D&D does have by rights a claim to at least having a more consistent, thought out and documented set of rules than any Wicca I've seen. You can at least buy a comprehensive box set of D&D rulebooks. That seems at least slightly more credible than just plucking stuff absolutely from the air on an a la carte case by case basis, whatever feels good.
Various branches and groups have tended to try to borrow the credibility of age for their beliefs, claiming "one unbroken tradition" from ancient goddess worship traditions. This is a transparently untenable claim to make in that lots of these people are positing belief systems of undeniably modern vintage.
In particular, a lot of this stuff seems engineered basically as religious iterations of leftist political beliefs, particularly unmistakably modern feminist and environmentalist tenets. Indeed, comments suggest that most pagans have given up trying to claim the "one unbroken tradition" line. The things Cerulean and other pagans say attempting to tie modern practice to truly ancient traditions seem extremely broad to the point of meaningless.
Consider then the critical importance of just plain age in establishing a religion's credibility. Obviously the Unification Church of Rev Moon is bogus. He just made this crap up. Yet his made up crap seems no more irrational, weirder or more straining of credulity than, say, Christianity. What was all this crap about people raising from the dead, and guys living in whales and transubstantiation and whatnot?
This only seems more respectable because the Catholic church comes from a nearly 2,000 year continuous tradition. This many million people have believed in this stuff for SO long that it must have some truth value. A couple of billion Catlickers over a couple of millenia can't be ALL wrong, can they?
But of course, at some point, someone just made this stuff up. I'm speaking equally, of course, of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. That it's some unknown monks from thousands of years ago seems more credible than any modern guy coming up in the last couple of hundred years could ever be, just because the new guys are documented. For example, watching the South Park summary of the history of the Mormons, it's difficult to see how anyone puts much stock in it after reviewing the story of founder Joseph Smith. As Jimmy would say, I mean, c'mon.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - gonzo marx
after reading this, and your bit on Wiccans...JuJu compelled me to say something to you big Al...
"you are SO not getting laid"
nuff said
Excelsior!
2 - Dave Nalle
This was just some excellent, all encompassing, righteous craziness. I love it.
BTW, when Brother Jed was at Ball State was he accompanied by Sister Cindy - she of the 'revirgination' fame?
And I'm afraid I have a doctrinal difference with you on D&D religion. Those who worship from later editions of Deities and Demigods are anathema in our sight, for it has been purged of the vital books of Elric, Cthulhu and Lankhmar and is therefore not righteous. Only full knowledge of the first edition and the even more sacred tome of Gods, Demigods and Heroes will earn you passage into Blackmoor and a seat in the sacred Hall of Heroes (25th level or higher, please).
Dave
3 - Bob A. Booey
Way to state the obvious, Gonzo.
While this is more interesting and more self-revelatory than most of the Senator's writings (and I do give him credit for confirming what I already knew about his Dungeons and Dragons affinity), isn't belonging to an intellectual cult like Randian Objectivism just as pointless an exercise in shutting out critical thinking? It's a secular religion for ineffectual capitalists who admire cruelty and selfishness without being able to project those qualities into the world to achieve material success for themselves as a result of the insecurities wrought by being slightly literate and more than slightly pseudo-intellectual.
More importantly, this was a very good piece. I think it should be nominated for a pick of the week, not because it's good writing or well thought-out (it's neither), but because it provides the best insight we've had yet into Senator Al Barger.
In all seriousness, I've completely figured you out now, Al. You were never exactly an enigma to begin with, but I've seen through the schtick.
This is about Al Barger, but really it's more about the entire generation of Al Bargers, the introverted man-child who clings to a sort of self-styled "subversive conservatism," a mock politics and mock attitude toward culture that exemplifies lazy consumerism and anti-intellectualism in America.
Despite my willigness to poke a hole in Al's portly thought balloons, I do recognize that he says and "thinks" most of what he does for a reaction. I too try and be sort of a gadfly on this site, so I'm not oblivious to the kind of reaction he tries to get by writing.
Most of the passive-aggressive stories from college and childhood he links to have one thing in common: people tend to find Al universally pretty annoying, and he loves it. I think that part of the Senator Al Barger caricature is slightly amusing, the whacked out Brother-Preacher nonsense. It's the really bad ideas and ideology that he wants you to take seriously about that lack credibility. I think Al generally gets a pass from Olsen and others on this site because they treat everything he says as joking or "ridiculous." I don't think Al's capable of appreciating irony, but I think Al hides behind the "Father Dandelion"-type schtick to test out things he kinda sorta actually believes in for fear of having them reflect on him poorly.
His love of South Park makes some sense too. I think Al is a fundamentally childlike cultural and political nihilist. That doesn't mean he's courages or rebellious in opposition to the status quo (anyone who's read anything he's written lately knows that much), but rather that Al really doesn't believe in anything firmly. That's ironic given that Objectivism is named for its bastardized, oversimplified pop philosophy theory of truth -- which it, with no humor intended, characterizes in shorthand as "A = A." I've decided Al doesn't understand politics or culture, nor does he care to. He clings to ideas and cultural artifacts he knows people will hate, because he likes that more than the ideas and art itself. Sure, Al probably genuinely likes D & D, sci fi, and Paul Simon. But Al doesn't have any coherent worldview beyond a childlike desire to express himself controversially. I find this is often the case with self-styled "counterculture conservatives." The South Park duo is the perfect example: they revel in stereotypes because it's lazy and easy. They always go for the easy joke, and they're often genuinely funny in doing it (something you can't say for Al, unfortunately). But they don't challenge you to think beyond yourself and their satire lacks any content, morally or politically. It's empty, cheap, and fluffy indulgence in reactionary nihilism. It's Shock Jock Lite, hiding behind innocent intent and not quite willing to assert itself as attitude.
Even Ayn Rand makes some sense here. It's a cheap, easy, anti-intellectual, anti-social, nihilistic shortcut to ideology, politics, and philosophy. It actively repudiates morality or obligation toward others. It makes consumption and lazy materialist ideology a virtue. It is an anti-philosophy (one of the unfortunate bastardizations of Nietzsche by the philosophically illiterate Rand), meant to excuse the unexamined life by fetishizing the status quo. In fact, the status quo is fun, it's to be celebrated! It's even revolutionary! It gives you a sense of membership without any human content to it, perfect for disconnected, impersonal Internet salvos and idiosyncratic writing.
The Senator believes in no thing and no one, but like his nihilist heroes, prefers to leave conventions and authority unchallenged. After all, it's easier to make fun of activists, artists, idealists or intellectuals who would make tough questions and thought necessary. It's easier to justify or valorize violence and cruelty than to admit your fear of the same or to risk either challenging it or using it yourself in the world rather than being an ineffectual observer. It's easier to write without the possibility of having your ideas taken seriously by becoming a caricature and taking cartoonish positions using wild-eyed rhetoric. It's easier to avoid having to be evaluated as an adult by engaging in a childish parody of adult conversation ("Mr. such and such, indeed, your point of view is incomprehensible, for the love of Rand!"). It's easier to avoid having your ideas be rejected by writing only about books and art that no one takes seriously, "works" that have no ideas in them.
And this is all 100 times more thought out than anything Al has ever contemplated about his own life. If he's unwilling to be the kind of gadfly who will examine his own life, this gadfly is perfectly willing to explain it for him. And this is as much credit as I'll ever give Al since I have made fun of him more than my share.
Of course, I write about being taken seriously and credibility under a goofy pseudonym that I chose because I didn't want to be outed as an American Idol fan. But the point remains, it's hard to take Al seriously because you always have the idea in the back of your head that no one could possibly be serious about the things he says and thinks.
That is all.
4 - Bob A. Booey
Let me be clearer:
It should be a Pick of the Week because it is Al Barger and his writing in a nutshell. You don't learn anything about religion, but you learn a lot about Al Barger. When Al writes, you rarely learn anything about the topic in question. He's rarely interested in thinking or writing about that topic. If he has any insights into the topic, he's sure not sharing them with us. But you always learn a lot about what he's trying to project by writing it. In some paradoxical way, Al's a really transparent and personal writer even though he's trying to be comedic and impersonal. I've just realized that.
Most writers write as a form of human connection and assume the audience will understand them based on some stable experience of how human connections work. Al writes assuming you can't understand or communicate with him -- your rejection and distance from him is the kind of attention and reaction he's comfortable with. Al doesn't know how human connections work, but he writes to try and connect in an ultimately failed and disconnected but nonetheless motivated and impassioned way.
And I'm sure, despite his lack of response, that this comment will please him most of all, unless he dares to think about it, of course.
That is all.
5 - Dave Nalle
At least when Al drones on and on it's mildly interesting and there's some content and links and the occasional laugh.
Babs on the other hand, drones on and on and all we hear is the droning, with no glimpse of the golden honey within the hive.
Dave
6 - Bob A. Booey
Dave, how does it feel to be jealous of me for being so much smarter than you?
That is all.
7 - Dave Nalle
Babs, no matter how smart you may or may not be, the pompous pontificating minimizes its impact. Most peoples eyes just glaze over before they can fully absorb the wonderfulness that is your prose.
Dave
8 - Bob A. Booey
Fair enough.
I find it hard to pierce through the directionless outrage and constant smugness attached to your writing.
Perhaps that's why we have a hard time communicating so far.
That is all.
9 - Aaman
Ibteresting post, Al - eppur si believe
Bob, you should create a blog and be the blog-bore - very popular around these parts.
10 - Al Barger
Wait, back up there Nalle to comment 2. I haven't been around any D&D for 20 years. You're saying they've eliminated the whole Cthulhu mythos? That's crap. Cthulhu is COOL. If they've got to thin out the ranks, knock out some of those wussy lawful good types. What's wrong with these people.
11 - Dave Nalle
>>I find it hard to pierce through the directionless outrage and constant smugness attached to your writing.
Perhaps that's why we have a hard time communicating so far.<<
I fear we are brothers under the skin. I recognize some of the same problems in your style that people complain of in mine. But I've at least learned to break things up with a bit of arch humor.
Dave
12 - Dave Nalle
>>Wait, back up there Nalle to comment 2. I haven't been around any D&D for 20 years. You're saying they've eliminated the whole Cthulhu mythos? That's crap. Cthulhu is COOL. If they've got to thin out the ranks, knock out some of those wussy lawful good types. What's wrong with these people.<<
It was more than 20 years ago. When the second printing of AD&D came out around 1982 they were assailed by copyright lawyers who pointed out that Lankhmar, Cthulhu and Elric were properties owned by other people, and therefore could not be included in Dieties and Demigods, so on the second printing they were removed. That first printing with the other pantheons included has become collectible - it's now worth about $200.
Subsequently they also removed and modified Demons in the game to change the names of the demons from historic names to fictional alternatives to unsuccessfully assuage the fears of christian parents. They also removed Conan-related material in a later edition when they lost the license for that material.
So there you go - now I look like the king of the D&D nerds, though I also haven't played D&D in many, many years.
Dave
13 - Al Barger
And how short sighted are these publishers having these characters eliminated? D&D is the only reason that I, for one, would know Cthulhu.
My game time was mostly in the 82/83 range, so all that stuff was there in our books.
As to assuaging Christians, we had a very nice and very smart fellow in our group who also really clung to his Jesus stuff like a security blanket. He wanted to be part of the group and all, but obviously would never be involved in even pretending to worship anyone other than Jesus. We accomodated him by adding in our own Jesus mythos option to our game.
Oh, and unfortunately I didn't get to meet Sister Cindy. Jed was flying solo the trip I met him.
14 - Dave Nalle
>>And how short sighted are these publishers having these characters eliminated? D&D is the only reason that I, for one, would know Cthulhu.<<
Initially Arkham house was very liberal about it for the reasons you suggest, but in the early 80s they signed a deal with Chaosium - which has proved to be very lucrative - to produce the Call of Cthulhu rpg and associated materials, so it had to be removed.
>>As to assuaging Christians, we had a very nice and very smart fellow in our group who also really clung to his Jesus stuff like a security blanket. He wanted to be part of the group and all, but obviously would never be involved in even pretending to worship anyone other than Jesus. We accomodated him by adding in our own Jesus mythos option to our game.<<
As a D&D player my standard solution to this problem was just to kill the character, or else have my character behave in ways so evil and psychotic it drove the player away. Hey, I was young, immature and radically atheistic.
>>Oh, and unfortunately I didn't get to meet Sister Cindy. Jed was flying solo the trip I met him.<<
Consider yourself lucky. She was way creepy.
Dave
15 - Duane
Nothing like avoiding the topics.
Great stuff, Al. Great stuff Bob A. B.
16 - Pope Art
If psychoanalysts could lock Scientoligists in the B.F. Skinner's HamsterTown/Child rearing for the Lazy device and feed them only Joe Rogan's left overs...
If Scientologists could transport Dr. Phil to the Salt Mines of Delusia...
It's just hard for the new religions to get anyone to kill and die for'm.
That seems to be what attracts people to the new faith
17 - Shadow Mihaiu
Hmm. Seems a largely pointless essay, except to prove you don't understand religion at all, whether in the intellectual, psycholigical, spiritual, or political arena.
Keep ranting, though. I'm sure it makes you feel better about not being able to feel the divine.
18 - Shadow Mihaiu
Hmm. Seems a largely pointless essay, except to prove you don't understand religion at all, whether in the intellectual, psychological, spiritual, or political arena.
Keep ranting, though. I'm sure it makes you feel better about not being able to feel the divine.
19 - Duane
Al makes at least two points that I agree with:
1) All religions are invented by humans.
2) Because of Point 1, the age of a particular religion has nothing to do with the truth of it claims pertaining to the supernatural.
20 - Bob A. Booey
Dave, baby. I'm way funnier than you :) We just seem to butt heads on the boring political conversations. I'm freakin hilarious.
That is all.
21 - Bob A. Booey
Yeah, and I agree people probably perceive us similarly although the content of our writing is dissimilar. They'd be mistaken and I shudder at the thought, but I can see how people might see similarities in the attitude.
Oh, and anyone who refers to their sense of humor as "arch" is a smug snob :) Forget arch, I'm funny.
That is all.
22 - Al Barger
Excellent. Shadow joins our educational discussion to illustrate one of the classic benefits that many religious people derive from their beliefs. You might call it the "Church Lady Effect" in honor of the classic Dana Carvey character.
Shadow enjoys a warm feeling of superiority to those of us who don't get it. It doesn't require actually doing anything special, developing special skills or training, but simply a firm belief that he or she "feels the divine."
Thank you for sharing, Shadow. I will gently suggest to you, however, that your disagreement with the points of an article does not mean that there wasn't any.
Duane [comment 19] understands, and nicely summarizes the underlying premises. Thank you, Duane.
23 - Dave Nalle
>>Yeah, and I agree people probably perceive us similarly although the content of our writing is dissimilar. They'd be mistaken and I shudder at the thought, but I can see how people might see similarities in the attitude.<<
I also don't necessarily see us as being that far apart politically, but your views are a bit obscured by your tendancy to just be argumentative for its own sake.
>>Oh, and anyone who refers to their sense of humor as "arch" is a smug snob :) Forget arch, I'm funny.<<
If you mean 'funny' as a synonym for 'strange'.
Dave
24 - Bob A. Booey
TendEncy, Dave. As long as we're perceived as being pedantic, I'm going to play the part.
I really don't see us as being that similar politically. If it helps you draw a line between us, I TAed a class in social conflict/Marxist theory once and I really enjoyed doing it.
What was your area of study in graduate school? History?
Yeah, I'm the strange one :) I'm gonna go check out my window for the Russki Reds. Do you have any neighbors I can turn in to the Senator from Wisconsin?
Al's proving everything I say true, as he always does. He's wonderfully predictable like that.
That is all.
25 - Dave Nalle
>>TendEncy, Dave. As long as we're perceived as being pedantic, I'm going to play the part.<<
Certain persistent spelling errors are my achilles heel.
>>I really don't see us as being that similar politically. If it helps you draw a line between us, I TAed a class in social conflict/Marxist theory once and I really enjoyed doing it.<<
I'd probably have enjoyed TAing a class like that too, but that doesn't mean I agree with Marxism. I do believe that all rational people can find common ground, and you don't appear to be a gibbering loon. There are even things about socialism I find quite appealing. I'm kind of a fan of collectivism and some of the progressive movement of the late 19th century. Voluntary socialism tends to work. When it's imposed from above it tends to be disastrous.
>>What was your area of study in graduate school? History?<<
Medieval history for the PhD, MAs in medieval history and also medieval language and literature. I also met the course requirements for masters degrees in linguistics, demography and paleography, but didn't want to do the paperwork. As you might have gathered I spent WAY too much time in grad school. I almost doubled the course hour requirement for my PhD. The most exciting thing I TAed was History of Witchcraft since most of the demand was for US History TAs.
>>Yeah, I'm the strange one :) I'm gonna go check out my window for the Russki Reds. Do you have any neighbors I can turn in to the Senator from Wisconsin?<<
If he was still alive I imagine he'd be pretty interested in a neighbor who just retired and moved to Arizona.
Dave