checking out the library book / Love - massively OT, mostly

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> 
> You're employing a little trick of defining religion so narrowly 
> that the terms that are usually associated with it are now not about 
> religion, but about something else, I don't know what you want to 
> call it--"bartlefidget"?  Go right ahead, but bartlefidget is all 
> over these books.
> 
Kneasy:
Contrarily I could argue that others are defining religion so widely that
the term itself becomes unsatisfyingly vague. (But see below.)

> Surely nunneries do not cease to be instruments of the Catholic 
> Church just because their social function is as much to have a place 
> to stow one's excess daughters as anything else.  Surely Christian 
> soldiers do not cease to be a part of Christendom just because 
> their "real" purpose is to expand the Empire's hegemony eastward.  
> What you have done is point out that the structures of religion 
> overlap with those of economics, the military, government, secular 
> culture, etc.  This is very true, but doesn't contradict Pippin's 
> point that JKR's world is rife with religion.

Kneasy:
What  was highlighted was that nunneries were not originally of a
particularly religious nature - this does not imply that the situation
did not change later. However, here's an extract from that Hibbert 
tome I mentioned in my previous post:
".... until the later Middle Ages nuns were recruited almost exclusively
from the richer families, often from  those which had failed to find
husbands for them. Abbesses of the Benedictine Barking Abbey
included three queens and two princesses. Illegitimate daughters
were also sent to nunneries; so were the wives of noble rebels, young
women of fortune whose guardians or families wanted to get their
own hands on their money, daughters of weak health or unsound mind
as well as those of recognised vocation. They were usually expected to
bring a dowry and they were expected to be able to read and sing [...]
The number of nuns in the country was  never great, perhaps no more 
than 2000 at the most [...] Yet  as in monasteries most of the hard
work was carried out by lay servants, the nuns themselves being
occupied in more leisurely pursuits such as needlework. Many 
nunneries were more like pleasant holiday retreats than religious houses." 

At the time I'm talking about the Christian religion was the political
correctness of the age - and any backsliding resulted not in scorn and
contempt but a trial for heresy. Not to profess adherence to the Church
was little more than drawn-out suicide. But as Paul Johnson observes in his
"A History of the English People" (formerly "The Offshore Islanders"), the 
English have never been particularly religious. They follow the forms and 
in times of national crisis it provides a sense of belonging and solidarity, 
but otherwise religion was just something you did on Sundays and anyone
who made a fuss about it deserved everything they eventually got.

Religion could be a means of advancement, a profession, a social elite, as
well as a vocation. It was a political and military force in addition to its 
religious function. And the Church in England was expected to toe the 
political line - or else. Only one English king submitted to the Pope - John. 
And that was a political ploy. Oh, they'd be quite happy to send money to 
Rome, but they wouldn't surrender authority over the Church in England. 

Witness Henry II and Thomas a Beckett. The Church was becoming
very unpopular (mostly because of the conflict between Church courts and
the King's Justice. Anyone who could claim benefit of clergy opted to be
tried by the Church courts which often reached verdicts or handed out
punishments that  were risible. So much so that the populace would take
matters into their own hands and lynch the malefactors "..in the luncheon
hour.." as one Papal Legate complained.) Reform and a reasonable 
compromise was needed. So Henry appointed his Chancellor, Becket as
Archbishop with the specific remit to sort it out. He didn't. He went native
and started claiming all sorts of 'rights' and authorities that were plainly 
ridiculous. If he'd  had his way England would not be a kingdom but a 
theocracy subservent to Rome. Something only churchmen would 
countenance. (Rome egged him on. Gregory IV's agenda was to subordinate
all authority, secular and religious, to the Papacy.) But it's significant how 
little support Becket had from the population at large.

It went on for years with Henry trying to get him to be reasonable, but
Becket really was fanatical.  Well, we all know what happened. Another 
attempt at reconciliation and Becket said some very foolish and provocative
things - again. On one occasion he'd shouted (at the King's half-brother and
another courtier) "Bastard lout! If I were not a priest, my right hand would 
give you the lie. As for you, one of your family has been hanged already" 
People got killed for less, and eventually so did Becket.

Um. The point of all this? That the English usually found a way of adapting
the Church and its sub-institutions to suit their own requirements. 
Practicality before dogma. A nunnery could be much more useful than just
as a religious House. Hence Hamlet's "Get thee to a nunnery." If an
institution can be a retreat, a prison, an asylum, a social club or a power
base as well as having a religious function, then assuming an inmate must
primarily be there for religious purposes could be an error. 

> 
> Perhaps what you meant by "religion" is "mention of a creator God"?  
> Or you are looking for evidence that witches and wizards have 
> clearly defined spiritual practices?  The thing is, religion goes 
> far beyond those things.  It has a sneaky way of defining itself so 
> broadly that it is a part of just about every human endeavor, 
> including those of humans who claim to have no religion.  Very 
> underhanded of it.  But if a realm of human experience deals with 
> death, rebirth, redemption, ethics, mythology, and ritual, then it 
> does tend to seep into everything.  
> 

Kneasy:
Religion presupposes belief in a god of some sort.
No god, no worship. No worship, no religion. No religion, no spiritual 
practices. 
And vice versa.
Otherwise it's a moral philosophy instead. A set of social and moral
standards that require no spirituality, no worship, no god, no religion. 

So one may contend that Jo promotes an ethical or moral stance that
is has much in common with, or at least does not counter the strictures of
recognised religion. But the presence of an ethical framework does not 
automatically indicate a specifically religious content anymore than my
disapproval of murder implies that I must have religious convictions.
'Cos I don't. 

This could be a launching pad into further discussion of Mike's interesting
post, the connections seem obvious, but I won't - not yet.