Killing the Buddha

In reference to Michael Snyder’s “The End of the Earth,” one narendran wrote to us with just this:

I have always wondered what would happen to the profession of missionary work once the last human being has been converted to Christianity.

Related: missionaries

I love writing on Terrence Malick almost as much as I love his movies. As S. Brent Plate’s essay this week at KtB demonstrates, much can be gained by tapping at the cultural and religious roots of The Tree of Life. Perhaps owing to his training as a philosopher, Malick’s work opens more readily, and more fruitfully, to these kinds of excavations than most. One of my favorites is a slender book Michel Chion wrote on The Thin Red Line. As he admits in the eloquent introduction, his initial comments on the film were few. Part of him, he writes, would have been content to sit before the film “in childlike silence.” Then the ever-inquisitive Chion takes hold: “But let’s go on anyway, let’s explore the details.”

It always pays to dig deeper, at least where Malick is concerned. While Plate’s piece opens some compelling lines of inquiry into the film, it left me wanting more, particularly in the section that concerns The Tree of Life’s place within film history. Though the connection to the marketing practices of Hollywood studios, particularly the design of logos, is interesting in its own right, cinematically Plate misses a more direct link to the robust and varied tradition of cosmic imagery in experimental film. Fandor recently published two pieces that examine, nearly shot-for-shot, the contributions artists and avant-garde filmmakers working on the margins of commercial cinema made to the film, including Jordan Belson, Scott Nyerges, and Thomas Wilfred—whose Lumias, powered by “light organs,” make up the crystalline light sources that open and close the film. As the second post notes, the production team for The Tree of Life consulted with The Center for Visual Music and posted a query for “abstract, non-representational work with mysterious, suggestive elements” on Frameworks, an experimental film listserv. Not all of this, however, stems from explicitly religious concerns; the Emerson-inflected transcendentalism of Brakhage’s Yggdrasill: Whose Roots Are Stars in the Human Mind (which I discuss in my own The Tree of Life review, part of Reverse Shot’s colloquium on the film) is a long way from Belson’s Beat psychedelia, for example, and it’s important to keep these historical threads from getting tangled.

The experimental links don’t forestall Plate’s argument about studio logos, of course. His visual juxtapositions are powerful, but again I would be careful to anchor these designs and their intentions in their own histories. Though the topic certainly warrants further investigation, my sense is that these images, and a name like Universal Pictures, had less to do with spiritual yearning than with worldly, material conquest in the form of the studios’ expansionist ambitions in the early 20th century, when they were aggressively attempting to amass international markets (however coincident the resulting imagery turned out to be). And The Tree of Life, as a major studio film, an international art film, and an auteurist masterpiece (if such words are still used) that leans on avant-garde traditions, cuts across all these still-vibrating vectors, inviting us to look all the more closely.

Related: film

Okay, here goes. Ready? The length of what follows should make this obvious: gird your loins.

“Barefoot Intactivist,” from New York, wrote in last week about Gordon Haber’s ever-controversial essay “Uncovered” (see other discussions here and here):

I applaud that you tried to approach this subject with logic, reasoning, and facts, but unfortunately you had a number of missteps along the way. I will suggest just a couple of sources that strongly contradict your conclusions about both the harms and the purported trade-off benefits of circumcision.

First, you should have read Sorrells’, et al, study on the sensitivity of the penis, that very much focused on the sensitivity of living men’s penises, and found that the five most sensitive areas to fine-touch are contained in the foreskin. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full

Also, any statistics you quoted about complication rate are complete garbage—nobody collects real data. Is somebody waiting there to ask you how your circumcision went 16 years later when you become sexually active? And isn’t having part of your penis amputated a complication?

You reveal your inherent bias when you call the foreskin “a bit of skin” that covers the end of the penis. Actually, it’s 12-15 square inches in the adult male. That’s not just a “bit of skin,” that’s a whole helluva lot of skin that is a vital part of the contiguous penile skin system. You could call the entire infant penis just “a bit of skin” since it is so tiny. The point is what it will become in an adult.

Second, the evidence against a circumcision-HIV link are hardly “bullshit.” Circumcision as HIV prevention simply does not work in the real world, outside of a clinical trial setting. USAID found that in 10 of 18 countries with data available, circumcised men were actually MORE likely to have HIV. http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

As far as the comparison to female circumcision: please leave your emotions at the door and really look into this. There are forms of female circumcision that are both more and less harmful than male circumcision. A very common form of female circumcision involves removing a tiny piece of the clitoral hood. This is clearly less harmful than male circumcision. The most severe form (<10% of cases according to WHO), involves cutting off all the labia, clitoral hood, and clitoris, and sewing up the vagina, leaving only small hole for urine. This is clearly MORE harmful than the typical male circumcision.

Both male and female circumcisions vary in severity, involve cutting of erogenous genital tissue from a minor, are promoted for reasons of “cleanliness” that appears more moral in nature than hygienic, and both can lead to death and serious sexual dysfunction. Nobody is claiming that the average male circumcision compares to the more serious form of female circumcision (called “infibulation”), but why can’t we begin discussing genital cutting in terms of severity, rather than gender? Are you claiming it is impossible to cut a penis as badly as you cut a vulva? You’ve let your emotions get the best of you in this area, keeping you from an honest analysis. I suggest this video for a quick tutorial on the differences between male & female circumcision: http://youtu.be/98f3IavuEgQ

Again, I applaud your effort to address this issue in a logical and honest way. You’ve certainly made great progress. But you’re not there yet and are making some significant leaps of faith in order to justify cutting off part of the genitals of a non-consenting minor. I hope you’ll dig deeper.

Not that size matters (that’s dick pun #3!), but Haber came up with an even longer response:

The Barefoot Intactivist’s response to my article evinces a global error: he assumes that if I disagree with him, I must be biased. Nevertheless I gave his criticisms a careful read, as I always want to own up to my own “missteps.” In the end, while the Barefoot Intactivist (hereafter referred to as “the B.I.”) does make one or two decent points, ultimately his letter suggests that either (a) he has some issues with reading comprehension or (b) he’s batshit crazy.

As much of his letter was tangled, I’ve numbered my rebuttals:

(1) The B.I. points to a study that at first glance demonstrates that uncircumcised men have more penile sensitivity, which would help prove the intactivist assertion that circumcision destroy sexual pleasure. I actually thought this study was interesting until I got to the bottom and read that it was funded by the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), and that this organization “was involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection and interpretation of the data; and review, or approval of the manuscript.”

While I do think that it’s reasonable to suggest that uncircumcised penises are more sensitive, I’m not going to put much stock in this particular study.

(2) The second paragraph of the B.I.’s letter is a mess, three ill-considered sentences that will take ten to refute. Here goes:

The B.I. argues that the complication rates from circumcision that I quote “are complete garbage—nobody collects real data.” However the study in question did indeed use “real data” from hospital records. In addition, the authors acknowledge some limitations of the data—one sign of a good-faith study. And yet still they conclude that circumcision is a “relatively safe procedure.” In other words, the B.I. rejects a disinterested study because it doesn’t support his bias.

He then asks, “Is somebody waiting there to ask you how your circumcision went 16 years later when you become sexually active?” This question is a non-sequitur—it’s less about the data than about the fallacious intactivist belief that millions of circumcised men can’t possibly be enjoying sex with their horribly mutilated penises.

Finally the B.I. asks, “And isn’t having part of your penis amputated a complication?” Well, no, since a complication is a result of a procedure, not the procedure itself.

(3) The B.I. writes that the size of the foreskin is 12 to 15 square inches in an adult male. (From what I could learn it’s more like 10 to 15 square inches, but never mind.) That does sound like a of skin—until you learn that the average human has about 3000 14 to 18 square feet of skin.

(4) On the relationship between circumcision and HIV, the B.I. contradicts himself. First he claims that there is evidence against the link between circumcision and lower rates of HIV infection. Then he claims that circumcision to prevent HIV doesn’t work “outside of a clinical trial setting.” Which means that it works in a clinical trial setting. Which means that there is evidence that circumcision makes it harder to contract HIV.

The USAID study does indeed assert that “There appears to be no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV.” However, the study looks at a number of factors—socioeconomic characteristics, risk behaviors, protective behaviors, etc.—involved with HIV contraction. Thus it is disingenuous to claim that this study refutes the link between circumcision and HIV prevention—especially if the link has been proven in a clinical setting.

(5) On the topic of comparing male to female genital cutting, I find it a little strange that a grown man who runs barefoot and emblazoned with anti-circumcision slogans is telling me “to check my emotions at the door.” Anyway, my point was simply that male and female genital cutting are not analogous. Why? Because men and women have different parts and are circumcised for different reasons.

Intactivists like to obfuscate these facts by focusing on the “severity” of circumcision, not gender. I suppose they believe that if they can erase the difference then everybody will be just as incensed by male circumcision as they are when a female is mutilated. But most females are circumcised out of a male obsession with sexual purity and fear of female sexuality. Ultimately female circumcision is about patriarchal control. Male circumcision is about religion, or a rite of passage, or (yes) a misplaced obsession with hygiene. Of course there are similarities between male and female circumcision, but it is ridiculous to suggest a direct analogy.

The Barefoot Intactivist ends his letter by suggesting that I’ve made “leaps of faith” in my discussion of circumcision. Perhaps this is a not-so-subtle-reference to my religious leanings, perhaps not. Either way he forgets that I end my piece by writing that I wouldn’t blame anybody for not circumcising their children, even Jews—not exactly a ringing endorsement for circumcision. But that’s not good enough for him. Like a lot of obsessed cranks, intactivists are unable to comprehend such subtleties.

If the Barefoot Intactivist wishes to run around without shoes in order to save little boys from the alleged horrors of circumcision, he is free to do so. But he might do well to read a little more carefully—and perhaps even take a class in critical thinking at a local college. Because clearly he doesn’t really understand terms like “evidence” or “bias.” And until he gets this stuff straight, he’s just another kook co-opting the language of argumentation and science.

Discuss amongst yourselves? Do you dare?

Related: health, Judaism, letters, ritual

As expected, we’ve gotten a lot of mail about Gordon Haber’s circumcision essay, “Uncovered.” People get worked up about penises.

Let’s start positive. Jessie Bennett, from Boston, writes:

I’m just writing to say how grateful I was to read Gordon Haber’s completely sane, thoughtful piece on circumcision. It so closely mirrored my own thoughts on the matter (except for the part about being a Jew—I’m married to one although not one myself—and the whole thing where I don’t have my own penis) that I will forthwith just send people to this article instead of having an uncomfortable argument over what I did about my sons’ willies. Thanks so much.

You’re welcome.

Doesn’t take long before things get much more interesting. First, consider this part of Haber’s piece:

What, though, are we to make of the ones attempting, through various forms of quackery, to “restore” their foreskins? Some may snigger, but I find something pitiable in the “tugging devices” and “taping methods,” which can’t be comfortable and can take years. Instead of accepting themselves as they are, these men are obsessed with how they feel they should be—to they point where some undergo “foreskin restoration surgery,” once again putting the most sensitive part of their anatomy under the knife.

But this is the fringe of the fringe.

Really? you might think. Who are these guys? Well, here’s one:

[letter removed]

Lastly, a nice surprise: the guy whose picture illustrates “Uncovered” (we got the picture on Flickr) wrote in. His name is Daniel Strandjord, and he’s from Chicago.

I’m delighted that you used a picture of me in your June 19 article by Gordon Haber.  Since you have used my picture, I hope that Gordon and the KTB editors will watch a documentary that I am in: “CUT: Slicing thru the Myths of Circumcision” by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon.  You can watch the film online at www.cutthefilm.com.

“CUT” was made by an Orthodox Jewish man who had 3 years of medical school in Britain (Cambridge) when he decided he would rather be a filmmaker and work on Human Rights issues.  Eliyahu came to Chicago and got a couple of degrees from the Film School of the Art Institute.  ”CUT” is his first feature length film.  ”CUT” had its premiere at the U of Chicago Hillel Center which then hired Eliyahu to work part-time while he began work on other film projects.  The SPERTUS Institute of Jewish Learning (spertus.edu) selected “CUT” for one of their annual events on contemporary issues in Judaism.  ”CUT” also received a standing ovation at the International Symposium on Circumcision and Human Rights at Keele U. in England in 2008.

The name of the film reminds us of the process of selecting a title for Haber’s piece. Naturally, like the producers of Cut, the first thing we thought of was a string of cutting/snipping references that make one cringe. Haber wisely retorted: “no snipping or cutting jokes for the headline, please, please, please.”

Related: health, Judaism, letters, ritual

Eric Scott’s recent essay on KtB, “Valhal-Mart,” keeps arousing controversy. First, it was his alleged insensitivity to how Hollywood treats Christianity. Now, his own pagan religious beliefs are under attack. Buddha-killer Alex Rose takes an especially serious swipe, in lower case:

this guy is a phony.  however engaging his story or compelling the subject of spirituality and commerce—a synthesis that is hardly without historical precedent—it is taken for granted that the author believes what he claims to believe.  in fact, i would argue that there is no chance he actually believes (choose any sense of the word you like) in norse mythology, much less actively worships Thor. i mean, come on. unless he is insane, and i don’t think he is, he is more like a Trekkie, one of those insufferable fanboys that dress up as their favorite characters and attend conventions with other dorks and act out little swordfights, than an earnest believer. (which is not to say that believers aren’t capable of equal tomfoolery, or worse.) in any case, this is an important distinction, and one that tends to get short shrift in religious discourse: the difference between truly ‘believing’ and merely ‘suspending disbelief.’ so i think somebody ought to point this out on your site, whether it’s me or some anonymous reader submitting a critical response.

To which Eric responds:

I can only thank the writer for taking the time to send it in, and to ask whether or not the writer has read “Hrafspa.” If I still appear to be a phony afterwards, then I suppose I will have to accept that.

The other letter we’ll consider for now comes from Liz K in Cornwall, England.

Yes, nice article, seldom-heard view on topical pop culture topic. But: did Eric Scott ever read the Marvel Thor, this rather long-running title, as a kid?! Did it ever inspire him to think pagan thoughts, or just inspire his imagination, or that of his friends?? Some pagans do see some good in formats like comics.. even though they do tend to “modernize” the gods; but isn’t that a necessary thing??

Personally, I’d say that I prefer the Marvel versions of Thor—and definitely Loki—to the DC Comics ones, for example, or to any in either the comics or the novels of that overall bore, Neil Gaiman. (I believe I prefer Marvel’s approach to epic heroes, and villains, generally.)

As a matter of fact, I was quite moved by parts of Rob Rodi’s “Loki”, though I wasn’t expecting to be. I’m a Lokean. As a matter of fact also, though I no longer read comics much these days—who needs to when you’ve got Wikipedia—I have noted that Marvel are one of the few adaptors, for children, adults, or both, which does not..

She then appends:

<Alexandrian tradition of Wicca; the differences between Wicca and Asatru being a major bone of contention I understand for many Asatru: especially the “volkish” ones!

Okay, here’s what Eric says in response:

I did, in fact, grow up on Marvel Comics, and read The Mighty Thor up until my general disillusionment with comics a few years ago. (I also love Neil Gaiman, for what it’s worth.) I absolutely see the value in those comics and I would never claim that they should go away on account of my religious practices—indeed, I’m sure part of why I was drawn to Thor in particular is because of the comics! I can’t say how I feel about the movie itself, of course, since I haven’t seen it. The doubts I expressed in the essay were more regarding the toy line, which doesn’t bear much of a resemblence to even the movie, much less the myth. In particular, it’s just a bizarre thing to see a big plastic toy made of the very icon of your religion, the thing you wear around your neck every day. A story about a character inspired by a god is one thing, and doesn’t bother me too much. assuming the writing’s okay; finding my holy symbol made into a toy was much more offputting. (Though I want to point out that the emotion in the piece was meant to be confusion, not anger. I don’t want to burn the action figure aisle or anything.)

Her question about the Wicca/Asatru thing is one I expected would come up sooner or later. My answer will probably get me into trouble. The simple fact is that I was raised Wiccan and consider myself both Wiccan and Asatru, and I see absolutely no reason to draw a sharp distinction between the two. I am particularly non-folkish, at least when it comes to excluding people outside “the folk;” I can, however, understand why people would be attracted to the gods their ancestors worshipped, and I don’t have any real problem with that.

I think most pagan sects are too eager to claim they are the new one true way. To use a quote I found in Robert Anton Wilson’s Cosmic Trigger books, “I wish that I could be as sure of anything as some people are of everything.” I find life is far too ambiguous to be certain of anything.

Related: belief, letters, paganism

In another letter about Eric Scott’s “Valhal-Mart,” Alexandra Erin writes:

I really have to disagree with the contention near the end of Eric Scott’s posting “Valhal-Mart”. While it must be remembered that Christianity enjoys a very privileged position in our culture and thus can’t claim to be injured by off-target pop culture depictions, the fact remains that the Christian religion *is* treated as mythology by Hollywood to be pillaged wholesale for stories and characters.

Consider the move Legion, which has a gun-toting archangel action hero facing off against the legions of heaven and/or hell to save a come-again Baby Jesus from the wrath of a petulant God.

Are any of the supernatural figures in this movie meant to be straightforward interpretations of Biblical figures put forth for a religious public? No. The audience for Legion is not serious Christians, it’s people who want to see a supernatural action/horror movie and here are some convenient puzzle pieces the moviemakers could use to give them that.

Even when Judeo-Christian Big-G God is treated more sympathetically by Hollywood (like when he’s played by Morgan Freeman), he still bears about as much resemblance to the Biblical figure as Odin the sufficiently advanced extradimensional alien of Marvel comics bears to Odin the god.

These “religious” movies aren’t made to pander to or irritate Christians, either. The only reason the names/iconography in such movies are Christian in the first place is because Hollywood understands that people will be familiar with the names and tropes and trappings and symbols.

It’s not Thor’s status as a “dead god” that gets him co-opted into comic book movies, in other words. The fewness of his followers and the comparative invisibility of his following is the reason there aren’t more such pictures being made.

Related: Christianity, film, paganism, popular culture

Mike, from Washington State, writes in, regarding Eric Scott’s new essay “Valhal-Mart“:

The runes in the image for http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/dispatch/valhal-mart/ read:

He Woh Waeelds Thhaers hammer commangds thhe Laeghthngaengg angd thhe sthorm.

I know it seems pedantic but it bugs me when the runes are incorrectly used, whether in writing or casting.

It bugs us, too! We wrote to Eric Scott to double check, and he replied:

It is incorrect, but that’s an exact transcription of what was on the toy. (That’s why I had that sentence in there about “plus or minus a few misplaced runes.”) Blame the toy company, not me.

Here, by the way, are the runes in question:

So who’s gonna start the petition?

Megan from California writes the following in response to Hillary White’s essay, “Cutting it Out”:

I’m wondering if Hillary White is my “less active” (Mormon term for those who have left the faith) doppleganger.  Citing Amistad and George Eliot? Two of my favorites—I think we could be friends! I want to thank her for her thoughtful comments about the Mormon phenomena of editing movies.  She articulated many of the thoughts I have had.  I am a devout member of the LDS church and I like my art undiluted, so I generally just avoid R and many PG-13 films unless they really have something to teach me. I hate watching edited movies since it destroys the integrity of the director’s vision. I think some members substitute application (hows) for principle (whys) since it’s easier to follow a set of rules rather than behave within a broader context of faith and ask “Will I leave this film a better and more thoughtful person, stretched in my understanding? Then it’s probably a good thing.”  That’s why one of my favorite films is Amistad, but I turned something like Year One (PG-13) off fifteen minutes in—watching a movie that stupid and vulgar I’m sure is a sin one way or another.

There’s an interesting article by Bruce C. Hafen called “On Dealing With Uncertainty” that addresses the broader issue of how many Mormons handle ambiguity that Ms. White may be interested in…  Anyway, kudos for the thoughtful discussion sans bitterness, this Mormon appreciates it.

Related: letters, Mormonism

JonJ in Philadelphia writes, responding to J. C. Hallman’s recent essay, “Killing the Thetan,” a critique of Lawrence Wright’s widely-discussed story on Scientology:

Yes, Wright’s piece in the New Yorker is straight journalism, but just because it follows the canons of that branch of literature, I think it is all the more convincing a demolition of Scientology. It may be true that people who might be vulnerable to its charms, whatever they are, would not necessarily be dissuaded from joining up by Wright’s reporting, but I don’t think that was his aim. What he did accomplish, it seems to me, is demonstrate that even if one does an “even-handed,” conventional journalistic investigation of the group, it is clearly revealed as a group of wackos.

The attempts that the Scientology officials make to defend themselves appear as the usual slippery evasions that any deluded cult members produce, and no one who was not already half off of his/her rocker would buy the story about ancient leagues of extraterrestrials for a minute. It’s not even particularly entertaining science fiction (which was Hubbard’s actual metier).

The moral of the whole story, as far as I’m concerned: don’t buy your worldview (or method of “getting clear”) from Hollywood types. That’s always a good way of getting into big trouble.

We take offense on behalf of our many friends in Hollywood.

Related: cults, journalism, new religious movements, Scientology

Mr. Richard G. Evans wrote in today to cancel his subscription to the KtB mailing list, and with it, gave his reasons, in reference to our current feature by Nicholas Laccetti, “Let There Be (the Painter of) Light™“:

The Thomas Kinkade critique put me over the edge frankly.  How anyone could find evil in his work is amazing to me. But if you look hard enough you can find evil and subversion everywhere. I honestly need less cynicism not more. God bless.

Neither “evil” nor “subversion” appear in Laccetti’s essay. It is, rather, a difference of interpretation from one Christian to another. The difference is a serious one, though; according to Laccetti, Kinkade has traded the biblical vision of Christianity for American consumerism. Cynicism is perhaps less at issue than complacency.

In any case, God bless you too, Richard. We’re sorry to lose you.

Related: doubt, letters

We’ve already been receiving a flurry of letters responding to Jonathan D. Fitzgerald’s essay about The King’s College in the Empire State Building, “Whose College?” Reid Rogers, in Auburn, Alabama, offered some grateful words:

I am a former King’s College student, though not a graduate. After reading your article, I feel you have articulated much I had not felt comfortable saying. Namely, the school’s adoption of “God, Money, Power,” and as I see it, it’s absolute contradiction to the Gospel. I just missed your teaching at King’s, I left in the Spring of 2009 in order to transfer to Auburn University and complete my degree in Social Work, and about to begin my graduate work back at NYU. There are times I miss the community within King’s, even miss the rigor of education. I’m back at a University where pajamas rule the classroom, and there’s a bit of Kingsian left in me as I find myself unable to dress down quite so much. However, diving into a field surrounded with people who follow a code of ethics devoted to the pursuit of social and economic justice has been an encouragement unmatched by anything.

I appreciate your article, and hope that you did find enjoyment in your students. They are a wonderful bunch, and as you correctly acknowledged, many have spoken out against the changes and the values they find inappropriately instituted.

A bit more critical is a letter from Matthew Kaal, in Brooklyn, who thinks that Fitzgerald didn’t capture the nature of TKC’s conservatism accurately. One hopes that he is right:

I attended King’s from August 2006 until December 2009, when I graduated, and during my time witnessed much of the right-wing shift that is described in the post.  It is undeniable that Stan Oakes and Marvin Olasky aimed at re-focusing the mission and vision of the college toward the right, but it would be inaccurate to say that they were entirely successful in convincing anyone but themselves (and perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald) that they were successful.  I think it is also important to note that neither is now in a position of real authority within the college, and their exits did not cause despair, but in many quarters created a feeling of optimism and renewed focus.

Many of the internal arguments Mr. Fitzgerald cites seem surprisingly out of date, and are not entirely accurate in their presentation.  It is true that “God, Money, Power” was a popular phrase of Stan Oakes (one that was stenciled for a time over a receptionist’s desk in a corner), however, Stan’s failure to define what he meant by it lead to much tension between the administration and the students and faculty.  The citation of Dr. Carle’s comments on the matter comes from the defunct “Gadfly,” which stopped publishing (in print and online) prior to Mr. Fitzgerald’s time at the college. Mr. Fitzgerald fails to note that much of the controversy surrounding this phrase no longer exists.  The faculty have voted against its usage, the infamous stencil has been painted over, and it is more frequently used satirically than seriously.

It is true that by and large the students and faculty are conservative, but thoughtfully so. One could rightly characterize our conservatism as a Burkean conservatism which values continuity and tradition; a conservatism grounded in faith and guided by a earnest desire to seek the good, and practically accomplish it through the application of logic and reason. King’s embrace of such a strain of conservatism is hardly something to fault—it provides an alternative to the common trend of progressivism within American higher-ed, and might breathe new life into debates and discussions which have grown stale and one sided.

To confuse principled conservatism with tea-party fundamentalism is to draw up a straw man in the image of a horde of young Sean Hannitys or Sarah Palins, and completely misunderstand many of the young men and women who sacrifice better opportunities elsewhere to join the noble experiment going on at King’s. Our graduates are all still young, and by and large have not earned notoriety or fame; they are instead paying their dues and working out the mission of the college in their ordinary lives, with beginner-level jobs (which a surprisingly high number of them have successfully landed and kept, considering the economy)… this is hardly something to disdain, but rather to praise.

Thanks for your letters, Reid and Matthew. Others: feel free to weigh in in the comments below!

Related: academia, letters

Jonathan in Utah writes, regarding Hillary White’s essay “Cutting It Out“:

Interesting dissection on your views of edited films. I would suggest to maintain the integrity in you article it would be beneficial to distinguish the actions of individuals from actions of the official organization “the Church.” You use the phrase “the Church” many times in the article that suggests an institutionalized effort by the organization to prompt it’s members to edit content. I would suggest that their actions have in no way coerce it’s members to edit movies, but rather a stricter observance of avoidance. Prescription of avoidance is very different from a prescription to seek out entertainment deemed inappropriate with the intent to edit. This logic may be stretched a little too thin. Also, although BYU is owned by the Church, it is certainly a separate organization that deals with it’s own problems. There have been situations where “the Church” had to take legal action against BYU or one of it’s departments for violating such things as copyright law. All in all this phenomenon is a fascinating development from the actions of a group of Utahns reacting to local culture norms. It is of not in the over 12 million members world wide this phenomenon is not occurring “everywhere” like it has in Utah. Moreover, Cleanflix although a fascinating look at the edit phenomenon does not delve into any other groups choosing to participate in the practice besides “the mormons.”

Hillary White responds:

Nowhere in the article does it state that the Church condones the editing of films—only the members themselves. I’m more than aware of the separation of Church officials from the decisions members make on their own, believe me. It does state in the article that some members choose to use their own discretion and it also states that the activity is prevalent in Utah, not the world. It would be interesting to hear an official stance but we don’t have one.

Related: censorship, Mormonism

Leland Mellott has been kind enough to share with us some more details about his discoveries, of which he told us a bit earlier:

By way of a powerful, transformative River Of Lightin my mind across the month of October 1981 (some eight weeks later I began speaking in tongues), I see that:

• We have entered humanity’s next cycle.
• We are leaving the beasthood of humanity for the top of the mountain. There will be peace on this earth, universal and perpetual, up to and including last word spoken by, last breath of, the last person to be alive.
• I am being interrogated about Jesus of Nazareth. I say, “He killed no one.” (Dream)
• Jesus of Nazareth crosses my path directly in front of me. I exclaim, loudly and instantly, ”Jesus Christ!”
• I am standing where I saw Jesus of Nazareth in a dream. I look down and see that I am holding a large cluster of gold keys. (Dream)
• There was a man named Jesus (from Mexico), who, in his Task of Dying, saved me and kept me in this world. He died on Good Friday 1986. This man is my Personal Savior.
• In l986, when Jesus of Mexico realized that it was Good Friday, he said of Jesus of Nazareth, “He’s the one I respected the most.”
• At a later time, this Jesus gets up out of a casket, walks around it and away. (Dream)
• We are entering the age of woman. Who am I? I amSon Of My Mother, nothing is higher than this.
• There was the great Out-Breath of Divine Will Intelligence. We have entered the great In-Breath.
• We were never created but always have been and always will be; we are Immortal Beings.
• In the sense that we never die, we are Angels.
• The mind’s eye of our such (our consciousness) never blinks, never closes, never sleeps and never dies. We pass through awake from this world into glassless clarity.
• All Is Within begins the story in every word spoken in this world. What is beyond farthest star is within you.
• Each and every one of us is a center of all of being.
• The Sea Of Being goes out from us in all directions … forever.
• There are trillions (I have now been saying this word for three hours and barely begun to count) of Souls in the Throughout Of Being.
• All are priceless, unto the least and beginning there. All are unique and there is no other one like them. All are wise at the heart of the within. All are first, yet, no one leads. All are last, yet, no one follows. Each is the center. Each guides each. All are equal in the gift.
• All Word is spoken word. It is every word spoken. The words we speak are food we feed each other. Who speaks poison is poison.
• Who murders once murders 10,000 times In Thee EYE. To murder one person is the same as having murdered every person in this world.
• The way we live our lives engenders the forces that free us or bind us when we pass through from this life.Love is the power and the way. There is no other way.
• My labors cause nothing, for that which is written is already written and from The Beginning.
• A Divine Intercession has taken place in this world.

In Wrath Of Word, come among here, all have been given actual power to destroy this world. (To worship me is to destroy me; who murders me destroys this world.)

Leland Mellott (Born: July 9, 1936, Lynden, Washington)
14070 River Bend Road
Mount Vernon, Washington98273-7289, USA
lelandmellott@yahoo.com

P. S. No, I’m not proselytizing. I don’t believe in it.

Related: apocalypse, new religious movements, prophecy, revelation

Febz Beloy writes in from the Philippines with a note about Mary Valle’s essay “That’s Cancertainment!“:

In its own odd little way, I find your article comforting. My mother has recently been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer that has metastasized to the bones and she’s a non-smoker. It’s tempting to ask “Why?” but then my mind seems to have a ready reply—”Why not?” We’re not insulated from these circumstances because we’re good enough, caring enough or religious enough.

I find it difficult to be and stay positive despite what others say. I am still transitioning between denial, bargaining and partial acceptance. The following quotes have even been my least favorite bromide:

Everything happens for a reason and God does not give you anything you can’t handle.

Sometimes it takes more harm than good when people tell me that everything’s gonna be okay. Because I know it won’t be and things won’t go back to normal anymore.

I am reading C.S. Lewis now in the hope that I can make some sense of what I’m going through.

And I guess I can relate to his words below:

I lay awake all night with toothache, thinking about toothache and about lying awake.

That’s true to life. Part of every misery is, so to speak, the misery’s shadow or reflection: the fact that you don’t merely suffer but have to keep on thinking about the fact that you suffer.

Thank you, Febz. We wish you and your mother the best.

Related: cancer, health

Occasionally KtB just can’t resist sharing its space with some of the wild letter-writers we hear from on a regular basis. They, after all, are part of the cacophony choir, to the exposition of which the site is so fervently devoted. Take, as a saner preface to this, Josh Garrett-Davis’ recent piece here on Fred Phelps, as well as the news that Phelps’ case will be heard by the Supreme Court this session.

May there be a big, bad [sic]:

Date: October 6, 2010

To: Open letter to Rev. Fred Phelps

From: No Pot To
nopot22@gmail.com

I suppose I should hate you : but I don’t.  I am a combat veteran of the US Army, as well as a religious Jew.  I should be opposing your philosophy :  but I cannot.

Please bare with me here for a little bite.  I am going to say a few things you will not like, but then it gets better.   I wish to give you the ‘old’ teaching from the Jewish tradition—one so old no Rabbi speaks of it today. In the Old Testament the rule against homosexuality is quickly followed by the rule against cutting the corners of the beard.  It is indeed strange that you choose to enforce the rules again gays, yet have a clean shaven face.  One begins to question just what it is you really do—follow the word of God or just concern yourself with homosexuality.

Old testament Hebrew has gender indicators that modern English does not have.  Translation therefore is a little off.  The rules against homosexuality were always applied to the male gender never the female.  This indicated to the ancient Rabbis that the these rules applied to men only and not to women at all, thus eliminating the need of 50% of the world population to observe them.  Secondly, the rules were always applied to Jews, never to the gentiles.  Since  the Jewish population of this world is less than 1%, the old Rabbis never applied rule against homosexuality to 99% of the world.  In reality that rule involves only one half of one present of the worlds population today (.05%).  I do not speak for Jewish Law now, and you will never get a modern Rabbi to tell you this.  However, neither you nor any member of your congregation is Jewish, therefore I absolve you of any need to follow Jewish Law.  You are free to go and become gay if you so wish.

With that said, I must admit I whole-heartedly support your philosophy and your actions even though they seem designed more to ‘wound’ than to ‘teach.’  Yes!  You are right!  God hates homosexuals  Yes, you are right.  9/11 and  dead soldiers are God’s answer to the degradation he sees in this country today.  No one who voluntarily wishes to follow the word of God as taught by the Jews can denie this.

After 9/11 I watched on TV as members of the US Congress stood on the steps of the Capitol Rotunda and sang, “God bless America.”  I ask you, just what ‘truck’ does that pack of scoundrels and thieves have with God?  Why should God listen to them?  For that matter, why should God bless America?  Name one thing America has done since the Viet Nam war that would beget the Grace of God?  Don’t think too hard.  There isn’t a thing.   I watched as President George Bush became the high-priest of the nation, saying prayers and blessing the troops as he sent them off on their holy mission.   That seems to be very appropriate.  A corrupt, career politician and an unrepentant drunk became the high-priest of this country.  I watched as solders entered Afghanistan and said to the local population, you can listen to music now.  And they would turn-up their ghetto-blaster to hear Little Steve Wonder singing, “Let’s do it in the road…”  The Moslem’s in a religiously oriented coun!
try don’t want to hear that.  Hell, I don’t want to listen to it.  Those GI’s didn’t have a clue what brought them there to begin with.  The American went to Afghanistan fighting for oil, trade routes, and the rule of law.  But as for Al Qida, after watching their society being slowly beaten down for decades with American smut, debauchery, and pop-culture, Al Qida began to fight back.  They were fighting for morality!  Common human decency!  God!

Ah…  War is easier.  It is easier to fight the boogie-man than it is to attack the real problems that this country faces in the 21st century.   For instance in the State of Florida alone, there are over 20,000 names on the registered sex offender list.  That is just one state.  Add them all together and what do you get?   Ah, but it’s easier to fight Al Qida than it is to deal with that problem—the real problem.   George Bush went to world war III against Al Qida, but if you collect every member of  Al Qida in the world together they wouldn’t even fill-up George Bush’s White House.  If you collect all the sex offenders of the world together, there wouldn’t be enough room in the Sate of Florida to house them all.  It is much easier for Americans to spend all their time, money, and ambition swatting flies while they ignore the ‘elephant in the living room.’

Reverend Phelps,  your cause is just!  Your reasoning is sound!  Your mission is clear!  Your motives may be a little suspect, but you are a lone voice in the wilderness shouting for the Laws of God.  You are to be commended for these actions.  I urge you to keep going; keep trying.  To save just one soul is to save an entire universe.  Good luck.  May God go with you.   I only ask that you widen your scope just a little.  Include all sexual deviations and hypocrisy.

Related: America, fundamentalism, gender and sexuality, letters, LGBTQ, sexual abuse, war

From the KtB inbox, courtesy of Jim Long of Arkansas:

Gordan Haber [sic] is a very frustrated man. That frustration came through loud and clear when he heard my own responses to questions about why I embraced the Torah and observed the Seven Laws of Noah. He seemed unimpressed how, through Torah study, I’d gotten answers to existential questions I’d had for years—that the Torah had changed my life.

He states in his piece, Kinda Like the Jews [Editor's Note: Haber's piece is titled "Kind of Like Jews"], that he never got a satisfying answer from Noahides regarding their beliefs.

What was he expecting, swooning glassy-eyed disciples?

Maybe this is what Haber really wants from a belief system…maybe it exposes his own personal void. In his desire to elicit some kind of overwrought emotionalism from Noahides, he missed one vital point—we were drawn to Torah because it represents the voice of Reason. And, we rather enjoy being able—make that, expected—to ask questions about its teachings.

The simplicity and satisfaction one finds in observing seven commandments is simply what Haber refuses to see.

Though it exposes his own bitterness and doubt, it does not negate the genuine intellectual and spiritual gains experienced by Noahides. No one held a gun to our head and told us to leave our previous beliefs—we fled willingly.

I would have had more respect of Haber’s take on the whole subject but he seems to have the barest grasp of basic Torah concepts. Was he being glib when he referenced the fact that Noah wasn’t a Hebrew? Being Hebrew was not the criteria for entrance into the nation of Israel at Sinai: It was the acceptance those present of a body of holy laws known as the Torah. That still holds true today, you can be any ethnicity and become a Jew.

Haber saved his unkindest most disingenuous cut for the paragraph as charged that we Noahides, “…remain unaware (often willfully so) just how recent and cooked-up is this idea of Noahidism.”

You mean the very same Jewish sages and Talmudic masters from centuries ago, such as Maimonides, that Haber referenced in his article? These are sources for concepts that are “recent and cooked up”?

Haber is either unaware or does not care that two of the 18th Century’s greatest minds, John Selden (a brilliant jurist who impacted international law) and Sir Isaac Newton both expounded on the wisdom of the Torah and the Seven Laws of Noah. The founding fathers of America were conversant in Torah principles and the Seven Laws (the State of Pennsylvania wrote them into their original charter).

In Post World War II England, Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld, the son-in-law of Rabbi Hertz (who gave us the Hertz Chumash), published his Universal Torah which summarized the Seven Laws distilled from the written Torah. He did so, hoping that the masses, weary of dictators who brought Europe to ruin, would yearn for the clarity of seven basic, ethical rules for behavior and the purity of belief in One God.

Cooked Up?

No, just a simple, recipe that the whole world can understand.

Related: letters

A nice piece of spam arrived in the KtB mailbox this morning. No doubt in the future such snippets will be treated as wonderful artifacts, pieces of folk art whose implicit tragedy and quixotic hope cry out from beneath a greedy fiction.

(Dear God’s elect,)

I am touched by God to hand you over this money considering my last wish, and you should also know that my contact to you is by special grace of God, please understand that you are not helping me rather you are working for God the creator of heaven and earth.

In respect of my previous message; Nevertheless, (30% Percent) of the total money 8,500,000.00 USD is for your personal use and 70 Percent to help orphanages, Building a Clinic school and widows to endeavor that the house of God is maintained, I hope you will utilize this money the way I instructed you herein.

On the process of receiving your first response, i have now extented the communication to the knowledge of my personal lawyer who will take a proper charge of the fund remiting procedure to your destination to enable you excute my last wished project. The contact of the attoney in charge will be made available to you as soon as i am convinced of your honesty in this project for the release of the amount. With regard to my ill health and the presence of my husband’s relatives around me here in the hospital, I do not need any telephone communication in this mostly because I seldom them to know about this as they are not aware of the deposited money.

Moreover, further discusion in this matter will require your official presence to change the related documents to your name due to my illness of course will not allow me to move out of this hospital bed, meanwhile the bank will also request your present to sign the release order document considering the amount of money involve (8,500,000.00 USD) On this reason you will make arrangement to undertake (Three to Four 3/4) working days in order to meet with my lawyer to enable him make sure that you are properly handed over the fund to go on with processing of my project.

Don’t forget to always pray for me because all my hope to survive is in God the creator who holds death and life.
Hoping to receive your reply.
Mrs.Margaret Brown.

Send along your favorite examples of religious spam art, if you’ve got ‘em! Use the subject “Spam Art” if you do.

Howard of W. Bloomfield, MI, writes, with regard to Mary Valle’s “The Cock Crows“:

Mary dismisses Rice saying: “she’s out of Catholicism and I’m in and out every day. And aren’t all Catholics in and out?”

No. Some of us got out and stayed out. I was a Catholic until I decided I didn’t think Jesus could be born of a virgin, die and rise again, as part of a suicide mission, as a scapegoat, to have my sins forgiven. Then there’s the Transubstantiation. It’s all a Mystery. The greater mystery to me is why any Catholic “stays in.” Maybe the reason is, as Mill suggested: “not because they think it’s true but because they wouldn’t know what to do without it.”

Related: apostasy, Catholicism