The Bloodbath of Terror

“Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole ... that's gonna be the least of it, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the country, that'll be the least of it." (Donald J. Trump, March 17, 2024, at a rally in Ohio.)

Today, a few days later, the talking heads on cable news are all atwitter trying to determine what Trump meant by “bloodbath.” Well, probably he didn’t actually MEAN much of anything—certainly nothing specific. He was bullshitting—off-the-cuff, as usual—and, as we should have learned by now, bullshitters are not much interested in rational discourse or the conveyance of any genuine information. No, rather than meaning,Trump’s words mostly communicated INTENT. Intent to rile up emotions, animosities, grievances—and, above all, FEARS. That’s his  modus operandi, after all—his own personal form of terrorism: a bullshit-induced bloodbath. 

Undoubtedly, it is by wielding this weapon of mass brain destruction that he intends to regain power and inaugurate the carnage (his word) of The Great Bloodbath of Bullshit Terror.

Now, I know that history doesn’t usually repeat itself—exactly—but they say it nonetheless sorta “rhymes.” It might, therefore, be instructive for DJT to remember that Robespierre, who invented the Original Reign of Terror, was eventually (believers in karma would say “inevitably”) himself a victim of the bloodbath he relished soaking in and kept so brimming with gore. Here’s Robespierre meeting his dear old friend, Madame Guillotine. So it goes.

Proper Penis Etiquette

As I was reading about the history of the Olympic Games, I came upon this picture of an athlete from ancient Greece. Now, I remembered that the Olde Tyme Greeks greatly appreciated the naked male body—and consequently they demanded that athletic competitors perform unclothed—obviously for the greater delectation of the spectators. But I was rather surprised to see that this particular youth had, it seems, tied a pretty little bow around his penis. Well, I asked myself: what’s THAT about? Was this a fashion statement? A less-than-subtle invitation to admire the “package” thus wrapped up? Phallically fascinated, I quickly googled “penis tied with bow” and came upon this explanation in Wikipedia: 

“Kynodēsmē ("dog tie") was a cord or string or sometimes a leather strip that was worn primarily by athletes in Ancient Greece and Etruria to prevent the exposure of the glans penis in public (considered to be ill-mannered) and to restrict untethered movement of the penis during sporting competition.” (for more more contemporary illustrations, see : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kynodesme )

So, this was a kind of (truly) bare-minimum jockstrap intended to prevent two things: 1)penile flopping and 2)foreskin slippage. Apparently, it was quite bad form to reveal one’s glans penis in public—so for the sake of modesty, the concealing foreskin needed to be kept firmly in place and tied shut—hence the string-around-the-tip.

The fancy bow was probably mostly decorative.

It occurs to me that, originally, at least, circumcised athletes, with their immodestly exposed glans—would have been quite unwelcome at the Olympics. (The Greek sports commentators would undoubtedly have been scandalized.) Perhaps that is why nowadays Olympians tend to coyly veil their goods in Spandex and Speedos. Thus the spectators can still enjoy the view, with no risk of being offended by a glimpse of glans.

 

I kinda miss the bow, though.

The Bad Faith of Both Liberal Christians and Christian Nationalists

I was once a member of a very liberal, “inclusive” Episcopalian church, whose congregation was zealous in extending “Christ’s love” to everyone, everywhere and in denouncing “Christian nationalism” as bigotry. But in recent years, I have grown quite skeptical of “religious” people (even liberal Episcopalians) who, out of a sense of fairness—or perhaps just indifference—glibly espouse “freedom of religion,” as a basic tenet of their “Christian” faith. They understand and accept, of course, that American law legitimately gives everyone the right to practice any or no religion—it’s up to the individual, not the state, to decide. But I think their faithful allegiance to the Constitution may reveal a pretty unfaithful (and perhaps counterfeit) commitment to basic Christian doctrine. 

Because the notion of freedom of religion does not accord very well with Christian claims of exclusivity and salvation through Jesus. Consequently, there is considerable cognitive dissonance involved when an individual opts to “believe” in one transcendent, extra-legal path to truth, while simultaneously affirming that other religions (or no religion at all) might ALSO be the “best way” and therefore have an equal claim to ultimate truth. In other words, it seems to me that an allegiance to “freedom of religion”—when adopted by a self-proclaimed “religious” person—amounts to little more than a disingenuous paraphrase of Orwell’s formula: “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”. Aren’t these “Christians against Christian nationalism” actually asserting (with maybe a virtuous wink?) that all religions are equally worthy, but ours is really more worthy?

If so, that’s Orwellian newspeak, i.e., delusional, complacent hypocrisy, well-meant, perhaps, but fundamentally insincere—language intended to reduce the possibility of actual understanding. Bad faith, both literally and philosophically.

But, as someone is sure to object, what if this belief in the collegiality of all belief systems is a genuine intellectual and emotional stance, held with no reservations whatsoever? Well, then, it seems to me that the liberal “Christian” needs to recognize the utter shallowness (indeed, fatuity) of his Christianity. After all, if one religion (say Christianity) IS really no better than any other religion (or no religion), then what, for goodness’ sake, is the point of clinging to that particular religion (except, maybe, for the comfort of familiar rituals and communal potlucks)? Why not just commit ourselves to the human race (a cause we can all—more or less—agree on) and resolve to devote our lives to being decent human beings? 

So, then, does freedom of religion remain a “good thing”? Well, as a legal matter, yes, of course. Absolutely. In the U.S., the land of the free and the home of con-men and pyramid schemes, the Constitution guarantees that all citizens have the right to choose any religious affiliation they like. My only quibble here is that the very act of making such a choice—among a bunch of equally fantastical and equally unprovable creeds—seems pointless and absurd.  Why not just choose freedom FROM religion?

I’ll end my rant by revisiting the tired but occasionally useful metaphor of a baby in bathwater. Personally, I am convinced that ALL religions, including both Christian nationalism and liberal Episcopalianism, amount to little more than fantastical bathwater, grown opaque over the centuries, but with absolutely NO BABY soaking within. Though these waters are indeed murky, I remain confident that anyone exploring them thoroughly will find, as I did, that there’s nothing alive and nothing of value in the tub. Just gray soak-water, grown cold. No. Baby. Nada.

So please, dear liberal Christians—simply acknowledge the futility of searching for a baby in the bilge and, in an act of much-needed housekeeping, toss it ALL out. Once you do so—once you free yourself of ALL notions of Christian exceptionalism—I am confident that you will be much better equipped to combat, "in good faith," the very real threat you have correctly recognized in “Christian nationalism.”