Every now and then, your Humble Correspondent strikes a nerve. The latest one was when he praised a Mormon student at Florida Atlantic University for refusing to write the name “Jesus” down on a piece of paper and stomp on it. If memory serves, yours truly asked for the return of the fine old American tradition of tarring and feathering. This of course angered the Tolerant Among Us who thought that such an action would be unChristian.
That’s arguable. After all, a lot of things we do are unChristian, like turning over our charity to Uncle Sam, having our children learn to put condoms on cucumbers in school, and otherwise turning a blind eye towards our ongoing societal collapse. And The Tolerant Among Us never get in a tizzy about them. Anyway, please take the time to read the following essay by Michael Colhaze. It clearly gives the lie bandied about that “art is for art’s sake.” In this case it’s not. It’s goal is simply to desensitize the Christian population of Russia to the level that has happened everywhere else in the West –America included. (Think “Piss Christ,” Corpus Christi, and Heather Has Two Mommies.) As usual it’s anti-Christian activists and financiers who sponsor such filth.
Caution: it’s not for the faint-of-heart and some of the “art” displayed was objectionable. As such, I’m only putting up the first part of this essay because the “art” depicted at this exhibition is vile, pornographic, and blasphemous. (If you want to read the entire essay, you can find it on Google.) There was however a happy ending to this horrible saga. The local people in this Russian city treated the purveyor of this filth with obloquy and sent him and his objets d’art packing. More good news: the Entertainment Claque in the West did not come to his rescue as they tried to do with Pussy Riot. Nevertheless, one could only wonder: would we be in this dire state had we that we acted this way when we were first subjected to such depravity some decades ago? It’s probably too late in the day for us; perhaps a remnant of Christian civilization will thrive in the East as well as the Global South. If nothing else, it gives the lie to those on the Christian Left who praise the continued Leftward drift towards mobocracy. (Ironically enough as seen on the premier website of the Orthodox Left, Voices from Russia.) What these idiots never understand is that the Left is nihilistic to the core. Thugs and demagogues like Chavez, Castro, and others of their ilk cannot uphold Beauty and Tradition because these are Christian concepts. Therefore that which reflects truth must be obliterated. If nothing else it is because of their innate inability to lift themselves up by their own merits causes them to tear down that which is good and true.
Source: Notes from the Distant Battleground | Michael Colhaze
Lenin, Mickey & Christ
The Marat Guelman Gallery Moscow
The historical mission of our time is to arrange a new culture of humanity, one that will replace the previous ruling system. This reorganization consists of two essentials: the destruction of the old order and the building of the new. To begin with, all physical border posts, ethical barriers and social definitions of the old system must be eliminated and replaced by elements of the new system.
Thus the first task of our time is DESTRUCTION! Every social strata and all social formations created by the old system must be destroyed, each individual has to be uprooted from its ancestral environments, no tradition will be anymore regarded as sacred, the Old is merely a sign of disease, and the new credo is: What was, must go!
And even though during the first phase all people are declared the same, in the next and final phase they need to be re-divided and differentiated, and a new pyramidal hierarchical system must emerge.
Nahum Goldmann, The Spirit of Militarism, page 37 ff, Berlin / Stuttgart, 1915
Small defeats inflicted on a mighty foe should be regarded as substantial victories.
The Dark Grail
While recently drifting past southern Russia’s snowy mountains and stormy seashores, I observed a small ray of light in the odious murk that has suffocated our unsurpassed Christian-European Culture. Namely a collective indignation expressed by a group of pugnacious citizens who thwarted another brazen attempt to disseminate this nauseous and highly destructive ruse called Modern Art. The clash came to pass in Krasnodar, capital of Russia’s Northern Caucasus region, on the occasion of an exhibition launched by one Marat Guelman, owner of a Moscow flea-market bazaar of the same name that peddles this particular kind of junk.
Bill Donohue, Secular Sabotage, pp. 63-64:
Much of the nihilistic quality of modern art is rooted in Dada, a term that, appropirately, has no meaning. In 1916, Marcel Janco described the phenomenon that was at work when he said, “Everything had to be demolished.” And by that he meant that nothing would be spared. Most especially, this meant an assault on the bourgeois “idea of art, attacking common sense, public opinion, education, institutions, museums, good taste, in short, the whole prevailing order.”12
Sometimes the public says enough is enough. Such was the case with the uproar caused by the 1999 Sensation exhibit at the Brooklyn Museun of Art.
Sensation was a beastly British art exhibit that garnered international attention. The paintings, owned by Charles Saatchi, not only displayed dead animals and sexually mutilated bodies, they also included a painting, The Holy Virgin Mary, that was laced with elephant dung and spotted with pictures of vaginas and anuses. It was this “creative” display that drew fire from the Catholic League.
A reporter from the New York Daily News first gave me the heads-up on the exhibit…
We branded the exhibit “snuff art” because it depicted mannequins of grotesquely distorted children, some with penises in place of their noses; there were two clear boxes, one filled with maggots, the other with a cow’s head; there was a bisected pig in formaldehyde; and there was a 13-foot-high portrait of Myra Hindley, Britain’s most famous child molester. Roger Kimball of the New Criterion knew what was going on: “Anyone familiar with the history of Dada and Surrealism ha seen it all before: the pornography, the pathological fascination with decay and mutilation, toying with blasphemy (dressed up, occasionally, as a new religiosity).”13 Yes, this was cultural nihilism taken to a new level.
Ibid, ibid, pp. 66-67:
I will never forget a conversation I had about this issue with a man from Nigeria that I met at a Christmas party that year. I asked him if elephant dung has positive connotations in his home country. His reaction was one of anger and laughter. By the way, the offending artist, Ofili, is not African–he’s a Brit; his parents were born in Nigeria. Besides, all of this misses my point. It is also an African tradition of great honor to put clips of vaginas and anuses on pictures of revered persons?
Oh Skippy!! Naughty, naughty, Skippy!! You’ve clunked your good twin George over the head again and hacked his computer! You naughty, sneaky Skippy!!
Skippy, I believe you do want to be good. I believe that you want to be saved and desire a place in the Kingdom of Heaven just like your dear twin brother George. So I will ask you to refer to the very excellent posts concerning Orthodoxy and morality put up by Mr. Bauman, particularly this one: https://www.monomakhos.com/i-guess-the-religion-of-peace-didnt-get-the-memo/#comment-55518
Have you read the admonition of the Lord “be angry and sin not”? That’s why tarring and feathering don’t work bro.
I agree, on one side, don’t give an inch. you see something call ’em on it but not with violence. Not physical violence. Physical violence can only result in more violence, and more violence, and more violence until it consumes everything. You want an illustration? Courtesy of Stan/BM Drezhlo, he/she actually manages to post a few relevant things once in a while.
http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/
“Not physical violence. Physical violence can only result in more violence, and more violence, and more violence until it consumes everything.”
Yes, and never call the police, because they resolve things with violence or the threat thereof, and violence only results in more violence.
“You want an illustration? Courtesy of Stan/BM Drezhlo, he/she actually manages to post a few relevant things once in a while.”
Strangely, some would have us believe that it was Orthodox of all people who have always most fiercely resisted Islam, the religion of peace, and used violence at every opportunity to throw off their rule. But you and I and no doubt Stan know that the Greek revolution was not won by military campaigns, what made the Turks leave was explaining how much they were hurting Greek feelings and self-esteem and that it would be really really nice of them to grant an independent Greek state (that nobody had thought to do this for 400 years was due to the “Latin captivity” of Orthodox theology).
And let us not forget St. Constantine the Great and his vision of the cross and the words, “In Hoc Signo Vinces,” whereupon Constantine boldly went forth and defeated Maxentius in a public debate which resulted in the Edict of Milan (beginning a new era of tolerance for sacrilege of Christian symbols).
It’s amazing how quickly we forget that military violence frees a lot of people and nations.
Only with the help of God. The Greeks survived for 400 years under Ottoman rule because of the resistance of the monastic communities mostly who taught the children how to read and taught the people their faith, culture and languages…not violence and certainly not mob rule.
George, however the physical violence that can, at times be necessary, is not the type of physical violence implied in tarring and feathering which is aggravated assualt, not self-defense.
Even the necessary violence used to control the physical rampage of evil (when used properly) is only an existential necessity in a fallen world. It does nothing to further our salvation. At best, AT BEST, it is neutral and can be carried out righteously only if it is done without malice (difficult I think) and solely for the protection of others.
Prophetic witness that brings about one’s death or simply suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune without surrendering hope or joy are both preferrable to righteous use of force, at least on a personal level. Those who are willing and able to defend others at the risk of their own lives and perhaps their souls are to be greatly honored to be sure, but the Church holds those of the first two categories in higher regard. The higher regard is offered because of the continual repentance and the willing putting down of one’s own defence that brings a person to the point of being able to by marytric. Soldiers and others, must repent after the fact if they have take another human’s life.
Whatever conclusion one arrives at on the proper use of deadly force, it deserves more serious consideration that ideological/political bumper sticker phrases.
In the case at hand, perhaps we could justify tarring and feathering the so-called art or taking a sledge hammer to it as many Chrisitians did to pagan idols, but we had better be willing to accept the consequences of the act before the law.
Re “tarring and feathering”.
Ethics 101, George: two wrongs don’t make a right.
Tarring and feathering is a form of torture, a lesser form, but torture none the less. Torture can never be condoned by people o fprinciple, least of all by Christians.
I also think your cavalier dismissal of “the tolerant” is objectionable.
True conservatives defend the principle of tolerance and the human rights that underwrite it. Not because we are “bleeding hearts”, but because conservatism upholds principle in the face of expediency. In the final analysis, that’s what separates us from the Leftists who so readily resort to “ends justifies the means” reasoning and action.
The principle of tolerance should be enshrined in law only to the extent that it preserves the integrity of societal life – thus it would not extend to gay marriage, for e.g. (that’s a whole other area for consideration); but in private life the conservative approach of gracious tolerance of those with whom we disagree has much to recommend it.
Tolerance is really an engineering term meaning how far from perfect is acceptable. It is a clear limit,(only this far and no further). It is not a license (anything goes). For society as well as engineering, too far off perfect and the whole thing ceases to function and can even kill people.
Rights as our founders used the term were inherent in civic duty to the community and virtue. If one had a duty to do something (like raise children) one was given the rights necessary to do it in a virtuous manner. Ultimately, such rights are rooted in our freely given obedience to God. In modernity, both rights and tolerance have come to mean “get out of my way or pay the price. I’m gonna do what I’m gonna do”. Rights are only extended to those who are Dada. In the modern world, virtue has no rights. Those who pursue virtue are pursing a path of martyrdom.
Violence has no place in the path of martyrdom as martrydom requies that we love our enemies which can only come when we submit to the love of Christ and take total responsibility for our own sins. It requires a total rejoicing in the goodness of God in the midst of depravity and suffering. It requires renoucing the human concepts of justice and equity. God’s mercy is wholly unequitable and unjust by human standards. We are faced with that reality every Pascha as we attend to St. John’s Paschal Homily. We are faced with it when our Lord in the midst of his agony on the Cross says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do”
Nietzche and all fellow nihilists rejected Jesus Christ because of His rejection of the human propensity to force order with violence and the requirement that we submit our own wills to the Will of God. We have seen the consequences of that attitude in the 20th century which was dominated by totalatarian ideologies stemming from such evil imaginings. The trouble is that if we fight our enemies out of our own will and using force, we become like them rather than being transformed into the image and likeness of God that is our re-birth right. Sometimes, the use of force is necessary but far less necessary than we assume. Even when necessary due to unavoidalbe existential falleness, repentance is always required.
Here are stories of God’s justice and mercy at work: http://silouanthompson.net/2009/12/with-my-own-eyes/
Thank you Mr. Bauman. You write it much better than I can.
Basil asserts, “Tarring and feathering is a form of torture, a lesser form, but torture none the less.”
No, it’s not. I have been tarred and feathered on several occasions. It didn’t hurt a bit.
Well, maybe the tar did, for just a minute or so, but not enough to be called torture.
It hurts your pride more than anything.
Thanks, Father, for your caveat about “tarring and feathering” as something less than torture.
The debate over “torture” in our country for the last decade or so has been needlessly clouded by political ideology on both the left and the right. As you know as an editor for Touchstone Magazine, I attempted last year to lift that cloud a bit and shed some Orthodox moral light on the subject (particularly the interrogation method known as “waterboarding”). I mention this, at the risk of accusations of self-promotion, because that essay is, to my knowledge, the only publication of its kind by an Orthodox moral theologian.
For the readers of this message board, I would suggest that they obtain the article directly from Touchstone or at the closest theological library:
“Terrorism and Its Civilized Discontents: An Eastern Orthodox Ethical Reflection on Torture as Counter-Terrorism,” Touchstone, vol. 25, no. 4 (July-August 2012), 45-54.
Skippy my dear,
As a general rule of thumb I abhor physical violence of any type. “Live by the sword, die by the sword,” know what I mean?
Just in case any of George’s correspondent’s have no idea what tarring and feathering entail, they should check out the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering
http://www.strangedangers.com/images/content/129478.jpg
warning: the following video contains realistic life like violence and full frontal male nudity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFWZ925zK0A
These two sentences have a mere paragraph separating them:
St. Humble Correspondent, patron saint of cognitive dissonance.
Strangely, some would have us believe that it was Orthodox of all people who have always most fiercely resisted Islam, the religion of peace, and used violence at every opportunity to throw off their rule. But you and I and no doubt Stan know that the Greek revolution was not won by military campaigns, what made the Turks leave was explaining how much they were hurting Greek feelings and self-esteem and that it would be really really nice of them to grant an independent Greek state (that nobody had thought to do this for 400 years was due to the “Latin captivity” of Orthodox theology).
And let us not forget St. Constantine the Great and his vision of the cross and the words, “In Hoc Signo Vinces,” whereupon Constantine boldly went forth and defeated Maxentius in a public debate which resulted in the Edict of Milan (beginning a new era of tolerance for sacrilege of Christian symbols). I don’t agree with everything Constantine did but christianity would porbably not have grown that much if Constantine lost the civil war against Maxentius. I believe that Theodosius the First also won a civil war in Italy as well. Probably in the earlier centuries of Ottoman rule it would have been difficult for the Greeks to get their independent. It was the right time and the Ottoman I think were not as strong at that time.
Rating: +6 (from 6 votes)
The Romans after the 2nd century most wars were not s for conquest since it was pretty extended or overextended also an outbreak of measles in the late 2nd century cut down on man power. Some thing this caused indirectly the politcal instabality of the 3rd century. The Byzanitines this might be exeggerated once had a forced of 500,000 soldiers. Agathas complains of Justinian cutting the forces down to about 120,000 and of course the plague cutt down on man power in the army.
Quotes about Art from Andrei Tarkovsky’s Sculpting In Time (Andrei Tarkovsky was the director of Andre Rublev, and Stalker, and the mentor of the director of Ostrov)
This is Art: http://sacredartpilgrim.com/cache/33c3962688862d26180fda71d850b086_w600.jpg
The unbelieving absurdist writer Albert Camus said something similar: “I should never have written. If life were clear, art would not exist.” But isn’t this a very modern notion — the artist as oracle, philosopher, and priest? And doesn’t it imply that man is naturally merely a passive receiver of creation and not also a Godlike creator? Is man’s creativity solely a side-effect of the Fall? Does fallen man create only to fill a need? God doesn’t.
It’s a rare man indeed who makes great use of both sides of his brain. Just as philosophers usually make bad artists, artists usually make bad philosophers.
I don’t think so. I think it implies that since the fall we are blind and deaf and insensible and that Art that is worthy of the name wakes us up a little, rouses us and points us back towards paradise in some way. Art is part of the healing of the world, part of it’s redemption. I do not see any sort of mere passivity in what he says. Consider icons then consider the age to come. When the faithful walk openly with the Saints what will be the place of icons the reality they present to us is open and apparent? Does the creativity that give us icons in our age lose its force because we may no longer need icons, or will it find newer higher expression.
If I had any quibble with Tarkovsky in this quote it would not be with the why we have Art, but rather his assertion that the illness of the world is in it’s design and not rather in the marring it suffered in the fall.
That said, I think Tarkofsky’s quote on the use of Metaphor speaks to your question. Art is not an intellectual puzzle to unravel, it is an invitation to some level of communion. Whatever truth it is or embodies is presented whole, not in an arrangement of symbols to be deciphered. It is at some level the thing itself. It can be encountered, experienced, but it cannot be dissected and thus analyzed without loss. It is an event of encounter…a moment however small that as Tarkovsky puts it, “plows and harrows the soul and renders it capable of doing good…preparing it for death.” And it in this is it not in some measure eucharistic…does it not at least bend like the mountains of an icon towards Christ and His Eucharist? I think it does.