Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

Pope Goes The Weasel

Posted March 1st, 2013 by Lesley Hazleton

That headline isn’t mine — it’s courtesy of Stephen Colbert, the Comedy Central host of The Colbert Report, and a practicing Catholic.  His word for Ratzinger/Benedict’s resignation: “popectomy.”

I find myself in the same bind as Colbert.  It seems like I should have all sorts of incredibly pertinent things to say about Ratzi’s helicoptering off into the twilight, but the papacy has become so impertinent that the only real question that concerns me is this:

What happens to the nifty red shoes?

redshoesPrada shoes, they say.  Ratzi’s favorites.  To be left behind as he he now declares himself just “a humble pilgrim.”  (Gagging sounds heard offstage.)

How humble?  Well, since he’s said he’ll live out his remaining days “hidden from the world,” I’m assuming he means “hidden” in the same sense as the Mahdi, the messiah figure of Shiism, who disappeared into a cave twelve centuries ago and who will return at the end of days.

Of course Ratzi has to give up the red shoes.  Who could hide in red shoes?

Especially since he has such a lot to hide from.

What’s really puzzling is that anyone still takes the papacy seriously.  The media are hyping up the election of a new pope for obvious reasons.  Men in fancy dress, an electoral race, cloaked ambition, secret balloting, colored smoke — it all makes for good theater.  The fact that so many of those involved in all this are deeply corrupt gives an extra thrill to it all.  Whether it’s actual pedophilia or “merely” covering it up;  closet homosexuality by public homophobes;  unveiled misogyny displayed in the inquisition of nuns;  plummeting numbers of priests unable to marry a woman, let alone a man;  and now, a secret report on a sex and blackmail scandal within the Vatican walls — how could the media resist such a totally sick soap opera?

What we’re seeing is a huge fundamentalist institution deep into the process of self-destruction.  It’s imploding right in front of us.  The weasel has definitely popped, and the infallible is about as fallible as it can get.

If the Roman Catholic church doesn’t undergo thorough reform, right now, predicts the famed Swiss theologian Hans Kung, it will “fall into a new ice age and run the danger of shrinking into an increasingly irrelevant sect.”  He cites a recent poll in Germany showing that 85% of Catholics support marriage for priests, and 75% support ordination of women.

Religious historian Garry Wills’ new book Why Priests? – A Failed Tradition goes further and advocates abolishing the priesthood altogether.  Not only did Christianity begin without a priesthood, he points out, but it actively opposed it.  And rank-and-file priests are speaking up too, like Tony Flannery in Dublin, suspended by the Vatican for refusing to adhere to church orthodoxy on contraception and homosexuality, or Roy Bourgeois in the US, who was excommunicated for supporting the ordination of women.

But all this is far too pertinent.  So let’s take refuge in the impertinent and get back to the issue at hand:  what’ll happen to those hand-made red shoes?  Will they be bronzed like baby booties?  Will they be displayed in an air-conditioned glass relics case?   Will they be auctioned off on eBay?

Fundamentalists of all religious stripes, take note:  this is how imposed orthodoxy ends — not with a bang, but with a red-bootied whimper.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism | Tagged: Tags: Garry Wills, Hans Kung, Pope Benedict, Ratzinger, Roman Catholic Church, Roy Bourgeois, Stephen Colbert, Tony Flannery, Vatican | 11 Comments
  1. Saimã Abbasi says:
    March 1, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Fundamentalists of all religious stripes, take note: this is how imposed orthodoxy ends — not with a bang, but with a red-bootied whimper…
    Love this line. Very well written.

  2. Nancy McClelland says:
    March 1, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    Lesley, I believe I once said that I’d listen to you read aloud from the phone book, you have such a great voice and style of delivery. Well, I just realized that I am an incredibly lucky woman, because in my head, I can hear your voice reading your own work as these blog posts flow from the page/screen. And your own work is WAY more interesting than the phone book.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 1, 2013 at 5:28 pm

      I’ll take being more interesting than the phone book as a compliment, Nancy! Seriously, you’re the best. And thanks for the reminder — I haven’t yet posted this KUOW audio of my reading from ‘The First Muslim’ at Town Hall Seattle: http://www.kuow.org/post/muhammads-extraordinary-life-author-lesley-hazleton

  3. BeffaOmmaya WyldeMoon says:
    March 1, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    You’ve gone and done it again, Hazleton! I’m still chuckling…WyldeMoon

  4. Karla Goethe says:
    March 1, 2013 at 7:40 pm

    Lesley Hazleton, your post gives me sanity in an insane world. Thank you so much. Karla Goethe

  5. Gustav Hellthaler says:
    March 2, 2013 at 9:54 am

    I believe that Dorothy has the red shoes and that Toto has already pulled back the curtain of the meta-reality of religion.
    Gus

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 2, 2013 at 10:23 am

      I can see a doctoral thesis here: “The Theology of Oz.”

  6. Jerry M says:
    March 5, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    As a former Catholic I find the current state of the church amusing. They had a real chance to reform the church 50 years ago, but like most powerful and self-blind institutions they didn’t take that opportunity. They could have embraced change, I was in a Catholic high school when the then pope, Paul VI, published his encyclical on birth control. At that time the priest who taught religion in my high school assumed that the birth control ruling was going to change. It didn’t and that was the public end of any attempts at reform. In the last few years we have all learned about so many scandals regarding how the church treated the powerless that the pedophile scandal is just one of many. What is sad that those in power would rather protect power than help those who they have wronged.

    Ratzinger was a cipher. He was elected to do nothing (given his age I am assuming he was supposed to be an interim pope), and he did nothing. I don’t understand why any news agency is covering this. It is barely important. Given the number of Catholics I suppose it does merit a line or two, but that is all.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 5, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      The question being whether another John XXIII is even possible. Naive question, probably…

  7. Jerry M says:
    March 13, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    Oh well, they kicked the can down the road again. They voted on an elderly Argentinian bishop. I don’t know anything negative but he is hardly going to be strong enough to fix anything.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 13, 2013 at 3:53 pm

      The Catholic Reporter says he’s a “staunch opponent” of contraception, abortion, and marriage equality. How exactly this jibes with his avowed passion for social justice must presumably be considered one of the mysteries of the Church…

God Hates Figs

Posted November 8th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Can a sense of irony be essential to a sense of religion?   Kent Hayden, a newly graduated and entirely non-accidental theologist, argues exactly that today over at the Huffington Post (full article here).

Taking off from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s October 30 Rally to Restore Sanity — which seems to have made a lot of people feel quite good, despite the fact that its small-format TV-studio brand of irony was clearly an uncomfortable fit on the large open stage of the Washington Mall — Hayden ends up with this mini-manifesto:

Stewart and Colbert exploded the absurd in our political discourse so that a satirical generation can take the future of our country seriously. It is unclear what exactly that will look like going forward, but in the moment, it felt like a quarter-million people smiling broadly in the October sun.

If we were to explode the absurd in religion, if we exposed the fallacy of our reductive handling of systems of understanding the deep questions of life, would the same kind of sincerity emerge from our irony?

If Generation Irony came to our houses of worship carrying satirical signs that read “God Hates Figs,” and we laughed at clips of the simplistic and divisive rhetoric that makes us ashamed to call ourselves Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists or whatever, and if we sang familiar songs together and listened past the demonization of the other, what would happen? If we exposed all the things that make our religious discourse absurd — all the squawking about other peoples’ sins, all the fighting about which language to use to describe the ineffable, all the simple-minded conflation of poetry and prose, and the universalizing of the particular — I suspect that there would be enough sincere goodwill floating in the wake of our laughter to give us goosebumps again, and to help us take seriously the future of our religious traditions.

Never mind for now that Hayden seems to imagine that satire and irony are the same thing.   (Satire attacks from the outside, while irony works its effect from within, subtly subverting the false premises of its target.)   He still has an excellent point.

The subversive power of irony applied to what passes for religion in these televangelist Bible/Quran-thumping times can help us see past the kindergarten caricature of the divine in which God is cast as the class bully dictating what we should love or hate — a small-minded god for small-minded people.   And once we’re past that caricature, we might be more open to the idea that what we so casually call ‘God’ is merely a reductive shorthand for something that is, by definition, beyond human comprehension.

Just about every religious person I respect — and there are many of them — comes equipped with a healthy sense of irony.  How else can one be both religious and intelligent in today’s polarizing world, where slogans pass for thought and certainty replaces humility?  How else escape the dehumanizing trap of hating people in the name of loving God?

The fact that humorless bigots loudly proclaim their piety is no reason to cede religion to them, just as there’s no reason to cede the United States to Tea Partiers loudly proclaiming their crude sense of patriotism.   If some people like their religion small and petty, I pity them.  For the rest of us,  it’s time to polish up our sense of irony and admire the accidental theology of a sign that reads ‘God Hates Signs.’

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: atheism, Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism, sanity, US politics | Tagged: Tags: 'God Hates Signs', homophobia, irony, Jon Stewart, Kent Hayden, Rally to Restore Sanity, religion, Stephen Colbert | Be the First to leave a comment

Mensch-iness

Posted September 4th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

What exactly is a mensch?  I’m lucky enough to know quite a few people whom I honor with that title.  But the full appreciation of  menschlichkeit – best translated, Stephen-Colbert-style, as menschiness – seems to be elusive.  This is somewhat dismaying.  In fact, this is very dismaying.  So here goes.

As usual, idiot that I am, I went first to the OED.  I mean, only a schlemiel would look up a Yiddish word in the British crown jewel of English as she should be spoke.  Still, look I did, and here’s what I found:

In Jewish usage: a person of integrity or rectitude; a person who is morally just, honest, or honourable.

Okay, so it’s hardly a surprise that the OED just doesn’t get it.   Menschiness is admirable, sure, but bland?  Never!  Where’s the warmth, the laughter, the big-heartedness, the sheer vitality and generosity of spirit of menschiness?

Surely I’d find them in Leo Rosten’s Joys of Yiddish.  Surely?

Someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character.  The key to being ‘a real mensch’ is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous.

Rectitude?  Decorousness?  Was Rosten actually trying to  make Yiddish boring?  Was he aiming for a Victorian drawing-room version of menschlichkeit?  Pfah!  Getting a bit desperate, perhaps, I turned to Wikipedia:

Mensch (Yiddish: מענטש mentsh; German: Mensch, for “human being”) means “a person of integrity and honor”… In Yiddish, from which the word has migrated into American English… a mensch is a particularly good person, like “a stand-up guy”…

In modern Israeli Hebrew, the phrase ben adam (בן אדם) is used as an exact translation of mensch. Though it usually means simply “a person” (literally, “son of Adam”) in general, it is used to mean “a nice guy” in the same way as mensch. This usage may have developed by analogy with Yiddish or by adaptation from Arabic (from which colloquial Israeli Hebrew takes much vocabulary), in which bani adam (بني آدم) has the same meaning.

Well, at least that’s an improvement, with German, Hebrew, and Arabic all thrown in for good measure and to keep your head spinning.  But it still doesn’t leave anyone any the wiser.  “A nice guy”?   Talk about lame.  Not that anything in the Wiki entry is wrong;  it just misses out on the full meaning of the word.

So faute de mieux (why not toss a soupcon of French into the mix while we’re about it?) here’s my idea of menschiness (and of course — especially since we’re speaking Yiddish — feel free to cavil, amend, expand, ridicule, or suggest something better):

A mensch is what I call a real human being — one with a fully functioning heart and soul and an infectious warmth and generosity of spirit.

That’s not a bad start.  But to get the whole of it…  well, that’s the thing with Yiddish — it’s hell to explain.  The one thing I’m sure of:  Whether you’re Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, pantheist or atheist, animist or agnostic, male, female or any combination of the two, is totally irrelevant:  if you’re reading this and smiling in recognition, welcome to the human race — you’re a mensch.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: existence, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: Arabic, German, Hebrew, mensch, menschlichkeit, Stephen Colbert, Yiddish | 8 Comments
  1. Linda Williams says:
    September 4, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Love this. Always wondered! Being non Jewish, and having grown up in the rural mid-west, I haven’t had a lot of exposure!

  2. Steve Giordano says:
    September 4, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    I read The Joys of Yiddish in high school because it was FUN. His definition of mensch is NOT fun, and I’m surprised. Currently reading The Year of Living Biblically, also fun. If he gets around to what a mensch is, I’ll get back to you…

  3. Lynn Rosen says:
    September 5, 2010 at 12:12 am

    You, Medear, are the epitome of mensch. ‘Nuf said!

  4. Jonathan Omer-Man says:
    September 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    By negative definition, a mensch is a person who in adversity does not behave as a schmuck (vulg., applied generally to loutish men).

  5. Anne Traver says:
    September 6, 2010 at 4:35 am

    nice evolution — from implying a guy, to being gender neutral!

  6. Pietra says:
    September 6, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Your explanation is the best of all but I’m not sure I understand “generosity of spirit.” I do know that a Mensch makes my heart swell and so glad to be alive. Is that it?

  7. Lesley Hazleton says:
    September 7, 2010 at 7:14 am

    you mean it’s infectious!

  8. Schreib Etwas says:
    January 30, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    I think your take on “mensch” kind of leaves out the introvert. I always thought of Atticus Finch (fictional character) as being a Mensch. A warm guy possibly but not a life of the party type.

    But going with your refinement of the term… maybe someone more like Oskar Schindler (fictionalized character – well sort of).

    Anyway, here is to all the Mensches out there.

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity science technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback