h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

With my peculiar bent for history of various religions, I think I'm particularly suited to that subject. I'll take a shot at it, if you like.

That would be great. I am distracted at the moment so I won't be pulling it all together till after Christmas.

The only rule - and a particularly pertinant one with this specific subject - is no dissing. Ie be very very careful when discussing specific religions not to attack either the beliefs of those religions or the believers.

Good luck with it! - I look forward to seeing it.

Ben

No es problema. I just figured I'd trace Western Civilization, giving examples of how religion factored into the various government structures. Start with Hammurabi and work my way through.

Go for it!

I look forward to seeing it.

a control-freak and unbeliever called Ben

Hi BtM - are you still up for doing this?

It would be a good one to have, especially as we are lighter than I would like in terms of politics. You might like to read Montana Redhead's entry on Heresy. A915293.

I have lowered the bar on the project as of the 31st January, which simply means that I want to have done my bit by then. GTBacchus will still be subbing, and the Editors editing beyond then, I assume. But I needed to see an end in sight.

So - can you be persuaded, or have you decided not to rush in to this one on the grounds that there are no angels treading hereabouts?

Take care

B

I'm still up for doing this, but I wasn't sure that you were. As you know, I don't feel the imperative to work on the Guide anymore. When I saw that you were acquiring the same condition, it made me reconsider this article. I know you intended to see your part to completion, but I didn't know if you still wanted to be adding to it.

Still, I can see why you'd want to fulfill an obligation, and I can see why you'd want it to be the best job for personal pride if nothing else, so I'll unreconsider and get back on the job.

That is great!

I have spent most of today on the project one way or another. The page is up to date with all of the entries (and the appropriate WW threads), so take a look at any of the others. MR's one on Heresy is relevant, as is Z's on Joining and Leaving a Minority Religion. (That one is chilling, actually).

If I am spending time on the project, it might as well be good, and I have a bad habit of delivering on promises made. I felt I owed to to the Italics and the Researchers who had written stuff to follow this one through.

And don't tell anyone - but it has been fun!

B

I've knocked together about half of it already. It's still raw and in plain text, but I thought you might care to look at it to get an idea of where I'm going with this thing, and comment as you like: A933914

Blimey, that was quick!

Have you come across Plato's comment that the simplest way to control a group of people is using a beautiful lie. Check it out, I may have got it wrong.

The kosher dietry prohibitions are mainly to do with categorisation. There is a fundamental internal logic to all of them. Clean animals chewed the cud and had hooves, like cattle, goats and sheep. Rabbits for example (appear to) chew the cud, but do not have hooves. Pigs do not chew the cud but do have hooves. Ergo, and for different reasons, both rabbits and pigs are unclean. I think shellfish fall into the same hole - something which is fishy but not actually a fish. Bloody stupid if you ask me - in a destert you need to be allowed to eat everything you can get hold of.

My suggestion is to use some of the more obscure commandments - 'Honour your father and mother that your days in the land shall be long' is a peachy one, isn't it?

I am not sure how far forward you intend to take this. Charles I (of England and Scotland) considered himself inviolate because he ruled though 'the Divine Right of Kings' - God had put him there, and only God, (or in this case Oliver Cromwell) could take him away. His son Charles II did not rule by Divine Right (so far as I know - again check this out), he was the first constitutional monarch. Which is ironic, considering to this day the UK does not have a constitution. There was also a tradition that the King's touch could heal, and a specific disease which it would heal. Given the power of the placebo effect, it was probably true.

Then there is the on-going ecclesiastically sanctioned persuecution of the Jews based on the concept of their guilt for the death of Christ.

Didn't the French Revolutionary Government overturn the church?

All of the above are just random thoughts sparked by your entry.

It is good, it plugs a gap, and it will sit neatly alongside Montana Redhead's one on Heresy, and more unsettlingly alongside Z's chiller about Joining and Leaving a Minority Religion.

Thanks Blatherskite. I appreciate it.

All the best

B

As I said before... I could crank this out without too much legwork. Or rather, extra legwork... I've pretty much been researching this entry for my entire adult life.

True enough about the categorization, but that's also a possible front. After all, there were exceptions to the insect prohibitions... you could eat locusts and beetles, for instance, but no bugs that weren't specified as exceptions. If it wasn't a front, it could be a bad attempt to logically group those animals that were healthy to eat, and which weren't.

I'll look at some of the Levitical laws, though, and see if there's an example that suits me better.

As for where it's going, I was pretty much going to trace the evolution of church authority all the way to modern times, and leave the open question of whether it has any further purpose in our lives. I was going to keep things fairly general, because there's too much to cover to get very specific. A rough outline of what's to come:

- Constantine organizes the Council of Nicea, and orthodoxy is born.
- Orthodoxy attacks heresy.
- Rome collapses, new social order appears, based on the feudal system and the social contract that the feudal lord offers protection in exchange for labor.
- Feudal lords align with church and support each other.
- A crowning takes place where the bishop is asked to place the crown (can't remember who it was at the moment). This creates the precedent that crowns are granted by the church. Church influence exceeds that of kings.
- Unchecked church power starts festering in corruption.
- Corruption grows too much to take, reformation begins. Philosophy reappears in Western civilization.
- Concept of Divine Right appears, kings return to Caesar status.
- Unchecked monarchical power festers corruption. Reform movements begin in UK.
- American Revolution installs first government without religious influence, and bans religious influence in the First Amendment. Revolutionaries primarily Deists, which involves a creator who doesn't involve itself in its creation.
- Decline of government influence by religion worldwide
- modern-day political conflicts exacerbated when they fall across religious lines (Northern Ireland and Palestinian examples).
- open question: What purpose does religion serve us in the modern era?

I think religion in the modern era is, more than anything, about cultural barriers and a desire to "fit in" with cultural history.

It's an old cliche, but there are many in Europe and America who style themselves "Christians" and who like to wax-lyrical about "Christian values" when their own lifestyles and personal morality is genuinely Christian about half the time at most. It's not merely about saying "I'm Christian", more about saying "I'm French/British/American etc". It's about a herd-mentality and a desire to fit in.

The whole explosion of "Islamic fundamentalism" in the Middle East is part of this. Many of these people were not born fanatical believers. They have made themselves turn that way out of a hatred of the West. Islam is seen as anti-Western so they become unquestioning believers in the values of that "tribe". This might also explain why some American "disenfranchised" are so willing to embrace Islam but not Christianity. Christianity would be seen as being "with" the white-bread picket-fence lot. Islam would be seen as being "with" the outsiders, the enemies of social norm.

I'm finished with the rough draft, so if anyone has any further comments or suggestions, now is the time.

As for your comments, Zagreb... that's why the worst conflicts lately are those political disagreements which also fall along religious boundaries. You can do a lot of evil in the name of your government, but it becomes exponentially worse when it's also in the name of your god.

I expect this article will churn up some very entertaining controversy.

Brill. I have just printed it out, and I will take a look. If I have anything intelligent to say, I'll post it tomorrow morning.

Thanks BtM.

B