be able to blame it on believers’ mistaken interpretations of scripture, in particular, the Book of Revelation. Then it would make sense to study those scriptures. But now I think the problem is worse than that. To illustrate I’ll use surveys of Christian attitudes about the war.

    The first study is a combination of Gallup surveys conducted in 2005 and early 2006, written up by Frank Newport and published in March of 2006 on Gallup.com. ((http://www.gallup.com/poll/21937/protestants-frequent-churchgoers-most-supportive-iraq-war.aspx)). The second study is written by Joseph L. Cumming and Based on a 2003 Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life ((http://faith.yale.edu/sites/default/files/the_iraq_war_and_christian_faith.pdf)).

    The Statistics

    In the first analysis American religion was divided into categories: Protestant, other Christian, Catholic, other religion, and no religion.  The initial results indicate a difference between denominations in support for the war. The least supportive was the category of other religion and no religion (42% and 38% respectively). At the top of the scale were Protestants and other Christian (55% and 53% respectively). Catholics were less likely than protestants and other Christians to support the war, but only slightly (48%). (The results in graph-form can be found on the Gallup website. Keep in mind that Gallup measured the ‘war is a mistake’ question, so higher numbers on the graphs indicate less support for the war and lower numbers indicate more support for the war.)

    At first glance this might seem to imply something negative about religion in general and about Protestantism in particular. But we should be so lucky. When all of the results are considered it gradually becomes clear that we’ve been giving religion far too much credit. This suspicion first arises with the significant relationship between religious identification and party identification. Protestants were most likely to be Republicans and Republicans were most likely to support the war. Likewise, the tendency for Catholics to be less supportive of the war could be explained by the fact that a higher percentage of Catholics are Democrats. And finally, those with no religion were significantly less likely to be Republican and more likely to be independents than the general American population. In short, Democrats in each group were highly likely to believe the war was a mistake, Republicans were the least likely, and independents were in the middle.

    Frequency of church attendance was also a significant factor. Here the biggest difference was between those who attend church seldom or never and those who attend monthly or more often (38% and 56% respectively). Other Christians who attend church more often were less supportive of the war however.

    Still, when you consider that those who attend church more often are more likely to be Republican, party affiliation remains the most influential factor. When the three major partisan groups: Republican, independent, and Democrat, are graphed according to church attendance and the belief that the war was a mistake Democrats are highly likely to say the war was a mistake regardless of church attendance, Republicans are highly unlikely to say the war was a mistake, and independents are somewhere in the middle. A modest relationship remains within Republican and independent groups between church attendance and views on the war, but no strong pattern appears related to attendance among Democrats.

    The Influence of Christianity on Moral Decision-Making

    This survey was conducted March 13-16, 2003, by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Joseph L. Cumming, The Iraq War and Christian Faith, April 20, 2004, Based on a 2003 Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

    The guiding premise of this study was not supported by the facts. The premise was that decisions about war are profoundly moral decisions, and given Christianity’s ‘just war’ theory which limits the circumstances under which a country is justified in going to war, Christian decision-making about war should be shaped by Christian faith. The results again indicate that secular influences predominate. Political convictions seem to be changing Christian beliefs rather than the other way around.

    In the week before the U.S. commenced hostilities in Iraq, only 10% of Americans considered their religious beliefs to be the most important influence in shaping their attitudes about the war. Only one third reported that religious leaders had had at least some influence on their views, and only 11% considered religious leaders to have been highly influential. However 53% said friends and family influenced their views on the war and 43% said political commentators influenced them.  Just before the war Americans favored military action by a nearly 2:1 ratio, despite the fact that high-ranking Christian religious leaders had spoken out publicly about the moral implications of the proposed war. So what happened?

    One response might be to hold the local clergy responsible. Only 14% of them took an anti-war position, seven per cent were publicly in favor of the war, and 75% took no position or did not speak about the war at all. But appearances may be deceiving. Researcher Ralph Premdas attributes the problem to ‘inter-communal antipathies’ present in society at large and reflected in the attitudes of churches and their adherents. He argues that clergy and believers are trapped within the ‘claims of their own ethnic or cultural community’, and he draws the conclusion that American isolation has robbed Christian decision-makers of the full benefit of their faith in making important decisions.

    “…it is only through a multinational, multiethnic universal church that the many-colored wisdom of God can be adequately known, and it is only together with all the saints (from all nations and all ages) that we may fully grasp the multidimensional love of Christ. That is, if we wish to consider these questions in an authentically Christian way, then we must listen to the voices of believers in Christ from other nations—especially believers in the Middle East and in other Islamic nations.”

    Premdas provides a hopeful ending to a disturbing study. Unfortunately American Christianity has always been conjoined with American politics. However I have found an encouraging answer for my question about whether it makes sense for a Christian believer to promote peace. Christian support for the Iraq War had very little to do with the Christian religion.  The bad news would be that the United States is a ship without a rudder.

  • Merry Christmas

    Two thousand years ago Jews in Palestine believed John the Baptist to be the messiah who would end the Roman occupation. It must have been an unbelievable shock when Herod had him arrested and killed.

    Apparently the Roman government perceived a similar threat in Jesus because his execution on the cross was uniquely Roman. But this time it would end differently. Eventually this man who began life like everyone else, as a newborn baby, would become the inspiration for Western Civilization. In his own time however, he embodied a victory beyond the reach of the Romans.

    Pope Francis’s Tweets about Advent have influenced my thoughts about Christmas this year. The religion of my youth didn’t have much to say about its observance but I’ve learned that Advent is ‘a period of spiritual preparation for the coming of the Lord’. My interpretation of this is that Christianity is not simply a straight line from the birth of Jesus to his return at the apocalyptic end of the world. Jesus returns every year.

    Obviously the religion that Jesus inspired addresses a different set of problems than those addressed by John the Baptist. However Christianity has more in common with Judaism than it ever had with the Mysteries. The Mysteries were a serious rival in the time of Jesus and they continue to compete with the Christian religion today. They tell of a different sort of fisherman from the one known in the gospels. The fisherman of the Mysteries is cruel and merciless. Robert Eisler took great care to make this distinction in his book, Orpheus The Fisher, but that’s a discussion for another time. Today there is a newborn babe lying in a manger.

    “Christ is born for us, let us rejoice in the day of our salvation.” (Pope Francis@pontifex)

    Merry Christmas

    See also: Christmas 2023

  • Can We Talk About Patriarchy?

    It’s time to explain my general approach—again. I’ve been rethinking it due to the new developments in this conversation—for example our inclusion of Pope Francis—or maybe I should say his inclusion of us—and my support of a candidate in this presidential election. In the case of the election, I’ve wanted to avoid confusing my opinions with Senator Sanders’s platform. In the case of the Catholic Church I’ve become aware that there are many among us who don’t understand its relevance to the American conversation. But I haven’t given up on women’s rights. The unspoken question remains, can we talk about patriarchy?

    I’ll begin by explaining why I think Americans are fortunate to be invited into the Church’s conversation. I will end with a mention of Plato and his effect on both the Church and women.

    The Church Can Enrich the Conversation

    I’ve already mentioned the biography of Albert Gleizes. After much study and thought I’ve come to the conclusion that without the presence of the French Church and especially its priests, this story wouldn’t have been so rich and meaningful. Of course the same can be said of the artists and writers.

    The priests didn’t lead this conversation—they were a natural part of it because of their closeness to their communities and their interest in the art and culture of those communities. They listened, they invited the artists to teach in a church setting, and they commissioned work. Since reading about this process, the entire French conversation has had a hallowed place in my imagination. Sadly, that world is gone now. It died in World War II. Many people fear that the pre-war confidence in a restoration of order died with the old world. But fortunately, the Church didn’t get the memo. It continued the conversation.

    Vatican II

    “In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War there was a widespread desire within the Roman Catholic Church for a change in the way in which the Church was presented to the world—a desire for greater openness and ‘relevance’ to the conditions of modern life. Its most radical expression in France was the ‘worker-priest movement—the movement of priests who, acutely aware of the divorce of working-class life from the Church, became workers, as indistinguishable as possible from their fellow workers, often actively engaged in the political struggles of the class led by the Communist Party.

    “In art, the post-war period was characterized by a willingness to use well-known, sometimes controversial, artists, giving them considerable freedom, regardless of their own religious beliefs. The two names most prominently associated with this tendency were Fathers Marie-Alain Courturier and Pie Raymond Régamey, both Dominicans. They were to be behind the church at Assy, in the Haute Savoie, built between 1948 and 1950, with work by Léger, Lurçat, Matisse, Chagall, Bazaine and (especially controversial) a crucifix by Germaine Richier. They were also responsible for Matisse’s chapel—realized for the Dominicans—at Vence (1948-51), and for Le Corbusier’s church at Ronchamp (1955) and his Dominican priory at La Tourette (1960).” 1

    A Pattern for Dealing With Disagreement

    Previously I mentioned the theological disagreements that arose from Gleize’s adherence to Rene Guenon. However, it’s important to also mention that these disagreements didn’t end the interaction of Gleizes and the Church. Today, many people associate theology with the Inquisition. I’ve read their articles online.  While the the Inquisition was indefensible, some of the worst events in our history have been a result of getting the theology wrong, so I would argue that it’s a force that must be reckoned with. Whatever hope we have of building a new and better world, it will have to be built with an awareness of the relevance of theology, for better or for worse.

    Authoritarianism Always Finds a Way

    I can argue this another way. When I wrote about our Ayn Rand episode, I argued against her tendency to define her philosophical machinations as morality. I think it’s shocking that we were being fed the doctrines of Ayn Rand by financial institutions that have no concern for us.   Today there are many people slinging a new and improved world view and hoping to get followers. My point here is that none of our current ideas can be taken for granted simply on the claim of rationality or secularization. And if not for our cultural history I would have had no basis for my argument against Rand.

    The Exception of the American Catholic Church

    On a negative note, one concern I have is that the Catholic church takes on a different character depending on its setting and circumstances. I imagine the interwar period in France was a humble time for the Church, and I don’t know if the American Church shares any of the same characteristics, or if it ever did. Thanks to the U.S. bishops, our conversation with the Church has already had a some rude shocks. First we learned that the bishops believe it’s okay to risk the lives of mothers who trust Catholic hospitals to care for them. Second, there was a recent headline about a meeting between the U.S. Bishops and the Mormon Church to discuss shared concerns. Neither of these things increases my confidence in the bishops.

    America’s Use of the Occult in its Medical System

    Hermes in India convinced me that the Devil presides over the medical system. Therefore, I can’t take this news about hospital policies lightly.

    Can We Talk About Patriarchy?

    Here’s my suggestion for an approach to the discussion of patriarchy. One objection to patriarchy is its economics, which I call ‘trickle-up economics’. I would argue that greed was the original motivation for the denigration of women. As long as large amounts of unattached wealth exist in the world, as opposed to being owned by communities (and passed down through mothers), there will be an endless struggle for control of it. I’m sorry to say, Plato’s philosopher-king isn’t coming—just an endless stream of shady characters in expensive shoes. This is the aspect of patriarchy that has to end.

    But is a rejection of Plato the same thing as a rejection of the church’s theology, which depends on Greek thought? Not necessarily. Not unless economic inequality is more of a central tenet of our culture that I realize.  I think you have to look at the whole theological process rather than a single set of ideas from twenty-five hundred years ago.

  • Middle Eastern Christians; death, exodus, betrayal and silence – Al Arabiya News

    Middle Eastern Christians; death, exodus, betrayal and silence – Al Arabiya News.

  • If Female Ordination is the Answer What’s the Question?

    I have argued that Catholic women should be free to make a plan for community reform without asking for permission. However, I’m not Catholic, so I don’t know if there would be resistance from the Church on this. But instead, the strategy of women’s groups is to demand female ordination.

    The Church Speaks With a Masculine Voice

    The Church speaks with a masculine voice. A masculine voice is a good thing. It’s needed in the world. But it’s not a feminine voice. It never was a feminine voice and it never will be a feminine voice. I don’t know why women in the Church insist on fighting for position in a male hierarchy. It seems to me their happiness might just be a matter of achieving a little distance. And it’s not as if they are not needed elsewhere.

    Women Need Help From Other Women in Matters of Child Custody

    For example, the influence of fatherhood initiatives on family courts in the United States has to be addressed by women. I don’t know if this influence is from the Knights of Columbus or Roland Warren’s National Fatherhood Initiative, but I do know it’s a serious matter. Custody is being awarded to abusers, resulting in the deaths of children. (The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic organization. Warren’s Initiative is not.)

    When I suggested some time ago that people should be organized into smaller political units and that they should own property in common I was trying to answer questions about community cohesiveness and reliable representation. I assumed that real solutions would have to start in communities that solve their own problems. That’s my reasoning on the importance of women’s organizations as well. And for all I know, the Church would not object.

    The Joy of the Gospel

    When I discovered in The Joy of the Gospel  that the Church has developed a whole theology around the discovery and encouragement of new cultural manifestations I knew right away that the Church depends on lay people to create culture. However, I believe the issue of female ordination is a dead end.

    I’d appreciate a discussion from Catholics about what they hope to accomplish by this strategy.

  • Female Ordination as Strategy

    I know there are Christian Churches that ordain women. At this time, the most I can say about them is that they represent a fundamental change in thinking. However, I believe female ordination as strategy is based on a dangerous misunderstanding of the reality behind male hierarchies. 

    Female Ordination is a Vanity Project

    Unfortunately, gender inequality is pervasive all over the world. It is merely echoed in the Christian creation story. Therefore, as  a church-by-church strategy it will never be anything more than a vanity project. 

    I know women who are devoted to their church. Many of them would say they consider their church to be their own, that the church belongs to them as much as it does to the male hierarchy. Although many of them recognize the injustices, they don’t support female ordination.

    Because the world’s gender inequality is merely echoed in the Christian creation story, as  a strategy female ordination can only be superficial. 

    A Misguided Confrontation

    Nevertheless, we suddenly have this agenda, which is not even held by all women, threatening to turn the conversation into a confrontation. In my opinion, it would make more sense to talk about why the problem exists in the Church in the first place. For example, no one asks why gender inequality contradicts the general thrust of the new Testament. 

    The Real Question is Whether Women are Capable of Participating in This Conversation

    At this time we’re talking to a specific person—Pope Francis. We don’t know yet what his vision is and so we’re exploring the possibilities—given reality as we know it. But we do know that he has come down on the side of progressives. This is a gift. What will we do with it?

    I’m not saying that we have to accept everything that the Church tells us, but there is reason to hope that the Church can address our political and economic problems. Francis’s entry into the conversation requires a decision on our part. 

    Complicating Factors

    Women rarely agree with one another. In my experience, their loyalties are to their families, religion, children, political party, their immediate social circle, and perhaps their sports team. Notice that allegiance to women outside of their social circle is not included in this list. Still, the loyalties of women are a priceless tendency when it comes to community building. 

    Unfortunately, female relationships in the wider community, while they have good points, represent a shaky foundation for community building. There is always potential for rivalry and disagreement. If you also consider the influence of Washington’s elite feminists, you will see that the disharmony is complete.

    The Feminist Agenda Ignores the Importance of the Maternal Family

    There is one specific kind of loyalty that has the potential to correct the world’s social ills, and that is loyalty to the maternal family. But Washington feminism knows nothing about this. That’s because it belongs to Washington. Furthermore, notwithstanding a few female stars, Washington belongs to the masculine hierarchy. I believe we can build on this principle.

    I Propose That There is Only One Non-Negotiable Principle

    If we find that our attempts to remedy these factors meet resistance from the Church, we would be justified in reconsidering our participation in the conversation. But assuming we are able to agree on this principle, discovering the factors that work against strong maternal bonds would be the next step. 

    Some Factors that Work Against Strong Maternal Bonds

    I’ll list two factors the work against strong maternal bonds. One is the tendency of family courts to take children from their mothers in the case of divorce. Another is the policy of turning single girls who become pregnant into pariahs. This leads directly to the loss of social support and often to the loss of their children.

    Throughout history, the legal system gave these policies teeth. This led to the incarceration of so many young women in Ireland’s Magdalene laundries. However, this isn’t unique to the Catholic Church. The Poor Laws were in effect in England during the reign of Queen Victoria, resulting in the phenomenon of ‘baby farming’.

    Baby Farming

    For more than a hundred years, single women in England who became pregnant were systematically deprived of the support of their families. Because a girl’s family members would share in her punishment unless they disowned her, she and her baby were alone.

    Employment opportunities for single mothers were limited, pay was low, and there was no one to care for a new baby while its mother worked. Enter the diabolical institution of the baby farm. Single mothers would pay other people to house and feed their babies, not realizing that the children would be systematically starved. Meanwhile, the mother provided the baby farmer with a tidy sum.

    John Wesley

    It’s damning that Victoria and her consort Albert, the real power behind the throne, failed to address this travesty for so long. However, the poor laws actually went into effect before Victoria became queen. It’s been argued that the responsible party was the Methodist, John Wesley.

    If there is any validity behind my theory of the central importance to society of the maternal bond, we would have to conclude that these kinds of policies destroy the very thing they claim to protect—the community.

    The Maternal Bond is Square One

    That said, we seem to be back where we started, trying to convince our all-powerful leaders to change their policies. The important place to begin is our ability to interpret policies in terms of the danger they pose to our community. This would depend on our ability to agree among ourselves. This implies that we have to be able to define what defines the good of the community. I’ve argued here that the maternal bond should take precedence over legalistic or ideological priorities. In other words, the maternal bond must take precedence over appearances.

  • American Cosmology and Arlington National Cemetery

    Religious conservatives in America have argued that America was founded as a Christian nation, implying that Christianity ought to be honored in political discourse and policy. Others call this ‘Christian revisionism’ and argue that the founding fathers had no such intention. It is difficult to find the ‘truth’ of the matter in American history. Regarding the place of religion in early American society there doesn’t seem to be a simple answer. The same can be said about many of the other issues important to people of that time. In the early eighteenth century, the belief was prevalent that the world’s first religion was that of the Hebrew patriarchs, and high culture radiated from Solomon’s temple.  Within the same century this was challenged by historical scholarship and archaeology. Likewise, the current historical analyses of that time are not in complete agreement. William Blake accused Isaac Newton, John Locke and Francis Bacon of using reason without spiritual understanding. But other accounts argue Newton relied on Biblical revelation, as well as the mystical necromancy still in favor during his time. Newton’s theories were then used to promote mechanistic science. Similarly, the history of Freemasonry in America includes both positive contributions and worrisome tendencies. Many characters of Masonry’s medieval mythology were discredited in the eighteenth century, but were simply replaced without reworking the related political and cultural assumptions. For example, Noah replaced Hermes Trismegistus in freemasonic thought. Plato was called in to represent a system of magical correspondences after medieval practical magic had been discredited.

    The pursuit of good principles would require awareness of these old ideas in order to bring them in line with current wisdom, but America’s predominant ideologies haven’t been open to analyses of their doctrines. This can be illustrated by the stance of the church concerning ‘pagan’ influences in America. Discussion would have to begin with the church’s acceptance of pagan philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, as well as the ongoing influences of Hermeticism. This has been a source of confusion in religious discourse and many of its effects are actually visible in American culture, for example, in the poor condition of the National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia. It has been acknowledged that the cemetery is a problem. There is a principle that might shed light on this problem, but it is derived from sun worship. This would be controversial, to say the least.

    Because Freemasonry was instrumental in the layout of the Capital and because this institution shared many ideas with the learned world, it might seem inevitable that Arlington Nation Cemetery would end up in its current location, west of the Capital. Freemasons honored the great achievements of ancient cultures–especially the Jewish culture, but also the culture and learning of Egypt. In ancient Egypt, the city of the dead was always built to the west of the city of the living. However, the Cemetery at Arlington was not planned as a cemetery.  Before the Civil War the land west of Washington D.C. was the residence of Robert E. Lee. It only became a cemetery during the War as a way to punish Lee who chose to fight for the Confederacy. Bodies were buried as close to the house as possible in order to make it impossible for the Lees to return.

    In ancient cultures, the city of the dead always contained the Omphalos or navel, representing the geodetic center. In Egypt this was called the “navel of the world” and was a point of orientation with the cosmos, connecting the earth to the heavens. Priestesses presided over the cemeteries of the ancient world.  However, America’s founders may have intended the Capitol dome to be the geodetic point and center of the world, and they laid its cornerstone accordingly. In a concrete way, this might provide the philosophical basis for the combined role of priest and king.

    It has been said that sun worship is the most scientific form of pagan worship. However, a system of worship is only rational if it is complete. Many customs implied by sun worship have never been present in American culture, having been abolished long before the first Pilgrims arrived on American soil. This is a result of ideological attacks on cosmological principles. One early instance of this took place in Persian Mazdaism. The first reform of Mazdaism was in about 1200 BC, and represents the changes common to Aryan politics. Evidence has revealed that invaders who considered themselves ‘noble’ determined to conquer and rule the populations they encountered. However, the customs of the conquered cultures hindered these ambitions. The customs had to do with the real estate laws of the conquered lands. To be a king, one had to marry an heiress . Further, in the event of divorce or the death of the heiress, the king had no further claim to his kingdom. Property remained with the heiress or her daughter, or reverted to her clan, disappointing dynastic ambitions. In time, the invaders prevailed by using bigamy, trickery and lies—and they reformed the cosmology until it could no longer limit their power. The Aryan rejection of the female principle and its related customs would have led to the loss of clan property and sovereignty.

    By contrast, although America lacks the complete cosmological structure, American leaders have argued for equality. Washington thought education would end the monopoly of power. Thomas Jefferson, although not a Freemason, used Masonic metaphor when he said that wealth and birth represent “pseudo-aristocracy”. True aristocracy involves republican social arrangements. Freemason DeWitt Clinton rejected John Locke because his ideas were for the children of gentlemen. There had been a time when Freemasons claimed an esoteric or hidden knowledge denied to lesser people, but in 1793 Clinton celebrated education and the ideas of natural equality. However, the struggle for political supremacy never ends.  Too big to fail banks and Big Oil are two of America’s home-grown dynasties.

    J. J. Rousseau argued that the phrase, “Christian republic,” is made up of mutually exclusive terms. He referred to the fact that the Christian church is not amenable to democratic institutions. In Christian history, limited roles for women have coincided with the alliance of priesthood and dynasty. Yet the first Christians lived with all things in common. Paul the Apostle wrote to the Galatians,

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    Paul’s words could illustrate principle, while the church’s monarchical tendencies represent a misuse of dogma and ideology.

    After the Revolutionary War, the ‘ancient’ sect of Freemasons began to call themselves high priests and claim equality with the church in the realm of the sacred. This was the beginning of their dispute with secular Christian leaders and eventually led to their downfall.

    See also: Hermes in India

    Adam, Noah and the Snake-king

    Sources:

    1.  Bullock, Steven C. Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the transformation of the American social order. University of North Carolina Press. 1998

    2.  Ovason, David. The Secret Architecture of Our Nation’s Capital: the Masons and the building of Washington D.C. Century Books, Ltd. London. 1999

  • American Cosmology and Mythology

    Religious conservatives in America have argued that America was founded as a Christian nation, implying that Christianity ought to be honored in political discourse and policy. Others call this ‘Christian revisionism’ and argue that the founding fathers had no such intention. It is difficult to find the ‘truth’ of the matter in American history. Are there answers in American Cosmoloty and Mythology?

    Regarding the place of religion in early American society there doesn’t seem to be a simple answer. The same can be said about many of the other issues important to people of that time. In the early eighteenth century, the belief was prevalent that the world’s first religion was that of the Hebrew patriarchs, and high culture radiated from Solomon’s temple.  Within the same century this was challenged by historical scholarship and archaeology. Likewise, the current historical analyses of that time are not in complete agreement. William Blake accused Isaac Newton, John Locke and Francis Bacon of using reason without spiritual understanding. But other accounts argue Newton relied on Biblical revelation, as well as the mystical necromancy still in favor during his time. Newton’s theories were then used to promote mechanistic science. Similarly, the history of Freemasonry in America includes both positive contributions and worrisome tendencies. Many characters of Masonry’s medieval mythology were discredited in the eighteenth century, but were simply replaced without reworking the related political and cultural assumptions. For example, Noah replaced Hermes Trismegistus in freemasonic thought. Plato was called in to represent a system of magical correspondences after medieval practical magic had been discredited.

    The pursuit of good principles would require awareness of these old ideas in order to bring them in line with current wisdom, but America’s predominant ideologies haven’t been open to analyses of their doctrines. This can be illustrated by the stance of the church concerning ‘pagan’ influences in America. Discussion would have to begin with the church’s acceptance of pagan philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, as well as the ongoing influences of Hermeticism. This has been a source of confusion in religious discourse and many of its effects are actually visible in American culture, for example, in the poor condition of the National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia. It has been acknowledged that the cemetery is a problem. There is a principle that might shed light on this problem, but it is derived from sun worship. This would be controversial, to say the least.

    Because Freemasonry was instrumental in the layout of the Capital and because this institution shared many ideas with the learned world, it might seem inevitable that Arlington Nation Cemetery would end up in its current location, west of the Capital. Freemasons honored the great achievements of ancient cultures–especially the Jewish culture, but also the culture and learning of Egypt. In ancient Egypt, the city of the dead was always built to the west of the city of the living. However, the Cemetery at Arlington was not planned as a cemetery.  Before the Civil War the land west of Washington D.C. was the residence of Robert E. Lee. It only became a cemetery during the War as a way to punish Lee who chose to fight for the Confederacy. Bodies were buried as close to the house as possible in order to make it impossible for the Lees to return.

    In ancient cultures, the city of the dead always contained the Omphalos or navel, representing the geodetic center. In Egypt this was called the “navel of the world” and was a point of orientation with the cosmos, connecting the earth to the heavens.

    Priestesses presided over the cemeteries of the ancient world.  However, America’s founders may have intended the Capitol dome to be the geodetic point and center of the world, and they laid its cornerstone accordingly. In a concrete way, this might provide the philosophical basis for the combined role of priest and king.

    It has been said that sun worship is the most scientific form of pagan worship. However, a system of worship is only rational if it is complete. Many customs implied by sun worship have never been present in American culture, having been abolished long before the first Pilgrims arrived on American soil. This is a result of ideological attacks on cosmological principles. One early instance of this took place in Persian Mazdaism. The first reform of Mazdaism was in about 1200 BC, and represents the changes common to Aryan politics. Evidence has revealed that invaders who considered themselves ‘noble’ determined to conquer and rule the populations they encountered. However, the customs of the conquered cultures hindered these ambitions. The customs had to do with the real estate laws of the conquered lands.

    To be a king, one had to marry an heiress . Further, in the event of divorce or the death of the heiress, the king had no further claim to his kingdom. Property remained with the heiress or her daughter, or reverted to her clan, disappointing dynastic ambitions. In time, the invaders prevailed by using bigamy, trickery and lies—and they reformed the cosmology until it could no longer limit their power. The Aryan rejection of the female principle and its related customs would have led to the loss of clan property and sovereignty.

    By contrast, although America lacks the complete cosmological structure, American leaders have argued for equality. Washington thought education would end the monopoly of power. Thomas Jefferson, although not a Freemason, used Masonic metaphor when he said that wealth and birth represent “pseudo-aristocracy”. True aristocracy involves republican social arrangements. Freemason DeWitt Clinton rejected John Locke because his ideas were for the children of gentlemen. There had been a time when Freemasons claimed an esoteric or hidden knowledge denied to lesser people, but in 1793 Clinton celebrated education and the ideas of natural equality. However, the struggle for political supremacy never ends.  Too-big-to-fail banks and Big Oil are two of America’s home-grown dynasties.

    J. J. Rousseau argued that the phrase, “Christian republic,” is made up of mutually exclusive terms. He referred to the fact that the Christian church is not amenable to democratic institutions. In Christian history, limited roles for women have coincided with the alliance of priesthood and dynasty. Yet the first Christians lived with all things in common. Paul the Apostle wrote to the Galatians,

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    Paul’s words could illustrate principle, while the church’s monarchical tendencies represent a misuse of dogma and ideology.

    After the Revolutionary War, the ‘ancient’ sect of Freemasons began to call themselves high priests and claim equality with the church in the realm of the sacred. This was the beginning of their dispute with secular Christian leaders, and eventually led to their downfall.

    See also: Hermes in India

    Adam, Noah and the Snake-king

    Sources:

    1.  Bullock, Steven C. Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the transformation of the American social order. University of North Carolina Press. 1998

    2.  Ovason, David. The Secret Architecture of Our Nation’s Capital: the Masons and the building of Washington D.C. Century Books, Ltd. London. 1999

error: Content is protected !!