Cursed Be All Learning!

T

he underbrush has grown thickly about the internet since I’ve been down with the moving sickness, and frankly it’s beyond either my interest or abilities to hack it back. Luxuriant growths of strange fungi have emerged, and old thorny vines re-established themselves. (I see David Barton has a new version of his unconfirmed quotations page up, for example—and it is a rare growth indeed!) The gamergate creepers are everywhere, threatening to strangle the old growth columns, and the social injustice perennials are in full bloom.

While tramping through this tulgy undergrowth I came across this little toadstool of a website, attributed to a certain Pastor Stephen Andrew, entitled USA Christian Ministries, and containing a page of USA HistoryQuotes about God and the Bible, many of them fake. It’s apparently been there since at least 21 February 2012 (though not apparently in exactly the present form) and is a rich growth of frauds and forgeries. We find such familiar hoaxes as the Washington prayer book and the 1792 congressional proclamation approving the holy bible for use in schools. There are the rank misattributions, like the John Quincy Adams “cornerstone” quotation being attributed to his father, or the Reformed Dutch Synod’s “true religion” remark being assigned to George Washington. Not to mention the absurdity of attributing a comment by an anonymous 1956 writer to Patrick Henry. There are unsupported attributions, like Henry’s deathbed tribute to the Bible. There are incorrect citations, as when words from Noah Webster’s 1836 letter to David McClure are attributed to his preface to the 1828 dictionary. (I have read through the thousands of words in that preface, and fascinating reading it is, if you are interested in the correct pronunciation of the English language, or the derivation of its words, but he does not there discuss his views on the use of the Bible in education.)

There are the weird distortions, such as this version of Washington’s advice to the Delaware tribe:

You do well to wish to learn … above all the religion of Jesus Christ [in our schools].

You know, you don’t get to use ellipses and brackets to change the meaning of a quotation—that’s as much fraud as simply making words up and attributing them to somebody else. The same is true with his version of what he likes to call the “First Ammendment”:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [Christian denomination], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And apparently, if this site is to be believed (and I see no reason why it should), both Noah and Daniel Webster said “Education is useless without the Bible”. I don’t know how many hours I’ve spent trying to run that idiotic claim down. I can easily believe that either of them—or both—actually said that, especially in the context of the whole Girard’s college imbroglio. For those who don’t know the story, Stephen Girard, the wealthiest man in the United States of his time (he bailed out the government during the 1812 war), left his fortune to a variety of public works in his adopted country. One of these was a school for the education of orphans. His French relatives wanted the cash, and Daniel Webster was one of the lawyers who fought to help them in their attempt to rob orphans of an education. One of the provisions in Girard’s will was that no priest or minister should set foot on the grounds of his school, and the anti-college team twisted that into a claim that no religion would be taught at the school. Daniel Webster claimed that a charitable bequest that excluded Christianity was invalid under the law, because, it seems, there could be no charity outside of the Christian context, and the bequest should therefore be set aside in favor of Girard’s family members. Daniel Webster cited Noah Webster (among others) in support of his position. Ultimately the judge sidestepped the whole issue by pointing out that the exclusion of ministers did not prevent religious education by laymen, and that therefore that whole line of argument was irrelevant.

I could easily imagine either Webster claiming that “education is useless without the Bible” in this context, but I haven’t found it. And, for the record, Girard’s school for orphans was indeed founded, and is still in operation to this day, though his desire that all girls and black children be excluded from his bequest is no longer honored.

Moving on, I see that Pastor Andrew’s collection of James Madison quotations is absolutely perfect—there is nothing genuine in the entire lot. They are out-and-out fakes, all of them. Taking them in order they are:

We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.

This is a well-known fake; Madison never wrote anything like it. Many of the words are Clarence Manion’s, taken from various forms of his 1950s lecture on “The Key to Peace”, and the entire thing may have been inspired by a few words of Madison’s in the Federalist Papers, but it doesn’t appear to be any older than about 1958. (Some writers claim a 1937 source, but the existence of that item is doubtful, to say the least.)

We then have

Religion [is] the basis and foundation of Government.

This one is particularly childish. What he actually wrote (in Memorial and Remonstrance on the Religious Rights of Man) was:

… Because finally, “the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience” is held by the same tenure with all his other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consider the “Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of government,” it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.

Note that the word “religion” is part of a quotation and the words “the basis and foundation of government” are part of the title of a work he is referring to. The fraud could hardly be more transparent.

Finally we have

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.

This is so obviously not Madison’s it is amazing that anybody could be taken in by it. As Jeffrey Shallit noted in a piece on this fake quotation (Yet Another Christian Fake Quote) Madison was more likely to say things like “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect” than “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” How did this bizarre attribution occur? A commenter on that site (me, actually, back when I still had access to my library) suggested “The Madison misattribution probably results … from human error (and failure to check sources). William J. Federer wrote in the Madison section of his America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations (p. 410):

Home-schooled as a child, Madison attended Princeton University under the direction of Reverend John Witherspoon, one of the nation's premier theologians and legal scholars. The University's first president, Jonathan Dickinson, had declared: “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”

Somebody seeing this sentence in quotation marks in a section devoted to Madison quotations could easily be excused for mistaking it for Madison's words.”

So it would seem to be a simple case of misattribution. It was Jonathan Dickinson, not James Madison, who said “Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” But did he? For the sake of his posthumous reputation I would hope he didn’t—but hopes are not the same as evidence. I did look for it—but I couldn’t find it.

The oldest reference to the saying that Google Books turned up was from a sketch of a speech given by the Reverend S. S. Cox D.D. in October 1845 recorded in the Permanent Documents of the Society for the Promotion of Collegiate and Theological Education at the West, Volume 1, p. 30. He attributed the following words to “a venerable man [by] the name of Witherspoon”:

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ; cursed be all that learning that is not coincident with the cross of Christ; cursed be all that learning that is not subservient to the cross of Christ.

The “venerable man [by] the name of Witherspoon” was no doubt John Knox Witherspoon (1723-1794), signer of the Declaration and president of the College of New Jersey. William Federer mentioned him along with Dickinson in the bit quoted above. But could Witherspoon have actually said these bigoted anti-intellectual words?

Well, yes he could, kind of. Context matters here. The words appear in a sermon he published in 1768, one of a group “selected in order to form a little system of the truths of the gospel”. The sermon in question is number VIII, entitled “Glorying in the Cross” and taking for its text Paul’s letter to the Galatians chapter vi, verse 14, given there as “But God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In the manner of sermons “Glorying in the Cross” meanders on for a bit, as Witherspoon tries to establish to his own satisfaction at least what exactly is meant by by its subject. “The word here translated glorying, signifies at the same time exulting, or rejoicing; and therefore to glory in the cross, is the same thing as to rejoice in the Saviour.” He moves on to ask “in what it was the apostle did not glory.” From elsewhere in Paul’s works (the latter portion of II Corinthians maybe?) Witherspoon concludes there were at least three things “he renounced as any subject of boasting. 1. His learning as a scholar; 2. His privileges as a Jew; 3. Even his zeal and activity as a minister of Christ.”

Are you still with me? Do you see where we’re going here? “The apostle Paul” he observes “had been brought up at the sect of Gamaliel, and seems to have been well accomplished in every branch of human science. Yet he speaks of it with great neglect, or rather with a noble disdain, when compared with the doctrine of the cross…” Witherspoon asks rhetorically “What is the meaning of this renunciation of human learning and wisdom? Is there any real opposition between learning and the cross? Would not the legitimate use of human wisdom lead us to embrace it?” For him this renunciation implies, first “An admiration of the divine glory in that which had not on it any of the marks of human wisdom…”, second “such a superlative admiration of this glorious and interesting object, that all the knowledge he possessed, and the honour he could otherwise acquire, seemed to him unworthy of regard…”, and third, “humility and self-denial, with the noble contempt of vain embellishments, which showed he was not building a monument to himself, but seeking the honour of his Saviour.”

And at this point he enters the caveat that is the source of this passage:

Mistake me not, my brethren: I am not speaking against learning in itself; it is a precious gift of God, and may be happily improved in the service of the gospel; but I will venture to say, in the spirit of the apostle Paul's writings in general, and of this passage in particular, Accursed be all that learning which sets itself in opposition to the cross of Christ! Accursed be all that learning which disguises or is ashamed of the cross of Christ! Accursed be all that learning which fills the room that is due to the cross of Christ! and once more, Accursed be all that learning which is not made subservient to the honour and glory of the cross of Christ!

As is my custom I have bolded the material that is reflected in the misquotation under consideration. (It will be noted that the first and third of Cox’s curses have Witherspoon’s first and fourth curses as their source; the second however is not parallel to either Witherspoon’s second or third. Go figure.) So, yeah, Witherspoon is indeed the source of the fake Madison quotation; the context mitigates the anti-intellectualism of it somewhat. But not much, no.

For my part, I am unenthusiastic about ideologies that would set limits on inquiry. I mean, I have nothing against the gospel per se; there are some nice things in it, considering that it was the product of a benighted and savage era. It is as straw compared to the work of Aristotle or Archimedes, and less useful than the advice of Sun Tzu, but it has its points. When used to impede the advance of knowledge, however, I will venture to say in no uncertain terms, Accursed be all that learning that limits itself to the cross of Christ! Accursed be all that learning that exists only to exalt the cross of Christ! Accursed be all that learning that erases knowledge for the cross of Christ! and once more, Accursed be all that learning that is made subservient to the honour and glory of the cross of Christ! Such “learning” is unworthy the efforts of the minds that wasted their abilities on it, loving the darkness rather than shining their lamps into the shadowed corners of the cosmos to see what really was there. It’s akin to those lawyers who would rob orphans of an education if that education didn’t include their particular unsubstantiated pet notions.

Still, at least the reverend John Witherspoon had a mind, and made what appears to be a sincere effort to come to grips with the meaning of his text. Today's Christ-mongers are too busy selling a product to worry about such niceties. Manufacturing appropriate quotations and rewriting constitutions to suit their theological fancies are more their speed. Research is hard. Why do it, if you can just make things up? Use your ellipses as scissors and your brackets as paste and you can make anybody say anything you like. It's not like people have access to repositories of documents they can visit, or even conjure up in their own homes if they have an internet connection. No, they'll believe whatever you tell them. And trusting pastors with websites can be counted upon to spread your message.

And so with that I bid a fond farewell to this fantastic fungal growth in a remote corner of the online woods. I would suggest that the good Pastor Andrew needs to weed his garden a bit. There are a lot of tares mixed in with his wheat.

Guy Fawkes Day

W

hat little I know about Guy Fawkes is that he was a Catholic conspirator who plotted to blow up Parliament in 1605 or so, when the King’s Men were still performing at the Globe plays like Hamlet and Every Man in His Humor, and James I (of future King James Bible fame) was on the throne after the death of his distant relative Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry VIII. Fawkes got nowhere in his plot, because one of his co-conspirators took the precaution of warning a Catholic member of parliament to stay away, which kind of gave the show away. No doubt this is a sort of Drunk History version of events, in that I am writing from memory, without even bothering to consult Wikipedia or the like, but I don’t really care at the moment. I can’t write, I have no future, my books are in storage, and I’m paying more money a month than I make for the privilege of sleeping on somebody’s sofa in a basement. Historical accuracy on a throw-away entry is not exactly a high priority at the moment.

I’m not fond of terrorists, as a general rule, but I do have fond memories of Guy Fawkes—bonfires, fireworks, the smoke and sparks seen through an evening autumn mist. But these can’t be your memories (I hear you protest); you’re a goddamn American, born and bred in the fictitious nation of Cascadia. You wouldn’t have celebrated Guy Fawkes Day. What are you trying to pull?

And that is true, more or less. You see, what we were celebrating wasn’t so much Guy Fawkes Day, despite the bonfires and fireworks and burning in effigy (at least once)—it was a birthday. One of my brothers was born on 5 November. At some point—I think maybe it was when we got The Phoenix and the Carpet—we learned about this English holiday that happened to fall on my brother’s birthday, and as it seemed cool, we borrowed elements of it to enliven the festivities. We kept it up for years, actually, though eventually, like all good things, it came to an end.

There’s no point to this; I’m just typing words randomly in the hopes that they will somehow fall into pleasing patterns to lighten somebody’s day. Not mine, apparently—my light seems to have gone out for good. But somebody’s. When I started this I intended to somehow lead artfully to a cool piece by J. L. Bell about the end of Pope Night in Boston, but things veered off in an unexpected direction, so I’m just going to drag it in by main force. Go read that—it will entertain and enlighten. And maybe sometime in the future I will again have something to say. Right now I’m going to crash out on my rented couch, and hope that things look better when I wake up.

George Washington, Perpetuity, and the Young

T

oday went down the tubes in another futile attempt to locate the source of an alleged George Washington quotation, to this effect:

The perpetuity of this nation depends upon the moral and religious training of the young.

In the earliest appearance that I can find, Marion Lawrance’s 1916 Special Days in the Sunday School, it is already cited as a “famous quotation” and yet, for all its fame, earlier occurrences elude me. There are other forms of this saying about what the perpetuity of this nation depends on—the “religious education of the young”, for example—but none of them is even that old.

Looking at it from the other end I find from searching through George Washington’s works in print and the Library of Congress online collection of his papers that the general was not fond of the word perpetuity, using it only in the legal phrase “in perpetuity”, and he appears to have shown little or no interest in the moral or religious education of the young. The moral and/or religious education and/or training and/or instruction of the young seems to have been on intense interest to a number of people during the nineteenth century, especially during the latter half, but not to the father of his country. (I’m speaking here of the words, by the way, not necessarily the subject.)

Perpetuity is an odd word to have chosen here, anyway—isn’t a word like perpetuation more like what the author must have had in mind? I tried various combinations of synonyms, but without any luck.

The phrase “perpetuity of our nation” or the like seems to have been popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. As examples let me give you:

Edward P. Ingersoll, D.D. in 1881:  The perpetuity of our nation is guarded by the church. [“National Dangers and Guards,” in The Preacher and Homiletic Monthly, Volume 5 (Funk & Wagnalls, 1881) p. 78]

William Jennings Bryan in 1896: Our form of government recognizes the right of the States to do certain things, and the perpetuity of this nation depends as much upon respecting local self-government as it does upon recognizing national supremacy. [The First Battle: A Story of the Campaign of 1896 (W. B. Conkey Company, 1896), p. 519]

The mayor of Seattle in 1906: As has been well said, the perpetuity of our nation and institutions, and the welfare and happiness of our people, depend upon the intelligence of our citizenship. [Proceedings at the Opening of the Seattle Public Library Building, December 19, 1906 (Ivy Press, 1907, unnumbered page]

It seems curious that Washington should have so neatly anticipated a turn of phrase that would not become popular until a century had passed, and that that saying should not emerge until that very time. Honestly, it passeth belief. My strong suspicion, given this, is that this saying—who ever really said it—belongs to this era, rather than to the time of the founders.

I could be wrong. If anybody knows when and where George Washington said or wrote this thing, or what genuine words of Washington this saying paraphrases, or whatever the true story is, I would be quite interested in hearing from you. Write me—or post it at Wikiquote. Nothing depends on it—but I’d like to know.

Of a Dog, a Landslide, and a Speech

O

n this day in history (according to Wikipedia and the BBC) the Russians launched a dog into space in 1957, Lyndon Johnson beat the shit out of Barry Goldwater in a landslide election in 1964, and Richard Nixon called on the “Silent Majority” to support his war effort against a vocal minority who had the temerity to object to being shipped off as cannon-fodder in a “limited” war that never seemed to end.

What do these events have in common, other than the date? Probably nothing, except that each of them is something I actually remember, something that struck me about it at the time. Getting into space excited me as a child; I wanted to be part of it—but I felt sad for the sacrifice of the dog the Russians hurled into the great unknown. As a teenager the Goldwater-Johnson election was the first race that I felt I had a stake in; Goldwater terrified me with his plans to escalate a war in support of a corrupt government in a remote part of the world, and I was afraid his presidency would lead inevitably to a nuclear war. (I think I still have a drawing I did at the time showing the earth in rubble with the only intact artifact being a pro-Goldwater sign. And I’ve written before about the stark insanity of Nixon’s speech about how we, the American people, should sit down and shut up. It was none of our business how a war that might take our own lives (or the lives of our family-members or friends) was conducted. Nixon had a plan. A plan to get us out of that war Goldwater wanted so desperately to get us into. As a joke of the time had it, They said if I voted for Goldwater we’d be dropping bombs on Vietnam. Well I did, and we are.

Well, anyway, Laika, I drink to your memory.

Quotation of the Day

If all works of god are of infinite wonder, then the stars are amazing and transcend all knowledge of them as mere spheres of nuclear fire.

And so does Ebola. The same god that creates such beauty, also created the deadly diseases we fear.

Avicenna Last (A Rather Nice Story)

Hallowmas

Today, it appears, is Hallowmas, or All Saints’ Day, day 2 in the Tripartite celebration that is Allhallowtide, or more simply, the Hallowmas Season. It’s a time for remembering the dead, perhaps envying them. Conjuring the internet genii from the vasty deep I learn that hallow is one of our Germanic words for what our Latin side might term sacred. It comes from Old English halgian, which in turn descends from Proto-Germanic *haila-ga- (the * means that it is a reconstructed word, not actually found as a fossil entombed some inscription or folio somewhere). And in turn this came from the Proto-Indo-European *kailo-, meaning apparently something like boding well or the like. A hallow (noun) is a hallowed person, somebody sanctified, a saint. Hallowmas remembers the hallows, the saints, all of them—hence the name All Saints’ Day. It’s followed by All Souls Day.

This filler entry has been brought to you by Stage Fright, Writer’s Block, and the number 4.

Quotation of the Day

Atheism is completely meaningless if it means simply eradicating theistic beliefs without reducing the harm that generally follows in their wake.

Heina Dadabhoy
(LGBT Muslims: Past & Present Realities, Not “An Oxymoron”)

Happy Blasphemy Day!

Laws are made to protect and defend the people and to guarantee their full human rights and liberties. But this is not the case with blasphemy laws. These laws violate the right to freedom of religion or belief, the right to freedom of expression, the rights of minorities and ultimately the right to life. Blasphemy laws are weapons of religious oppression, persecution and discrimination. They target religious minorities including atheists, agnostics and freethinkers, religious apostates and dissenters. Blasphemy laws are used by religious extremists to justify and sanctify tyranny, hatred, intolerance, forced conversion, intimidation and violence. Blasphemy laws protect a religion or some religions from criticism at the expense of human rights and dignity.—Leo Igwe (Statement to the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights)

Things which corrupt moral sentiment, as obscene actions, prints and writings, and even gross instances of seduction, have, upon the same principle, been held indictable; and shall we form an exception in these particulars to the rest of the civilized world? No government among any of the polished nations of antiquity, and none of the institutions of modern Europe, (a single and monitory case excepted), ever hazarded such a bold experiment upon the solidity of the public morals, as to permit with impunity, and under the sanction of their tribunals, the general religion of the community to be openly insulted and defamed.—James Kent (People v. Ruggles)

There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not much better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigation into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws.—John Adams (Letter to Thomas Jefferson, 23 January 1825)

Truly I tell you, everything will be forgiven to the sons of humanity for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.—Jesus (Mark 3:28-29)

Blasphemy has been defined as speaking disrespectfully of my phemy; one does not observe among the followers of one faith any disposition to accord immunity from ridicule to the followers of another faith. The devoutest Christian can throw mud at Buddha without affecting his own good standing with the brethren; and if Mahomet were hanged in effigy from the cross of St. Paul's, Protestant Christianity would condemn the act merely as desecration of a sacred edifice.--Ambrose Bierce (The Dead Lion)

This law, reduced to its simplest terms, is this: 1. Whatever is sacred to the Christian must be held in reverence by everybody else; 2, whatever is sacred to the Hindu must be held in reverence by everybody else; 3, therefore, by consequence, logically, and indisputably, whatever is sacred to me must be held in reverence by everybody else.—Mark Twain (Is Shakespeare Dead?)

In fact, if truth be told, it would be simpler and quicker to say what is not blasphemy than it would be to give a complete account of what is. What’s not blasphemy? Ummmmmm…well to be honest that’s such a short list that there doesn’t seem to be anything on it. Let me put it this way – blasphemy is anything some pious group of thugs says it is at any particular moment when they want to shut people up by having them killed. It’s basically just any old thing; see? It’s whatever They say or do that We don’t like – that’s all.—Ophelia Benson (“Defining Blasphemy”)

Quotation of the Day

… the world has made moral progress, while the churches haven’t. Their clinging to cruel and archaic views, like demands for women’s subordination and intolerance of homosexuality, makes them seem like relics, outposts of prejudice that more and more people reject. Many of the largest denominations have taken a sharply conservative turn, driving out liberals and moderates and imposing litmus tests of political orthodoxy, which has only accelerated the decline.

Adam Lee (The Coming Secular Era)

Waiting vs. Hustling

Today’s question comes from a reader on a planet circling Arcturus, as far as I can tell. The truth is, I’ve lost my reference, so he or she may as well have come from some distant part of the galaxy. Anyway, our Arcturian wants to know when and where did Abraham Lincoln say “Good things may come to those who wait, but only what’s left behind by those who hustle.”

It’s a good question, I guess. I’m not familiar with the saying, actually, but I’ll take a stab at it. I mean, I know it’s a twist on that old saw that says “All things come to him who waits”, but I don’t think I’ve ever run into the bit about hustling. Come to think of it, it’s kind of a wretched proverb, extolling pushy behavior by those disinclined to wait their turns. All things come to him who gets there first, and to hell with fairness, sharing, and all that crap. With an attitude like that, why bother with civilization?

I doubt very much that Abraham Lincoln ever said it. It doesn’t sound like him. It does sound like something somebody might say—if that somebody was alive at the very end of the nineteenth century or early in the twentieth. (Abraham Lincoln, for the history-challenged, was assassinated at the end of the Civil War.) The word “hustle” is the giveaway. I suppose it could have been used in this sense in Lincoln’s time, but I didn’t find any example of it. “Hustle” (in this sense) belongs to the era of Teddy Roosevelt, Carnegie and Rockefeller, Horatio Alger and Edward Stratemeyer. The time when wake-awake bright-eyed young lads full of grit and drive set out to pull themselves out of the gutter by their own bootstraps, maybe with the aid of some wealthy elderly gentleman whose runaway horse they stopped before his coach got smashed to flinders.

Those guys were full of hustle; it was like a watchword for them. And in fact the earliest version of this saying I could find in an all-too-casual search appeared in the December 1895 issue of Railway and Locomotive Engineering, p. 772, as part of a reply to a railroad worker concerned about the rights of workers:

I believe, however, that our employers, if left free to act, will fittingly recognize all of us according to the measure of our faithfulness and capacity. I do not see how they can do otherwise. Industry and study surely make the road to preferment. When we do not progress as fast as we think we should, more and better work is generally necessary. There is no other way to succeed.

The length of time we have served and the fidelity that has characterized our service will influence (and very properly) our advancement.

A hundred men may start in the railroad service to-day, all on an equality. Ten years’ service, and what then? You will no doubt find ten, or less, of them near or at the top round of the ladder. The balance of the hundred will, in all probability, be about where they started or out of a job, quarreling among themselves as to the most deserving or who has been most sadly treated by Dame Fortune. The boys high up on the ladder, who carefully guarded the interest of those they served, who depended upon themselves and their own effort, have nothing to regret. The balance of the gang at the bottom of the ladder, who sought success by an easier and shorter road, will no doubt all agree that they “have a kick coming.” Have they?

A little time, my friend, will tell the story. In the meantime, remember that all things come to those who “hustle” while they wait.

And in an April 1897 issue of The Insurance Economist (p. 17) we read the following:

All things come to those who wait, is an ancient and much quoted proverb. But for our part we prefer the one which we've seen hanging in General Manager Moss's office (which, by the way, he lives up to), which says: “All things come to those who hustle while they wait.” This latter motto is more suited to the spirit of our age than the first, and the man who follows it is pretty sure to “get there,” whereas there are doubts about the other one.

The modification that presents it in a form like “Things may come to those who wait, but only the things left by those who hustle” seems to be much more modern—the only examples Google Books produced were from the twenty-first century—but the sense is much the same, and the derivation apparent.

Personally I doubt that Lincoln could have said it for another reason—are there any grounds for believing that the old saw about all things coming to him who waits was even around in his time? I mean, obviously, it could have been. But the only examples of it I see cited (at least in English) come from the 1870s and 1880s. It appears in an 1880 short story by Susan Coolidge (“The Boy and the Giant”, St. Nicholas Magazine, May 1880), for example, as “’All things come to him who waits,’ says the old proverb”, and as “All things come to those who wait” in an 1872 poem by “Violet Fane”. But the oldest use of it anybody cites is from the very year Lincoln died; it appears in the second volume of an 1865 novel by Annie Hall Cudlip entitled On Guard. It is part of a long passage of authorial comment on a character’s feelings:

We have probably all heard that the merry, merry sunshine makes the heart so gay. It is an axiom that has been set to music, and harmony always imparts an appearance of truth to a statement. When the sentiment is trilled out by a songstress in satin under a glaring gaselier, it naturally strikes us as veracious. The heat of the sun in the open—anything, anywhere!—is sure to be regarded as enviable, even as gaiety provoking, when our heads are throbbing from artificial heat, strongly impregnated with patchouli.

But there are certain conditions of mind when the merry, merry sunshine stabs rather than soothes. When we are unappreciated, unsuccessful, uncared for. When the light of love has gleamed over us, and for some reason gleams over us no longer. When the present is very dark and dull, and there seems to be nothing better in store. When all the hopes we ever had, lowly as they may have been, are fading fast. When the sense of our own inability is upon us crushingly, and we perceive the wounding truth that we are powerless of ourselves to help ourselves. When we feel left behind—not alone that, but trampled down by Fate, against whom we sulkily acknowledge that it is useless to struggle. When any or all of these things are, how terrible is the sunshine!

I suppose that we have all felt the terror of it—all of us, at least, who have temporal hopes, fears, and aspirations beyond the day. The brightness of it mocks, and the warmth of it burns us, and the glory of it irradiates each one but ourselves. We lose sight of the fact, that all these sensations are born of our own sense of defeat, perhaps—or of dyspepsia, or disappointment—therefore we do not look further back for causes, and discern that each one of these things is probably the offspring of incompetence, unworthiness, or—more likely still—of a weakness of will, a faltering of purpose which prevented our grasping and retaining firmly that which we desired to have. All things come to him who knows how to wait. All things are to be had by him who knows how to take.

Here it doesn’t appear in quotation marks, nor is there any reference to it being an old saw or well-known saying. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t—the whole passage reeks with cliché, and this could well be one of them. But if I weren’t specifically looking for those particular words, there is nothing about them that would make me think Annie Cudlip was quoting anybody else. All of which makes me wonder—is this the spring from which the trite river flows?

In any case, the many references to the saying in the 1870s and thereafter, and the complete absence of references before this make me wonder. Is it an old saying—or simply a passage from a novel that passed into proverb?

It is sometimes cited as a French proverb (Tout vient à qui sait attendre) as for example in this 1875 Punch cartoon. The French phrase is the title of the “Violet Fane” poem as well. Is there any evidence for a French connection?

Well, yes, there is. François Rabelais in his classic Fourth Book of Pantagruel (chapter XLVIII) has it in the form “Tout vient à poinct à qui peult attendre” meaning (more or less) everything comes to him who is able to wait. As the book was published in 1552 the saying clearly antedates Lincoln by some three centuries. At least in French.

I’m still dubious. Nobody cites any evidence to show that the saying circulated in English in Lincoln’s time—which is not the same thing as saying that no evidence exists. In any case there is no particular reason to suppose that Lincoln is responsible for the nineteenth-century twist on the saying, or for the twenty-first century take either. And I personally doubt that he ever said the original, either, though it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Something Sinister

Yesterday failed congressional candidate Matthew Burke found something sinister in President Obama’s hosting of the White House Iftar, an annual celebration for the past eighteen years. In a mere 280 words or so this “conservative” writer manages to cram more misinformation and outright lies than could be unpacked in an essay ten times the length. There’s probably a true word in there somewhere or other, but you’d be hard-pressed to find it.

All right, maybe the reverend Jeremiah Wright is or was an “(admitted) Marxist” as Matthew Burke claims; I don’t know, and Burke provided no citation for his assertion. Standard biographical sketches make no mention of this, so I’m dubious—but let it go. But it wasn’t Jeremiah Wright who said that Obama was “steeped in Islam” and “knew very little about Christianity” as far as the available record shows—it was Ed Klein, who was summarizing things he claimed Wright had told him in an interview. I don’t know how accurate Klein may have been in reporting Wright’s view—but the words are his, not Wright’s.

And again, Obama never “declared in 2008, completely on the wrong side of history, that America was no longer Christian.” Far from it. What he said was—and this is completely on the right side of history, so far—“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation—at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” As is well known, his original speech read “we are no longer just a Christian nation”; when he delivered it he accidentally omitted the word “just” and had to backtrack. He quite correctly noted that religious diversity (present since the founding) was growing in the United States, and that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and nonbelievers now have a substantial presence in the country. That’s a fact, by the way—not just the opinion of some self-described former Financial Advisor/Planner.

Yes, but the proper thing for the president of the United States to do is to merely tolerate Islam and other “legitimate religions” says this tea-party “writer”. The Father of our Country, George Washington, had a very different view: “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship,” he wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, on 18 August 1790, “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.” Ah, but what did he know? Who ya gonna to believe, America’s Founding Father, or some “Constitutional Conservative” with an anti-American axe to grind?

Oh, yeah, by the way—George Washington never said that line about it being impossible to govern without God and the Bible—it was some lawyer in 1893. You could have looked it up, Matthew—if you weren’t so busy making a goddamn jackass of yourself.

Rosie O'Donnell: Egotist or Asswipe?

I hear that we should be glad and rejoice that Rosie O’Donnell is returning to The View, and I might be joining in the happy celebrations if I had any idea who or what Rosie O’Donnell and The View are. I gather that Rosie O’Donnell is a liberal champion of LGBT causes, and that The View is a long-running morning talk show of some kind. These things I learn from that vast repository of all human knowledge, Wikipedia. My curiosity does not extend much further, alas. I no longer have a television, nor even a reliable internet connection, so I’m going to have to leave it at that.

What caused me to look them up is a story going around that a picture exists of O’Donnell posing with a dead hammerhead shark, an endangered species. I’ve never understood the mentality of people who entertain themselves by killing endangered species. I mean, I get the idea of enjoying a rare experience, and of having a trophy to show for it that few others in the world can aspire to, but really—it is a sort of monumental selfishness that mocks the sport itself. Killing an endangered organism reduces the likelihood that future practitioners of the sport will ever have the same experience. It puts ego above the good of the sport, the killer above the needs of the species. It is the action of, well, an asswipe, to use a term O’Donnell applied to a critic.

The Guy Was a Misogynist (guest post by Nick Sutton)

[My roommate posted this on Facebook and I’m totally stealing it]

What is eating me up inside these past couple days is that people can actually sit around and have, what seems to be, a legitimate conversation about whether or not a killer was a misogynist in a murder which he explicitly stated was carried out for misogynistic purposes. The fact that women were not the majority of those killed is irrelevant (he didn’t actually get in to the building where he planned to kill most of the women he was going to kill for one… But it doesn’t really matter, because the reasoning behind the murders was stated).

I mean, yeah… Guy was probably crazy, most mass murderers are, but when a white guy murders a number of black people, and leaves behind a tape saying “I’m gonna kill those N-gg-rs because…” we wouldn’t generally ask whether or not the man was a “genuine” racist, even if he killed white people because “they were talkin’ to n-gg-rs!” or some shit (Pardon my use of language but I am attempting to stress an important point).

The guy was a Misogynist. Period. He stated it clearly. He made it known to everyone. The very fact that we’re attempting to have a “legitimate” discussion about whether or not he was a Misogynist is seriously fucking insulting.

I see people trying to make this about gun control, about the state of mental health care and psychiatry in this country, and a growing number of people who seem to turn their backs on anyone who says that this might have to do with a young man’s ridiculously overblown opinion of himself and what he is entitled to… The man loathed women, he resented them, he held them in contempt. He was, by the very definition of the word a Misogynist and he states that what he did was being done because of that contempt.

Was he mentally ill? Yeah… Probably… But Probably every religious extremist who blows themselves up for their cause is insane, it doesn’t change the fact that the culture in which they lived somehow gave them the impression it was okay to blow themselves up and murder innocent people to get their point across.

It’s getting to me, and eating me up, that I see so many conversations on my Facebook feed with people being careful not to call a Misogynist a Misogynist because they’re afraid someone might think they’re a *Gasp* Feminist or something (yes the belief that Men and Women are equals and that women are not innately subservient to men is an insult in this country!).

Am I saying we should round up all the misogynists and burn them at the stake for this? No! Not even remotely… I am, however, saying, that we shouldn’t have to walk on our tiptoes around the subject of Misogyny when it is painted in bold letters right in front of our fucking faces, but we don’t want to because so many people are insisting that this has nothing to do with Misogyny and we don’t want to insult them… I mean he is part of an entire sub-culture dedicated to, essentially, hating women that I am just going to briefly mention here (though I could probably write a book length message about that topic too!).

I say fuck them! Or don’t fuck them… That’s why we’re in this situation in the first place right? Probably shouldn’t reward these assholes for shitty ass behavior to begin with. Sorry kiddos you don’t get to fuck everyone you want whenever you like in life… Fact of life… And it sucks ass, but it’s something you’ve gotta learn to live with at some point in your life.

The point is, YES HE WAS A MISOGYNIST, that is a fact. You can’t get around that fact. It was a defining characteristic of his person, it was something he openly displayed on his sleeve for all the world to see. If someone stands the fuck up and says “I am a racist and I hate black people because…” we don’t generally make the argument that they are not a racist… Because CLEARLY they fucking are! They might be insane to boot… But an Insane racist is still a racist, and an insane misogynist is still a misogynist.

That alone, should point out how truly sad a state equality between the genders in this country really is. It’s really, really, really fucking sad to me that this kind of situation is required to really shine a spotlight on it.

Terror

Okay, look, here’s what’s going on. I can’t write, I’m about a month and a half from being homeless, and I don’t know what’s going to happen next. Phantoms of future terrors are ripping the words from my mind and leaving me speechless. I can’t blame my inability to write on this, really—I’ve had entries I intended to make for the last two years, but nothing seems to work when I try to type the words on my keyboard. I’ve even tried writing on paper again, but the problem isn’t with the physical method; it’s with the part that happens behind the eyes.

Quotation of the Day

“Political Correctness” is a catchphrase which today means one of two things. The first is, “I have done no substantial thinking on this topic in at least twenty years and therefore anything I say past this point cannot be treated with any seriousness.” The second is “It is more important for me to continue my ingrained bigotry than it is for you not to be denigrated or offended by my bigotry, because I am lazy and do not wish to be bothered.” If in fact you do not intend to convey either of these two things, you should not use, nor sign on to a document which uses, the phrase “political correctness.”

John Scalzi (“Ten Things About Petitions and Freedom of Speech”)

Washington’s Birthday Reading: from Lost Diaries by Maurice Baring

[Maurice Baring imagines what a passage from George Washington’s schoolboy diary might have looked like]

Bridges Creek, 1744, September 20.—My mother has at last consented to let me go to school. I had repeatedly made it quite plain to her that the private tuition hitherto accorded to me was inadequate; that I would be in danger of being outstripped in the race owing to insufficient groundwork. My mother, although very shrewd in some matters, was curiously obstinate on this point. She positively declined to let me attend the day-school, saying that she thought I knew quite enough for a boy of my age, and that it would be time enough for me to go to school when I was older. I quoted to her Tacitus’ powerful phrase about the insidious danger of indolence; how there is a charm in indolence—but let me taste the full pleasure of transcribing the noble original: “Subit quippe etiam ipsius inertiæ dulcedo: et invisa primo desidia postremo amatur”; but she only said that she did not understand Latin. This was scarcely an argument, as I translated it for her.

I cannot help thinking that there was sometimes an element of pose in Tacitus’ much-vaunted terseness.

September 29.—I went to school for the first time to-day. I confess I was disappointed. We are reading, in the Fourth Division, in which I was placed at my mother’s express request, Eutropius and Ovid; both very insipid writers. The boys are lamentably backward and show a deplorable lack of interest in the classics. The French master has an accent that leaves much to be desired, and he seems rather shaky about his past participles. However, all these things are but trifles. What I really resent is the gross injustice which seems to be the leading principle at this school—if school it can be called.

For instance, when the master asks a question, those boys who know the answer are told to hold up their hands. During the history lesson Henry VIII. was mentioned in connection with the religious quarrels of the sixteenth century, a question which, I confess, can but have small interest for any educated person at the present day. The master asked what British poet had written a play on the subject of Henry VIII. I, of course, held up my hand, and so did a boy called Jonas Pike. I was told to answer first, and I said that the play was in the main by Fletcher, with possible later interpolations. The usher, it is scarcely credible, said, “Go to the bottom of the form,” and when Jonas Pike was asked he replied, “Shakespeare,” and was told to go up one. This was, I consider, a monstrous piece of injustice.

During one of the intervals, which are only too frequent, between the lessons, the boys play a foolish game called “It,” in which even those who have no aptitude and still less inclination for this tedious form of horse-play, are compelled to take part. The game consists in one boy being named “it” (though why the neuter is used in this case instead of the obviously necessary masculine it is hard to see). He has to endeavour to touch one of the other boys, who in their turn do their best to evade him by running, and should he succeed in touching one of them, the boy who is touched becomes “it” ipso facto. It is all very tedious and silly. I was touched almost immediately, and when I said that I would willingly transfer the privilege of being touched to one of the other boys who were obviously eager to obtain it, one of the bigger boys (again Jonas Pike) gave me a sharp kick on the shin. I confess I was ruffled. I was perhaps to blame in what followed. I am, perhaps, inclined to forget at times that Providence has made me physically strong. I retaliated with more insistence than I intended, and in the undignified scuffle which ensued Jonas Pike twisted his ankle. He had to be supported home. When questioned as to the cause of the accident I regret to say he told a deliberate falsehood. He said he had slipped on the ladder in the gymnasium. I felt it my duty to inform the head-master of the indirect and unwilling part I had played in the matter.

The head master, who is positively unable to perceive the importance of plain-speaking, said, “I suppose you mean you did it.” I answered, “No, sir; I was the resisting but not the passive agent in an unwarrantable assault.” The result was I was told to stay in during the afternoon and copy out the First Eclogue of Virgil. It is characteristic of the head master to choose a feeble Eclogue of Virgil instead of one of the admirable Georgics. Jonas Pike is to be flogged, as soon as his foot is well, for his untruthfulness.

This, my first experience of school life, is not very hopeful.

October 10.—The routine of the life here seems to me more and more meaningless. The work is to me child’s play; and indeed chiefly consists in checking the inaccuracies of the ushers. They show no gratitude to me—indeed, sometimes the reverse of gratitude.

One day, in the English class, one of the ushers grossly misquoted Pope. He said, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” I held up my hand and asked if the line was not rather “A little learning is a dangerous thing,” adding that Pope would scarcely have thought a little knowledge to be dangerous, since all knowledge is valuable. The usher tried to evade the point by a joke, which betrayed gross theological ignorance. He said: “All Popes are not infallible.”

One of the boys brought into school a foolish toy—a gutta-percha snake that contracts under pressure and expands when released, with a whistling screech.

Jonas Pike, who is the most ignorant as well as the most ill-mannered of all the boys, suggested that the snake should be put into the French master’s locker, in which he keeps the exercises for the week. The key of the locker is left in charge of the top boy of the class, who, I say it in all modesty, is myself. Presently another boy, Hudson by name, asked me for the key. I gave it to him, and he handed it to Pike, who inserted the snake in the locker. When the French master opened the locker the snake flew in his face. He asked me if I had had any hand in the matter. I answered that I had not touched the snake. He asked me if I had opened the locker; I, of course, said “No.” Questioned further as to how the snake could have got there, I admitted having lent the key to Hudson, ignorant of any ulterior purpose. In spite of this I was obliged, in company with Pike and Hudson, to copy out some entirely old-fashioned and meaningless exercises in syntax.

October 13.—A pretty little episode happened at home to-day. The gardener’s boy asked me if he might try his new axe on the old cherry-tree, which I have often vainly urged mother to cut down. I said, “By all means.” It appears that he misunderstood me and cut down the tree. My mother was about to send him away, but I went straight to her and said I would take the entire responsibility for the loss of the tree on myself, as I had always openly advocated its removal and that the gardener’s boy was well aware of my views on the subject. My mother was so much touched at my straightforwardness that she gave me some candy, a refreshment to which I am still partial. Would that the ushers at school could share her fine discrimination, her sound judgment, and her appreciation of character.

Quotation of the Day

…if you believe in freedom of expression of some people, but not of all people— you do NOT believe in freedom of expression at all.

Taslima Nasreen (“Misogynistic book fair committee…”)

Xmas Reading: On the Theophany, by Gregory of Nazianzus

[St. Gregory of Nazianzuz was Archbishop of Constantinople during the fourth century; his feast day is 2 January]

Christ is Born, glorify ye Him. Christ from heaven, go ye out to meet Him. Christ on earth; be ye exalted. Sing unto the Lord all the whole earth; and that I may join both in one word, Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad, for Him Who is of heaven and then of earth. Christ in the flesh, rejoice with trembling and with joy; with trembling because of your sins, with joy because of your hope. Christ of a Virgin; O ye Matrons live as Virgins, that ye may be Mothers of Christ. Who doth not worship Him That is from the beginning? Who doth not glorify Him That is the Last?

Again the darkness is past; again Light is made; again Egypt is punished with darkness; again Israel is enlightened by a pillar. The people that sat in the darkness of ignorance, let it see the Great Light of full knowledge. Old things are passed away, behold all things are become new. The letter gives way, the Spirit comes to the front. The shadows flee away, the Truth comes in upon them. Melchisedec is concluded. He that was without Mother becomes without Father (without Mother of His former state, without Father of His second). The laws of nature are upset; the world above must be filled. Christ commands it, let us not set ourselves against Him. O clap your hands together all ye people, because unto us a Child is born, and a Son given unto us, Whose Government is upon His shoulder (for with the Cross it is raised up), and His Name is called The Angel of the Great Counsel of the Father. Let John cry, Prepare ye the way of the Lord: I too will cry the power of this Day. He Who is not carnal is Incarnate; the Son of God becomes the Son of Man, Jesus Christ the Same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever. Let the Jews be offended, let the Greeks deride; let heretics talk till their tongues ache. Then shall they believe, when they see Him ascending up into heaven; and if not then, yet when they see Him coming out of heaven and sitting as Judge.

Of these on a future occasion; for the present the Festival is the Theophany or Birth-day, for it is called both, two titles being given to the one thing. For God was manifested to man by birth. On the one hand Being, and eternally Being, of the Eternal Being, above cause and word, for there was no word before The Word; and on the other hand for our sakes also Becoming, that He Who gives us our being might also give us our Well-being, or rather might restore us by His Incarnation, when we had by wickedness fallen from wellbeing. The name Theophany is given to it in reference to the Manifestation, and that of Birthday in respect of His Birth.

This is our present Festival; it is this which we are celebrating to-day, the Coming of God to Man, that we might go forth, or rather (for this is the more proper expression) that we might go back to God-that putting off the old man, we might put on the New; and that as we died in Adam, so we might live in Christ, being born with Christ and crucified with Him and buried with Him and rising with Him. For I must undergo the beautiful conversion, and as the painful succeeded the more blissful, so must the more blissful come out of the painful. For where sin abounded Grace did much more abound; and if a taste condemned us, how much more doth the Passion of Christ justify us? Therefore let us keep the Feast, not after the manner of a heathen festival, but after a godly sort; not after the way of the world, but in a fashion above the world; not as our own but as belonging to Him Who is ours, or rather as our Master’s; not as of weakness, but as of healing; not as of creation, but of re-creation.

And how shall this be? Let us not adorn our porches, nor arrange dances, nor decorate the streets; let us not feast the eye, nor enchant the ear with music, nor enervate the nostrils with perfume, nor prostitute the taste, nor indulge the touch, those roads that are so prone to evil and entrances for sin; let us not be effeminate in clothing soft and flowing, whose beauty consists in its uselessness, nor with the glittering of gems or the sheen of gold or the tricks of colour, belying the beauty of nature, and invented to do despite unto the image of God; Not in rioting and drunkenness, with which are mingled, I know well, chambering and wantonness, since the lessons which evil teachers give are evil; or rather the harvests of worthless seeds are worthless. Let us not set up high beds of leaves, making tabernacles for the belly of what belongs to debauchery. Let us not appraise the bouquet of wines, the kickshaws of cooks, the great expense of unguents. Let not sea and land bring us as a gift their precious dung, for it is thus that I have learnt to estimate luxury; and let us not strive to outdo each other in intemperance (for to my mind every superfluity is intemperance, and all which is beyond absolute need),-and this while others are hungry and in want, who are made of the same clay and in the same manner.

Let us leave all these to the Greeks and to the pomps and festivals of the Greeks, who call by the name of gods beings who rejoice in the reek of sacrifices, and who consistently worship with their belly; evil inventors and worshippers of evil demons. But we, the Object of whose adoration is the Word, if we must in some way have luxury, let us seek it in word, and in the Divine Law, and in histories; especially such as are the origin of this Feast; that our luxury may be akin to and not far removed from Him Who hath called us together. Or do you desire (for to-day I am your entertainer) that I should set before you, my good Guests, the story of these things as abundantly and as nobly as I can, that ye may know how a foreigner can feed the natives of the land, and a rustic the people of the town, and one who cares not for luxury those who delight in it, and one who is poor and homeless those who are eminent for wealth?

We will begin from this point; and let me ask of you who delight in such matters to cleanse you mind and your ears and your thoughts, since our discourse is to be of God and Divine; that when you depart, you may have had the enjoyment of delights that really fade not away. And this same discourse shall be at once both very full and very concise, that you may neither be displeased at its deficiencies, nor find it unpleasant through satiety.

…

Now then I pray you accept His Conception, and leap before Him; if not like John from the womb, yet like David, because of the resting of the Ark. Revere the enrolment on account of which thou wast written in heaven, and adore the Birth by which thou wast loosed from the chains of thy birth, and honour little Bethlehem, which hath led thee back to Paradise; and worship the manger through which thou, being without sense, wast fed by the Word. Know as Isaiah bids thee, thine Owner, like the ox, and like the ass thy Master's crib; if thou be one of those who are pure and lawful food, and who chew the cud of the word and are fit for sacrifice. Or if thou art one of those who are as yet unclean and uneatable and unfit for sacrifice, and of the gentile portion, run with the Star, and bear thy Gifts with the Magi, gold and frankincense and myrrh, as to a King, and to God, and to One Who is dead for thee. With Shepherds glorify Him; with Angels join in chorus; with Archangels sing hymns. Let this Festival be common to the powers in heaven and to the powers upon earth. For I am persuaded that the Heavenly Hosts join in our exultation and keep high Festival with us to-day … because they love men, and they love God just like those whom David introduces after the Passion ascending with Christ and coming to meet Him, and bidding one another to lift up the gates.

One thing connected with the Birth of Christ I would have you hate … the murder of the infants by Herod. Or rather you must venerate this too, the Sacrifice of the same age as Christ, slain before the Offering of the New Victim. If He flees into Egypt, joyfully become a companion of His exile. It is a grand thing to share the exile of the persecuted Christ. If He tarry long in Egypt, call Him out of Egypt by a reverent worship of Him there. Travel without fault through every stage and faculty of the Life of Christ. Be purified; be circumcised; strip off the veil which has covered thee from thy birth. After this teach in the Temple, and drive out the sacrilegious traders. Submit to be stoned if need be, for well I wot thou shalt be hidden from those who cast the stones; thou shalt escape even through the midst of them, like God. If thou be brought before Herod, answer not for the most part. He will respect thy silence more than most people's long speeches. If thou be scourged, ask for what they leave out. Taste gall for the taste's sake; drink vinegar; seek for spittings; accept blows, be crowned with thorns, that is, with the hardness of the godly life; put on the purple robe, take the reed in hand, and receive mock worship from those who mock at the truth; lastly, be crucified with Him, and share His Death and Burial gladly, that thou mayest rise with Him, and be glorified with Him and reign with Him. Look at and be looked at by the Great God, Who in Trinity is worshipped and glorified, and Whom we declare to be now set forth as clearly before you as the chains of our flesh allow, in Jesus Christ our Lord, to Whom be the glory for ever.

Amen.

[the opening and closing of Oration XXXVIII, c380]

Quotation of the Day

You cannot call yourself pro-liberty, even including the word in your name, if you are unwilling to recognize that the greatest oppressive force opposing freedom in America is unregulated greed. Libertarianism is a philosophy for the well-off, the privileged, and those who dream someday of being a wealthy boss with power over the peons. When capital is the measure of success, those who have it thrive at the expense of those who don’t; when we don’t have redistribution of wealth, we do not have equality of opportunity.

The US is already a libertarian paradise, and look what it gets us: a widening gap between rich and poor, a rotting infrastructure as the exploiters look for short term gains while neglecting services vital to those who can’t afford a limousine service, a corrupt and decadent privileged class, and thriving new political parties that are simply nuts. To use one of Ayn Rand’s favorite words, this country is infested with looters: only they’re not the poor, they’re not the mythical “welfare queens”, they’re bankers and obscenely overpaid executives and corporations that demand the right to buy elections.

And there stand the libertarians, the useful idiots who cheer them on.

P. Z. Myers (“So I Invented a New Law the Other Day”)

A Xmas Tale (repost)

[[Eight years ago I launched Rational Rant with this post. Here it is again.]]

I must have left the windows open last night, as I see that news from the outside has somehow blown in and is lying in drifts on the rug this Seventh Day of Xmas of the Two Thousand Fifth year of the Common Era. The Seventh Day of Xmas (for all you Xians out there) … let’s see, what is that? Seven geese a-laying? Seven swans a-swimming? I know it’s not seven rings; those went to Tolkein’s dwarf-kings. According to folklore these seven, uh, geese or swans or whatever—birds, anyway, yeah, these seven birds stand for the seven deadly virtues or something. The seven sacraments. The seven evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, George and Ringo? No, that can’t be right. The seven churches the Elder John wrote to in his Apocalypse? They stand for something, anyway. It’s all a sort of cipher. Let me tell you how it all came to pass.

You see, back in the old days of once upon a time after Good King Wenceslas was no more, there came a king who knew not X and the ways of the Lord. And he sent a decree to all the land forbidding the practice of Xianity in all its glory, except for the one festival of Xmas. And Xmas, he decreed, must be celebrated with no mention of X, except in the word Xmas itself. And all the people groaned, for they felt sore oppressed.

How can we teach our children the true meaning of Xmas? the people cried. How can we teach them of the four evangelists, the twelve apostles, the two testaments, and the one X Himself? How indeed can we keep Xianity alive?

And a wise man among them rose and said, “If Santa and Frosty can boldly go forth this Xmastide, and only X dare not show His face, then we must craft a mask for Him. Let it be made of the fluffiest of Xmas nonsense, the nose of Rudolph, the kiss of the mistletoe, the lights of the Holiday Tree. But that will be only the outer face; inside will be the apostles, the evangelists, and even X Himself!”

“But how can that be?” exclaimed all the Xians in unison.

“Well,” said the wise man, “let us consider the twelve points of the Apostles’ Creed, one for each of the twelve apostles. These are the points we must drum into the children. And what could be more exquisitely symbolic of these points than twelve drummers, each drumming away to beat the band?”

“Well, uh, maybe...” all the Xians said.

“And the eleven faithful disciples who carried the word to the eleven corners of the earth, are they not exactly like eleven pipers piping?”

And the people were silent, amazed by the words that came out of his mouth.

Now, somewhat nettled by the peoples’ refusal to understand, the wise man demanded of them, “Now, what about lords? What do they suggest to you?”

“The payment of taxes?” ventured one Xian cautiously.

“Loud drunken parties at night?” suggested another.

“No,” said the wise man impatiently, “Something to do with Xianity.”

“Our Lord and Savior Jesus X?” said another Xian.

“No no no no no,” said the wise man, “not at all. Lords, plural. Ten of them. Ten leaping lords.”

And there was a blank silence upon the crowd, and some began edging quietly away.

“The ten commandments,” said the wise man. “Do they not suggest the ten commandments, the lords of our conduct, leaping out like flames of fire to caution us?”

“Uh, yeah, okay,” said all the Xians in unison.

“Now think of ladies, nine of them, dancing—what do they suggest to you?”

“A Xmas ball!” exclaimed a Xian woman.

“No! Isn’t it obvious?” said the wise man, visibly striving to control his temper. “Nine ladies dancing are the nine fruits of the spirit.”

“The what?” exclaimed the crowd, and some of them left quickly by the back way, for they were beginning to feel sore oppressed again.

“The nine fruits of the spirit—look it up,” snapped the wise man. “It’s in Galatians 5:22-3: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance.”

“This is a key doctrine?” asked a Xian doubtfully.

“It’s in the good book, isn’t it?” replied the wise man.

“Now I get it,” called out one Xian. “When Rudolph and Frosty and Santa go forth, we will send with them twelve drummers and eleven pipers and ten lords and nine ladies to set forth the points of the apostles creed and the nine fruits of the spirit and they will drown them out with their noise and bedlam.”

And the wise man groaned and held his head, for now he was feeling sore oppressed. “No, I’m not suggesting street theater,” he said. “What I’m talking about is a simple Xmas song, a song we can teach the children, a song that only they will know embodies the most sacred principles of Xianity.”

“How would that work?” asked all the remaining Xians.

“Like this.” And the wise man found his pitch with a tuning fork and sang, “On the first day of Xmas, my true love gave to me, a partridge in a pear tree.”

“And this has a secret meaning the children will recognize?”

“Yes, of course. For the outsiders this will be an ordinary secular love between one man and one woman, but the children will know that it is the love of X for the Church.”

“And the partridge?”

“The partridge is obviously Jesus X Himself.”

“And the pipers will play this and the drummers drum along with it, and the lords and ladies will sing it?”

“No, they’re part of the song. There’s more.” Again the wise man sang, “On the second day of Xmas, my true love gave to me, two turtle-doves and a partridge in a pear tree.”

“Oh, I see!” exlaimed a Xian. “The dove represents the Holy Spirit, and there are two of them to represent the two descents of the Spirit, at X’s baptism and at Pentecost!”

“Seems to me,” said another, “the two doves could just as well represent the two shoes we put on every morning before going to work.”

“No,” said the wise man, “the two turtle-doves are obviously the Old and New Testaments.”

“And the partridge?”

“I told you, that’s X Himself.”

“But that was the partridge on the first day—this is a second partridge. Are you suggesting that there are two Xs?”

“The partridge is always Jesus X. Now,” and once again the wise man sang, “On the third day of Xmas my true love gave to me three French hens, two turtle-doves, and a partridge in a pear tree.”

“Are you calling the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost three French hens?” asked one Xian incredulously.

“No, the three French hens are faith, hope, and love, out of First Corinthians 13,” said the wise man.

“You know, we’re going to need a special underground school to teach the kids all of this.”

“On the fourth day of Xmas,” sang the wise man doggedly, “my true love gave to me four colly birds, three French hens, two turtle-doves, and a partridge in a pear tree.”

“And the four colly birds are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?” asked a Xian.

“Now you’re catching on,” said the wise man, and he sang again, “On the fifth day of Xmas my true love gave to me five golden rings, four colly birds, three French hens, two turtle-doves, and a partridge in a pear tree.”

“And the five golden rings are?”

“The five books of the Pentateuch.”

“Oh, of course,” said a Xian. “And we’re going to keep this up for twelve verses?”

“Exactly.”

“So what about six, seven, and eight?”

“Well, obviously, we’ll have eight maids a-milking to represent the eight beatitudes, seven swans a-swimming for the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, and six geese a-laying to stand in for the six days of creation. What could be simpler?”

“Well, maybe setting up underground schools to secretly teach the kids the true meaning of Xmas and Xianity without all these geese and drummers and partridges. And by the way, I still don’t get how all twelve partridges can stand for Jesus X.”

“The point is,” said the wise man, “that this simple seemingly-innocent Xmas song will help drum the true meaning of Xmas into the children’s heads, and thus save Xianity from oppression by the secular overlords.”

And so it came to pass that every year when Xmas came, the little children sang of the twelve days of Xmas, and none but they knew of the secret theological significance that lay inside the twenty-two pipers piping, the forty-two geese a-laying, or the twelve partridges in pear trees.