Samhain

Neo-pagans seem to be quite the jolly bunch: little in the way of dogmatics, a connection to natural living, a sense of the spiritual within the everyday; all-in-all, not a bad mix.
This week, while most of us will be doing something fun and/or unusual on Halloween, the neo-pagans (including those who follow the various practices of witchcraft) will be performing rituals celebrating the end of the year, chanting, acknowledging the closeness of the spirit and physical worlds - and having fun.
The four Witches' Sabbaths concern themselves with the movements of light and darkness in the yearly solar cycle. They correspond to the four seasons, coming mid-way between each season. Brigid falls on February 2 (or thereabouts; all days quoted here are approximate). On this day, witches burned the evergreen boughs they had placed in their houses on the Winter Solstice (December 21) to urge the return of the sun from its yearly bout with the forces of darkness. It was also the beginning of the planting season in the Mediterranean, where many of these customs originated.
Beltane, at the beginning of May, celebrates procreation; conceiving a child near this date means a birth in February, a time when there is little other work to be done in the fields. The bonfires on this day cause couples to celebrate sex and the beginning of life. The sun approaches its height, fields are producing food, and all is light and joyful.
Lammas, on August 1, warily greets the time of darkness. The busy harvest time occurs now; fields left fallow on purpose are gleaned for their herbs and seeds. People begin to preserve food for the Winter months.
And, then there is Samhain, the time where darkness takes over. Spirits of the Dead move closer to their living relatives and friends. People eat sweet foods in order to bring some joy into a time of coldness and darkness.
These four Sabbaths have less import to most modern communities, where subsistence is not a daily struggle. However, those neo-pagans who have some sort of gardens going are able to live their lives within the old ways, at least partially. They can watch the progress of the seasons and experience the interplay of life and death with a clear understanding that it is Nature's way. Their Creed, "Blessed be," finds fulfillment in the cycle of the year.
So, when the rest of us are dressed up as ghouls and goblins (MFoD is partial to ghouls), spare a few moments' thought for those for whom Halloween night is a sacred occasion. And know that your joy in the unusual, your bewilderment, is shared by them, and cherished by them as well.

Image: thephora.com

What is Jihad?

The Arabic term "jihad" is one of those words that has entered the ordinary lexicon. As with many words, it is used without much regard as to its original meanings and textures. Even the venerable Encyclopedia of Islam, published by E. J. Brill, identifies the term as "holy war." It goes on to explain exactly to whom the war is to be directed. The first target of such a war is oneself.
Originally, the words means "to strive," that is, to strive to be a good Muslim (or Jew, Christian, Buddhist, for that matter), and it is this meaning that all references to the term in Quran address. As such, the struggle occurs on the personal, spiritual, internal plain. For Muslims, this means keeping the Five Pillars (briefly: faith, prayer, alms, fasting and the hajj), and behaving in a proper manner. "Behaving in a proper manner" brings us to the five different types of deeds: necessary (the pillars), good, neutral, reprehensible but not sinful, and sinful. This is the basis of Muslim ethics, and ethical conduct. It is a wide-ranging list of ethical constructs, which is one of the reasons that Islam has been so successful throughout the centuries of its existence.
So, after one has striven with a degree of adeptness in the pillars and other behaviors, one must bring the striving person into the outside world. For most Muslims, the outside world is a Muslims society, and thus, filled with people who share the same concerns and strive within their own abilities. However, more and more Muslims live outside the Muslim world and come into contact with people of other ethnicities and faiths. Most of the time, the striving Muslim interacts smoothly with non-Muslims. However, human nature being what it is, there are occasional conflicts. This is when jihad is directed at other targets.
Muslim Law clearly states that, for those who actively oppose Islamic practice, that is, prevent a person from being a good Muslim, their blood is lawful. "Blood" can mean anything from a good tongue-lashing to, if necessary, armed combat.
In the modern world, jihad has come to mean only armed combat against anyone with whom the combatants disagree. Certainly, there are States that have curtailed Islamic behavior, such as forbidding participation in the hajj, or have supported regimes that have done the same. Such countries may be legitimate political targets. However, countries that have interfered in the political, social and cultural lives of Islamic countries (but leaving Islamic practice alone), are also targets. Unscrupulous Imams have re-tooled the term jihad to target such countries. Thus, the modern world is faced with dozens of militant cells that style themselves, "Islamic Jihad, seeking to strike fear in the hearts of the people they oppose.
Such a response to this ancient concept has cheapened the very heart of Islamic theology and practice. This is not to say that Muslims do not have legitimate gripes against powerful States, they certainly do. However, the use of jihad to condone mass-murder is just as bad as the use of the term "national Security" to do the same.
Solutions? Rapprochement is one. Don't hold your breath.

The Gay Bible

"Gay" here is used in its formerly-unique sense of "happy" as well as its newly-minted sense of, well, GAY. MFoD has become weary of those sorts who use this wonderful, but ancient text to "prove" the falsity of modern understandings of human sexuality. A fundamentalist approach to the Scriptures about the inappropriateness of homosexual behavior in Israelite society, which had been promised Land and Descendants, was, possibly all well-and-good when the nation was living on subsistence level in the Sinai desert. Today, however, with over six billion humans on the planet, it smacks of overkill.
The few texts in the Bible concerning homosexuality have been used as excuses to hurt and kill (both physically and spiritually) lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered folk for millennia. But, that's not the worst that has happened. No, indeed, the persecution of glbt people has caused untold pain for them, but even more pain for people who love the Bible itself.
Persecution has kept the Bible from being fabulous.
Just imagine what could happen if gay men got their hands on the Bible. The joyful texts, calling upon the people to clap their hands (properly manicured), strike their cymbals (glittery, shiny things, oooh, aaah) and dance (disco is not dead) would achieve unprecedented exposure in the hands of gay men. Lesbians would give new life to the texts, speaking eloquently about such spiritual powers as Ruth, Esther, Judith and Mary, cleaning away all of the veils that have been dropped over their heads throughout the centuries of patriarchal Christianity. Bisexuals would give us pause to appreciate Jonathan and David, and Jesus and John at the Last Supper. Transgendered people, living as they are the mystery of Spirit, could be our new shamans.
A few blogs ago, MFoD complained about dour Catholic clergymen. Biblical fundamentalists, for all their forced heartiness, are just as bad. All of these people have something in common: they need an enemy, a devil, an object to hate. Any use of the joyful Bible mocks them; love is the primary component of the Biblical message.
And, more than anything else, love proceeds joy.

Image credit: Wonder Boogie

Moon Sign

Saturday, October 13, was, for most of the Muslim world, the end of the Ramadan fast. "Most" refers to the means of ending the fast. While parts of the world have decided that October 13 was the most likely day for the month of Ramadan to end, many others needed a particular sign: the appearance of the crescent moon, the sign that begins and ends each Islamic month.
According to tradition, anyone who sees the crescent moon can call an end (or a beginning) to the fast. This goes from the poorest peasant to the grandest billionaire. Given the vagaries of weather, actually seeing the moon can be a challenge. Cloudy skies would mean that the fast would have to be extended for at least another day.
The Western world, especially New York with its boon of suspending alternate-side parking (a fond dream of all those who own cars, but not garage space), needs a firmer date, so there is a compromise based on the study of moon charts.
By now, surely, all Muslims have ended their fast, put up the sparkling lights that celebrate the Feast of Ramadan, and have ended the difficult fast. Their joy is multiplied because they have fasted faithfully in honor of the reception of the Holy Qur'an by the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
Islam follows a strict lunar calendar. So, next year, the ending of the fast will occur around September 1st or 2nd. Soon, the fast will once more occur during the longer days and hotter months of summer, and will be all-the-more challenging. Nonetheless, Muslims will keep the fast and enjoy the feast. It is their yearly response to Allah's gift of Qur'an.

Image credit: About.com

Politics and the Monastery

Recent news stories about Myanmar/Burma show large groups of monks leaving their solitude in order to protest against the policies of the government. Myanmar, as many of you know, was renamed by a military junta that overthrew the country's government some 18 years ago. They voided the results of an election that had named Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as the head of government. She has been held in house arrest on-and-off for most of their regime.
As military regimes go, this one is especially brutal. Deaf to all international outcry and sanctions, they have put the country into a strangle-hold, and resist any challenge to their authority, which, based as it is on weapons and intimidation, is impregnable by most of the usual means of fomenting political change.
However, as is often the case, it is the unusual means of change that gets noticed. Some weeks ago, Buddhist monks decided to take to the streets, lead public prayers and chant against the government. They refused to take alms from the people, thus cutting the people off from the gaining of merit, so important in their branch of Buddhism. They publicly exposed the sham of the government's desperate need to give the impression that they were accepted by the monks, thus legitimizing their rule. In a few demonstrations, these gentle, politically powerless men, have showed the world the impotence of brute force.
The government's response could have been predicted by a five-year-old: forced imprisonment, killing, increased intimidation and a blackout on all information in and out of the country. The military leaders hope that the world will soon forget. Alas, they are probably correct.
Monasticism, by definition, cuts itself off from the world. Buddhist monks and nuns are especially aware that the world is an illusion, and spend their time seeking enlightenment, or at least greater merit, in order to end the cycle of repeated deaths and rebirths. Why have they suddenly involved themselves in politics? The answer: the greatest of Buddhist virtues, compassion.
Even thought the world is an illusion, one's karma (the metaphysical accumulation of good and bad deeds) needs to be addressed. In this case, compassion drove entire monasteries to face the junta with the news that its karma is sadly negative, and that the military leaders ought to seek a better way. That's it; that's the whole message. For the Burmese people, however, it is a powerful message. For the military, it was a crashing defeat.
it is amazing how often we see that a gentle word is stronger than the might of an entire army.

Classical

To begin with a question fraught with heresy: Why does so much "religious" music by famous composers from the classical era not sound particularly "religious?" A terrible thought to entertain, but let's do so anyway.
First, definition: The "classical era," for purposes of this posting, lasts from the late 18th to the early 19th centuries. The famous composers in question: F. J. Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini, Cherubini and Schubert.
For MFoD, religious music must place one into a contemplative mood. Certainly, Chant from the various religious traditions (East and West) does it, as does the range from Medieval through to the Renaissance in the West, particularly the polyphony. Then, there is J. S. Bach, all of whose music, for MFoD, is religious. Things don't really become contemplative again until 20th century minimalism kicks in, Arvo Part being an important proponent of the mystical school, as is John Tavener (a bit too minimalist for some). There is also, perdona, "New Age" music, much of which may send one over to the other side.
But, most of the "religious" music of the "gang of six" listed above, sounds much like the rest of the music they wrote: brilliant, to be sure, able to allow one to transcend this earthly vale on many levels, but just not contemplative. Witness Mozart's "Epistle Sonatas," jaunty little pieces composed for strings, with a lightly-sketched organ part (upon which Mozart himself no doubt improvised), written to be performed during the silent reading of the Epistles during Masses celebrated by the liturgically brusque Archbishop Colloredo of Salzburg. They seem to belong more to the Viennese coffee-house than to the sanctuary. Even his moving, unfinished Requiem Mass is more terrifying than contemplative, especially with the perennial rumors about its shadowy commissioner and Mozart's untimely death. It is to Sarastro's arias in Die Zauberflote to which we must turn for the time-suspending quality that allows for contemplation. When one realizes that the opera was written for a music hall, well, the irony piles up, doesn't it?
Haydn's Muse was also genial. Die Shopfung, for example, is glorious and lyrical, as are his masses, but not conducive to otherworldly visions.
Schubert, Catholic by birth, but not at all a practitioner, wrote several quiet masses. It's perhaps to his lieder that we might look for contemplative elements. Here, the connection of poet, composer, singer and pianist offers intimacy, and, brief moments for introspection. However, given the genre, moments are all we are offered.
Rossini: Why even bother? His Petite Messe Sollenelle and Stabat Mater have all of the bustling good humor of his operas, and is scored for harmonium! The mass serves as a template for the Verdi Requiem, certainly one of that composer's greatest operas (and to a good text, too).
Beethoven's Missa Sollemnis is an essential composition. Yet, its symphonic texture invites us to attend, not to have an out-of-body experience. And, modern performance practices turn the violin obbligato of the Sanctus into a concertante. At one concert at Carnegie Hall, the fussy, diva-ish Concert Master of a renowned American orchestra set up a separate stand and took the music into display territory (MFoD will hear that orchestra play again when news of the CM's departure comes out).
Luigi Cherubini, sort of the forgotten "middle child" of this grouping, is the only one known primarily for his masses: two Requiems and other occasional masses. Here we have a clear intent of humbly composing for the mysteries of Faith. The requiems have no soloists, no opportunity for display (one is scored for men's chorus, bringing an unprecedented darkness to the entire score). The listener is thus left with music and text; Cherubini comes closer than the others to a sort of pseud-contemplativeness. Unfortunately, the music does not stand out in the company of the other five composers on the list.
No, contemplative music is not the forte of these giants (and demi-giants). A sign of their times, perhaps. Well, back to the 14th century, when the plague raged and polyphony ruled!

No Joy in Romeville

Well, here we all are at a Roman Catholic feast day. It doesn't matter which one, but let's make sure there are clerics and prelates galore, as well as deacons, acolytes choristers and an organist. Oh, the gold and silver liturgical vessels, the pure white altar linens, the opportunity to wear red! Then there is the cloud of incense teasing the nose and enveloping the sanctuary in a heavenly cloud (that also, like gauze placed before a movie camera, can hide those unsightly wrinkles). The bells ring, and the chorus sings something by Tallis, the 40-part motet preferably. The entire basilica is filled with joy and you so much want to join in.
Until you look at the faces.
What a dour, humorless, constipated bunch of faces those Catholic clergy have. They reflect, I don't know what: pique? indigestion? the weight of the Deposit of Faith? In almost any collection of Roman clerics in liturgical mode, one is most often reminded of the Seven Dwarfs, all of them Grumpy. You tend to get the feeling that all they want is to get this over with and return home for their lunch. The Pope does tend to smile in public a bit; one can only conclude that it appears as a clause in his contract.
Contrast this sight with most mainstream Protestant Churches, where a smile from the Ministry is almost taken for granted.
Really, what can the reason be for this frowning Church-full of men?
The unpleasantness of celibacy? If that is the reason, then they should leave and get married.
The recent sex scandals? Perhaps, but the Church's strongest reaction to them was to redouble its persecution of people who happened to be born homosexual. The very people whom, as the late John Boswell once said, "For 2,000 years have given joyful, faithful service to the Church," are now banned from seminary training and forced into a version of "don't ask, don't tell" in their local parishes, therefore dooming the Church to a dearth of priests who truly have the sense of style necessary to carry off the pink vestments of Gaudete Sunday. And, of course, most of the perpetrators of sexual misbehavior were heterosexual men.
Could it be the weight of the Deposit of Faith? The Faith ought to be carried joyfully as though it were as light as a feather, not bunched in a pack upon sagging shoulders.
Sadly, no answers, and no smiles.
If Anglican pomp is not your thing, well, thankfully there are plenty of incenses, plenty of fabulous clothing to wear, and and plenty of CD's for that Tallis motet. Just make sure you bring a smile, and share it, too.

Image courtesy of SXC.

Visiting NYC

Of the close to fifty million visitors that New York City receives each year, few have been as controversial as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA), the President of Iran, who had arrived for the United Nations (UN) week in late September. After being repulsed by the Police Department from visiting the World trade Center site, Columbia University invited him to speak, yet the university's President, Lee Bollinger, called him a "petty and cruel dictator." He attended George W. Bush's speech at the UN, but, at his speech, the US table had one person attending, an anonymous note-taker. Did MA deserve such rude treatment?
No, easy answers here. However, there us subtlety aplenty if one knows where to look: the realms of religion and politics.
In Islam, the two are inseparable; from the very beginning, the religion incorporated a political system. Being the leader of the only true Islamic Republic on earth, MA is, of course, well aware of this fact, as he is aware that other countries do not share this particular mix of religion and politics. Thus, in the various venues in which he found himself, MA, behaved in ways he felt were appropriate at that particular time.
At Columbia, being greeted with some hostility, MA responded in kind. He chided the US for its nuclear weapons, and denied that Iran had homosexuals, "like in the US." His comments on weaponry are the product of mere observation; his denial of homosexuals, as derided as it was, was also correct. Homosexuals abound in Iran, of course, but they are cruelly executed. The photos of two boys (16- and a 17-years-old) being hanged still haunts the memory. [Side bar: for a hilarious take on MA's comment and modern US politics, see the cover of the October 8 issue of The New Yorker]
The conspicuous absence of the US delegation at MA's speech has too many layers to address here. Suffice it to say that the US in 1979 received payback for their interference in Irani politics, and its support of the brutal regime of the Shah, by being embarrassed for 444 days during the hostage taking. Since then, Iran has been the Middle Eastern bogey-man, and the US continues to treat it as such, rejecting all attempts by the Iranians to talk. Granted, the letters sent recently by MA to the President were, from a US standpoint, a bit loopy, but MA was merely putting religion and politics together, as befits the leader of an Islamic State.
MA's third venue was the most telling: a meeting of religious leaders. Here, MA could drop the political role and concentrate on an attempt at dialogue with other religions. To all accounts, this meeting was civil and informative. There was no rude treatment, no harangues, no slighting, merely talk.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a stupid man; on the contrary, he is a bright and savvy world leader. He rightly demands to be treated as such during the UN meeting. He was not. US arrogance was on stage once again. One could hope that we might deal with the shame, but the shame does not even register.
Please make no mistake; MFoD does not relish MA's posturing, and certainly not his treatment of gay men. However, MFoD's petty personal concerns are not a part of this discussion. The US had an opportunity for rapprochement, and it let the opportunity slip through its fingers. Perhaps, this behavior will not make things worse. One may only hope.

Image credit: wikipedia.org