Für Madeleine Bunting - eine Meditation über Religion
by Jura Watchmaker, 7 September 2007
For Madeleine Bunting, a few lines by Heinrich Heine (1797–1856) on the absurdity of religion:
“Augen gab uns Gott ein Paar,
Dass wir schauen rein und klar;
Um zu glauben was wir lesen,
Wär ein Auge gnug gewesen.
Gott gab uns die Augen beide,
Dass wir schauen und begaffen
Wie er hübsch die Welt erschaffen
Zu des Menschen Augenweide;
Doch beim Gaffen in den Gassen
Sollen wir die Augen brauchen
Und uns dort nicht treten lassen
Auf die armen Hühneraugen,
Die uns ganz besonders plagen,
Wenn wir enge Stiefel tragen.”“Eyes we got from God, a pair,
So we’d see things straight and clear;
To believe the things we read,
Just one eye were all we’d need.
Two of them thus God supplies,
Thus to ogle, as He bade us,
At the pretty world He made us,
On which we may feast our eyes;
Yet, whilst ogling in the allies,
Just these eyes we ought to use,
For it pains the man who dallies
In those boots that so abuse
Corns, or “hen’s eyes” as we call them,
Such affliction must befall them.”
Taken from “Zur Teleologie” (On teleology) – translator unknown.
It was in Heine’s time that religion died its intellectual, moral and spiritual death. Since then it has been festering in the tomb, occasionally belching noxious gasses over a fragile and unstable Earth.
Meanwhile, 150 years after Heine’s passing, the BBC reports that Nepal’s state-run airline recently sacrificed two goats to appease a Hindu deity, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft. The blood offering was made to Akash Bhairab, the Hindu god of sky protection whose symbol adorns the Nepali airline’s fleet.
The company said that after the ceremony on the tarmac the plane successfully completed a flight to Hong Kong.
As for the English equivalent, I shall leave the penultimate words to CiF commenter “freepoland”, who asks us to pray for his beloved garden:
“O God our heavenly Father, who by thy gracious providence dost cause the former and the latter rain to descend upon the earth, that it may bring forth fruit for the use of man; We give thee humble thanks that it will please thee, in our great necessity, to send us at the last a joyful rain upon our inheritance (especially in postcode area NE65) and to refresh it when it was dry.”
And may the Prime Mover heap blessings aplenty upon the goodly Dr Dawkins.
Hat tip: Will
Addendum:
Never before have I caused so much trouble with other people’s words.
The above article was earlier today uploaded to the Comment is Free pseudo-blog. A couple of hours later I received an email from CiF editor Georgina Henry complaining about all the disparaging remarks on CiF about Madeleine Bunting. These, Henry says, are always from male bloggers and commenters, and my offering is in the same vein. Henry said that she would not allow publication of my latest piece, and went on to complain about all the name-calling, such as the now universal “Maddy of the Sorrows” coined by Norman Geras.
I’m quite happy to refer to Bunting as “Our Maddy of the Sorrows”. She is thoroughly deserving of the epithet, and the name chimes with many who react negatively to her naively postmodern and ill-informed take on religion. But you may have noticed that the offending words do not appear above.
When I pointed this out, Henry replied that my tone is sneery, belittling and patronising, and accused me of launching a sexist attack on Bunting. She also complained about my hat tip to Will.
Since then I’ve looked again and again at the text, and asked several other people to check it over. None think it sneery, belittling or patronising. Mocking, maybe, but so what? As Norm wrote to me earlier, this is a perfectly acceptable mode of public debate.
The accusation of sexism is silly. To prove her charge of sexism Henry would need to show that I do not similarly mock male writers. Readers of this blog, and my CiF offerings, will know that I’m an equal opportunities mocker.
The women who are “targeted” on CiF suffer this indignity because of the content of their columns. It does occasionally go over the top, but by and large the attacks are justified, and no professional comment journalist can justifiably complain when the poverty of their ideas and writing is exposed by vocal bloggers.
Anyway, after this afternoon’s email exchange I decided that I no longer wish to write for CiF. Of late I’ve not been publishing many articles there, and tend not to unless commissioned. Even then, however, it’s barely worth my while, and my NUJ branch is unhappy with the Guardian’s exploitation of professional writers published on CiF.
Bunting thoroughly deserved the kicking she received today from CiF commenters. Even Richard Dawkins intervened, and was quite snotty in his comments. I don’t blame him.
Comment is Free is to a large extent a wind-up forum, and that is to the benefit of the business. That is, the site encourages this style of writing and debate, and Guardian Media Ltd reap the rewards in terms of click-throughs and advertising revenue.
Keeping a lid on the inevitable excesses must be a challenge, but the editors are inconsistent in their actions, and I feel that in this case Henry’s judgement has been clouded by loyalty to a friend.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 21:33
Ah diddums Bunting. Surely Henry is sexist by suggesting Bunting can’t handle robust comment. I’m sure Germaine Greer wouldn’t want to be molly-coddled.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 22:15
Well said Eric — it’s the equivalent of treating all women as thick, incapable, delicate little flowers, liable to be clubbed, picked, or beaten without the protection of a strong man.
She’s spouting nothing more than ‘woman-as-victim stereotype’ bullshit — that is directly traceable to nineteenth century Victorian patriarchal attitudes reducing (bourgeois) women to inert ornaments, while also denying to women the creative power inherent in everyone! Henry, in effect, places women on a par with new-born infants or baby turtles.
Her attitude is also fucking absurdity taken to new-found heights of course.
Fuck all these trendy london metrosexual pissants and fuckwitted twats.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 22:25
For Henry, if she visits:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vfu0aV1dkHw
Friday 7 September 2007 at 22:42
“For Henry, if she visits”
I hope she does. I have some more choice words for the stupid fucking imbecile media tosspot.
Friday 7 September 2007 at 23:29
Cool it, Will.
I’ve never met Henry in person, but we’ve corresponded a fair bit, and she’s always seemed OK to me. Only in this case she is totally out of order, and this business has pissed me off big time. Hence the drama queen resignation from the CiF roster.
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 0:03
“Cool it, Will.”
No. I would need a reason other than opportunistic, pseudo-pragmatic ‘going along to get along’ bullshit in order to cool it. I don’t see any reason to cool it.
That stupid beyond belief, piece of ignorant london based (again) media fucking whore twat, has to be called out for the stupid fucking piece of ignorant pathetic and let’s face it, swine-like attitude towards women, she needs someone like me, to remind the numpty that her mate is fucking stupid and is an ignorant piece of filthy dopey crystal, and shiney polished pebble, putting in a glass dullwitted, soft in the head, slow fucking moron.
Do I make myself clear?
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 0:10
Will, will, will, will you leave me your computer in your will in case you will spontaneously combust?
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 0:11
Seems to be a witch hunt for sexism going on at CiF at the moment. I was just banned for making an incredibly mild, obviously ironic and throw away, sexist joke under this post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2161859,00.html
I literally just said: “Oh, you love it really!”
Boom - gone.
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 2:29
‘A couple of hours later I received an email from CiF editor Georgina Henry complaining about all the disparaging remarks on CiF about Madeleine Bunting.’
Nothing like a bit of censorship to keep the pseudo-liberals happy. Attacking stupidity is clearly in the same bracket as attacking religion for Henry and chums. I can’t believe that she’s never read the reaction to Bunglawala’s weekly Mullah’s corner twaddle. Surely no sensible person would ever bother to read the posts on their own CiF piece, still less get upset by them.
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 5:56
It’s all the more annoying because Bunting is quite willing to excuse hardline Islamist misogynists because they are misogynists as an act of faith.
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 18:13
I’ve noticed that CiF has now started pruning the comments in that discussion. This includes one of mine where I commended Richard Dawkins for replying to Bunting’s egregious misrepresentations. I cannot recall attacking Bunting personally only her ability to check facts.
Why do they treat her like she is a delicate and rare orchid that needs to be protected from the ravages of nature?
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 19:43
What did you do, CK, take the Lord’s name in vain?
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 20:18
Jura, to be honest I wish I had said something offensively witty so I could complain about CiF being deprived of an intelligent comment. Sadly my comment was merely an anodyne compliment to Dawkins and a mild reproach to Bunting which makes its removal all the more remarkable.
Saturday 8 September 2007 at 23:24
I made a complaint about ‘that’ Neil Clark article a coupla weeks ago and didn’t recieve any response. I forwarded it to Rusbridger, and also recieved no response.
Sunday 9 September 2007 at 8:25
He he… Hat tipping Will was a dead giveaway. And no, he will not spontaneously combust. My only argument with him (and the majority of British population) is that use of a female reproductive organ (see “twat” in this case) as a curse.
I mean, come on, people…
Sunday 9 September 2007 at 11:26
Twat = Pregnant stickleback (I think).
Sunday 9 September 2007 at 12:22
Comment from douglasclark in the CiF Bunting thread:
Monday 10 September 2007 at 0:04
“Twat = Pregnant stickleback (I think).”
Goldfish actualy.
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 4:19
Will: That stupid beyond belief, piece of ignorant london based (again) media fucking whore twat, has to be called out for the stupid fucking piece of ignorant pathetic and let’s face it, swine-like attitude towards women
Oh, the irony.
Francis, nice company you keep.
Wednesday 12 September 2007 at 5:50
… Not that ‘media whore’ - with or without intensifier - has ever been gender specific, and really I know perfectly well what what it actually means, but as a primo media whore myself, I’m going to be typically disingenuous and mendacious.