What are you reading tonight?

[Gary the Enfield]

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all raised Catholics.

Lets not chat shit, the world is just full of morons.

Yup, although I don't recall the Osmonds getting all genocidal on someone's ass!

[Lord Kangana]

[William the White]

I'm now up to 1870 in the Chronicle of the Most Holy City on Earth, and still enjoying...

The most comic - in a grisly way - of Sebag-Montefiore's Jerusalem - at least so far - is his account of Good Friday on 10 April, 1846. Unusually, given the different calendars used, both Orthodox and Latin Christianities coincided the date. Both demanded the right to celebrate first in the Church of the Sepulchre, and smuggled in pistols and daggers. The Orthodox won the race to get their altar cloth first on the altar, a major argument ensued, ending in violence whereby the church's crucifixes, candlesticks and lamps were used as weapons, followed by gunfire and stabbings, in a riot finally broken up by the (Moslem) Ottoman soldiers...

Forty dead...

Both sides claimed their dead as martyrs... Doubtless all going to different rooms in paradise for their services to the faith...

Can I just say this is in the book I am reading... Complaints about it not addressing atheists hitting each other should be directed to the author...

[TANGODANCER]

Whilst seeing such events as anything but comical, WTW, there's no denying they happen. Three major religions share posession rights in the Sepulchre building, and have designated areas. In the none too distant past one guy moved a chair on the roof in order to sit in the shade. He moved it a metre or so into another faction's area and kicked off a major fight that involved some twenty nine people being stabbed. How many died I know not (can't remember), but then again, it's very out of order to judge a whole religion by the actions of a few fanatical zealots. Accepting you are but reading/quoting a book, but God never stated any preferences of time of day for worship that I'm aware of, and Jesus even stated it isn't necessary to be seen to pray. Just makes the actions of men being of their choosing rather than Gods. People using religion and the word of God for their own ends; what else is new? It's been going on for time immemorial.

[William the White]

Whilst seeing such events as anything but comical, WTW, there's no denying they happen. Three major religions share posession rights in the Sepulchre building, and have designated areas. In the none too distant past one guy moved a chair on the roof in order to sit in the shade. He moved it a metre or so into another faction's area and kicked off a major fight that involved some twenty nine people being stabbed. How many died I know not (can't remember), but then again, it's very out of order to judge a whole religion by the actions of a few fanatical zealots. Accepting you are but reading/quoting a book, but God never stated any preferences of time of day for worship that I'm aware of, and Jesus even stated it isn't necessary to be seen to pray. Just makes the actions of men being of their choosing rather than Gods. People using religion and the word of God for their own ends; what else is new? It's been going on for time immemorial.

Just to say - i agree with that.

And wasn't doing it...

But, the 'few fanatical zealots' defence is pretty ropy, given the actual murderous history of Christianity as a historical human construct... Because that history is actually a political history, leading states, enforcing laws, burning 'heretics'... (And, I know, offering comfort to widows and saving infants from limbo...).

I post as someone interested in religion, who has just spent the last hour looking up the differences between Orthodox belief and Western Christianity - which the book I'm reading prompted me to do... And about which I was previously ignorant totally (and now nearly-totally, but improving)...

[TANGODANCER]

This is really the wrong thread for it ( Somebody should open a debating thread) but..

Fair comment WTW, but then, from your original comments, (which weren't) you're now opening up to include thebish's counter defence. If Christianity, indeed any religion, is to be blamed for history's atrocities, then they pale into some insignificance against those of the non-religious entities. I'll never argue that the word of God has been abused, misused and blatantly been exploited in the name of power, greed and man's lunacies, indeed I've already said that in this thread.

Balance the Christian ( and I use the word in its loosest sense) actions against the persecution the religion has itself suffered through the last two thousand years via the Romans, Muslims, Protestants etc etc. Good old Henry VIII burned down Catholic churches and killed priests and nuns by the hundreds in the cause of getting his own way whilst still proclaming to be a believer in God when his actions had nothing to do with God or religious beliefs at all.

If you want to delve into the Moors' invasion of Spain you might find (if historical records are to be believed) that it was originally caused by the rape of a young girl and nothing to do with religion. The Moors brought their own religion with them and thus that was another excuse to dominate and opress those who argued. One of the main reasons I can't understand the Moslem religion is that their "Heaven" is based on male dominance and the subserviance of women ( x number of virgins as a reward etc). There's no such thing in Christianity. The practise of harems also meant that inheritance of kingdoms became a hotbed of intrigue when too many sons, by different mothers, all claimed rights of rule and finished up with families killing each other in the cause of power and wealth. I'd recommend Mark Williams's The Story of Spain as a good start guide to begin understanding it.

Bottom line, religions are not really to blame for anything, and an excuse for many things. None of those things are very Godly in my eyes. A sword, spear, bullet or bomb has just the same effect whichever species of man is behind it.

[William the White]

You're right, this isn't the thread. My original post on what I was reading has led to a diversion I didn't intend.

Apologies.

I'll stop it now, respecting your opinion...

[William the White]

Anyway, current historical thinking throws politics and religion out of the window, and points to racism (racialism?) as the root of the majority of conflicts. Obviously, this includes The Holocaust and Armenian genocide, the Balkan Wars etc etc ad infinitum, but also when applied to, say, US foreign policy, it provides a very good answer as to why they have such a beligerent stance to say the ME (and by association Islam.).

Sorry - I missed this one... what sources are you using for this interesting idea, which is a new one to me?

[Dujon]

And there was me thinking that 'power' was the leading factor in conflict. Anything from megalomania through territorial to trade. Damn me it, seems that I'll never learn.

[Lord Kangana]

Anyway, current historical thinking throws politics and religion out of the window, and points to racism (racialism?) as the root of the majority of conflicts. Obviously, this includes The Holocaust and Armenian genocide, the Balkan Wars etc etc ad infinitum, but also when applied to, say, US foreign policy, it provides a very good answer as to why they have such a beligerent stance to say the ME (and by association Islam.).

Sorry - I missed this one... what sources are you using for this interesting idea, which is a new one to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This man specifically.

He has plenty of acolytes, though.

[William the White]

Anyway, current historical thinking throws politics and religion out of the window, and points to racism (racialism?) as the root of the majority of conflicts. Obviously, this includes The Holocaust and Armenian genocide, the Balkan Wars etc etc ad infinitum, but also when applied to, say, US foreign policy, it provides a very good answer as to why they have such a beligerent stance to say the ME (and by association Islam.).

Sorry - I missed this one... what sources are you using for this interesting idea, which is a new one to me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This man specifically.

He has plenty of acolytes, though.

Mmmm... Can't say the summaries of his work in that link made me feel he was anything other than another right wing revisionist being a very naughty boy...

Does he write English well?

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

currently engaged in helping write the new History schools curriculum for Gove so right wing - yes
Passably well- better than Schama who's also trying to put his tuppence in when it comes to defining what kids have to know

[Lord Kangana]

He writes an equal amount of shit and genius, like plenty of others. Some of his conclusions are of the kind of bizarreness only the right could come up with. But unlike, say, Starkey who's a nob both on and off the page, Ferguson is only a nob when speaking. Some of his conclusions really get the mind racing. Certainly his theory on racial motivation is compelling.

And I think Schama is his equal. Btw.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

His theories on the British Empire are half baked though

[bobo the clown]

Having finished the CJ Sansom (really vg), I read a Susanna Gregory called 'A Conspiracy of Violence'. Similar premise & style but set in the restoration period.

Now, changed tac and reading Pattie Boyd's autobiography 'Wonderful Today' Fascinating, if you are of a certain generation.

Finished this. Fascinating, for sure .... & an insight into Clapton & Harrison that was new to me. However, in the end I got irritated by her being a constant victim, always someone else's fault, 'life's a bitch while all I'm trying to do is be loving & loyal'.

The fact that she managed to have a cossetted life despite being a bear of very little brain and even less talent and cut a 'career' modeling and then various fads (photography, yoga, cookery, interior design, garden design) all based on her access to highly fashionable people due to her links wore me down. Clearly a pretty dim woman who did very nicely indeed and lived a life we could barely dream of.

Oddly, two specific phrases near the end summed it up for me ...
one ; referring to a car accident she had as a passenger where her & her friends injuries were explained because they weren't going far, so didn't wear a seat-belt. It was the sheer incredulity that this should be cause & effect. It reflected any number of mishaps which had befallen her ... which were due to her, or her friends stupidity, which were obviously linked, but she never, ever "got it"

&

two ; that when she decided she fancied an extention on the 'modest' (£340k in 1989) cottage Clapton had bought for her to live in (some time after their divorce) and she wrote to him to see if he'd spend another £40k on it. He didn't fancy doing that but GAVE her the house. So she "scimped and scraped" the extra £40k and "at last, I felt I had something to show for all my hard work".

That said, Mr Clapton in particular comes out of it pretty poorly.

Far for a literary masterpiece, but I'm just about to start on EC's biography now. It'll be interesting to see his version of this sort of stuff.

[William the White]

Have finally finished Jerusalem. Seems like it has taken forever. Was a Christmas present - and a good one. And now halfway through February...

Probably the most contended for city on earth by Moslems, Jews and several varieties of Christians - the book is well summarised by Antony Beever, writing in The Guardian:

A gripping account of war, betrayal, looting, rape, massacre, sadistic torture, fanaticism, feuds, persecution, corruption, hypocrisy and spirituality...

The Epilogue is the best bit of the book - reflective, calm, discursive in its conjectures about the future of the City, of Israel and Palestine, and best of all, its account of a morning now in the City, the same every morning, as the custodians of the three faiths (or the several custodians in the case of the Christians) get up to open their holy places and, in different ways, prepare for prayer on the dawn of a new day, to greet life and the one God, some version of which, in some way, they all believe, and who guides them on this day He has granted...

Here Montefiore finds a kind of fondness and tenderness for life in this extraordinary place that has been almost entirely missing before, and his language finds a poetic quality it has never before achieved. The book always held me, however sceptical i felt about its pretensions to historical writing, but those 22 pages, perfectly judged, made me think about the journey I'd made in reading this over the last six weeks. And made me feel it was worth it.

[TANGODANCER]

Have finally finished Jerusalem. Seems like it has taken forever. Was a Christmas present - and a good one. And now halfway through February...

Probably the most contended for city on earth by Moslems, Jews and several varieties of Christians - the book is well summarised by Antony Beever, writing in The Guardian:

A gripping account of war, betrayal, looting, rape, massacre, sadistic torture, fanaticism, feuds, persecution, corruption, hypocrisy and spirituality...

The Epilogue is the best bit of the book - reflective, calm, discursive in its conjectures about the future of the City, of Israel and Palestine, and best of all, its account of a morning now in the City, the same every morning, as the custodians of the three faiths (or the several custodians in the case of the Christians) get up to open their holy places and, in different ways, prepare for prayer on the dawn of a new day, to greet life and the one God, some version of which, in some way, they all believe, and who guides them on this day He has granted...

Here Montefiore finds a kind of fondness and tenderness for life in this extraordinary place that has been almost entirely missing before, and his language finds a poetic quality it has never before achieved. The book always held me, however sceptical i felt about its pretensions to historical writing, but those 22 pages, perfectly judged, made me think about the journey I'd made in reading this over the last six weeks. And made me feel it was worth it.

Despite having read many historical accounts of Jerusalem over many years, you've intruiged me enough to look for this book. I'll come back when I've read it.

[Dujon]

Here Montefiore finds a kind of fondness and tenderness for life in this extraordinary place that has been almost entirely missing before, and his language finds a poetic quality it has never before achieved. The book always held me, however sceptical i felt about its pretensions to historical writing, but those 22 pages, perfectly judged, made me think about the journey I'd made in reading this over the last six weeks. And made me feel it was worth it.

An odd sort of fondness, WtW. Surely to wax lyrical about a place in constant turmoil, hatred, intrigue and violence would be akin to writing of Pol Pot and his adherents as the guardians of the gates of Eden?

[William the White]

Here Montefiore finds a kind of fondness and tenderness for life in this extraordinary place that has been almost entirely missing before, and his language finds a poetic quality it has never before achieved. The book always held me, however sceptical i felt about its pretensions to historical writing, but those 22 pages, perfectly judged, made me think about the journey I'd made in reading this over the last six weeks. And made me feel it was worth it.

An odd sort of fondness, WtW. Surely to wax lyrical about a place in constant turmoil, hatred, intrigue and violence would be akin to writing of Pol Pot and his adherents as the guardians of the gates of Eden?

You would have to read Montefiore to judge whether he pulls it off successfully... Though, to take a stab, I think there is an absence of transcendence and spirituality in the writing of Pol Pot and his adherents. Which means no one is likely to write that kind of epilogue to him and his kind.

I'd also say Montefiore's epilogue is no kind of apologia for the bloodshed he has revealed in the several hundred preceding pages...

[Dujon]

I'll admit that I should read his work, WtW. I'll also admit that Pol Pot is not viewed usually as a spiritual sort of bloke - but then some of the goings-on in and about Jerusalem over the centuries were hardly spiritual either, although they may have been wrapped in some sort of religious packaging. I suppose that what I was getting at was the fact that an historian, pretentious or otherwise, could write about a subject which has so many anti-social facets and then turn around in an epilogue and sing its praises. Perhaps I won't understand until such time as I read him.