The right to insult

Yesterday night I watched a TV comedian who used a cross with the crucified Christ on it, to make jokes and mockeries about Him, which I will not describe here. At Christmas our queen Beatrix held her annual Christmas Speech in which she warned that there must be freedom of speech and religion, but that nobody had the right to insult. Well, what this "comedian" (Theo Maassen) did in his theatre, watched by thousands of people, was more insulting than the Danish cartoons made of Mohammed. His face near the cross reminded me of the ugly heads of the people who crucified Jesus in medieval paintings. He also plays a role in the movie "Zwartboek" ("Report of Bad Facts"), where he is one of the leaders of a mob that emptied a bucket full of shit over a girl suspected of having a relationship with a German military. These kinds of roles suit him better I think, than the role of a "comedian".

I wonder if there will be any protest actions or media scandals as a result of this, I don't think so. Dear muslims, can we swop: we get part of your anger, and you get part of our over-tolerance.

Above you see the pictures belonging to my last posting (see below) in reverse sequence, make it from "least grand" to "grandest" if one wants to attach a "grandeur-factor" to them. So the top is the skyline of Shanghai, then the buttplug-dwarf, then the bridge near the prison end as last but not least the art piece in front of our school's entrance. I still don't know why the picture-posting succeeded now and failed a couple of hours ago. I think I didn't have enoughh patience, sometimes it takes a little time before you see the picture appearing on your posting after you pressed the "done" button. This afternoon my computer is really slow, maybe because it's saturday afternoon.

By the way, I couldn't help respond to Caroline again, I hope we will have a great debate about the differences and similarities between the USA and Europe. These are topics that keep our minds busy. Read her comments. We both agree, I think, that our parliamentary democracies are first priority and that we have common religious roots. We (at this moment, at least) differ in the way how these values must be defended against jeopardizing threats such as fundamentalist Islam. I also believe that within our own cultures threats are also present: drugs, unlimited sex behaviour, drinking, loss of authority of parents and teachers over youngsters - educated or non-educated by these same parents and teachers, mutual offending under the cover of "freedom of speech", etc. These threats are used by outside-attackers of our democratic systems as proofs of the inferiority of Western culture. I think we agree on that.

Who wants to join us? Don't be afraid of clashing opinions, I "ended" my discussion but fortunately Caroline continued it. I am asking questions, I don't know the absolute answer. Caroline has made a point in saying that the Nazis didn't debate. What I want to say is that the Nazism as a system is the deepest bottom where a human can sink, but that we are not allowed to condemn people who fell that deeply, as humans I mean. Even Hitler was a human.My example of the soldier who stole food for a baby is to illustrate that many Dutchmen collaborating with the enemy were at least as deeply sunk as this soldier who was urged by his system to take part in it. The movie "Zwartboek" shows that some Dutchmen sunk deeper: their only aim was gaining profit by the holocaust, not bothering about anything else: human lives, helping or not helping the underground movement, helping or not helping the Germans, they simply manipulated these parties to gain dollars and jewels. What I also find is that one cannot compare the Nazis with the muslims as a whole, maybe some fundamentalist groups are comparable to fascist movements. The Nazis upgraded sadism and torturing to an "art", in a way I didn't notice yet with any Muslim movement. On the other hand, what I do know is that after W.W. II justified questions have been asked about the bombardments on Dresden and Hamburg, whether they really have been necessary for winning the war. The idea of Nazism, its ideology, is in itself criminal, it encourages ethnic cleansing formally, it is in itself full of lies and cheating, that's how a demonic war found its source. Islam is a religion with the intention to lead people in honesty and respect for each other, but, just as there are in the Bible, in the Koran there are places from which one can derive a mission to use violence against non-believers. It is a sad fact that it is a minority that lures young people to be "martyrs" in helping Allah, as if he would need any help! The problem is that the West attacking Muslim nations and "helping" Israel also helps these fascist movements. I am a friend of Israel, let it be well understood. But their almost desperate attempts to defend themselves and attack the "poor" Palestines is giving food to movements such as hamas and other West-hating movements in the Middle East. I hope it's not too late. I also regret the hanging of Sadam because it can all too easily be interpreted as a political trial. Or am I wrong?

The new clothes of the emperor or...?

( One way or another, the normal picture-posting procedure didn't work on my computer so I will show the belonging pictures maybe afterwards)

All of a sudden it was there… I knew they were busy repairing or renewing the bridge, but I never could imagine that it would become such a … thing. A thing, it stood there, irreversible, mocking, provoking: see me standing here! Behind it, the sad walls of a 18th-century building, I think the oldest prison building in the Netherlands, maybe in Europe. A prison can seldom be considered a monumental building from the past but this was certainly one that could be considered that way. It is still functioning as a prison, and carefully maintained and kept up to the newest requirements of a modern prison. But, as the artist/architect of the bridge maybe would have thought, we don’t live anymore in those times, now we have different forms and colours!

And also, all of a sudden, it was there, the construction, intended as a piece of art, in front of our school, the CHN (www.chn.nl) . At first, everybody discussed it, but it didn’t tell anything, it didn’t have interesting forms or didn’t try to communicate any meaning or whatever, it just stood there, provoking. All we knew was that it had been constructed meticulously to avoid damage by storms, although it seemed to be pasted together in a casual and accidental way, almost a product of a disastrous storm or earthquake itself.
There have been many art trends, especially since about 1850, that purposely tried to shock the audience. (This is a reason why Van Gogh died in poverty, and why he was despised during his stay in Arles, the same town that now boasts being the dwelling place of the painter). Remember Dada, the toilet piece of art by Marcel Duchamp, the screaming colours of the “fauves” (“wild beasts”), etc. Now that we live in 2006, many artists still try to shock but it won’t work anymore, but one way or another it raises questions.

The last example is from Rotterdam, where the City Council spent a huge amount of Euros to a statue depicted above: Dwarf Buttplug by Paul McCarthey.

The newest trend is “conceptual art”, but these constructions I show don’t belong to this school of art I think.
The problem with these forms of art or architecture is maybe what I would call the “New Clothes of the Emperor Effect”, from the fairytale by Hans Christian Andersen. There is an architect, an artist who produces a piece of work or presents some new style and he himself and an elite around him proclaim that “this is it, this symbolises…” and then a palaver of praising and philosophing thoughts and statements will follow. Everybody who want to belong to the chosen circles of arts-understanding people look at it seriously, they nod their heads and say: “yes, there is something in it, I think it’s great”.
Again: does art have to be aesthetic? If we think of “aesthetics” as “rules of being beautiful and/or evoking good thoughts and feelings within ourselves”, do we think, then, that art has to meet that criterium? What are the rules of art? And, more specifically, also concerning the public space? Because the public space belongs to all of us. Suppose I would have to pass the bridge near the prison every day to my workplace, is it justified to confront people like me with such controversial colours and forms? Is it justified to put a “debris”-construction in front of a school where every day hundreds of students (also from China and African countries) pass on their way to class or library?
Let me put it this way: the first feeling that comes up in me is anger. I really hate expressions of art like these. In my village a world famous architect used to live (he passed away recently): Abe Bonnema. He used to design buildings that are characterised by their simple forms: mainly square boxes, no frills and thrills, just like the Twin Towers. If we want to be modern, then take him as an example. What I also don’t understand, but simply “have to take” just as the melting down of the North Pole, is the trend in oil-states and Shanghai to put huge, very expensive, enormous, luxurious etc. buildings together. My little, ugly bridge near the prison is peanuts compared to these Kitsch-examples with wow-effect. What moves people, for heaven’s sake?

second thought

I got this comment from Caroline and I was kind of shocked, so I wrote immediately my response. Later I realized that I got caught in the trap of a discussion about fundamental beliefs. These discussions always end in mere yes-no statements. History and current media show that only open disussion with ears for each other's arguments can yield fruits. My blog is called today's questions. What I try is to ask questions and I don't need ultimate answers, especially not referring to Satan and its empire. I consider this discussion as ended and I hope Caroline will one day realize that whatever you believe, you should be open to other people's beliefs which is possible without "letting them be right" and giving up your own "being right".

Europe hating America?

Todays’ question is directly derived from this blog. One of the comments on “tell me a story” hoped that the Europeans didn’t hate the Americans that much, because one of them (me) remembered a German soldier bringing food to his mother when he was a baby, thus maybe forgetting the food droppings carried out by the Americans during the famine winter in Holland in 1944-1945. My question in response to this comment is: how come that some American lady would react like that? Not all Germans were beasts and we in Holland remember every year at 5 May the liberation thanks to the lion’s courage of American soldiers. But isn’t that special, a German soldier risking his life by bringing food to a hungry mother with her child? I think that the Americans, at least an important, mainstream group among them, suffers a bit from blindness for other views on the world than the U.S. as the most important country with grateful helped countries around them. Of course, the USA did many good things in the world. But if you compare the brave things they did in World War 2 with war efforts after that, one sees ungrateful “liberated” countries and failures, despite so many American lives. Europeans are grateful for their liberation from Hitler c.s., but that’s not the case with Vietnamese, Somalians, Iraqi people, people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Venezuela, etc. How come? Let’s try to analyse a bit. I think the American “mainstream” culture consists of two more or less contradictory tendencies: one is a strong emphasis on democracy and freedom of press and speech (originated from the same roots as the French Revolution which owed much to Freemasonry), the other one is a very straightforward and orthodox Christian evangelism (which owes much to immigrant believers, the “founding fathers”and their clergymen). Sometimes these tendencies clash, e.g. in the discussion about homosexuality, about whether or not evolution theory must be brought forward in education, about whether or not America has a mission in the world, etc. The protestant roots of mainstream culture are also manifest in the phenomenon that in human sciences such as sociology, economics, business sciences etc. there is always a “scientific branch” which follows the rules of modern science, and an “evangelist branch”. There is so much American literature that “preaches” how to improve this-and-that, how to grow, how to be the best, etc. We Europeans then look for research-arguments and for discussion, but this is often lacking. If you ask me for examples, I can give them but it would need too much space here. I only mention one, and that’s the Covey-hype. Covey is a management and individual-growth guru whose activities resemble very much the activities of Billy Graham . Take also for instance Americans following training courses: U-formed tables, and within the U the trainer walks his rounds, in shirt (to stress his dynamic personality), and every now and then bowing over a trainee, his fists on the table. Europeans find this intimidating. Also talkshows and TV programs reflect this need for “doing things better” or making confessions about a “sinful” and failed past life. (Ophra, Doctor whatshisname again, etc.).
In short, mainstream American culture doesn’t seem to bother much about other cultures, because theirs is superior they think. The USA refuses to take part in worldwide environmental care agreements (Tokyo), they don’t acknowledge international courts, and even threaten publicly (Bush’s administration) to invade Holland when an American will be held prison for the The Hague War Criminal’s Court of Justic": Americans just can't commit war crimes. They accuse also Europe that the USA has to do the dirty work when it comes to military action, without asking why Europe is not so greedy for foreign wars (just see how they work out), and ignoring UN-resolutions.
All this jeopardizes America’s role as “Europe’s big brother”, let alone America’s role in the rest of the world. The USA regret the postponements of Turkey’s EC membership, but what if Mexico would apply for membership of the USA?
In Holland we have a former soccerplayer, Johan Cruyff, who enriched our language with a new proverb: “Every advantage has its disadvantage”. So American culture seems to be superior, just because during decades they were the “promised Land” for so many immigrants, and still they fulfil a benefiting role in many areas in the worldwide arena. They are the most democratic country next to Great Britain, just because they had to come to terms with the mentioned two contrasting tendencies. Go to an anti-American activist in an Islamic country and offer him a job and a house in the U.S. Provided that he can bring some family with him, he will most certainly forget his anti-American feelings immediately. All humans, whether Euopean, American, etc. want to belong to a culture which they prefer for themselves as most desirable. Conflicts arise when people want to impose their culture on others. And that’s what mainstream American culture doesn’t want to see. It is extremely difficult to return on this path because of the thousands of Americans who fell in the wars for a better “more American-looking” world. But, as said by Cruyff, the world also owes much the USA: a democratic example, economic wealth because of their buying power, their hospitality as an immigrant country in the past which saved e.g. so many hungry Irish, their will to spend great amounts in scientific research, their movie-culture, literature, arts, music, etc. They were also victims of the t-word (which I don’t want to mention in a text readable for the whole world), on which they over-reacted by starting a dangerous war, feeding the criticisms every day more and more.

Another picture of Leeuwarden

Another picture of Old Leeuwarden.

Yesterday I saw on TV how Chinese youngsters in a regular 12 hours-a-day job played computergames for clients elsewhere in the world, to enable them to reach higher playing levels. I realized: this is a new market opportunity for many young people starting their career!

Clients all over the world:

- hire a football player instead of you, when your club MUST win.
- hire someone to go to the theatre, when you have to visit your mother-in-law's birthday party
- same as above, but reversed.
- hire someone to play for you in the casino (on no cure no paybasis).
- you hate board games at home? Don't disappoint your family, hire someone to play for you.
- you see a girl you want to invite for sailing etc. and you are shy? Hire someone else to do it.

Of course you can laugh at it, but in fact it's tragic. In Western countries it wouldn't be possible just because of the exploitation of the youngsters who make such long working days. Maybe the manufacturer of the games can develop programs to play the games for you, but if that were the case then they wouldn't sell them because level 10 would be a piece of cake not worth to boast on.

Tell me a story

Every now and then, I will publish a story I wrote for our school magazine, the CHNtimes (www.chn.nl). Underneath the first one.

I had a grandmother I had some problem with. I was raised in a Roman Catholic environment and our family followed the Roman Catholic Church rules. But she was, as we used to say in those days, “nothing”, which meant that she didn’t belong to any church. As a 10 year old boy I asked my mother how it could be that grandmother would never go to heaven: she didn’t pray and go to church, she never got any sacrament, but she was the greatest and most lovely woman I knew (apart from my mother, of course). Now that I am in my fifties, I gradually get able to combine these “contradictory” facts, by means of three books I recently read.

Last year I published in the CHNkrant an article about a book that gave evidence that Jesus was, in fact, Julius Caesar (book A, see below). This sounds as an irrational blasphemy, but when you read the book then you must admit that an overwhelming avalanche of evidence demonstrated the similarities between names, people, situations, symbols, stories etc. etc. on the one hand of Caesar’s life and on the other hand of Jesus’ life. About Caesar much eyewitness materials have been written. About Jesus, outside the gospels, there is nothing of that kind, so it was clear to the author that Jesus had been modelled according to Julius Caesar.

A second book, that I read but not wrote about, is book B (see below). In this book the author gives evidence of the finding that Jesus probably existed a long time before the time that the gospels place Him in. (approximately 100 B.C.) His story doesn’t clash with the “Jesus-is-Caesar” theory. A very important clue is, that the letters of Paul have been written (long) before the four gospels of Luke, Matthew, Marc and John have been written. From childhood on, I lived in the supposition that Paul evangelised after Jesus’ life, as it had been recorded by the gospel writers. The study of written materials and the content of Paul’s letters both proved that these letters are of far earlier date than the gospels. So, for instance, Paul doesn’t refer to any important gospel event other than Jesus’ death and resurrection, whereas Jesus spoke many wise words and did many miracles.

So these are the historical facts as they appear to us by historical research and content analysis of the sources. Much is open to uncertainty, and many stories seem to be otherwise than the gospels and Christian religion tell us. I found this a big problem, until I read a third book about Jesus: book C (see below).

The author of this book is a recognised scholar of the philosophical school of Turgenjev and Ouspensky. He makes it clear that there are two kinds of “truths” that are connected to each other: the historical, observable truth, and the “higher truth” by which the observable facts are sustained. We modern Westerners do it the other way around: something is only truth if it is sustained by observable facts. People who lived around 50 A.D. were used to tell each other stories in order to reveal this higher truth to each other. That’s also why Jesus answered questions of his pupils and critics with a parable, and not with an explanation or with concrete guidelines. Historical dates are here totally irrelevant, what is relevant is what people experience when they are told a story. Their knowledge about natural processes confines itself to how agricultural plants are grown, how wine is made, fish is caught, etc. There are indications, that the stories in the gospels are intended to make Christianity accessible for ordinary people, by “wrapping the higher truth” in concrete events and stories. During history, the stories were used by the churches to “define” the truth, by considering the wrapping equally essential as the content. The author shows, however, that every paragraph, every sentence in the gospels has a specific meaning, revealing valuable indications about the relationship of man with God (our Father), about the higher truth wrapped in the stories, comparisons, parables, and miracles. He also shows that many concrete materials (stone, wine, water, etc.) and situations have meanings that were clear to people from that time, but not to us anymore.

The whole gospel could have been re-written in explanatory words, without any parable or miracle. It would get at least four times thicker than it is now, and give less information, instead of more. Information, that we can grasp by hearing the stories, and not by listening to explanations and interpretations. Again, for a good understanding we must know the meaning that the used materials, symbols and situations had for people of that time. It shows again, that God provided us with a capability to understand, but we have neglected this capability for centuries by adhering too much to the factual truth of the gospels, which was not their message, as the author shows. Jesus said: “He that has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Luke 8, 8-10). The book of Nicoll was a great help to understand why my grandmother would “go to heaven” indeed, the other two books helped in understanding this.

Book A: Francesco Carotta: War Jesus Caesar? Goldmann, München, 1999 (Also in Dutch, but not in English available)
Book B: Alvar Ellegard: Jesus 100 years B.C., Century, London, 1999; in Dutch: Jezus 100 jaar voor Chr., Tirion, Baarn, z.j.
Book C: Maurice Nicoll: The New Man – an interpretation of some parables and miracles of Christ, Eureka, Utrecht, 1999 (reprint from 1959); In Dutch: “De nieuwe Mens”, Miranda, Den Haag, 1985.

picture of Leeuwarden

Leeuwarden is the town where I work. I use the word "town" because cities such as Shanghai and New York are of a far different kind. I made this photo with my mobilephone.

about blogging

Well, I took a couple of hours to familiarize myself with blogging. I browsed and searched and I think that for the time being I have to see it as a personal logbook, writing for myself, unless I manage to bring forward a topic and promote my blog by other means than the blog itself. You can compare it with a sea full of bottles with booklets of letters in it. Sometimes two bottles come into touch and a special device an exchange of information takes place. You have to float a long time over a long distance before you get in touch with another bottle. Celebrities such as Wim de Bie, a famous comedian in my country, attract thousands of visitors but most common people such as me must find other ways to get in touch. Maybe I am going to look for blogs of people with common interests.
Another thing I noticed is the young age of most bloggers. Also there are very brilliant people among the bloggers, scientists, authors, philosophers, artists, very active people, also writing for their brilliant audiences, but unfortunately also with very few comment writers. Well, I discovered you have to spend lots of time and also be concentrated on the machinery of the blog with its many switches, instruments and possibilities.
Furthermore I think one must be careful in writing about religious subjects because you will get comments of preachers and prophets with long sermons in which they testify what they feel has to be testified.

I write a column in my school magazine, maybe I can post articles on my blog.

my first posting

I recently visited an old friend, he was just reading "Bubbles" ("Blasen" in its original language German) by Peter Sloterdijk and told me about it. The book appeared to be linked to the old question whether there is Something that drives the human species to new developments, or that everything (including the human species) is dependent on accidental happenings within the framework of the laws of nature. Sloterdijk sees humanity as a kind of foam: the bubbles are the (groups of) individuals, stuck together by a gluing binding force as I understood. But I have to read the book yet, it seems to be permeated with references and metaphors derived from old myths. For this Sloterdijk is heavily criticised by fellow-philosophers who adhere to a more "logical" or "rational" way of reasoning, but that makes Sloterdijk the more interesting for me.
Anyway, my fixed telephone is out of order and the phone company will charge me for lack of service I'm sure. I have to write a pile of New Year cards, and do some shopping. Back to the world again. See you.