# Why did Wagner have such an impact on the world?



## Francis Poulenc

Arguably, Wagner is the most influential composer of all time. The king of Bavaria built a castle in his honor, he was an obsessive fan much like you could see nowadays with teenage girls and boy bands.

Hitler was an equally obsessive fan, and almost seemed to structure his whole life around Wagner. I need not say that Wagner indirectly inspired the Holocaust, but there's more. Hitler went out of his way to meet and honour Wagner's descendants, and went to serious efforts to elevate him in the regime. He wasn't interested only in his music, but in every facet of his life, reading everything he wrote, and taking an interest in his personal life and relatives (again, much like a teenage fangirl would do). Not only that, but he set out in search of the Holy Grail, going to Spain specifically to find it. This is a remarkable coincidence if you consider the story of Parsifal.

So here we have a composer, who managed to seduce not one, but two major historical figures into absolute obsession. I cannot think of any other musician who has had this kind of impact on the world. What do you think was his magic, what did he have that other composers didn't?


----------



## superhorn

Wagner was one of the greatest geniuses of all time, period . He was a visionary genius who created a new kind of opera unlike any which had ever existed , and whose harmonic daring lead to the harmonic innovations of the 20th century . 
Wagner was a quixotic figure who did not compromise with anyone in trying to get his works on the stage, and who made unprecedented demands on the technology of opera houses of his day , ultimately leading to the opening of his own unique festival theater at Bayreuth . 
He also made unprecedented demands on singers , conductors and orchestras , creating astonishingly long and complex musical stage works the likes of which had never been seen before . 
This made it extremely difficult to get his operas (or music dramas performed . 
His highly original music , with its searing intensity , complex chromatic harmonies , and extravagant use of the orchestra to produce sonic colors which had never been heard before and the great length of his stage works bewildered, confused , and disturbed so many listeners, whether fellow composers, critics or rank and file opera goers . His music thrilled some people and repelled others, the same as it still does . 
The vexed question of Hitler, Naziism and antisemitism arose in the 20th century . But to blame Wagner and his music for Hitler, Naziism and the holocaust is extremely foolish and puts the cart before the horse. Yes, Wagner was an anti-semite and wrote a reprehensible essay called "Judaism in Music, which accused Jews of being intrinsically incapable of creating great art . But he never advocated genocide against Jews, and as the old cliche goes, he had numerous Jewish friends and associates . 
Wagner did not turn Hitler into the murderous, hateful monster he was . Hitler read his own sick ideas INTO Wagner and his music . Ideas which are simply not there in the music and the works themselves . 
Wagner is no more to blame for the 2nd world war and the holocaust than Jesus is to blame for the Spanish Inquisition . 
Therefore , it is highly irrational to hate Wagner's music and dramas because of the man himself .


----------



## Richard8655

I agree Wagner was one of the greatest classical music composers of all time. But I don't think I could forgive his anti-semitism simply because he didn't advocate violence against Jews. I think that's naively simplistic and attempts to whitewash an artist who's music so many love so much. Hatred and racism in spirit has to be considered a serious character flaw, even if that perception was fairly common in that era. Nevertheless, his music lives on and his sins overlooked but only in sole appreciation of his works.


----------



## lextune

Wagner changed western music itself. It would be stranger if a person like did NOT have huge impact on the world.


----------



## Couchie

What do you think was his magic, what did he have that other composers didn't?

I think key was his abandonment of conventional structure and harmonic patterns in favour of "endless melody". These forms allow us to appreciate a piece "at arm's length" because we can frame the current temporal moment in the context of the piece at large allowing us to process what we've heard and giving reasonable expectation as to where the piece is headed. In the case of Wagner, we lose this "reality check" and his music puts the listener into a trance-like state over the duration of his extended acts during which there is seldom a musical pause permitting one to take a breath. Once lured into the trance-like state it's difficult to insulate yourself from the extreme emotions of the drama and music, making it ripe for obsession. And Wagner's extended harmony and length allowed him to build tension like never before and sustain it at durations previously unimagined. I mean, _Tristan _was considered literally pathological at the time because it was so emotionally stimulating.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I agree Wagner was one of the greatest classical music composers of all time. But I don't think I could forgive his anti-semitism simply because he didn't advocate violence against Jews. I think that's naively simplistic and attempts to whitewash an artist who's music so many love so much. Hatred and racism in spirit has to be considered a serious character flaw, even if that perception was fairly common in that era. Nevertheless, his music lives on and his sins overlooked but only in sole appreciation of his works.

Wagner's antisemitism has been argued about endlessly here and elsewhere. I agree that it was a clear character flaw... but what artist of any art form was without such flaws? The great Baroque painter, Caravaggio (an artist nearly as influential as Wagner was) killed a man during a duel/street brawl. And yet...



... in no way does this lessen my admiration for his work.

Carlo Gesualdo certainly had far greater character flaws than Wagner...






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gesualdo

... yet he remains one of the most influential composers of the Renaissance.

Couchie's comments are quite on the mark with regard to Wagner's music. But I also think Wagner's impact/influence is owed in a good part to the manner in which he inspired those beyond the realm of music alone. His idea of the "Gesamtkunstwerk" had a profound impact upon theater, designers, architects, and visual artists. There are endless writers, poets, painters, etc... whose works were inspired by or homages to Wagner and his operas. I don't think any classical composer since has come close to Wagner's impact and influence.


----------



## brianvds

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Wagner's antisemitism has been argued about endlessly here and elsewhere. I agree that it was a clear character flaw... but what artist of any art form was without such flaws?


I think the only reason why such a big deal is made of it is because the Holocaust is still within living memory. Another century or two and no one will care anymore, just as nowadays few people care about the personal lives of Caravaggio or Gesualdo. So it goes: as horrors recede into the past, the edge is taken off them. We can make jokes about the horrors of, say, the Romans, in ways the Gauls would have found highly offensive.

The Nazis are actually already going that way, judged by the huge number (sometimes quite hilarious) of internet memes about Hitler reacting to this and that, all stolen from scenes from the film _Downfall_, which were not intended to be funny. But Hitler has increasingly become a caricature of himself, which is on the whole a good thing - the once feared dictator being reduced to a Halloween costume strikes me as his final and most humiliating defeat.

Anyway, very few 19th century people in any walk of life would be considered particularly decent by modern standards. Every time they try to smear Darwin we have to hear about his racism and supposed influence on Hitler. I have even heard vegetarians and non-smokers compared to Herr Adolf - he was after all somewhat notorious for his sober habits, excluding the prescription drugs, of course. 

I have an unsavoury reputation for not being a great fan of Wagner's music, but may his monumental achievements echo down the ages - one does not have to like something in order to respect it. Mind you, in his series on the history of music, Howard Goodall notes that Wagner stole quite a bit of what he is famous for from Liszt...


----------



## regenmusic

I've heard this several times about Wagner's Anti-antisemitism but no one ever quotes Wagner directly. Are we so sensitive that we cannot do that? What did he actually say?

edit:

There is some information here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies


----------



## Casebearer

I think this is a forum on classical music appreciation and not on ethical issues. If it were we should be talking about different persons altogether. To say you love Wagner's music and recognize his influence does not mean you like the person and his ideas. Composers are not better people and they don't need to be, they just create better music than the rest of us.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

My point wasn't to get into a discussion about Wagner's anti-semitism. I was just trying to illustrate the tremendous impact he had on major historical figures. The fact that a monarch built one of the most iconic castles in Europe in his honour is just as relevant as his impact over the Nazi regime. The point is that his music was able to inspire obsession in people to a degree that no other composer ever reached.


----------



## tdc

Francis Poulenc said:


> The point is that his music was able to inspire obsession in people to a degree that no other composer ever reached.


I'm not sure this is true. You have established that two well known and powerful people were obsessive about Wagner, but musical obsession can also be inspired in people that are not well known or powerful, but it is still obsession. Also I'm not sure that being loved by a couple of powerful and influential people is the same thing as having 'such an impact on the world'. In other words I don't think you can point to his actual music impacting the world here in some profound way other than simply creating two obsessive fans. Obsessive fans are obsessive fans, the reason these two fans were able to go to farther lengths to obsess over their musical idol is simply because they had the means to do so. It is quite likely that Wagner became better known as a result of this, but I don't think that proves a deeper level of obsession in general, or more impact on the world than other composers.


----------



## tdc

I suspect the reason Hitler obsessed so much was that he was drawn not just to the music but the mythological elements which formed part of his belief system, he was likely also drawn to Wagner's personality. These things all fit into his ideas about life so Wagner became something along the lines of a religious or spiritual symbol to him.


----------



## hpowders

OP: His "impact" is highly over-rated.

He had his great fling during the Nazi Era in Germany with a perfect marriage of Wagner's hatred and ridiculous philosophy complementing Hitler's own.

After that it's been mostly downhill toward Niebelung.

Even chopping onions couldn't get me to be moved and shed half a tear for his music.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Francis Poulenc said:


> My point wasn't to get into a discussion about Wagner's anti-semitism. I was just trying to illustrate the tremendous impact he had on major historical figures. The fact that a monarch built one of the most iconic castles in Europe in his honour is just as relevant as his impact over the Nazi regime. The point is that his music was able to inspire obsession in people to a degree that no other composer ever reached.


You have also forgotten to mention his influence on Nietzsche, as well as on Bruckner, Mahler and other major figures of the musical world.


----------



## amfortas

SiegendesLicht said:


> You have also forgotten to mention his influence on Nietzsche, as well as on Bruckner, Mahler and other major figures of the musical world.


He also influenced literature (Baudelaire, Mallarmé, Verlaine, Rilke, Mann, Proust, Lawrence, Joyce, Eliot) and the visual arts (Beardsley, Renoir, Klimt)--not to mention theatrical design.


----------



## tdc

SiegendesLicht said:


> You have also forgotten to mention his influence on Nietzsche, as well as on Bruckner, Mahler and other major figures of the musical world.


But he knew Nietzsche personally right? What I'm not sure about is whether Wagner's music had the impact on Nietzsche or his personality or both. I don't doubt that he influenced a lot of musical figures but that can be said of many composers.



amfortas said:


> He also influenced literature (Baudelaire, Mallarmé, Verlaine, Rilke, Mann, Proust, Lawrence, Joyce, Eliot) and the visual arts (Beardsley, Renoir, Klimt)--not to mention theatrical design.


This certainly sounds like something, but is vague in terms of what the influence was. Certainly he had an impact, but what was the impact? Did it alter peoples way of thinking about things other than just music itself? Is that impact still as strong today as say the impact of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or the Beatles?


----------



## amfortas

tdc said:


> But he knew Nietzsche personally right? What I'm not sure about is whether Wagner's music had the impact on Nietzsche or his personality or both. I don't doubt that he influenced a lot of musical figures but that can be said of many composers.


Nietzsche was powerfully influenced by Wagner's music before he ever met the man, and continued to be so--often reluctantly--after their rancorous parting of the ways.


----------



## Nate Miller

every musician I ever knew had a screw lose. Personally, I never look at a work of art and think "oh, that guy was such a ******* I can't appreciate this"

And honestly, we as a society have become so sensitive to crap that you can't hold people from other eras to today's standards. So when you take your PC snoot and stick it into the past, you are gong to be very disappointed to find out that all those historical icons were actually terrible people who owned slaves, or published pamphlets against giving women the right to vote, or filibustered civil rights bills, or some other really unsavory stuff.

welcome to the planet. Humans are all screwed up

but man, that Wagner could really write some great music, don't you think?


----------



## superhorn

If you examine the libretti of all the Wagner operas from Rienzi to Parsifal , you will discover that there are no Jewish characters , no discussions of Jews and Judaism , not a single anti-semitic statement by any of the characters . The German word "Jude" (Jew) cannot be found in any of them . 
The Ring takes place in a primitive, prehistoric mythological Teutonic world of gods, goddesses and other supernatural characters ( as well as humans) in which Jews and Judaism do not exist .


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Nate Miller said:


> And honestly, we as a society have become so sensitive to crap that you can't hold people from other eras to today's standards. So when you take your PC snoot and stick it into the past, you are gong to be very disappointed to find out that all those historical icons were actually terrible people who owned slaves, or published pamphlets against giving women the right to vote, or filibustered civil rights bills, or some other really unsavory stuff.


That is a very good point. I have also come to believe judging people of other ages with the yardstick of our modern morality is a hopeless undertaking. The realities of their life were different, and the values which helped them survive in these realities had to be different too. Who knows, maybe the people living 500 years from now will look at us from the viewpoint of their own morality (hopefully one of greater health, strength and integrity) and wonder how we could be as screwed up as we are.


----------



## tdc

I agree with post #18, but I don't think it has anything to do with the OP.

It seems that unfortunately all the extra musical details surrounding Wagner have become arguably more of an impactful legacy than his music.


----------



## Nate Miller

good point, tdc.

I really think the reason his music is so important is that it is so chromatic. It really sets the stage for the move away from tonal music in the early 20th century. He pushed the envelope of functional harmony so far that the next generation had to re-evaluate the very concept of tonality


----------



## lextune

tdc said:


> It seems that unfortunately all the extra musical details surrounding Wagner have become arguably more of an impactful legacy than his music.


I don't see how that's possible. His musical impact is ubiquitous. Every movie and tv score. Every hint of chromaticism...Like it or not, Wagner's influence on music is complete and total.

All music can be divided into Pre and Post-Wagnerian periods. Even music that could be said to show zero influence from Wagner would be music that had reckoned with Wagner and willfully chose to turn away from him.


----------



## tdc

lextune said:


> Wagner's influence on music is complete and total.


Well I think this over states things simply because Wagner could not have influenced any of the music that preceded him, however if you are referring to all music post Wagner I can pretty much agree. I certainly think he is one of the most influential composers. But I still disagree with the OP's claim that no other composers have had as much impact or sparked as much obsession.


----------



## tdc

tdc said:


> But I still disagree with the OP's claim that no other composers have had as much impact or sparked as much obsession.


Maybe I don't even disagree yet, but I think insufficient evidence has been shown for this in this thread so far.

I don't buy into the idea that Wagner's music was a factor in starting WWII (maybe in some small way, but I think the success of other German composers also could have contributed to a feeling of German superiority, and obviously there are many reasons beyond just musical ones.)

The things Hitler did in terms of wanting to meet Wagner's family etc. are extreme but I don't think these are unprecedented acts of "fanboyism".

As far as I know the Castle that was built for Wagner was done by a king who knew Wagner, so this could partially be accounted for by Wagner's charisma and ability to win people's favor.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Francis Poulenc said:


> *Why did Wagner have such an impact on the world?*


Because he created it! Or, at least I suspect he'd claim to have done so. He had a tremendous ego -- a near sociopathic narcissism.* (If you've never yet read Deems Taylor's essay "The Monster" you should do so now. -- see http://www.bestlibrary.org/files/monster.pdf)

* The word "near" here may be understatement.


----------



## tdc

Nate Miller said:


> good point, tdc.
> 
> I really think the reason his music is so important is that* it is so chromatic*. It really sets the stage for the move away from tonal music in the early 20th century. He pushed the envelope of functional harmony so far that the next generation had to re-evaluate the very concept of tonality


Yes and I think equally important is in the form it was presented - its lack of a need for resolution, certainly important in harmony and form. But Debussy was able to take theses concepts further and use them effectively in instrumental music as well as opera.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

tdc said:


> As far as I know the Castle that was built for Wagner was done by a king who knew Wagner, so this could partially be accounted for by Wagner's charisma and ability to win people's favor.


Both King Ludwig and Nietzsche were Wagner's friends. I think Wagner's ability to command such admiration from people who knew him personally sort of undermines the notion of him being a "horrible human being".

Just a little personal observation that has to do with the topic. In the German consulate in my native city, where I used to go twice a year to renew my visa so I could travel, one wall is occupied by a huge poster of Castle Neuschwanstein with the words "Welcome to Romantic Germany". Every time I went past it, I used to smile inwardly and think "There can be no Germanness without Wagner's heritage, can there?"


----------



## Zhdanov

Richard8655 said:


> I don't think I could forgive his anti-semitism simply because he didn't advocate violence against Jews


but that is *your* problem.



Richard8655 said:


> I think that's naively simplistic and attempts to whitewash an artist who's music so many love so much


he committed no crime, so needs no whitewashing.



Richard8655 said:


> Hatred and racism in spirit has to be considered a serious character flaw


he didn't hate anyone and wasn't racist, this is obvious to any reasonable person.


----------



## Chronochromie

He did write that pamphlet...and even if he had Jewish musician friends and admired some Jews that just makes him look like a hypocrite and opportunist. I do remember reading about his mental gymnastics to justify his love for Heine.


----------



## tdc

SiegendesLicht said:


> Both King Ludwig and Nietzsche were Wagner's friends. I think Wagner's ability to command such admiration from people who knew him personally sort of undermines the notion of him being a "horrible human being".


Now personally for the record from what I know of him I don't think Wagner was a "horrible human being", but I want to point out that sociopaths are often very charming and charismatic people who are able to win the affection and trust of those around them. So the fact he was able to command admiration in itself is neither here nor there in terms of ethical implications in my opinion.


----------



## Zhdanov

Chronochromie said:


> makes him look like a hypocrite and opportunist.


he just was ahead of his time; every media figure is that way these days.


----------



## Zhdanov

tdc said:


> sociopaths are often very charming and charismatic people who are able to win the affection and trust of those around them.


if sociopathy helps you make a king build a theater, way to go.


----------



## Chronochromie

Zhdanov said:


> he just was ahead of his time; every media figure is that way these days.


I don't know, I can think of a few great hypocrites and opportunists before him...


----------



## tdc

Zhdanov said:


> if sociopathy helps you make a king build a theater, way to go.


I think its highly likely that Wagner's charisma helped with this, but I don't think all charismatic people are sociopaths. As far as whether Wagner was a sociopath, I have no idea.

I think this kind of thing works like a spectrum, and there are certainly situations where circumstance can create or contribute to creating the condition of sociopathy.

In other words if you grow up in certain harsh conditions, sociopathy can work as essentially a survival mechanism.

This is speculative I know, but I think its important to consider factors that make people turn out the way they do. I try not to judge others, because how much can I really know about their life? (especially internally), and how much less when they were living more than a century before me.


----------



## Zhdanov

Chronochromie said:


> I don't know, I can think of a few great hypocrites and opportunists before him...


it was back then that such persons were called 'hypocrites/opportunists' but today we call them 'politically correct'.


----------



## amfortas

Zhdanov said:


> it was back then that such persons were called 'hypocrites/opportunists' but today we call them 'politically correct'.


"We" who?
xxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

tdc- But I still disagree with the OP's claim that no other composers have had as much impact or sparked as much obsession.
Maybe I don't even disagree yet, but I think insufficient evidence has been shown for this in this thread so far.

It seems to me that Wagner's impact upon peers and subsequent composers, artists, writers, designers, philosophers, conductors, etc... is well documented. Anton Bruckner, Hugo Wolf, César Franck, Henri Duparc, Ernest Chausson, Jules Massenet, Richard Strauss, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Hans Pfitzner, Gustav Mahler, Engelbert Humperdinck, Koechlin, Tchaikovsky, Schoenberg, Berg, etc... were all admittedly influenced by his work. For better or worse, Wagner was undoubtedly the linchpin pointing toward the innovations of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. Tchaikovsky, Debussy and others later rebelled against Wagner... but again he was still the figure influencing their work in one way or another. Puccini and Richard Strauss, arguably the greatest opera composers active in the 20th century, were both clearly influenced by Wagner. Even Verdi... his arch-rival in many ways... came around to admitting that Tristan und Isolde may be "one of the greatest creations of the human spirit". Mahler, arguably the greatest symphonic composer of the 20th century was also profoundly influenced by Wagner. Wagner's continued influence upon subsequent Post-Romantic composers and especially upon the music of films is equally undeniable.

Within the realm of classical music, who (after Wagner) has had as much influence upon so many composers of the highest merit? Who has matched his impact not only upon music but upon the "Arts" as a whole?


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

What _didn't_ he influence? In addition to all the composers, artists and writer's already mentioned, he also anticipated the ideas of Freud and Jung by half a century, and even...

_"Du siehst, mein Sohn, zum Raum wird hier die Zeit."_

... Einstein. (All right, that last one is a bit of a stretch!)

Love him or hate him, he was simply a titanic figure; along with Marx and Darwin (both just as influential and just as divisive), one of the dominant thinkers of the nineteenth century.


----------



## Woodduck

StlukesguildOhio said:


> tdc- But I still disagree with the OP's claim that no other composers have had as much impact or sparked as much obsession.
> Maybe I don't even disagree yet, but I think insufficient evidence has been shown for this in this thread so far.
> 
> It seems to me that Wagner's impact upon peers and subsequent composers, artists, writers, designers, philosophers, conductors, etc... is well documented. Anton Bruckner, Hugo Wolf, César Franck, Henri Duparc, Ernest Chausson, Jules Massenet, Richard Strauss, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Hans Pfitzner, Gustav Mahler, Engelbert Humperdinck, Koechlin, Tchaikovsky, Schoenberg, Berg, etc... were all admittedly influenced by his work. For better or worse, Wagner was undoubtedly the linchpin pointing toward the innovations of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. Tchaikovsky, Debussy and others later rebelled against Wagner... but again he was still the figure influencing their work in one way or another. Puccini and Richard Strauss, arguably the greatest opera composers active in the 20th century, were both clearly influenced by Wagner. Even Verdi... his arch-rival in many ways... came around to admitting that Tristan und Isolde may be "one of the greatest creations of the human spirit". Mahler, arguably the greatest symphonic composer of the 20th century was also profoundly influenced by Wagner. Wagner's continued influence upon subsequent Post-Romantic composers and especially upon the music of films is equally undeniable.
> 
> Within the realm of classical music, who (after Wagner) has had as much influence upon so many composers of the highest merit? Who has matched his impact not only upon music but upon the "Arts" as a whole?


Yes. It may be argued (and has been here on TC) that a few other composers have had equal influence on the subsequent course of music. Beethoven, Stravinsky and Schoenberg have all been proposed. I suspect this specifically musical influence may be too difficult to measure objectively, but the OP asks about Wagner's influence on the _world_. The more we study the arts and culture from the middle of the 19th century to the present the more pervasive we find the reach of Wagner's artistic ideas and accomplishments to be. To one degree or another, as Stlukes points out, he is almost everywhere: musical composition, conducting, theater architecture and acoustics, stagecraft, dance, literature, film, philosophy, politics... We find in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a worldwide phenomenon, embracing artistic elites and ordinary lovers of the arts, known as "Wagnerism," which could denote something as narrow as a devotion to Wagner's works, or as broad as a belief, almost religious in its heady certainty, that Wagner's artistic goals were a blueprint for a more enlightened civilization. There has never been a comparable movement called "Beethovenism" or "Schoenbergism."

Wagner is not merely the most influential of composers, but, I believe, as good a candidate as any for the most influential cultural figure in Western civilization. The reasons for this have to do with both his innate genius and his being the right person in the right place at the right time. But that's a big subject...


----------



## ArtMusic

Modernism started with Wagner, his musical dramas.


----------



## Woodduck

Retrograde Inversion said:


> What _didn't_ he influence? In addition to all the composers, artists and writer's already mentioned, he also anticipated the ideas of Freud and Jung by half a century, and even...
> 
> _*"Du siehst, mein Sohn, zum Raum wird hier die Zeit."*_
> 
> ... Einstein. (All right, that last one is a bit of a stretch!)
> 
> Love him or hate him, he was simply a titanic figure; along with Marx and Darwin (both just as influential and just as divisive), one of the dominant thinkers of the nineteenth century.


For the benefit of non-comprehenders of German, that line from _Parsifal_ translates as "You see, my son, here time becomes space." Even if we don't take it as a premonition of Einstein's relativity theory, it's typical of the intense attunement to subjective experience that marks the highly original Wagnerian genre of music drama, a drama of the subconscious, interior life as represented by mythical symbols and articulated through music, presaging the psychology of Jung and the 20th century's exploration of the archetypes of myth and dreams.


----------



## Guest

It would be nice to have another opera about Wagner. As much as I love both the music and concept of Harvey's opera, it doesn't exactly give me the positive impression of his persona that so many here seem to have. Maybe an opera about Wagner and Bruckner drinking beer?


----------



## tdc

Good posts St. Lukes and Woodduck. You've given me a lot to think about in regards this topic.


----------



## Casebearer

What I don't know much about and would be interested in at the stage of this thread is by whom Wagner himself was influenced musically? Or was he one of those lone wolves where revolutionary changes in music started with hardly any real connection to tradition before him?


----------



## brianvds

Casebearer said:


> What I don't know much about and would be interested in at the stage of this thread is by whom Wagner himself was influenced musically? Or was he one of those lone wolves where revolutionary changes in music started with hardly any real connection to tradition before him?


As I mentioned in a previous post, according to Howard Goodall he stole almost everything from Liszt.


----------



## Casebearer

Any comments on that?


----------



## lextune

Casebearer said:


> What I don't know much about and would be interested in at the stage of this thread is by whom Wagner himself was influenced musically? Or was he one of those lone wolves where revolutionary changes in music started with hardly any real connection to tradition before him?


As a teen Wagner began taking harmony lessons, and heard performances of Beethoven's 7th and 9th. He wrote of the huge influence Beethoven had on him.


----------



## lextune

I am as big a Liszt fan as you'll find, and I think it is safe to say Liszt had some influence on Wagner. But it is nonsense to think Wagner 'stole' anything from anyone.


----------



## Chronochromie

Casebearer said:


> What I don't know much about and would be interested in at the stage of this thread is by whom Wagner himself was influenced musically? Or was he one of those lone wolves where revolutionary changes in music started with hardly any real connection to tradition before him?


Beethoven, Gluck, Berlioz, Weber, Liszt, Schumann, Meyerbeer, Mendelssohn,...


----------



## Couchie

Casebearer said:


> What I don't know much about and would be interested in at the stage of this thread is by whom Wagner himself was influenced musically? Or was he one of those lone wolves where revolutionary changes in music started with hardly any real connection to tradition before him?


Throw Beethoven (pathos), Liszt (chromaticism), Berlioz (orchestration), Gluck (drama), and Bellini (melodic line) into a blender, I think you get Wagner.

In his early operas he is most obviously influenced by Donizetti and Meyerbeer, before "rebelling" against them, I suppose that reaction is a sort of influence.


----------



## DavidA

brianvds said:


> As I mentioned in a previous post, according to Howard Goodall he stole almost everything from Liszt.


Having read and seen Goodall on TV on this point, he is offering a corrective to the view that certain things (eg the Tristan chord) originated with Wagner. Some of them actually originated with Liszt. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a composer using another composer's idea and developing it - composer's do it all the time. Just that Wagner wasn't quite as revolutionary as some make out.


----------



## DavidA

lextune said:


> As a teen Wagner began taking harmony lessons, and heard performances of Beethoven's 7th and 9th. He wrote of the huge influence Beethoven had on him.


Every composer is influenced by what went before him. And the best influence those after them.


----------



## Woodduck

Originality can be measured in different ways. One doesn't have to be an eccentric or an outlier to be profoundly original.

Wagner's capacious brain was capable of using anything it needed. He did in fact steal a few specific musical themes from Mendelssohn, Liszt, and Berlioz - and pointed it out to Liszt with a chuckle - a fact which is utterly trivial. More importantly, if you look at his works as a whole - or, short of that, merely at the score of _Parsifal,_ in so many ways the summation of his achievement - you'll find a virtual compendium of the elements of Western tonal music from Palestrina to Liszt. And yet you'll find him using those elements in a radical way, a way most disturbing to listeners and musicians of his day and still unsettling in ours, that undermines the customary function of musical form in creating the "aesthetic distance" which had been expected by listeners until then. Wagner's audiences found themselves immersed in an ocean of feeling, created by a music of constant, fluid transition and transformation, the internal coherence of which was not readily apparent and required new ways of perceiving the exposition of music's materials in time. Again, this loosening of classically sanctioned formal norms and expectations was not entirely Wagner's invention, but the scale of its deployment, over whole scenes and acts of his immense stage works, was unprecedented.

Wagner's breaking down of traditional musical structures proceeded gradually through the works characterized as "Romantic opera," but with _Tristan und Isolde_ the dam broke and he found himself in a new musical world, one which by his own report astonished even him, and which brought him to maturity as a musician. That work, he realized, was his watershed moment, musically and philosophically; he knew that it could not be repeated, and didn't need to be. After it he turned his gaze back over his musical heritage and with his newfound powers created a series of mature works constituting both an artistic summation and an artistic revolution.


----------



## schigolch

Really, I don't think that the impact of Wagner on the world is a mistery at all. 

It's all about the quality of his work. 

Of course, his influence on contemporary people, like the King of Bavaria, can also be credited to his personality, but the influence he had on the 20th century, and in our 21st century, it's due just to his music, his libretti, even his vision of opera as an art encompassing many others.


----------



## DavidA

schigolch said:


> Really, I don't think that the impact of Wagner on the world is a mistery at all.
> 
> It's all about the quality of his work.
> 
> Of course, his influence on contemporary people, like the King of Bavaria, can also be credited to his personality, but the influence he had on the 20th century, and in our 21st century, it's due just to his music, *his libretti, even his vision of opera as an art encompassing many others*.


Of course Wagner's mysic had an effect on what came after but not sure his libretti had much effect at all. After all he was a far greater musician than librettist so his idea of his operas as total works of art is somewhat lop sided. Interesting to see what he would have produced with a really great librettist of the calibre of Boito or da Ponte. But of course, Wagner would never have considered this course. His vision of opera as an art encompassing many others was undermined when it began with the advent of cinema. That would take over the hearts and minds of people far more than opera.


----------



## TxllxT

Comparing the impact of Verdi's operas on the Italians and the rest of the world with Wagner's impact on Germany and the rest of the world I would rate Wagner's impact as quite elitist and therefore: depending on whether one belongs to this elite or not. The sounds that came down the green hill never had the uniting effect on the German nation as say, Nabucco had on the Italian nation.


----------



## amfortas

Chronochromie said:


> Beethoven, Gluck, Berlioz, Weber, Liszt, Schumann, Meyerbeer, Mendelssohn,...





Couchie said:


> Throw Beethoven (pathos), Liszt (chromaticism), Berlioz (orchestration), Gluck (drama), and Bellini (melodic line) into a blender, I think you get Wagner.
> 
> In his early operas he is most obviously influenced by Donizetti and Meyerbeer, before "rebelling" against them, I suppose that reaction is a sort of influence.


To those names I would add one more: Rossini. Where better to learn the slow, relentless build to a powerful climax?

(In music, I mean.)


----------



## EdwardBast

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I
> 
> Wagner's antisemitism has been argued about endlessly here and elsewhere. I agree that it was a clear character flaw... but what artist of any art form was without such flaws? The great Baroque painter, Caravaggio (an artist nearly as influential as Wagner was) killed a man during a duel/street brawl. And yet...




Why is killing someone in a street brawl or duel necessarily a bad thing?


----------



## amfortas

DavidA said:


> Interesting to see what he would have produced with a really great librettist of the calibre of Boito or da Ponte.


Somehow I don't see a Wagner opera set to someone else's libretto having nearly the same lasting impact. Who else would dare the things he attempted?


----------



## philowen

Seeing as the story behind the music has such relevance to music in general, Wagner has been stigmatised. But for those who can listen beyond hearsay and rumor, they will immediately recognize that Wagner was a brilliant composer. His energy and bombast was probably what inspired the third reich, besides nationalism. But this energy is equal in measure when you consider Holst or the main Russian composers of that era. Hitler took a small bit of anti-semitism written by Wagner to an astronomical level. I sincerely doubt that Wagner would have approved of the horrific aftermath of his essay.


----------



## znapschatz

Zhdanov said:


> it was back then that such persons were called 'hypocrites/opportunists' but today we call them 'politically correct'.





amfortas said:


> "We" who?
> xxxxxxxxxxxx


About the phrase,"Politically correct," include me out. It is a term introduced into the language by pollster and political consultant Frank Luntz to influence social discourse. The PC phrasing gives racists, for example, some kind of moral high ground for no longer being able to practice discrimination because of the meddlesome "politically correct." Others of Luntz's contributions to (mostly) conservative thought is "death tax" for estate tax, "climate change" instead of "global warming," and has said his job is to "exploit the emotional content of language." Needless to say, those characterizations are not in my vocabulary.


----------



## brianvds

Woodduck said:


> Wagner's capacious brain was capable of using anything it needed. He did in fact steal a few specific musical themes from *Mendelssohn*,


Mein Gott! Das Judenthum in der Musik!


----------



## DavidA

amfortas said:


> Somehow I don't see a Wagner opera set to someone else's libretto having nearly the same lasting impact. Who else would dare the things he attempted?


Of course he wouldn't have done. It depends whether the things he attempted work and his operas for me don't tend to in the same way as Verdi, Puccini, Bizet and (above all) Mozart. I never find I can identify with Wagner's characters in the same way I can identify with those of other composers. I can feel huge anguish for Don Jose's downfall in Carmen, but nothing for Siegfried. The father daughter duets in Rigoletto move me far more than those in Walkure. I can identify with the lovers in Mozart but not in Tristan. When Tristan rips his bandages off I just think, "You idiot!" And we could go on. I am in no doubt of Wagner's musical genius but the regard of his works as a holy grail is not for me. and before anyone comes roaring back at me, let me say this is a subjective opinion not an objective one!


----------



## znapschatz

DavidA said:


> Of course he wouldn't have done. It depends whether the things he attempted work and his operas for me don't tend to in the same way as Verdi, Puccini, Bizet and (above all) Mozart. I never find I can identify with Wagner's characters in the same way I can identify with those of other composers. I can feel huge anguish for Don Jose's downfall in Carmen, but nothing for Siegfried. The father daughter duets in Rigoletto move me far more than those in Walkure. I can identify with the lovers in Mozart but not in Tristan. When Tristan rips his bandages off I just think, "You idiot!" And we could go on. I am in no doubt of Wagner's musical genius but the regard of his works as a holy grail is not for me. and before anyone comes roaring back at me, let me say this is a subjective opinion not an objective one!


Doesn't represent my feelings for all those characters. I weep for everybody. My wife, however, thinks I'm a dumkopf in re Siegfried, for whom I suffer, while she just regards him as some kind of yutz. But I do distinguish, intellectually, these tragic figures and recognize "Verdi, Puccini, Bizet and above all Mozart" characters as more worthy of my emotions than those of Wagner. However, I'll take my catharsis where I find it.


----------



## amfortas

DavidA said:


> and before anyone comes roaring back at me, let me say this is a subjective opinion not an objective one!


Agreed.
xxxxxxxx


----------



## Woodduck

philowen said:


> Seeing as the story behind the music has such relevance to music in general, Wagner has been stigmatised. But for those who can listen beyond hearsay and rumor, they will immediately recognize that Wagner was a brilliant composer. His energy and bombast was probably what inspired the third reich, besides nationalism. But this energy is equal in measure when you consider Holst or the main Russian composers of that era. Hitler took a small bit of anti-semitism written by Wagner to an astronomical level. I sincerely doubt that Wagner would have approved of the horrific aftermath of his essay.


There are so many misconceptions about Wagner, particularly regarding the nature of his antisemitic views. These were certainly wrong-headed, mean, and reprehensible as far as they went, but they encountered fairly distinct limits when they came up against his more fundamental philosophical and religious ideas.

The actual impact on German culture of Wagner's essay, "Jewishness in Music," seems not to have been very great. There is no real evidence that Hitler ever read it, or any other of Wagner's writings (most of which, convoluted as they are, would probably have bored him, as the operas did most of Hitler's underlings); he cites Wagner as a hero and predecessor, but never quotes him. The Hitlerian "master-race" ideology comes not from Wagner but from Gobineau and others; Wagner didn't know Gobineau's ideas till near the end of his life, when _Parsifal_ was already "in the can" (so much for the attempt to find master-race ideology in that opera), and Wagner (according to Cosima's amazing diary) argued vociferously with Gobineau on just this point, insisting that Germans and Jews were not "races," that no people should dominate another politically or militarily, and that the salvation of mankind depended on a moral conversion which was possible to all. It was this moral conversion which he dramatized in mythical form in _Parsifal._ That opera, with its mysterious plot so attractive to Wagner's agenda-ridden detractors who find virulent racist messages in it, is if anything anti-racist in essence.

For Hitler it was the heroic, mystical, ecstatic qualities of Wagner's work into which he projected a fantasized notion of himself and of an Aryan super-race destined to dominate the world, but that concept was neither originated nor shared by Wagner.


----------



## ArtMusic

It is simply far too easy to demonize Wagner than to praise Wagner in light of his personal, non-musical view of society. Over a hundred years on, his music outshines any of his personal views, which frankly is irrelevant to modern society. Pure and simple.


----------



## Casebearer

DavidA said:


> Of course he wouldn't have done. It depends whether the things he attempted work and his operas for me don't tend to in the same way as Verdi, Puccini, Bizet and (above all) Mozart. I never find I can identify with Wagner's characters in the same way I can identify with those of other composers. I can feel huge anguish for Don Jose's downfall in Carmen, but nothing for Siegfried. The father daughter duets in Rigoletto move me far more than those in Walkure. I can identify with the lovers in Mozart but not in Tristan. When Tristan rips his bandages off I just think, "You idiot!" And we could go on. I am in no doubt of Wagner's musical genius but the regard of his works as a holy grail is not for me. and before anyone comes roaring back at me, let me say this is a subjective opinion not an objective one!


Maybe not all art is moulded to the Hollywood format of a protagonist you are meant to identify with emotionally?


----------



## David OByrne

I think Wagner had the amount of impact he had, because of how epic his music. He took opera and orchestration to the extreme, to my knowledge.

It would've been crazy to hear his music on premiere night!


----------



## DavidA

Casebearer said:


> Maybe not all art is moulded to the Hollywood format of a protagonist you are meant to identify with emotionally?


i just hope you're not describing the operatic genius of Mozart, Verdi, Puccini and Bizet as 'art moulded to the Hollywood format'.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Timing. The cultural mishmash of Continental Europe was in just the right condition for Wagner or someone with his musical predilection and flair for publicity to flourish. Like Darwin, he was the right person at the right time, and would have been far less influential a generation earlier or later. 
And I agree with the argument that Wagner's chromaticism was the influence of Liszt.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

ArtMusic said:


> It is simply far too easy to demonize Wagner than to praise Wagner in light of his personal, non-musical view of society. Over a hundred years on, his music outshines any of his personal views, which frankly is irrelevant to modern society. Pure and simple.


Is it irrelevant to modern society? It is somewhat highbrow to dismiss the widespread ideas of those times, as if we were somehow better or wiser than them.


----------



## TxllxT

ArtMusic said:


> It is simply far too easy to demonize Wagner than to praise Wagner in light of his personal, non-musical view of society. Over a hundred years on, his music outshines any of his personal views, which frankly is irrelevant to modern society. Pure and simple.


Wagner's impact is connected with the fate of romanticism: as long as people envision knights, gods, heroes with swords etc. Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ has the background of understanding that is needed for being able to appreciate his art. Well, tell me, what is romantic about modern society?


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> Wagner's impact is connected with the fate of romanticism: as long as people envision knights, gods, heroes with swords etc. Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ has the background of understanding that is needed for being able to appreciate his art. Well, tell me, what is romantic about modern society?


If you read history then Wagner's society was not so romantic!


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> If you read history then Wagner's society was not so romantic!


People dwelled with their minds not in Bismarck's_ Reich_.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Wagner's impact is connected with the fate of romanticism: as long as people envision knights, gods, heroes with swords etc. Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ has the background of understanding that is needed for being able to appreciate his art. Well, tell me, what is romantic about modern society?


That is a good point. I think listeners back then found in Wagner what many people today find in the hugely popular LOTR and other "sword and sorcery" fantasy: an idealized world where the notions of strength, courage, nobility, loyalty still mean something. Even if a hero like Siegfried dies in the end, he still remains a hero in these worlds.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Well, tell me, what is romantic about modern society?


The good news is: nobody has to remain mentally/emotionally attached to the modern society at all times. We have the freedom to shut it out of our lives to a certain extent and seek out the things that are worth of our love and attachment, even if these things have been created long before our time.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is a good point. I think listeners back then found in Wagner what many people today find in the hugely popular LOTR and other "sword and sorcery" fantasy: an idealized world where the notions of strength, courage, nobility, loyalty still mean something. Even if a hero like Siegfried dies in the end, he still remains a hero in these world.


Yes, except that nowadays we have _Game of Thrones_ on the one hand, and assorted horrors of Regietheater on the other. (Is George Martin to Tolkien what Calixto Bieito is to Wagner?) All of which suggests a loss of belief in those virtues.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Retrograde Inversion said:


> Yes, except that nowadays we have _Game of Thrones_ on the one hand, and assorted horrors of Regietheater on the other. (Is George Martin to Tolkien what Calixto Bieito is to Wagner?) All of which suggests a loss of belief in those virtues.


I have never got around to reading Game of Thrones, so I cannot judge its literary quality. What Regietheater suggests to me though, is not so much a loss of belief, but a desire of certain talentless and fame-hungry people to impose their talentlessness on the work of the geniuses and thus to win their bit of fame at the cost of other people's work.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> Wagner's impact is connected with the fate of romanticism: as long as people envision knights, gods, heroes with swords etc. Wagner's _Gesamtkunstwerk_ has the background of understanding that is needed for being able to appreciate his art. *Well, tell me, what is romantic about modern society?*


There remains a yearning for a Romanticism in which we think we no longer believe. Which means that belief never dies, and Romanticism lives, however corrupted or despairing. Wagner's operas are still objects of pilgrimage, despite what postmodernist atrocities directors wreak upon them. The spectacle onstage may be idiotic, but the music gives the lie to it.


----------



## Casebearer

DavidA said:


> i just hope you're not describing the operatic genius of Mozart, Verdi, Puccini and Bizet as 'art moulded to the Hollywood format'.


Well, I was replying to your post in which you mainly told us you found it hard to identify with Wagner personae. Maybe his art is not meant that way and maybe not all art is to be appreciated that way. Identifying with a protagonist emotionally is very typical of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that, great movies have been made with that approach. But if you more easily identify with protagonists in other operas that might tell something about what you're looking for in an opera. 
I'm not talking about the musical qualities of Mozart etc. but there are resemblances in story telling, identification with a protagonist, dramatic approach. But I agree Hollywood has it's movies have a happy ending mostly and most operas don't.


----------



## KenOC

For the vast majority of the world, Wagner's "impact" consists of his influence on John Williams.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> There remains a yearning for a Romanticism in which we think we no longer believe. Which means that belief never dies, and Romanticism lives, however corrupted or despairing. Wagner's operas are still objects of pilgrimage, despite what postmodernist atrocities directors wreak upon them. The spectacle onstage may be idiotic, but the music gives the lie to it.


There is a difference of 'hardware': in Wagner's Bavaria mad king Ludvig recreated a romantic reality with his fairy tale castles and his floating boats à la Lohengrin. Nowadays this hardware has been substituted by games on a smartphone. This virtual romantic reality is a far cry from the Bavarian craze. My guess is that soon this virtual reality will be substituted by non-European stuff and no one will be able to hear the Siren's song of the rhinemaidens any more.


----------



## DavidA

Casebearer said:


> Well, I was replying to your post in which you mainly told us you found it hard to identify with Wagner personae. Maybe his art is not meant that way and maybe not all art is to be appreciated that way. Identifying with a protagonist emotionally is very typical of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that, great movies have been made with that approach. But if you more easily identify with protagonists in other operas that might tell something about what you're looking for in an opera.
> I'm not talking about the musical qualities of Mozart etc. but there are resemblances in story telling, identification with a protagonist, dramatic approach. But I agree Hollywood has it's movies have a happy ending mostly and most operas don't.


The genius of the great opera composers does not lay in the story telling but in the way they bring the characters to life through the music in a way the listener can identify with. I include Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Bizet and even Leoncavallo in this. And Beethoven in Fidelio.


----------



## Genoveva

The tone of this thread seems to imply that Wagner's influence was quick to develop and was widely pervasive. I don't think that this is true. His new style of "romanticism" was up against that of Brahms and other romantics for quite some time in the "war of the romantics". The Brahmsian influence remained quite strong long after his death. Schoenberg even paid credit to Brahms many years later. 

Various other famous late 19th C composers - like Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Debussy - paid little or no regard to Wagner. They either continued with the earlier traditions or in the case of Debussy develped a new one, Impressionism. Somewhat later, the likes of Prokofiev dabbled again with Classicism, "neo-classicism". As well, several new classical music forms emerged, very different from romanticism, e.g. the Second Viennese School, and various nationalist styles of classical music, some folk-music inspired (e.g. Janacek), etc.

It also seems to be assumed in some members' comments that Wagner is still a very highly influential composer who is much admired by a very large cross-section of the classical music loving community. Surely his influence, whatever it was, began to fade away many years ago. As for his popularity, he's probably just about inside the lower end of top 10 on a popularity vote, but there is quite a lot of blue water separating him from the likes of Brahms and Schubert, less alone Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, who are much rated composers in most peoples' estimation according to the majority of polls I've seen at T-C.


----------



## amfortas

DavidA said:


> The genius of the great opera composers does not lay in the story telling but in the way they bring the characters to life through the music in a way the listener can identify with. I include Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Bizet and even Leoncavallo in this. And Beethoven in Fidelio.


But the libretto, and its underlying story, do matter. For each of the composers you mention, part of the difference between their more and less successful operas lies in the strength of the libretto. Except for Beethoven, of course, who wrote only one opera--and in his case, the somewhat divided reactions to _Fidelio_ over the years reflect the questionable quality of the libretto.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

Genoveva said:


> The tone of this thread seems to imply that Wagner's influence was quick to develop and was widely pervasive. I don't think that this is true. His new style of "romanticism" was up against that of Brahms and other romantics for quite some time in the "war of the romantics". The Brahmsian influence remained quite strong long after his death. Schoenberg even paid credit to Brahms many years later.
> 
> Various other famous late 19th C composers - like Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Debussy - paid little or no regard to Wagner. They either continued with the earlier traditions or in the case of Debussy develped a new one, Impressionism. Somewhat later, the likes of Prokofiev dabbled again with Classicism, "neo-classicism". As well, several new classical music forms emerged, very different from romanticism, e.g. the Second Viennese School, and various nationalist styles of classical music, some folk-music inspired (e.g. Janacek), etc.
> 
> It also seems to be assumed in some members' comments that Wagner is still a very highly influential composer who is much admired by a very large cross-section of the classical music loving community. Surely his influence, whatever it was, began to fade away many years ago. As for his popularity, he's probably just about inside the lower end of top 10 on a popularity vote, but there is quite a lot of blue water separating him from the likes of Brahms and Schubert, less alone Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, who are much rated composers in most peoples' estimation according to the majority of polls I've seen at T-C.


Influence can be both positive and negative; something to react against as much as something to imitate or emulate. Until at least WW1, there was hardly a composer in Europe who did not need to position themselves according to their attitude towards Wagner. A whole generation of composers in France fell under his spell, e.g. D'Indy and Chabrier, who both attempted (quite unsuccessfully), to write operas in a Wagnerian manner. Debussy was also initially entranced, and always retained his admiration for Wagner's music, if not his dramatic methods, but of all the French composers of his day he was the only one with a strong enough musical personality to be able to able to successfully resist and forge his own unique musical voice, one that was, in fact, nonetheless heavily influenced, albeit in quite subtle ways by Wagner. I would recommend Robin Holloway's excellent study _Wagner and Debussy_ for a detailed analysis of those influences.

At least up until WW1, hardly any European composer could ignore Wagner, who simply cast such an enormous shadow. I recall reading (I don't remember where) the contention that Stravinsky was the only one able to do so, but I also seem to recall that he once performed an "ostentatious walkout" of _Parsifal_, which hardly seems the actions of a man who could be merely indifferent.


----------



## amfortas

KenOC said:


> For the vast majority of the world, Wagner's "impact" consists of his influence on John Williams.


That would make for a pretty significant impact on today's popular culture.


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

amfortas said:


> That would make for a pretty significant impact on today's popular culture.


Wagner's influence on pop culture is probably a book-length subject on its own.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> There is a difference of 'hardware': in Wagner's Bavaria mad king Ludvig recreated a romantic reality with his fairy tale castles and his floating boats à la Lohengrin. Nowadays this hardware has been substituted by games on a smartphone. This virtual romantic reality is a far cry from the Bavarian craze. My guess is that soon this virtual reality will be substituted by non-European stuff and no one will be able to hear the Siren's song of the rhinemaidens any more.


By that woeful day I will have died a Wagnerian martyr and gone to the place where where 72 virginal Valkyries will wait upon me with honeyed mead.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

The last word on Wagner's impact belongs to the great Anna Russell:


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> The tone of this thread seems to imply that Wagner's influence was quick to develop and was widely pervasive. I don't think that this is true. His new style of "romanticism" was up against that of Brahms and other romantics for quite some time in the "war of the romantics". The Brahmsian influence remained quite strong long after his death. Schoenberg even paid credit to Brahms many years later.
> 
> Various other famous late 19th C composers - like Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Debussy - paid little or no regard to Wagner. They either continued with the earlier traditions or in the case of Debussy develped a new one, Impressionism. Somewhat later, the likes of Prokofiev dabbled again with Classicism, "neo-classicism". As well, several new classical music forms emerged, very different from romanticism, e.g. the Second Viennese School, and various nationalist styles of classical music, some folk-music inspired (e.g. Janacek), etc.
> 
> It also seems to be assumed in some members' comments that Wagner is still a very highly influential composer who is much admired by a very large cross-section of the classical music loving community. Surely his influence, whatever it was, began to fade away many years ago. As for his popularity, he's probably just about inside the lower end of top 10 on a popularity vote, but there is quite a lot of blue water separating him from the likes of Brahms and Schubert, less alone Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, who are much rated composers in most peoples' estimation according to the majority of polls I've seen at T-C.


I agree with this in part. Wagner's influence took many forms, and certainly couldn't be felt all at once. His specifically musical influence - his effect on the style of other composers - did indeed take some time, and the impact of his "harmonic revolution," as embodied in _Tristan_ and its famous chord, has been exaggerated. Part of the reason has to be that he is simply a hard act to follow. The continuity and coherence he achieved using a vocabulary of such sustained chromaticism, with so little dependence on traditional formal templates, is not within the capacity of most composers' musical minds, and, arguably, no one has ever equaled him in this respect. But it's worth noting that after _Tristan_ Wagner's own music pulls back from the brink and, in _Meistersinger,_ the _Ring_ and _Parsifal_, reincorporates the diatonic harmony of _Lohengrin_ in an utterly confident, masterful idiom of great harmonic flexibility, in which chromaticism assumes its place as the specific expressive resource it has been throughout the history of Western tonal music. Schoenberg's statement, made in the midst of his own 12-tone activity, that there's still plenty of music to be written in C major, was all the more true while Wagner was supposedly revolutionizing harmony, and most music composed during Wagner's lifetime, while showing increasing freedom "around the edges" in its harmonic structure, does not follow Wagner (and, lest we forget, Liszt - a subject in himself) in his more radical rethinking of form. Some composers, but definitely not all, did begin to "catch up" and employ more extensive chromaticism by the last decades of the 19th century, and it appears to me that by the 20th there were few composers who didn't show some Wagnerian influence in their handling of harmony and form. By then, of course, there were other aesthetic approaches asserting themselves, particularly in neoclassicism and nationalism, with composers taking an interest in traditional and ethnic musics employing modes and other elements alien to the common-practice tonal tradition of which Wagner was the climactic exemplar. But even music distinctly un-Wagnerian in flavor doesn't necessarily escape his influence; certainly opera does not.

With respect to the composers you name, Dvorak was quite strongly affected by the Wagner/Liszt aesthetic - hear it in his modulatory freedom, in his rhapsodic and programmatic tone poems, and in his operas - as well as by Brahms. Debussy? _Pelleas et Melisande_ could not exist without _Tristan_ and _Parsifal,_ the latter of which he complained he couldn't exorcise while composing. Schoenberg and Berg are saturated with Wagner and claim _Tristan_ as their matrix. Tchaikovsky did indeed find Wagner alien to his temperament, but his tone poems and the programmatic symphony _Manfred_ are in the Lisztian mold. As to other late Romantic Russians, Rimsky Korsakov, particularly in his operas, reveled in chromatic harmony. Then there are Glazunov, Scriabin, Liadov, early Stravinsky...

I'll cut this short and say that by the last quarter of the 19th century, Wagner was unavoidable by anyone not living under a rock. You could reject him, but first you had to come to terms with him.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> I agree with this in part.
> ...
> I'll cut this short and say that by the last quarter of the 19th century, Wagner was unavoidable by anyone not living under a rock. You could reject him, but first you had to come to terms with him.


The purpose of my post was not to refute the suggestion that Wagner's influence on some later composers was considerable. I accept that it was indeed very high. I simply wanted to point out, lest anyone might have assumed otherwise, that it wasn't a clean sweep with no resistance being met from the existing styles.

I won't repeat all I said before but in essence the older romantic and classical traditions lived on for a long time, and there was quite a tussle for many years betwen the opposing camps. At the end of it, yes there was a hefty Wagnerite tradition, but some might argue that the older schools based around Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsly and Dvorak also came out of it very well if current popularity is anything to go by. Taken in conjunction with the enormous popularity of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, it's apparent that mainstream Classical and Romantic composers still rule the roost.


----------



## millionrainbows

In a way, KenOC's quip is actually on-point. Wagner integrated music with image, and used music to evoke moods and enhance visuals (instead of merely accompanying action). The music itself became the mood-setter, not dominated by the image. This becomes important in later cinema.

As to Wagner's views on Jews, this was the "collective mind" of that time.

Social reality is a very real thing. Most of the time we ride the current, but once we stop, or go against the "collective stream" which is social reality, we see how powerful it is.

Social realities are really implicit forms of religion (Durkheim), and embody religion's tenets in a real way. So if you are going to criticize Wagner, you need to criticize the entire collective mind which produced this social reality.

Durkheim adopted a realist perspective in order to demonstrate the existence of social realities outside the individual and to show that these realities existed in the form of the objective relations of society...external social realities exist in the outer world and that these realities are independent of the individual's perception of them.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> There is a difference of 'hardware': in Wagner's Bavaria mad king Ludvig recreated a romantic reality with his fairy tale castles and his floating boats à la Lohengrin. Nowadays this hardware has been substituted by games on a smartphone. This virtual romantic reality is a far cry from the Bavarian craze. *My guess is that soon this virtual reality will be substituted by non-European stuff* and no one will be able to hear the Siren's song of the rhinemaidens any more.


You underestimate us. The Germans have been through much harder times than these, and have always reemerged and restored their culture - our culture again. And there are plenty of young people throughout Europe willing to fight to death in order to stave off that what you are speaking about.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> In a way, KenOC's quip is actually on-point. Wagner integrated music with image, and used music to evoke moods and enhance visuals (instead of merely accompanying action). The music itself became the mood-setter, not dominated by the image. This becomes important in later cinema.
> 
> *As to Wagner's views on Jews, this was the "collective mind" of that time.*
> 
> Social reality is a very real thing. Most of the time we ride the current, but once we stop, or go against the "collective stream" which is social reality, we see how powerful it is.
> 
> Social realities are really implicit forms of religion (Durkheim), and embody religion's tenets in a real way. So if you are going to criticize Wagner, you need to criticize the entire collective mind which produced this social reality.
> 
> Durkheim adopted a realist perspective in order to demonstrate the existence of social realities outside the individual and to show that these realities existed in the form of the objective relations of society...external social realities exist in the outer world and that these realities are independent of the individual's perception of them.


Just to point out that Wagner's views as expressed in his writings were extreme even by the 'collective mind' of the time.


----------



## DavidA

amfortas said:


> *But the libretto, and its underlying story, do matter. * For each of the composers you mention, part of the difference between their more and less successful operas lies in the strength of the libretto. Except for Beethoven, of course, who wrote only one opera--and in his case, the somewhat divided reactions to _Fidelio_ over the years reflect the questionable quality of the libretto.


Yes you are right. And imo Wagner's libretti are not up to his music. Wagner needed a greater librettist than Wagner. Interesting that the greatest operatic geniuses - i.e. Mozart and Wagner - wrote their greatest operas with da Ponte and Boito, the two greatest librettists


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> In a way, KenOC's quip is actually on-point. Wagner integrated music with image, and used music to evoke moods and enhance visuals (instead of merely accompanying action). The music itself became the mood-setter, not dominated by the image. This becomes important in later cinema.
> 
> *As to Wagner's views on Jews, this was the "collective mind" of that time.
> *
> Social reality is a very real thing. Most of the time we ride the current, but once we stop, or go against the "collective stream" which is social reality, we see how powerful it is.
> 
> Social realities are really implicit forms of religion (Durkheim), and embody religion's tenets in a real way. So if you are going to criticize Wagner, you need to criticize the entire collective mind which produced this social reality.
> 
> Durkheim adopted a realist perspective in order to demonstrate the existence of social realities outside the individual and to show that these realities existed in the form of the objective relations of society...external social realities exist in the outer world and that these realities are independent of the individual's perception of them.


One of the basic tenets of a mature person's philosophy is that we don't justify one person's bad behavior by pointing to other people's bad behavior.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

hpowders said:


> One of the basic tenets of a mature person's philosophy is that we don't justify one person's bad behavior by pointing to other people's bad behavior.


I have also thought mature people judge other people on the basis of their entire personality rather than one aspect of it.

There is another observation I have made from Wagner himself, from these ongoing discussions and also from general experience of living: trying to get all people to like you is a useless undertaking too. Here is Wagner, a man who provided inspiration to many great artists and joy to countless admirers over the last century and a half. What is there not to love? And yet he still polarizes opinion, and still there are people out there who consider him to be a monster or something. How much less then, an ordinary person, like most of us here, can hope to be accepted by each and everyone we encounter. The best we can aspire to is having a small circle of loved ones and friends who will stand by us no matter what. About the rest - do not even bother.

And now I am off to listen to Winterreise for the 8th time....


----------



## hpowders

Speaking of delusions of grandeur:

Let's not project one's own feelings about Wagner on "the world" because Wagner's impact has been minimal on the 8 billion people who live there-many of them simply trying to survive serious diseases and hunger under tyrannical despots.

This was a man; not a god; and a despicable one at that.

Look for better roll models.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Yes you are right. And imo Wagner's libretti are not up to his music. *Wagner needed a greater librettist than Wagner.* Interesting that the greatest operatic geniuses - i.e. Mozart and Verdi - wrote their greatest operas with da Ponte and Boito, the two greatest librettists


I would like to hear some specifics illustrating the supposed weaknesses of Wagner's libretti. I don't deny that Wagner was a better composer, as such, than writer, as such. But a librettist is not a writer as such. A libretto is not, first of all, primarily a work of literature. Taking the large view - the view that matters - I find Wagner's texts quite suitable for their purpose.

A good libretto is one which tells a story in such a way as to result in an effective musical/theatrical work, precisely as a good song text is one which allows a composer to create an effective musical setting. It needs, to begin with, a sense of dramatic shape and proportion, and then a sense of what can be conveyed effectively through music. A libretto by a great poet or playwright might result in a clumsy, untheatrical opera, or might express thoughts ungrateful for musical setting or impossible to comprehend when sung. Wagner's texts are tailor-made for the music he wanted to write, and the proof of the pudding is in the total product.

Not everyone may be sympathetic to Tristan and Isolde discoursing on Day and Night, or David detailing the stylistic features of a mastersong, and certainly no operas of Mozart or Verdi would contain these particular features. But one's reaction comes down finally to whether one enjoys the overall Wagner experience (in a good performance, needless to say). In search of weaknesses in Wagner's libretti, I would point to only one scene, the question and answer scene between Mime and the Wanderer, which I consider an unnecessary holdover from an earlier stage in the evolution of the _Ring_ (recalling that the libretti were written in reverse order), designed mainly to fill us in on things we wouldn't have known had Wagner not gone on to write _Die Walkure_ and then _Das Rheingold._ Anything else accomplished by that scene could have been accomplished more succinctly.

All Wagner's plots, purely as sequences of events, could occupy much less time - often very little happens onstage while the main action is psychological, as revealed in the dialogue - but to wish for that is certainly to miss the point of Wagner. I would not sacrifice one note of _Parsifal,_ and I find its libretto beautifully crafted and perfect for its purpose. Da Ponte and Boito, and their literary and dramatic methods, are from different aesthetic worlds, worlds more familiar and mundane, where the "rules" of good order and taste are more easily implemented and explained. Wagner goes trekking where no man had gone before, and griping about a little verbosity here or there in the midst of such grandeur seems petty. We may as well complain about the excessive ornamentation on a Gothic cathedral or the too clever verbal conceits of Shakespeare.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

hpowders said:


> Speaking of delusions of grandeur:
> 
> Let's not project one's own feelings about Wagner on "the world" because Wagner's impact has been minimal on the 8 billion people who live there-many of them simply trying to survive serious diseases and hunger under tyrannical despots.
> 
> This was a man; not a god; and a despicable one at that.
> 
> Look for better roll models.


Seems like you have something against the man more than the music. Now I understand your disparate views between Mahler and Wagner.


----------



## lextune

KenOC said:


> For the vast majority of the world, Wagner's "impact" consists of his influence on John Williams.


I would say his biggest impact is in every leitmotif, in every Movie or TV show, ever made.

I am being a bit hyperbolic, but Wagner changed how Music interacted with Drama in an enormous way.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Speaking of delusions of grandeur:
> 
> Let's not project one's own feelings about Wagner on "the world" because Wagner's impact has been minimal on the 8 billion people who live there-many of them simply trying to survive serious diseases and hunger under tyrannical despots.
> 
> This was a man; not a god; and a despicable one at that.
> 
> Look for better roll models.


I don't think anyone is looking to Wagner as a "role model." That's an odd expression anyway, isn't it? Are we to think of a person's life as a "role"?

Wagner was an artist - a great artist, indeed one of the greatest creative minds who ever lived. Does anything else matter, especially now, when he and all who knew him are gone? But if we're looking for a "role" to aspire to, he played the role of artist with extraordinary dedication to a vision of incomparable originality and magnitude, and did so in the face of ill health, exile, marital unhappiness, reversals of fortune, and massive public ridicule, succeeding in bringing to reality works which changed the face of culture.

I don't give a damn who he resented or what kind of underwear he wore, any more than I care that Thomas Jefferson had slaves and knocked up Sally Hemings. I'm too grateful for the achievements of these men to spend a moment complaining that they were human.


----------



## ArtMusic

Francis Poulenc said:


> Is it irrelevant to modern society? It is somewhat highbrow to dismiss the widespread ideas of those times, as if we were somehow better or wiser than them.


Yes, it is. So what if Wagner had those views? Am I not intelligent and sensitive enough today (December 2016) to have learned so much from history to read history objectively and to appreciate his music passionately by separating the two? OK, well may I say Wagner was a deplorable human being whom I probably won't want to make friends with, but it is pure fantasy to think that way to begin with anyway; Wagner is long dead. What I have here today, here and now, are records of his music. Music that is original and music that I shall promote to others as quality art.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> I don't think anyone is looking to Wagner as a "role model." That's an odd expression anyway, isn't it? Are we to think of a person's life as a "role"?
> 
> Wagner was an artist - a great artist, indeed one of the greatest creative minds who ever lived. Does anything else matter, especially now, when he and all who knew him are gone? But if we're looking for a "role" to aspire to, he played the role of artist with extraordinary dedication to a vision of incomparable originality and magnitude, and did so in the face of ill health, exile, marital unhappiness, reversals of fortune, and massive public ridicule, succeeding in bringing to reality works which changed the face of culture.
> 
> I don't give a damn who he resented or what kind of underwear he wore, any more than I care that Thomas Jefferson had slaves and knocked up Sally Hemings. I'm too grateful for the achievements of these men to spend a moment complaining that they were human.


I agree with you entirely.

I would add that I've been a member of quite a few classical music forums over the past 6-7 years and the same old tedious subject concerning Wagner's anti-semitism has come up as regular as clockwork whenever there is any reference to Wagner. The only difference is that T-C seems to be worst of the whole bunch in this regard.

Always it's a tiny minority of people who harp on about the same old thing, who wont let go, and bore the rest of us to death with all their whingeing and whining. I've never learned one useful thing from any of them. I think the moderators might want to consider stepping in to stop some this de-railing load of old cobblers that the moaners continually peddle.

It's someone like you who stands up to them and who has an obviously a very good knowledge of the subject of Wagner and his music that I most admire. Well done.


----------



## hpowders

I realize how important Wagner is to the 8 billion people on this planet so what puzzles me is I have this unambitious 16 year old son living in my basement who refuses to listen to Die Walküre.
I just don't understand why Siegfried is so Idyll.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Just to point out that Wagner's views as expressed in his writings were extreme even by the 'collective mind' of the time.


After that, we still had Ford and all the discrimination of the big universities…the collective mind was practically an institution. I don't see it as an individual aberration except in a very limited sense. I think that things like racism are products of large aggregates of certain types, and these I conveniently label as "the collective mind."

From the way you are talking, Germans would never be seen as antisemitic as a group, and we know this to be untrue historically. France is not immune, nor is America.


----------



## millionrainbows

Genoveva said:


> I would add that I've been a member of quite a few classical music forums over the past 6-7 years and the same old tedious subject concerning Wagner's anti-semitism has come up as regular as clockwork whenever there is any reference to Wagner. The only difference is that T-C seems to be worst of the whole bunch in this regard.


No. I'm not saying that about Wagner alone; I'm saying that all of Germany has had a history of antisemitism, as has France and America. In fact, there is a long historic thread of antisemitic feeling all through the history of Christianity. So as a typical German, Wagner fits the bill, but it's no big deal. That was normal for the times, most Germans felt that way.



> Always it's a tiny minority of people who harp on about the same old thing, who won't let go, and bore the rest of us to death with all their whingeing and whining. I've never learned one useful thing from any of them.


No, we are not a tiny minority. We are many; we are the COLLECTIVE MIND.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> After that, we still had Ford and all the discrimination of the big universities…the collective mind was practically an institution. I don't see it as an individual aberration except in a very limited sense. I think that things like racism are products of large aggregates of certain types, and these I conveniently label as "the collective mind."
> 
> *From the way you are talking, Germans would never be seen as antisemitic as a group, *and we know this to be untrue historically. France is not immune, nor is America.


I'm not saying that. Just that Wagner's views were extreme even for the time he lived in.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> I'm not saying that. Just that Wagner's views were extreme even for the time he lived in.


I wonder if that's true. Wagner's friends didn't want him to publish his pamphlet, it's true, and advised him not to. But from my reading, they seemed more concerned about the propriety of publishing those views rather than holding them.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> I wonder if that's true. Wagner's friends didn't want him to publish his pamphlet, it's true, and advised him not to. But from my reading, they seemed more concerned about the propriety of publishing those views rather than holding them.


Exactly because they were seen as extreme.


----------



## KenOC

Perhaps. Or perhaps publishing them was simply considered unseemly.

I can't recall anybody in Wagner's circle objecting to publication because his views were too extreme, or wrong. My impression was that it was due to simple propriety, or perhaps a fear of retribution from publishers (many of whom were Jewish).


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

DavidA said:


> I'm not saying that. Just that Wagner's views were extreme even for the time he lived in.


Possibly so, but Cosima's views appear to have been just as bad, if not worse.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

I'm surprised that a group of educated classical-listeners are seriously having this discussion.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> I wonder if that's true. Wagner's friends didn't want him to publish his pamphlet, it's true, and advised him not to. But from my reading, they seemed more concerned about the propriety of publishing those views rather than holding them.


Exactly! "Don't ask, don't tell…"


----------



## millionrainbows

Francis Poulenc said:


> I'm surprised that a group of educated classical-listeners are seriously having this discussion.


I'm not. I'm just a trailer-trash hillbilly from the oil fields of West Texas.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Perhaps. Or perhaps publishing them was simply considered unseemly.
> 
> I can't recall anybody in Wagner's circle objecting to publication because his views were too extreme, or wrong. *My impression was that it was due to simple propriety, or perhaps a fear of retribution from publishers (many of whom were Jewish)*.


I believe this is correct. In that era there were a great many things one could think but not say, and Wagner's well-known compulsion to express himself must have been not only uncomfortable (if rather thrilling - hee hee hee!) for many people around him, but also rather risky. His friends were no doubt acutely aware that his personal and artistic life were both precarious, and given the controversial nature of his works he was apt to provoke an unsympathetic press. In 1850 he was stuck in an impossible marriage, could look back on a rough grind in Paris doing hack work while trying to get attention as a composer, had gone into exile in Switzerland in 1849 to escape punishment for participating in the Dresden uprising, and was clearly in a bitter and defiant mood when he vented his spleen in his infamous essay.

What made _Das Judentum in der Musik_ distinctive was not that strong anti-Jewish feelings were unusual, but that they were 1.) being expressed by a composer in print, and 2.) were allied with an (apparently rare at the time) attempt at sociological understanding (in which Wagner showed some real understanding of historical and religious realities) and some suggested "solutions" to the "Jewish problem" (a separate Jewish state or assimilation through a renunciation of Judaism).

Wagner's personal sentiments were distasteful, and his pet theory of Jewish impotence in music at least exaggerated, but there's no question that far worse things have been said about and done to Jewish people over the centuries of "Christendom" than anything Wagner did or approved of. He dealt with Jewish friends and associates all his life, owed much to them, knew it, and could apparently hold his feelings of aversion (whatever they really were) in check. Those people seem to have accepted him with good grace despite his well-known published views.


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not. I'm just a trailer-trash hillbilly from the oil fields of West Texas.


....who happens to drink Mogen-David wine. That's pseudo-trailer trash where I come from. Heck you probably don't even cry when Tammy or Dolly sing about broken hearts.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

I can't help but shake my head in a mix of silent amusement and bafflement at the vitriol and hyperbole that's thrown in Wagner's direction over his character. Nasty. Repugnant. Despicable. Let's save something for the criminals, murderers and rapists perhaps. How easy it is to forget that there were many people who knew him personally and loved him, admired him, accepted his faults and cherished his friendship, including Jews, and to cast judgement on someone who we never knew or had any personal contact, to turn them into a caricature, demonize them and portray them as human scum. And what lure Wagner holds for anyone looking for shortcomings in greatness and who feel some sort of satisfaction from finding them.

Obviously his sort of thing isn't confined to this thread or this board alone. It's simply taken for granted and propagated again and again in introductions to classical music and biographies of the man. I can't help but think the root of this has to do mostly with what brianvds pointed out in early on in the thread:



brianvds said:


> I think the only reason why such a big deal is made of it is because the Holocaust is still within living memory.


After the second world war and the discovery of the horrors of the death camps, the subject is no longer one for reasoned analysis. It is deemed, instead, as an eternal stain on his reputation and every part of his character is defined and colored by this prejudice, as if there were nothing more to him. Any good qualities he possessed are whitewashed, and every seeming act of genuine friendship between Wagner and a Jew are seen only as one of cynical manipulation and opportunism on the part of the composer.

I'm reminded of the introduction to the chapter on Wagner in Harold C. Schonberg's famous book, Lives of the Great Composers. It is generally full of insight, warmth, and humor, but not about Wagner. He portrayed as a profligate, sex-obsessed sponger who was fundamentally evil:

"There was somthing messianic about the man, a degree, of megalomania which often approached actual lunacy. As a human being he was frightening. Amoral, hedonistic, selfish, virulently racist, arrogant, filled with gospels of the superman (the superman naturally being Wagner), and the superiority of the human race, he stands for all that is unpleasant in human character."

There is no mention of his many good qualities; the fact that he was well-read intellectual, profoundly interested in the world of ideas and the arts. that he was fun-loving and possessed a keen sense of humor, his tremendous love of nature and animals and his life-long crusade against their mistreatment. As a counter view of the man's character I think of the account told by a Bayreuth factory owner, Friedrich von Schon, of a day late in Wagner's life in 1881 when von Schon recorded with rare objectivity how they had been arguing about the conditions of factory workers like those von Schon himself was employing. Wagner suddenly lost his temper. "Yes," he shouted, "and they stand there all day in their factories and see and hear nothing but bare walls and noise and pounding of the machines -- is that an existence fit for human beings?" A banker and member of the Bayreuth town council, Friedrich Feustel, who was also part of the discussion and a man of some spirit tried to bring up new arguments, "whereupon" says von Schon, "Wagner flared up in a fit of the most profound and painful emotion, summing all that he had to say on the subject in a single exclamation: 'Children, children, children, have you forgotten Jesus Christ!!??' He uttered those words with so indescribable expression in his eyes and with so shatteringly powerful a sense of fellow-feeling for the darker aspects of our social lives, and with such a moving reverence for the divinity of the name that he had just spoken, that we are all moved to the depths of our being. The effect was as if the master had placed the figure of the Redeemer before our innermost eye: 'I saw him -- then his gaze fell on me!' Not another word was spoken. We rose and took our leave, our hearts profoundly stirred."

Of course when we turn to the Schonberg's chapter on Debussy we hear nothing of Debussy's long list of affairs, scandals and desertions of women, beginning at age 18 with the wife of a leading and wealthy Dresden lawyer and eventually leading to a suicide attempt by one of these women who shot herself in the chest while standing in the center of a town square. It could be convincingly argued that Wagner's private life inflicted less damage and misery than Debussy's in many respects, but instead of beginning his chapter on Debussy with a character assassination, Schonberg launches it with a eulogy:

"After a slow start, this musician francais (so he liked to describe himself) was recognised as the greatest French composer of his time. But today he is more than that. He is considered not only the greatest French composer who ever lived; he is considered the revolutionary who with Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune of 1894 set 20th century music on its way."

Any rational view must recognize that Wagner the man possessed titanic faults, as well as titanic virtues, but no one who examines Wagner's biography in any detail could reckon him as qualified even at entry level for the vast and gloomy gallery of those who have added seriously to the sum of human suffering. His antisemitism was very real and very loathsome, and he was genuinely worried that the alien influence of the Jews was distorting the fragile growth of German identity and nationhood. Das Judenthum in der Musik, the tract which he published twice, is a vicious attack on Jews as being bad for German identity. It may seem surprising that a mind as penetrating as his could generate dramas, Die Meistersinger and Parsifal, about decrepit societies rejuvenated by creative vigor from outside, without seeing how this might symbolize what the Jews could bring to Germany; but sense and nonsense often sit side by side even in great minds.


----------



## ArtMusic

This is all we need to know about Wagner, pure and simple.


----------



## Genoveva

SilenceIsGolden said:


> I can't help but shake my head in a mix of silent amusement and bafflement at the vitriol and hyperbole that's thrown in Wagner's direction over his character. Nasty. Repugnant. Despicable.


As I noted previously, this kind of discussion is par for the course around here, and has been for many years. As soon as anyone tries to raise a sensible discussion about Wagner's music there's a high probability that a reference will be made to his anti-semitic views, and the whole discussion about the musical issues then quickly becomes stymied. I can recall that some previous threads became so toxic that they were shut down.

It's not just that Wagner had anti-semitic views but, as we all know, that his music was taken up with great gusto by the Nazis who used it not just for their rallies but played it at concentration camps like Dachau and Buchenvald. From my reading of many of these threads, it's this aspect that magnifies the crime n-fold, and the reason why there is such intolerance of Wagner in some quarters, despite the quality of his music.

Part of the problem may be that older threads pertaining to this subject become buried very quickly and there's no easy way to find them or become aware of them, so newer members probably think that what they're seeing in the latest thread is new, but of course it isn't or anything like.

To repeat what I noted earlier, there is a management issue here: to what extent is it permissible to raise issues about non-musical aspects of Wagner's character in threads of the present nature that raise issues about his musical influence and prowess. It needs looking into in my view.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Genoveva said:


> It's not just that Wagner had anti-semitic views but, as we all know, that his music was taken up with great gusto by the Nazis who used it not just for their rallies *but played it at concentration camps like Dachau and Buchenvald*.


That is another myth.


----------



## Guest

I just found this article.

http://holocaustmusic.ort.org/places/camps/

Music from radio broadcasts or record players was played over loudspeakers Sonic torture at Dachauinstalled in some camps. In addition to propaganda speeches, military marches and 'German' music, in 1933-1934 the guards at Dachau played Richard Wagner's music in order to 're-educate' political opponents. At Buchenwald, established in 1937, loudspeakers broadcast nightly concerts from German radio, depriving prisoners of sleep. Additionally, march music was played to drown out the sounds of executions.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ There is a film with Stephen Fry called "Wagner and I" where Fry interviews someone who had been in those camps, and she expressly says: "No, we did not play or listen to Wagner". I guess in a matter like this it all comes down to what sources you are willing to believe.

And it is irrelevant to the enjoyment of the music anyway.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ There is a film with Stephen Fry called "Wagner and I" where Fry interviews someone who had been in those camps, and she expressly says: "No, we did not play or listen to Wagner". I guess in a matter like this it all comes down to what sources you are willing to believe.
> 
> And it is irrelevant to the enjoyment of the music anyway.


And it is irrelevant to the enjoyment of the music anyway. very true,:tiphat:


----------



## Genoveva

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is another myth.


Oh really? I rarely make an assertion that I can't back up if required. I've been around this Board and several others long enough to appreciate how important it is to be able to do so, given the argumentative and contrary nature of some individuals one occasionally encounters in places like this.

Regards what I wrote, I was simply noting what seemed to me to be sensible reporting by normally reputable sources. The main lead was Wikipedia, followed up by looking at the two references given.

They're given below. If they're all wrong may I suggest you consider getting on to Wikipedia to notify them that in their article "Wagner Controversies" they have made a mistake where they state:



Wikipedia said:


> There is evidence that music of *Wagner* was used at the Dachau concentration camp in 1933/4 to 'reeducate' political prisoners by exposure to 'national music'.[36] However, there seems to be no documentation to support claims sometimes made that his music was played at Nazi death camps.[37]


From ref 36 it states:



Music and the Holocaust said:


> Music from radio broadcasts or record players was played over loudspeakers Sonic torture at Dachauinstalled in some camps. In addition to propaganda speeches, military marches and 'German' music, in 1933-1934 the guards at Dachau played *Richard Wagner's* music in order to 're-educate' political opponents. At Buchenwald, established in 1937, loudspeakers broadcast nightly concerts from German radio, depriving prisoners of sleep. Additionally, march music was played to drown out the sounds of executions.


From ref 37 it states:



Music in Concentration Camps said:


> In some camps prescribed music was forced on the inmates in a second way: music from radio or gramophones was played over permanently installed loudspeakers.[20] In 1933 this system was used in particular in the Dachau camp to re-educate the inmates - who were political opponents of the regime - using propaganda speeches and so-called national music, for example, from the German composer and antisemite *Richard Wagner*.[21] In later years, however, this system was used predominantly to demoralize the prisoners.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Traverso said:


> And it is irrelevant to the enjoyment of the music anyway. very true,:tiphat:


Good to see you agree.

Whenever I meet a classical fan in real life, and of course I ask them about their attitude to Wagner every single time, the only reasons anyone ever gave me for not liking his music were sheer musical reasons - too loud and too long mostly. In real life people do not care for such things as often come up in internet debates.


----------



## Barbebleu

I'm not at all convinced that Wagner had any real lasting impact on the non-musical world. I have many friends who have no interest in classical music and their knowledge of Wagner the artist is limited to Ride of the Walkure and perhaps the Pilgrim's Chorus. Their knowledge of Wagner the man is entirely non-existent. I think in our insular world of "classical" music appreciation we like to think it is more important than it is and we tend to exaggerate its impact on the world in general.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

Barbebleu said:


> I'm not at all convinced that Wagner had any real lasting impact on the non-musical world. I have many friends who have no interest in classical music and their knowledge of Wagner the artist is limited to Ride of the Walkure and perhaps the Pilgrim's Chorus. Their knowledge of Wagner the man is entirely non-existent. I think in our insular world of "classical" music appreciation we like to think it is more important than it is and we tend to exaggerate its impact on the world in general.


"Impact on the world" doesn't mean that everybody nowadays cares about Wagner and worships him like they would Christ. I am referring to his impact on the development of history and of art. Just like many nowadays know nothing about Napoleon other than the fact he was a short French general, his impact on the world was enormous.


----------



## Barbebleu

I understand that. Other than the world of opera what actually was his impact on the artistic world at large? Napoleon rampaged through Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, laying waste to countries and causing the deaths of thousands, which of course had a major impact on European history. I'm not sure that you can argue the same about Wagner.


----------



## Genoveva

Barbebleu said:


> I'm not at all convinced that Wagner had any real lasting impact on the non-musical world. I have many friends who have no interest in classical music and their knowledge of Wagner the artist is limited to Ride of the Walkure and perhaps the Pilgrim's Chorus. Their knowledge of Wagner the man is entirely non-existent. I think in our insular world of "classical" music appreciation we like to think it is more important than it is and we tend to exaggerate its impact on the world in general.


That's right. Roughly 95% of the population (music world) have probably never even heard of Wagner, and among the few that may know a little it's probably only a very vague notion. Of the roughly 5% who are classical music lovers probably only about a third have Wagner on their list of favourites, and of these I bet the vast majority don't care about his non-musical views, etc.

On the few occasions I've ever had discussions about Wagner I can honestly say that no-one has ever raised these extraneous matters. So we're talking about a miniscule proportion of people who let these other aspects of Wagner's character worry them. The trouble is they often make a highly disproportionate amount of noise making their views known in places like this, annoying the vast majority who aren't interested. In other words they are being disruptive.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

Barbebleu said:


> I understand that. Other than the world of opera what actually was his impact on the artistic world at large? Napoleon rampaged through Europe in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, laying waste to countries and causing the deaths of thousands, which of course had a major impact on European history. I'm not sure that you can argue the same about Wagner.


Did he not indirectly cause the Holocaust? Unintentionally of course, but that's some major impact right there.


----------



## amfortas

ArtMusic said:


> This is all we need to know about Wagner, pure and simple.


I'm not sure I would call it either "pure" or "simple." Beautiful, yes.


----------



## Faustian

Traverso said:


> I just found this article.
> 
> http://holocaustmusic.ort.org/places/camps/
> 
> Music from radio broadcasts or record players was played over loudspeakers Sonic torture at Dachauinstalled in some camps. In addition to propaganda speeches, military marches and 'German' music, in 1933-1934 the guards at Dachau played Richard Wagner's music in order to 're-educate' political opponents. At Buchenwald, established in 1937, loudspeakers broadcast nightly concerts from German radio, depriving prisoners of sleep. Additionally, march music was played to drown out the sounds of executions.


In her essay Wagner and the Third Reich in the Cambridge Companion to Wagner Pamela M. Porter writes:

"Despite gruesome allegations of its use to accompany the murder of inmates of the death camps, any anti-semitic policies linked to Wagner's music were generally limited to assuring that it not be "tainted" by Jewish hands. For example, with the founding of the Jewish Culture League (a joint effort by the Jewish community and the Nazi government to forestall the economic side effects of throwing Jews out of work, while still isolating them from German cultural life), Nazi officials overseeing the music programs were so vague in outlining their prohibitions on Jews performing "German" works that Jewish leaders took it upon themselves to advise against playing Wagner, Weber or Loring in an act of self-censorship...We also know from testimonies that concentration camp orchestras played music from operettas, symphonic classics, popular tunes, and even Yiddish folk melodies but that Wagner was specifically off-limits. However, after the war, unsubstantiated claims that Wagner's music accompanied Jews to their death took on momentum, probably as a response to a new, broader public awareness of Wagner's anti-semitic writings, of the Wagner family's relationship to Hitler, and of the exploitation of Wagner's legacy in the Third Reich."

So yeah, there seems to be conflicting accounts and sources, but obviously none of it has any bearing on Wagner or his music.


----------



## Guest

I trust that this source is valid,thank you for posting it,not that it makes any difference in appreciation the music .
Is seems that rumours are more attractive than real facts.


----------



## hpowders

Poll results in. Eight billion questionaires mailed, world-wide; 7.35 billion returned.

Rated from most important in one's life to least important:

1. Wagner's music

2. Wagner's writings

3. TC Wagner threads

4. Favorite obese Brünnhildes

5. Hunger

6. Poverty

7. Disease

8. Oppression

9. World terrorism


----------



## Barbebleu

Francis Poulenc said:


> Did he not indirectly cause the Holocaust? Unintentionally of course, but that's some major impact right there.


I can't even think that anyone on this forum could respond to that allegation without having some sort of seizure! How in the name of Catherine Zeta Jones could a musician who died in 1883 be responsible directly or indirectly for the holocaust. I doubt even the most fervent anti-fascist would buy into nonsense like that.

One might as well postulate that he was indirectly responsible for global warming. Give me peace.


----------



## millionrainbows

Barbebleu said:


> I can't even think that anyone on this forum could respond to that allegation without having some sort of seizure! How in the name of Catherine Zeta Jones could a musician who died in 1883 be responsible directly or indirectly for the holocaust. I doubt even the most fervent anti-fascist would buy into nonsense like that.
> 
> You might as well postulate that he was indirectly responsible for global warming. Give me peace.


Well, it could be argued that Wagner indirectly contributed to the Holocaust by resurrecting and glorifying German mythology, thereby aiding in a new Nationalistic fervor which later swept over Germany. After all, religion and mythology are the root sources of all secular social realities (Durkheim).

BTW, why are you so fervently defending Wagner?


----------



## Barbebleu

As we say in Scotland, what a load of bannocks. I'm going to bow out of this thread before I say something that gets me banned from the forum.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Genoveva said:


> Oh really? I rarely make an assertion that I can't back up if required.


I think there may have been a misunderstanding. The terms "concentration camp" (Konzentrationslager) and "death/extermination camp" (Vernichtungslager) are sometimes used interchangeably, but that's a common misconception. That's not to say that there weren't mixed concentration/death camps (e.g. the Auschwitz-Birkenau/Monowitz complex), nor that murder didn't happen at the concentration camps, of course.

There is little evidence that Wagner was played aloud at the Vernichtungslager (e.g. Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka), where the policy was largely one of keeping new arrivals as calm as possible pending their imminent murder. To this end, light music - e.g. Viennese waltzes - was sometimes played over loudspeakers or, sometimes, by small orchestras made up of inmates whose lives had previously been spared.

It was another matter in the Konzentrationslager, where the playing of "echt" German music (e.g. Wagner) appears to have been used in an attempt to "re-Germanize" the "enemies of the state" typically confined in those camps. The sources you kindly provided would seem to bear this out.


----------



## Genoveva

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I think there may have been a misunderstanding. The terms "concentration camp" (Konzentrationslager) and "death/extermination camp" (Vernichtungslager) are sometimes used interchangeably, but that's a common misconception. That's not to say that there weren't mixed concentration/death camps (e.g. the Auschwitz-Birkenau/Monowitz complex), nor that murder didn't happen at the concentration camps, of course.


There is no misunderstanding on my part. I am fully aware of the distinction between "concentration camps" and "death/extermination camps".

What I wrote was quite precise: "_It's not just that Wagner had anti-semitic views but, as we all know, that his music was taken up with great gusto by the Nazis who used it not just for their rallies but played it *at concentration camps* like Dachau and Buchenvald._."

I did so because I half-guessed that someone would try to pick me up and make an issue out of it, and it has turned out that I wasn't wrong.

I repeat that what I wrote is strictly in accordance with the references that I provided at Wikipedia. In the light of this, I am still waiting for an explanation of why what I wrote is a "myth", as alleged.


----------



## Morton

I’m not sure how great an impact Wagner made in the wider world (outside of his obviously massive impact in Opera & Classical music in general) but judging by this forum, which I have only recently joined, he still creates far more controversy & heated argument than all the other composers put together.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Genoveva said:


> There is no misunderstanding on my part. I am fully aware of the distinction between "concentration camps" and "death/extermination camps".
> 
> What I wrote was quite precise: "_It's not just that Wagner had anti-semitic views but, as we all know, that his music was taken up with great gusto by the Nazis who used it not just for their rallies but played it *at concentration camps* like Dachau and Buchenvald._."
> 
> I did so because I half-guessed that someone would try to pick me up and make an issue out of it, and it has turned out that I wasn't wrong.
> 
> I repeat that what I wrote is strictly in accordance with the references that I provided at Wikipedia. In the light of this, I am still waiting for an explanation of why what I wrote is a "myth", as alleged.


I have to concede that point to your superior knowledge of concentration camps and the goings-on therein :tiphat: 
I admit I have never learned much about Wagner from _that_ angle. I have been in the vicinity of Dachau several times, but never even thought of visiting.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Well, it could be argued that Wagner indirectly contributed to the Holocaust by resurrecting and glorifying German mythology, thereby aiding in a new Nationalistic fervor which later swept over Germany. After all, religion and mythology are the root sources of all secular social realities (Durkheim).
> 
> BTW, why are you so fervently defending Wagner?


Is it plausible to think that if Wagner had not lived the holocaust would not have taken place?
This is a grotesque question but the reason is clear I hope.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

millionrainbows said:


> BTW, why are you so fervently defending Wagner?


I am not Barbebleu, but I will try to provide an answer if I can. Can you spell l-o-v-e?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

amfortas said:


> I'm not sure I would call it either "pure" or "simple." Beautiful, yes.


Parsifal is both pure and beautiful, but most definitely not simple.


----------



## millionrainbows

Traverso said:


> Is it plausible to think that if Wagner had not lived the holocaust would not have taken place?
> This is a grotesque question but the reason is clear I hope.


No, not really, because the collective social mind of Germany was already formed, and Wagner was just a part of that. However, as an artist, his expression of this social mind was very powerful.

The social reality was already there. Wagner did not create it, nor can he be held personally responsible for going along with it, unless you want to be perceived as hypocritical.

Everybody in every society goes along with the collective, unless they are a deviant outsider.

All Wagner did was go along with prevailing views, and the Nationalistic quality of his works enhanced that.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Genoveva said:


> There is no misunderstanding on my part. I am fully aware of the distinction between "concentration camps" and "death/extermination camps".


I wasn't suggesting that it was your misunderstanding. I was only trying to be helpful, but evidently failed.

My apologies.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> No, not really, because the collective social mind of Germany was already formed, and Wagner was just a part of that. However, as an artist, his expression of this social mind was very powerful.
> 
> The social reality was already there. Wagner did not create it, nor can he be held personally responsible for going along with it, unless you want to be perceived as hypocritical.
> 
> Everybody in every society goes along with the collective, unless they are a deviant outsider.
> 
> All Wagner did was go along with prevailing views, and the Nationalistic quality of his works enhanced that.


We are all children of our time.


----------



## Barbebleu

millionrainbows said:


> Well, it could be argued that Wagner indirectly contributed to the Holocaust by resurrecting and glorifying German mythology, thereby aiding in a new Nationalistic fervor which later swept over Germany. After all, religion and mythology are the root sources of all secular social realities (Durkheim).
> 
> BTW, why are you so fervently defending Wagner?


I just noticed your last sentence. Where in what I said am I defending Wagner. And in what manner is it fervently? I thought I was implying that it seems a tad over the top to suggest that a nineteenth century musician could be held responsible for inadvertently contributing to the holocaust. Nothing more than that. I am a great admirer of Wagner's music dramas and that is where I start and finish. His morals and politics hold no interest for me. And that is definitely me out of this thread unless I am maligned again.


----------



## Genoveva

Barbebleu said:


> I just noticed your last sentence. Where in what I said am I defending Wagner. And in what manner is it fervently? I thought I was implying that it seems a tad over the top to suggest that a nineteenth century musician could be held responsible for inadvertently contributing to the holocaust. Nothing more than that. I am a great admirer of Wagner's music dramas and that is where I start and finish. His morals and politics hold no interest for me. And that is definitely me out of this thread unless I am maligned again.


I'm with you 100% on those thoughts, but don't go as you're one of the "voices" on here that helps to keep things sane. Being misunderstood and misinterpreted is a very common occurrence in places like this, as you must be aware. I almost expect it to occur each time I write anything, and thank my lucky stars whenever I don't receive something weird thrown back at me.


----------



## DavidA

SilenceIsGolden said:


> I can't help but shake my head in a mix of silent amusement and bafflement at the vitriol and hyperbole that's thrown in Wagner's direction over his character.


Frank.ly I shake my head in silent amusement and bafflement that you could write such a thing. Of course Wagner is discussed with hyperbole. His whole art form is hyperbole as were his philosophical, racial and political views. Everything Wagner did was extreme. Hence forgive the poor souls on this forum who use hyperbole in their discussions of Wagner himself!


----------



## DavidA

Someone has written:
_'There is a film with Stephen Fry called "Wagner and I" where Fry interviews someone who had been in those camps, and she expressly says: "No, we did not play or listen to Wagner". I guess in a matter like this it all comes down to what sources you are willing to believe.'_

Having seen Fry's rather sycophantic programme on Wagner the interview he did with an elderly Jewish holocaust survivor was on the subject of what the camp musicians played in their orchestra - not what was played over the loudspeakers to those interned. the lady herself said she never played Wagner as 'I do not like noise'.


----------



## DavidA

Questions have raged on about the impact Wagner had on the world. Certainly if the Nazis (particularly Hitler - other Nazis were bored stiff by his music) had not taken him up in the way they did then Wagner would probably have been reduced to a minority taste by those who like classical music and opera. As it is the uncomfortable way in which Wagner's clearly expressed racial views and those of the Nazis coincided has obviously tainted the composer's reputation irrevocably in the eyes of many. Wagnerians who look upon the operas as a sort of holy grail whose philosophical musings have great meaning for mankind obviously rush to defend their hero from the taint which was sadly largely self inflicted - let's face it if it hadn't have been for Richard's vainglorious publishing of his obnoxious views they probably would have been forgotten by now, the Nazis notwithstanding. 
However, there are those who can hold his antisemitism in the same light as his other somewhat dubious philosophies that he embraced but didn't appear to practice. After all, a serial womaniser who writes an opera on chastity being a way to enlightenment surely can't be taken too seriously! But then I don't take the philosophy behind (say) Zauberflote seriously at all. I just enjoy the wonders of Mozart's music. So let's not take dear old Richard too seriously - he was a great musician but probably a bit of a crackpot in other ways! As indeed were quite a few other of the great composers!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Certainly if the Nazis (particularly Hitler - other Nazis were bored stiff by his music) had not taken him up in the way they did then Wagner would probably have been reduced to a minority taste by those who like classical music and opera.


Let me get this straight. You are saying that Wagner has been, and still is, considered one of the greatest composers in history, and one of the most popular and beloved composers of opera, because Hitler liked his music.

Will you all excuse me? I'll need some time to recover from that one.


----------



## Pugg

SiegendesLicht said:


> I am not Barbebleu, but I will try to provide an answer if I can. Can you spell l-o-v-e?


SiegendesLicht , _the most moving words I've seen this morning_, may I salute you!


----------



## Retrograde Inversion

<Sigh.>

This thread, which began as a reasonably interesting discussion of Wagner's impact on the arts, has now inevitably descended into the usual stale old arguments about his racial theories. In the words of the man himself:

* Kinder! Macht Neues!*


----------



## Casebearer

millionrainbows said:


> Well, it could be argued that Wagner indirectly contributed to the Holocaust by resurrecting and glorifying German mythology, thereby aiding in a new Nationalistic fervor which later swept over Germany. After all, religion and mythology are the root sources of all secular social realities (Durkheim).
> 
> BTW, why are you so fervently defending Wagner?


Maybe in ancient history mythology and religion were some kind of root source but religion has been a social construct for ages. It is not a root source for social reality. It may be presented as that but it is used by the societal group that is in power to stay in power over the dumb masses. There are always other societal groups contesting that. There is never 'one' religion. Different religions (or different versions of a religion) are in a constant struggle for supremacy which shows my point excellently that religion is an expression of societal groups searching for power (mainly over economic resources in the end).


----------



## Casebearer

millionrainbows said:


> Everybody in every society goes along with the collective, unless they are a deviant outsider.


This is not true as well in my opinion. Many people don't go along, they're often just not in a position to do anything about the dominant 'social reality'. But then things change. Think about Trump and the people he (says he) represents. (Talking about different social realities).


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Let me get this straight. You are saying that Wagner has been, and still is, considered one of the greatest composers in history, and one of the most popular and beloved composers of opera, because Hitler liked his music.
> 
> Will you all excuse me? I'll need some time to recover from that one.


If you actually read what I said is that the huge controversies caused by Wagner (of which this thread and others are results) would not have happened if Hitler hadn't have championed him in the way he did. And, of course, if Wagner's own writings had not uncomfortably anticipated the Nazis own anti-semitism. Wagner would then have been another opera composer - popular and beloved by some but only among among a certain section of the classical music public. This is no reflection on the quality or otherwise of his music, just historical factors which have been noted by historians and musicologists more knowledgeable than thee or me.
Obviously his influence on the development of music is a different matter and people take sides on the issue. But most people are not composers or music students. When we talk about the influence of Wagner on people who enjoy classical music we must remember that opera is a minority taste and only a section of the opera going public appreciate Wagner. Most of my friends who like classical music would not attend a Wagner opera. I do but then I realise I'm in the minority.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Retrograde Inversion said:


> <Sigh.>
> 
> This thread, which began as a reasonably interesting discussion of Wagner's impact on the arts, has now inevitably descended into the usual stale old arguments about his racial theories. In the words of the man himself:
> 
> * Kinder! Macht Neues!*


And now they have even brought Trump into it


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> No, not really, because the collective social mind of Germany was already formed, and Wagner was just a part of that. However, as an artist, his expression of this social mind was very powerful.
> 
> The social reality was already there. Wagner did not create it, nor can he be held personally responsible for going along with it, unless you want to be perceived as hypocritical.
> 
> Everybody in every society goes along with the collective, unless they are a deviant outsider.
> 
> All Wagner did was go along with prevailing views, and the Nationalistic quality of his works enhanced that.


Really now? Are you saying people are so morally weak that when they perceive something so despicably anti-human, all they will do is shrug their shoulders and simply go along with the majority?

In that case, I would call Wagner a moral coward.

However it goes beyond that. His writings demonstrate that his anti-semitism was real and he was not simply going along with the prevailing mood of the day as a moral coward would do. His views WERE the banner-carrying mood of Germany.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Really now? Are you saying people are so morally weak that when they perceive something so despicably anti-human, all they will do is shrug their shoulders and simply go along with the majority?


A lot of the horror was secretive, and the masses were in a sort of denial about it.



> In that case, I would call Wagner a moral coward. However it goes beyond that. His writings demonstrate that his anti-semitism was real and he was not simply going along with the prevailing mood of the day as a moral coward would do. His views WERE the banner-carrying mood of Germany.


I'm not sure what the difference is, and the net result is the same. One individual does not define the larger social order, unless you consider "Wagner Inc." to be a sort of larger-than life "corporation" which was able to amplify Wagner's views and reach millions of people, which it did. His work, and the views it reflected, however unconscious or wrapped in mythology, became "a religion" unto itself.


----------



## millionrainbows

SilenceIsGolden said:


> I can't help but shake my head in a mix of silent amusement and bafflement at the vitriol and hyperbole that's thrown in Wagner's direction over his character. Nasty. Repugnant. Despicable. Let's save something for the criminals, murderers and rapists perhaps. How easy it is to forget that there were many people who knew him personally and loved him, admired him, accepted his faults and cherished his friendship, including Jews, and to cast judgement on someone who we never knew or had any personal contact, to turn them into a caricature, demonize them and portray them as human scum. And what lure Wagner holds for anyone looking for shortcomings in greatness and who feel some sort of satisfaction from finding them.


We do know about sociology, though, and the fact is that the "social reality" of a society (Durkheim) is an expression of religion and moral values. Wagner, as a good citizen, embodies all of these values shared by the "collective mind."




> After the second world war and the discovery of the horrors of the death camps, the subject is no longer one for reasoned analysis. It is deemed, instead, as an eternal stain on his reputation and every part of his character is defined and colored by this prejudice, as if there were nothing more to him. Any good qualities he possessed are whitewashed, and every seeming act of genuine friendship between Wagner and a Jew are seen only as one of cynical manipulation and opportunism on the part of the composer.


It seems to me that the sinister and evil qualities of a social reality need to be illuminated, rather than the "good" qualities emphasized. The prevailing social reality is an expression of religion, and is thus seen to be sacred. 




> I'm reminded of the introduction to the chapter on Wagner in Harold C. Schonberg's famous book, Lives of the Great Composers. It is generally full of insight, warmth, and humor, but not about Wagner. He portrayed as a profligate, sex-obsessed sponger who was fundamentally evil:





> "There was somthing messianic about the man, a degree, of megalomania which often approached actual lunacy. As a human being he was frightening. Amoral, hedonistic, selfish, virulently racist, arrogant, filled with gospels of the superman (the superman naturally being Wagner), and the superiority of the human race, he stands for all that is unpleasant in human character."




This is often true of those in power who represent 'righteousness' and the religious values of a society in the form of being part of the "social reality."




> There is no mention of his many good qualities; the fact that he was well-read intellectual, profoundly interested in the world of ideas and the arts. that he was fun-loving and possessed a keen sense of humor, his tremendous love of nature and animals and his life-long crusade against their mistreatment. As a counter view of the man's character I think of the account told by a Bayreuth factory owner, Friedrich von Schon, of a day late in Wagner's life in 1881 when von Schon recorded with rare objectivity how they had been arguing about the conditions of factory workers like those von Schon himself was employing. Wagner suddenly lost his temper. "Yes," he shouted, "and they stand there all day in their factories and see and hear nothing but bare walls and noise and pounding of the machines -- is that an existence fit for human beings?" A banker and member of the Bayreuth town council, Friedrich Feustel, who was also part of the discussion and a man of some spirit tried to bring up new arguments, "whereupon" says von Schon, "Wagner flared up in a fit of the most profound and painful emotion, summing all that he had to say on the subject in a single exclamation: 'Children, children, children, have you forgotten Jesus Christ!!??' He uttered those words with so indescribable expression in his eyes and with so shatteringly powerful a sense of fellow-feeling for the darker aspects of our social lives, and with such a moving reverence for the divinity of the name that he had just spoken, that we are all moved to the depths of our being. The effect was as if the master had placed the figure of the Redeemer before our innermost eye: 'I saw him -- then his gaze fell on me!' Not another word was spoken. We rose and took our leave, our hearts profoundly stirred."


This is commendable, but typical: all industrial societies who use human beings as commodities are guilty, and the facade of "goodness" and "righteousness" needs to be exposed, not glossed-over.
Wagner was on the side of power; he had achieved recognition, and as such, was a "company man," regardless of his reticence or uncomfortableness.




> Of course when we turn to the Schonberg's chapter on Debussy we hear nothing of Debussy's long list of affairs, scandals and desertions of women, beginning at age 18 with the wife of a leading and wealthy Dresden lawyer and eventually leading to a suicide attempt by one of these women who shot herself in the chest while standing in the center of a town square. It could be convincingly argued that Wagner's private life inflicted less damage and misery than Debussy's in many respects, but instead of beginning his chapter on Debussy with a character assassination, Schonberg launches it with a eulogy:





> "After a slow start, this musician francais (so he liked to describe himself) was recognised as the greatest French composer of his time. But today he is more than that. He is considered not only the greatest French composer who ever lived; he is considered the revolutionary who with Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune of 1894 set 20th century music on its way."




Debussy's "sins" were moral and personal in nature, without political and nationalistic resonances. Debussy was an outsider bohemian compared to Wagner.




> Any rational view must recognize that Wagner the man possessed titanic faults, as well as titanic virtues, but no one who examines Wagner's biography in any detail could reckon him as qualified even at entry level for the vast and gloomy gallery of those who have added seriously to the sum of human suffering. His antisemitism was very real and very loathsome, and he was genuinely worried that the alien influence of the Jews was distorting the fragile growth of German identity and nationhood. Das Judenthum in der Musik, the tract which he published twice, is a vicious attack on Jews as being bad for German identity. It may seem surprising that a mind as penetrating as his could generate dramas, Die Meistersinger and Parsifal, about decrepit societies rejuvenated by creative vigor from outside, without seeing how this might symbolize what the Jews could bring to Germany; but sense and nonsense often sit side by side even in great minds.


Yes, it is often disturbing to see the contradictions in the prevailing power structure, under the cover of Religion and its expression as social reality. That is why it is necessary and desirable, even beneficial, for the outside fringe groups of art to penetrate, like maggots, the pristine underbelly of "respectable" society.


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> A lot of the horror was secretive, and the masses were in a sort of denial about it.
> 
> I'm not sure what the difference is, and the net result is the same. One individual does not define the larger social order, unless you consider "Wagner Inc." to be a sort of larger-than life "corporation" which was able to amplify Wagner's views and reach millions of people, which it did. His work, and the views it reflected, however unconscious or wrapped in mythology, became "a religion" unto itself.


All I'm seeing here is Wagner reflected the Germany of the time. Stating that doesn't justify his writings. He could have chosen not to write despicable things against Jews and simply stuck to something he was an unquestionable authority about, music.

Reminds me of all those Hollywood actors, all of a sudden becoming political authorities about global warming, while mega-carbon foot-printing around the globe in private jets, and are all of a sudden such great judges of character, putting down Donald Trump, as "despicable" while they cheat on their spouses multiple times and go through marriage partners like its water and wear tops, cut down to their navels. Some moral authorities.

Hey Wagner! Stick to your damn music and button thy lip on "Ubermenschen". As far as I can tell, your flesh rotted no differently than any Jew's.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ Somehow I doubt that he can hear you up there in the halls of Valhalla 



hpowders said:


> Reminds me of all those Hollywood actors, all of a sudden becoming political authorities about global warming, while mega-carbon foot-printing around the globe in private jets, and are all of a sudden such great judges of character, putting down Donald Trump, as "despicable" while they cheat on their spouses multiple times and go through marriage partners like its water and wear tops, cut down to their navels. Some moral authorities.


Thank you, that is a very good portrayal of some of Wagner's critics: people with a small soul, looking for faults in others with a microscope, why they themselves have not contributed anything to make man nobler, smarter or even happier.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> All I'm seeing here is Wagner reflected the Germany of the time. Stating that doesn't justify his writings. He could have chosen not to write despicable things against Jews and simply stuck to something he was an unquestionable authority about, music.


His writings reflected Germany of the time as well; social views are not often explicitly expressed or even acknowledged.


----------



## Richard8655

hpowders said:


> Reminds me of all those Hollywood actors... all of a sudden such great judges of character, putting down Donald Trump, as "despicable" while they cheat on their spouses multiple times and go through marriage partners like its water and wear tops, cut down to their navels. Some moral authorities..


I don't know, hp. The Donald has gone through his share of revolving door wives and done a fair amount of you-know-what grabbing. And none of those Hollywood actors are the next commander-in-chief... that's what's scary.

But to keep on the classical music topic, I tend to agree with you that Wagner should be seen in the light of his entirety, not just the prettification of his impressivel music. I think it's valid to discuss a composer's social and personal motivations, as that's the sum of the human being. Isolating the artistic output doesn't do justice to understanding who this really was.


----------



## millionrainbows

Somehow, Schoenberg worshipped Wagner; but this was back when Schoenberg was in denial. 

When reality set in, and he had to leave, I hope that he realized who it was that he was worshipping. 

I might say the same for Mahler. These guys were either totally naive and in denial, or their love for the music overshadowed all the other ugly factors.

And they came to America for sanctuary. What idealists, what naive idealists. Amerika is certainly not a Utopia.


----------



## Genoveva

I'm afraid that I'm sceptical of all this talk about composer X "worshipping" composer "Y", whoever X and Y may be. 

If it is the case with a few of them, they were probably narrow-minded if that's the their minds work, i.e. only seeing virtue in the talents of people like themselves with similar skill sets.

I think the majority of them probably enjoyed a great deal more a pint down the pub, a good soak in the bath, a plate full of their favourite grub (=meal for non Brits), and maybe a bit on the side occasionally, in preference to an evening listening to/analysing some other composer's works. 

It's mainly made up folk-lore that gets into Forum-talk and is then banded around, repeated, as if it's the indisputable truth. It could be done as a device to persuade forum members of the virtues of some composer that happens to be among the favourites of the person making the claim, in the hope that if "Y"was worshipped then why the hell aren't you bunch of nits worshipping him too?

Carrying on believing it all if you wish. I don't care.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Frank.ly I shake my head in silent amusement and bafflement that you could write such a thing. Of course Wagner is discussed with hyperbole. *His whole art form is hyperbole as were his philosophical, racial and political views.* *Everything Wagner did was extreme. Hence forgive the poor souls on this forum who use hyperbole* in their discussions of Wagner himself!


Fallacies abound. What is considered "extreme" is rather in the eye of the beholder. It is not an objective quantity, and as a pure abstraction it cannot be used to "forgive" its imitation by others. Furthermore, "extreme" and hyperbolic" are not synonyms.

A four-hour opera may be considered "extreme" by some, but an exaggerated statement - hence an untrue statement - is not in any way equivalent.

Poor souls prone to hyperbole should check their facts. Wagner's personal or artistic "extremes" don't excuse the vitriol and distortions of his critics.


----------



## Faustian

hpowders said:


> Hey Wagner! Stick to your damn music and button thy lip on "Ubermenschen". As far as I can tell, your flesh rotted no differently than any Jew's.


So where was this great discourse of his on Ubermenschen, exactly?

It's always obvious in these discussions that those who are most vociferous in attacking Wagner's antisemitism and claiming his influences on Nazism haven't actually read a word he wrote, and don't understand a thing about a the man and his "philosophy".


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> *It's mainly made up folk-lore that gets into Forum-talk and is then banded around, repeated, as if it's the indisputable truth.* It could be done as a device to persuade forum members of the virtues of some composer that happens to be among the favourites of the person making the claim, in the hope that if "Y"was worshipped then why the hell aren't you bunch of nits worshipping him too?
> 
> Carrying on believing it all if you wish. I don't care.


The "forum-talk" about Wagner is typical of internet talk, but - more importantly and reprehensibly - it's typical of both the media in general and of late 20th-century "scholarship." It's almost impossible to find articles about Wagner, even in supposedly responsible journals, that don't re-tweet the lazy, obligatory, and fallacious memes that find their way here with predictable results. The real Wagner and his rich and provocative art are just too much for mediocre minds to wrap themselves around, and they really don't care that truth is subtler than fiction. In fact, the subtlety of reality is just what people hate about it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck, what scholarship do you consider to be trustworthy then? Or do you believe the very best way is to read Wagner's own writings and make one's own opinion about the man and his art?


----------



## Guest

And to put it in a historical perspective wich is quite an undertaking and not an easy task.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> The "forum-talk" about Wagner is typical of internet talk, but - more importantly and reprehensibly - it's typical of both the media in general and of late 20th-century "scholarship." It's almost impossible to find articles about Wagner, even in supposedly responsible journals, that don't re-tweet the lazy, obligatory, and fallacious memes that find there way here with predictable results.* The real Wagner and his rich and provocative art are just too much for mediocre minds to wrap themselves *around, and they really don't care that truth is subtler than fiction. In fact, the subtlety of reality is just what people hate about it.


So now it comes out! Are you really saying that people who don't appreciate Wagner have 'mediocre minds'? That people who do are a superior race to us ordinary mortals?


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Fallacies abound. What is considered "extreme" is rather in the eye of the beholder. It is not an objective quantity, and as a pure abstraction it cannot be used to "forgive" its imitation by others. Furthermore, "extreme" and hyperbolic" are not synonyms.
> 
> A four-hour opera may be considered "extreme" by some, but an exaggerated statement - hence an untrue statement - is not in any way equivalent.
> 
> Poor souls prone to hyperbole should check their facts. Wagner's personal or artistic "extremes" don't excuse the vitriol and distortions of his critics.


Frankly a lot of talk is being made about the vitriol and distortion of the critics. I've actually seen on the internet and in books far more excuses made for Wagner than condemn him.


----------



## Balthazar

DavidA said:


> Frankly a lot of talk is being made about the vitriol and distortion of the critics. I've actually seen on the internet and in books far more excuses made for Wagner than condemn him.


This is so very, very true.


----------



## Faustian

I'm not sure why there's a need to excuse or condemn, really. What does either accomplish 150 years after he's been dead and buried? Like SilenceIsGolden said, he had his faults and his virtues, was full of both prejudices and integrity. Like most humans. Most of us are simply thankful he was around to write the profoundly beautiful and insightful works that he did.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Frankly a lot of talk is being made about the vitriol and distortion of the critics. I've actually seen on the internet and in books far more excuses made for Wagner than condemn him.


The point is not whether he is excused or condemned. The point is that assumptions and bits of received "knowledge", many of them propagated with insufficient evidence, are accepted implicitly and casually repeated (or, as I like to say in this bizarre era, re-tweeted), such that people who have never done any first-hand inquiring into the subject, as well as some who have but either lack discrimination or harbor personal agendas, pass them along as if they have something juicy to add to the world's fund of gossip. My sole interest here is to challenge these assumptions when they arise.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> So now it comes out! Are you really saying that people who don't appreciate Wagner have 'mediocre minds'? That people who do are a superior race to us ordinary mortals?


Of course that's not what I'm saying. My sister has a superb mind and the only Wagner she likes is _Meistersinger._ But if you do have a mediocre mind (not saying you do), you are unlikely to appreciate Wagner fully. In fact, even if you have a very good mind, you might spend a lifetime with the old wizard - as you might with Shakespeare, say - and still discover new things in him. He's kinda deep, doncha know.

That said, to propagate unthinking cliches about a multidimensional art that's been around for a century and a half and has been the subject of libraries full of studies is a pretty fair sign of mediocrity.


----------



## KenOC

Nice reading about Wagner -- a short essay with a sting at the end, by Deems Taylor. It is often encountered in courses on writing essays: "The Monster."

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/the-monster


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Nice reading about Wagner -- a short essay with a sting at the end, by Deems Taylor. It is often encountered in courses on writing essays: "The Monster."
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/the-monster


That's a classic, and immensely entertaining. Taylor is right in saying that the facts can be checked, but of course he has to select his facts to make his point as dramatically as possible. For example, to say that Wagner had no sense of responsibility is a bit unfair. He and his first wife, Minna, had a misguided marriage following a stormy courtship; they never stopped fighting, and both had affairs. But despite his insecure existence, and despite her refusal to consent to a divorce, Wagner continued to support her financially from their separation in 1862 to her death in 1966. He also seems to have taken good care of Cosima and their five children, including his two stepchildren by Cosima and Hans von Bulow, and been a good father. Here's a little tribute by his son Siegfried:

http://etudemagazine.com/etude/1924...e-by-the-son-of-the-great-master---siegf.html


----------



## KenOC

Well, yes. When you have a point to make, the truth is often an early casualty. We see that a lot around here! :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu

KenOC said:


> Nice reading about Wagner -- a short essay with a sting at the end, by Deems Taylor. It is often encountered in courses on writing essays: "The Monster."
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/the-monster


Thanks for posting that KenOC. I wasn't familiar with it. His last sentence hits the mark, doesn't it? My favourite, and in my opinion the greatest, chess player who ever lived, Bobby Fischer, is not someone in whose company I would have cared to spend a minute. His world view, particularly in later life, was anathema to me but it doesn't hamper my admiration for his achievements and for the countless hours of pleasure he has provided me with playing through his games. Such is the way with great egos. Their ambition and single-mindedness rarely leave room for the provision of a well-rounded person.


----------



## millionrainbows

Genoveva said:


> I'm afraid that I'm sceptical of all this talk about composer X "worshipping" composer "Y", whoever X and Y may be.


It's known that Schoenberg used to hang around outside Wagner operas in Vienna, because he couldn't afford to get in. Yes, he worshipped him.


----------



## millionrainbows

That "Monster" essay by Deems Taylor is very interesting! Perhaps we can apply it to the case of Bill Cosby. :lol:

No, Wagner did not actually murder, but by being antisemitic, he committed the next-most-heinous crime: the murder of the spirit. He suppressed and "murdered" the spirits of a whole segment of Humanity by being antisemitic.

The "spirit-killers" are predators, who prey on the weak and helpless, the disenfranchised, the alienated, the outsiders, the marginalized.

Shall we forgive the "geniuses," or hold them to the same social and moral standards to which we hold all good citizens?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

millionrainbows said:


> No, Wagner did not actually murder, but by being antisemitic, he committed the next-most-heinous crime: the murder of the spirit. He suppressed and "murdered" the spirits of a whole segment of Humanity by being antisemitic.
> 
> The "spirit-killers" are predators, who prey on the weak and helpless, the disenfranchised, the alienated, the outsiders, the marginalized.
> 
> Shall we forgive the "geniuses," or hold them to the same social and moral standards to which we hold all good citizens?


The "chosen people" with their holy books, their guilt trips, their ideas of everlasting punishment and their sanctions to kill everybody who does not worship their Jehova/Jesus/Allah deity have murdered a far greater number of spirits than Wagner has ever been able to get a hold of. And a great number of bodies too. Wagner's art empowers and invigorates the spirit unto life. The faiths of the "chosen people" weigh down on the spirit, pulling it into death.


----------



## DavidA

Interesting article I came across from a Jewish source. Quite balanced and gives both sides I think. Maybe reflects the views of those of us who stand somewhere in the middle about Wagner:

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/richard-wagner/


----------



## Balthazar

DavidA said:


> Interesting article I came across from a Jewish source. Quite balanced and gives both sides I think. Maybe reflects the views of those of us who stand somewhere in the middle about Wagner:
> 
> http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/richard-wagner/


That is a good article. Calm, rational, and fact-based.

I recommend it to anyone wondering what all the fuss is about.

Thanks for that. :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

SiegendesLicht said:


> The "chosen people" with their holy books, their guilt trips, their ideas of everlasting punishment and their sanctions to kill everybody who does not worship their Jehova/Jesus/Allah deity have murdered a far greater number of spirits than Wagner has ever been able to get a hold of.


We have the freedom to any religion (or not) that we want. Perhaps we should appreciate that liberal fact instead of spewing vitriol about religion. Nobody (in America, at least) can shove any religion down anyone's throat.



> Wagner's art empowers and invigorates the spirit unto life. The faiths of the "chosen people" weigh down on the spirit, pulling it into death.


That's why religions are formed: to protect its adherents against other religions. I suppose Wagnerism is as good as any. You need to have bodies, though. That's a disadvantage to isolated secular "worshipers" or non-believers who are not organized into actual groups. You really need that social power which only comes in number.

But, religion aside, you probably already know this. You probably already have a group or "gang" of people who are of similar mind.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

It is good to have people around who share my passion, but I have no real need of any group. In real life I am quite used to being a solitary classical afficionado. And I think you have somewhat missed my point. Wagner has never suppressed or murdered anyone's spirit. The guys he railed against, did however produce a very efficient instrument just for such acts of suppression.


----------



## hagridindminor

That was one of the reasons why I never tried getting into Wagner's music. I don't think it's excusable, it's not like he was just going along with the times as some people suggested, he definitely considered himself to be an intellectual and whatever his views were he put some thought into it. Nietzsche had quite a whole lot to say about him praising him in b.o.t. and then afterwards cutting him off for his anti-semitism. Not that I completely agree with Nietzsche's taste in art, it's still hard to take Wagner seriously


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ If you are Jewish, that is understandable, even if somewhat regrettable. If you are not, I do not see how it is even a factor in the matter.


----------



## hagridindminor

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ If you are Jewish, that is understandable, even if somewhat regrettable. If you are not, I do not see how it is even a factor in the matter.


How is it not a factor? When listening to a composer in a sense I'm looking up to them, their thoughts and feelings are reflected in their music, and if a composer is like that theres never going to be any real connection with them when I listen to them


----------



## KenOC

If Wagner had a nasty prejudice against Lithuanians, and published a pamphlet with his views, would we condemn him so loudly?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

You can be assured - there is no antisemitism in the music - unless you try really hard to convince yourself it is there. But if you approach Wagner's art with an open mind, there are endless vistas of beauty to be discovered. And even if one cannot always connect with Wagnerian characters in the sense of "these are people like me" - they are after all mythical characters and idealized representations of humanity, they do offer plenty to feel and think about.

Somewhere between participation in the Great Wagner War and gushing about all things Fischer-Dieskau I have made it to the week's top posters, for the second time ever. Quite an achievement


----------



## hagridindminor

KenOC said:


> If Wagner had a nasty prejudice against Lithuanians, and published a pamphlet with his views, would we condemn him so loudly?


It's not like it was strictly political or something , anti-semitism expanded far beyond that. I'm not even sure why we are trying to justify this


----------



## hagridindminor

SiegendesLicht said:


> You can be assured - there is no antisemitism in the music - unless you try really hard to convince yourself it is there. But if you approach Wagner's art with an open mind, there are endless vistas of beauty to be discovered. And even if one cannot always connect with Wagnerian characters in the sense of "these are people like me" - they are after all mythical characters and idealized representations of humanity, they do offer plenty to feel and think about.
> 
> Somewhere between participation in the Great Wagner War and gushing about all things Fischer-Dieskau I have made it to the week's top posters, for the second time ever. Quite an achievement


Well if we are just talking about music, I find it rather too theatrical for my taste


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Well, opera is musical theater after all. Do you enjoy any other opera?


----------



## hagridindminor

SiegendesLicht said:


> Well, opera is musical theater after all. Do you enjoy any other opera?


Not huge into opera to be perfectly honest


----------



## Balthazar

KenOC said:


> If Wagner had a nasty prejudice against Lithuanians, and published a pamphlet with his views, would we condemn him so loudly?


If 50 years later a dictator who singled him out as an inspiration rose to power and murdered 6 million Lithuanians (and more Slavs and disabled and homosexuals and Catholics), I am pretty sure we would.

History happens.

So what was the point of your post?


----------



## KenOC

Balthazar said:


> If 50 years later a dictator who singled him out as an inspiration rose to power and murdered 6 million Lithuanians (and more Slavs and disabled and homosexuals and Catholics), I am pretty sure we would.
> 
> History happens.
> 
> So what was the point of your post?


In my view that's silly. What Hitler did should be laid to Hitler. To my knowledge, Wagner never advocated any negative actions be taken against Jews -- as opposed to (say) Martin Luther, who was quite specific on that count.

He was a man who shared a common prejudice of his time and was pretty vociferous about it.


----------



## Balthazar

KenOC said:


> In my view that's silly. What Hitler did should be laid to Hitler. To my knowledge, Wagner never advocated any negative actions be taken against Jews -- as opposed to (say) Martin Luther, who was quite specific on that count.
> 
> He was a man who shared a common prejudice of his time and was pretty vociferous about it.


Your initial post was a rather silly hypothetical to begin with, no? I answered it sincerely.

But you might benefit from more research. From the article linked in this post:

"Wagner was no "casual" anti-Semite, given to occasional disparaging remarks about Jews. (Even Beethoven was guilty of that.) He was obsessed with the notion that Jews were responsible for just about anything untoward that happened to him - and everything evil in the universe. As he once wrote to his sometime friend, the composer Franz Liszt, his hatred of Jews was "as necessary to my nature as gall is to the blood.""

and

"Wagner was a favorite of Hitler's, who once said that that whoever "wishes to understand National Socialism must first understand Wagner.""

The remainder of the article offers more.

This argument that Wagner's anti-semitism was indistinguishable from that of any other 19th century European is absurd and false. That is like saying that the views of Donald Trump, David Duke, and Steve Bannon are indistinguishable from those of any other present-day American.

False. Bigly.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

Balthazar said:


> This argument that Wagner's anti-semitism was indistinguishable from that of any other 19th century European is absurd and false. That is like saying that the views of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon are indistinguishable from those of any other present-day American.


60 million Americans it would seem.


----------



## Balthazar

Francis Poulenc said:


> 60 million Americans it would seem.


A minority. And obviously not an identity which is the argument at stake.

I am the living proof.

And I hope that a vote for Trump does not equate to support for David Duke's views.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

Balthazar said:


> A minority. And obviously not an identity which is the argument at stake.


It's 1 in 5 Americans. Even if Wagner was part of a 1 in 5 minority of people with similar views in his time, it's still pretty huge group to belong to. Nowadays, a group of that size has the power to determine who gets the political power. In Wagner's time, you needed way less.


----------



## Balthazar

No one is saying that Wagner was the only anti-Semite in Europe in the 1800's. But he was a particularly rabid one who expressed it in extraordinarily uncivilized ways and utilized his notoriety to propagate his hateful views in a manner rarely equalled before the modern age.

Why do people want to argue against facts?


----------



## KenOC

Balthazar said:


> ...But you might benefit from more research.


As I said, Wagner never advocated violence against Jews, prejudiced and nasty though his views may have been. That was the other guy, Hitler.

But if you want to blame Wagner for the Holocaust, I'm not likely to disabuse you. Carry on.


----------



## Balthazar

KenOC said:


> As I said, Wagner never advocated violence against Jews, prejudiced and nasty though his views may have been. That was the other guy, Hitler.
> 
> But *if you want to blame Wagner for the Holocaust*, I'm not likely to disabuse you. Carry on.


Lol. I did no such thing and you know it. Flaccid tactic.

You absurdly asked how people would view Wagner if he had disparaged Lithuanians and I responded appropriately.

If you want to excuse Wagner or anyone else for their deporable behavior, carry on.


----------



## Woodduck

http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/richard-wagner/



Balthazar said:


> That is a good article. Calm, rational, and fact-based.
> 
> I recommend it to anyone wondering what all the fuss is about.
> 
> Thanks for that. :tiphat:


"Calm, rational, fact-based" - and biased. Facts can be carefully selected. One would think that Wagner had no good qualities at all, something even his Jewish friends and associates would not have agreed to. Hermann Levi, first conductor of _Parsifal,_ who worked with Wagner late in the composer's life when that life had been the notorious subject of public discussion for decades, wrote to his skeptical father, a rabbi: "Wagner is the best and noblest of men ... I thank God daily for the privilege to be close to such a man. It is the most beautiful experience of my life." Levi's association with Wagner was intimate and lengthy, and he was neither stupid nor a so-called "self-hating Jew," as a contemporary Jewish scholar (I forget his name) has suggested in rationalizing his own anti-Wagner bias. Levi was not unique in being impressed by Wagner. But our calm, rational author doesn't think it's important to tell us that. After all, it might give the impression that Wagner was human.

Facts are one thing. Value judgments are another. But it's common for "facts" to be judgments in disguise. The wholesale judging of human beings we do not know - even, or especially, by means of quoting the judgments of "authoritative" others - is repellent.

The article is far from objective on the subject of the antisemitism some want to attribute to the operas. Here we find some of those slippery "facts":

_ "Even Wagner's operas seem to carry anti-Semitic overtones."_ Seem? To whom? What sort of "overtones"? Does that mean subtle hints, or intentional messages, or incidental associations, or what?

_"Such Wagnerian characters as Mime, Alberich, Hagen, Klingsor, Kundry, and Beckmesser can be interpreted as Jewish caricatures."_ "Such" characters? Are there other characters that also "seem" to be Jewish? "Can be interpreted"? How? _"From their speech, from their singing, from their roles, from their body language."_ What does this mean? What speech, from which of Wagner's characters, is "Jewish?" What does Jewish speech sound like in the German of Wagner's libretti? _"From their singing"?_ Which characters sing like Jews? What does Jewish singing sound like?...etc.

_"Beckmesser, the pedantic, ludicrous singer in 'Die Meistersinger,' is certainly meant to be Jewish."_ "Certainly"? Is the author certain, or is he just reading other writers who are certain? What if some people, or many people, or most people, are not certain? What if there is good reason to believe the contrary? Might it not be "fact-based" to cite some opposing views?

"It's hard to believe that Wagner, possessed as he was with Jew-hatred, could write 10 major operas without his anti-Semitism sneaking in." The unstated assumptions in this ought to be obvious, but obviously are not to everyone.

This sort of "fact-based" commentary can't really be taken seriously. It's popular journalism, nothing more. And it's precisely in popular media that the same tired memes are parroted, second- and third- and fourth-hand. I don't expect to live to see the end of it.

The author concludes:_ "The overall lesson about Richard Wagner is that we must simply acknowledge that even unquestionable geniuses, like Wagner, may be thoroughly loathsome."
_
Someone forgot to tell that calm, rational Jew, Hermann Levi - who, unlike Warren Boroson and unlike anyone here, knew Wagner personally.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

Do you not realize that a huge number of the great men of history were both racists and sexists? Largely, civilization was brought up by white racist sexist men.


----------



## Balthazar

Francis Poulenc said:


> Do you not realize that a huge number of the great men of history were both racists and sexists?


Sure. That doesn't make racism and sexism OK. Particularly in their most virulent forms.

More significantly, this discussion is not so much about Wagner's attitudes (which he made quite clear), but about whether we should acknowledge them or ignore them.

Let's acknowledge them, address them, and incorporate them into our understanding of the man and his works.

Why the resistance?


----------



## Francis Poulenc

Balthazar said:


> Sure. That doesn't make racism or sexism OK. Particularly in its most virulent forms.
> 
> And more significantly, this discussion is not so much about Wagner's attitudes, but about whether or not we should acknowledge them or ignore them.
> 
> Let's acknowledge them, address them, and incorporate them into our understanding of the man and his works.
> 
> Why the resistance?


The resistance is towards those who try to delegitimize Wagner's work as some of the greatest and most influential in all art, because his views may contradict modern liberal sensitivities.


----------



## hagridindminor

KenOC said:


> As I said, Wagner never advocated violence against Jews, prejudiced and nasty though his views may have been. That was the other guy, Hitler.
> 
> But if you want to blame Wagner for the Holocaust, I'm not likely to disabuse you. Carry on.


You're acting like Wagner was just an ordinary person with a slight content for jews like some american getting mad because his jobs are being taken away. You're also acting like Hitler just showed up out of the blue, and everybody just stopped what they were doing and started agreeing with him. This was simply not the case. This was very much a very conscious effort that was developing long before Hitler with very powerful Germans. I mean for all we know Hitler could have just been spoke-spoken, who knows what kind of agenda that was already planned out before Hitler rose to power. It certainly wouldn't seem hard to believe based on the type of things which were going on. I'm sure whatever which was going Wagner was fully part of, and in this sense Nietzsche was fully right, the death of Mozart was in fact the death of God and most people translate that as figuratively but it's whole heartedly literal, and the more you look into it the more truth is demonstrated


----------



## Woodduck

hagridindminor said:


> You're acting like Wagner was just an ordinary person with a slight content for jews like some american getting mad because his jobs are being taken away. You're also acting like Hitler just showed up out of the blue, and everybody just stopped what they were doing and started agreeing with him. This was simply not the case. This was very much a very conscious effort that was developing long before Hitler with very powerful Germans. I mean for all we know Hitler could have just been spoke-spoken, who knows what kind of agenda that was already planned out before Hitler rose to power. It certainly wouldn't seem hard to believe based on the type of things which were going on. *I'm sure whatever which was going Wagner was fully part of,* and in this sense Nietzsche was fully right, the death of Mozart was in fact the death of God and most people translate that as figuratively but it's whole heartedly literal, and the more you look into it the more truth is demonstrated


This is really in need of some explanation, especially from the part I've bolded to the end.


----------



## Balthazar

Francis Poulenc said:


> The resistance is towards those who try to delegitimize Wagner's work as some of the greatest and most influential in all art, because his views may contradict modern liberal sensitivities.


Who has tried to delegitimize Wagner's music for these reasons? I would sincerely like to know.

Saying the man was a jerk does not affect one's musical appreciation of the _Rheingold_ prelude.

Some people seek adversaries where there are none.


----------



## Woodduck

Balthazar said:


> Sure. That doesn't make racism and sexism OK. Particularly in their most virulent forms.
> 
> More significantly, *this discussion is not so much about Wagner's attitudes (which he made quite clear), but about whether we should acknowledge them or ignore them. *
> 
> Let's acknowledge them, address them, and incorporate them into our understanding of the man and his works.
> 
> Why the resistance?


Absolutely wrong. No one has suggested ignoring any aspect of Wagner's attitudes. Yes, let's incorporate _all_ aspects of them. The trouble is, there's massive ignorance of what all aspects of them were. .


----------



## hagridindminor

Woodduck said:


> This is really in need of some explanation, especially from the part I've bolded to the end.


There was very much an outburst of german ideology and thinking well before Hitler, a new wave of philosophy and thinking. All of them happened to be anti-semetic.(heidigger/marx etc) The only one which comes to mind (there could be a few other) who wasn't was Nietzsche, and that too her sister was one too. These were all powerful people who clearly discussed amongst each other and shared their common goal. You don't think they all had something in common? And it's hard looking back because we only see world war 2, and we might not have a full scope as to what was going on deep in the heart of germany, why they felt the way they did, but it seems rather clear that they had this intent in mind


----------



## Woodduck

hagridindminor said:


> There was very much an outburst of german ideology and thinking well before Hitler, a new wave of philosophy and thinking. All of them happened to be anti-semetic.(heidigger/marx etc) The only one which comes to mind (there could be a few other) who wasn't was Nietzsche, and that too her sister was one too. These were all powerful people who clearly discussed amongst each other and shared their common goal. You don't think they all had something in common? And it's hard looking back because we only see world war 2, and we might not have a full scope as to what was going on deep in the heart of germany, why they felt the way they did, but it seems rather clear that they had this intent in mind


All you're really saying here is that antisemitism was growing during the period leading up to Hitler. Well, that's true. It was growing all over Europe and America, and taking a number of different forms. But be careful when you try to place Wagner in that "wave." His personal influence is impossible to guage precisely, but also easy to overestimate, especially in relation to Hitler himself.


----------



## hagridindminor

Woodduck said:


> All you're really saying here is that antisemitism was growing during the period leading up to Hitler. Well, that's true. It was growing all over Europe and America, and taking a number of different forms. But be careful when you try to place Wagner in that "wave." His personal influence is impossible to guage precisely, but also easy to overestimate, especially in relation to Hitler himself.


He could very well be in that wave as was regarded as a philosopher and a thinker during that time. There is a possibility that he isn't and if he isn't I would have wrongly blamed him, but it seems very likely that he was given the context. I'm not talking about just influence, because surely someone can be influenced by another in ways that they did not intend. I'm saying there is a large possibility that Wagner was a part of whatever that was going on, maybe not the lead member but certainly involved.


----------



## Faustian

Balthazar said:


> "Wagner was a favorite of Hitler's, who once said that that whoever "wishes to understand National Socialism must first understand Wagner.""


I know quite a lot about Wagner, and it's taught me absolutely zilch about National Socialism. So Hitler was full of $%$&. Big surprise.


----------



## ArtMusic

Wagner was much more philosophical about religion and man's place in the world, this was manifested with his epic musical dramas.


----------



## Balthazar

Faustian said:


> I know quite a lot about Wagner, and it's taught me absolutely zilch about National Socialism. So Hitler was full of $%$&. Big surprise.


I know quite a lot about Athenian democracy, and it's taught me absolutely zilch about the Electoral College. So Trump is full of $%$&. Big surprise.

Wait.... What?

Seriously, what is the point of your post?


----------



## Faustian

Balthazar said:


> Seriously, what is the point of your post?


That Hitler's statement is unequivocal nonsense.


----------



## Balthazar

Faustian said:


> That Hitler's statement is unequivocal nonsense.


Wagner influenced Hitler. Based on Hitler's own words.

In light of current global events, it is becoming terribly (and terrifyingly) clear that words and ideas matter, whether they are true or not.

Why do you consider Hitler's statement "unequivocal nonsense?" I imagine he was in a better position than you to expound on that concept.


----------



## Faustian

Balthazar said:


> Wagner influenced Hitler. Based on Hitler's own words.
> 
> Perhaps he was the originator of "false news," but I doubt it. In light of current global events, it is becoming terribly (and terrifyingly) clear that words and ideas matter.


So it's not possible that Hitler totally misunderstood Wagner, that he was simply a fan of the dramas like he was a fan of Shakespeare and Bruckner and Lehar; or even that he was totally ignorant of anything Wagner said or wrote and simply knew he was a major cultural figure who was an antisemite who he could reference favoringly?


----------



## Balthazar

Faustian said:


> So it's not possible that Hitler totally misunderstood Wagner, that he was simply a fan of the dramas like he was a fan of Shakespeare and Bruckner and Lehar; or even that he was totally ignorant of anything Wagner said or wrote and simply knew he was a major cultural figure who was an antisemite who he could reference favoringly?


I suppose it's possible. And so? It doesn't change history.

Don't get me wrong -- my musical judgment of Wagner's operas is in no way influenced by anything that occurred after his death.

But why fight facts?

And you are contesting a statement in an article referenced in a post in another thread... What is the point?

So much easier if we could all acknowledge reality and move forward...


----------



## Francis Poulenc

Balthazar said:


> Wagner influenced Hitler. Based on Hitler's own words.
> 
> In light of current global events, it is becoming terribly (and terrifyingly) clear that words and ideas matter, whether they are true or not.
> 
> Why do you consider Hitler's statement "unequivocal nonsense?" I imagine he was in a better position than you to expound on that concept.


There is no doubt that Wagner influenced Hitler. Though he probably wouldn't have advocated the murder of millions of Jews. But even if he had, questionable morals still wouldn't discredit his works. For instance the state of Israel de facto banning his works, despite them containing no reference to Judaism whatsoever. Consider science and technology, if we refused to use any scientific knowledge generated by racists, we would literally be living in huts. Hell, probably even huts would be too advanced.


----------



## KenOC

Francis Poulenc said:


> ...Consider science and technology, if we refused to use any scientific knowledge generated by racists, we would literally be living in huts. Hell, probably even huts would be too advanced.


Quite and exactly true. And in any event, Wagner never advocated violence against Jews. Or if he did, nobody has pointed to an example.

The roots of anti-Semitism in Germany lay deeper and far earlier, regardless of what Hitler said. And his regime bears responsibility for what happened, his regime and those who supported his programs either actively or passively. That was a lot of people. No use blaming what happened on people who had been dead for many years.

Regarding Lithuanians (for Balthazar): Just to point out the often narrow targets of our righteous indignation. Who cried for the Tutsi in Rwanda, or the educated classes of Cambodia? Did you? Did I? Nonetheless, righteous indignation is a wonderful emotion, allowing us to express hate while feeling noble about ourselves.


----------



## Balthazar

Francis Poulenc said:


> There is no doubt that Wagner influenced Hitler.


Agreed.



> Though he probably wouldn't have advocated the murder of millions of Jews. But even if he had, questionable morals still wouldn't discredit his works.


Who is trying to discredit anything? I love _Tristan und Isolde_.



> For instance the state of Israel de facto banning his works, despite them containing no reference to Judaism whatsoever.


A political (and wholly democratic) issue totally unrelated to this thread. Israel's Supreme Court actually ruled that Wagner performances are permissible in Israel so there is no legal ban. If Israelis don't want it, that's their choice.



> Consider science and technology, if we refused to use any scientific knowledge generated by racists, we would literally be living in huts. Hell, probably even huts would be too advanced.


No one is saying we shouldn't listen to Wagner. Let us just acknowledge and accept all the truths about him, convenient or not, and apply them to our understanding and appreciation of the man and his works.

Again, what is the resistance to this?


----------



## hagridindminor

Francis Poulenc said:


> There is no doubt that Wagner influenced Hitler. Though he probably wouldn't have advocated the murder of millions of Jews. But even if he had, questionable morals still wouldn't discredit his works. For instance the state of Israel de facto banning his works, despite them containing no reference to Judaism whatsoever. Consider science and technology, if we refused to use any scientific knowledge generated by racists, we would literally be living in huts. Hell, probably even huts would be too advanced.


Not at all true, the greatest historical contributions did not come out of racism so I don't know what you're talking about. And, before we get into this, we'd need to define what we mean by racism. Mozart? Einstein? Hell Washington demanded to free his own slaves after his death.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

hagridindminor said:


> Not at all true, the greatest historical contributions did not come out of racism so I don't know what you're talking about. And, before we get into this, we'd need to define what we mean by racism


Of course they did. Not every scientist in history was a racist, but certainly most of them were, particularly before the XXth Century. Then again, most people of that time were. Let's think for a second that Einstein was socially advanced and wasn't a racist. His contributions would still at their root come from racist white men, because he was influenced by, and based a large part of his input on the mathematics and physics that was already developed by others. Every man-made device, traced back far enough, will use as its basis scientific knowledge developed by a racist.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> The point is not whether he is excused or condemned. The point is that assumptions and bits of received "knowledge", many of them *propagated with insufficient evidence, are accepted implicitly and casually repeated *(or, as I like to say in this bizarre era, re-tweeted), such that people who have never done any first-hand inquiring into the subject, as well as some who have but either lack discrimination or harbor personal agendas, pass them along as if they have something juicy to add to the world's fund of gossip. *My sole interest here is to challenge these assumptions when they arise*.


But the problem is how you challenge these assumptions. Just saying they are the result of mediocre minds (your phrase) 'propagated with insufficient evidence' will simply not do for those of us who have to be intellectually convinced.


----------



## hagridindminor

Francis Poulenc said:


> Of course they did. Not every scientist in history was a racist, but certainly most of them were, particularly before the XXth Century. Then again, most people of that time were. Let's think for a second that Einstein was socially advanced and wasn't a racist. His contributions would still at their root come from racist white men, because he was influenced by, and based a large part of his input on the mathematics and physics that was already developed by others. Every man-made device, traced back far enough, will use as its basis scientific knowledge developed by a racist.


Yes the same way to some degree without dinosaurs we wouldn't exist, that doesn't change anything. That is like saying anti-racism wouldn't have come about without racism thus racism is important


----------



## Francis Poulenc

Balthazar said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Who is trying to discredit anything? I love _Tristan und Isolde_.
> 
> A political (and wholly democratic) issue totally unrelated to this thread. Israel's Supreme Court actually ruled that Wagner performances are permissible in Israel so there is no legal ban. If Israelis don't want it, that's their choice.
> 
> No one is saying we shouldn't listen to Wagner. Let us just acknowledge and accept all the truths about him, convenient or not, and apply them to our understanding and appreciation of the man and his works.
> 
> Again, what is the resistance to this?


My point is that Wagner is always singled out for moral judgement only because his ideas had consequences after he died. Countless others had similar ideas, but people don't always rush to the moral issue whenever their names are mentioned. I think this fact is in itself a way of trying to discredit the composer's work, by rushing to question his character the second his name is mentioned.


----------



## Balthazar

DavidA said:


> But the problem is how you challenge these assumptions. Just saying they are the result of mediocre minds (your phrase) 'propagated with insufficient evidence' will simply not do for those of us who have to be intellectually convinced.


I am afraid we can expect no fact-based response to this well-reasoned post.

And so it is...


----------



## Francis Poulenc

hagridindminor said:


> Yes the same way to some degree without dinosaurs we wouldn't exist, that doesn't change anything


If one is to not consume any knowledge produced by a racist, then you must abandon literally everything created by man and move back into nature. Refusing to listen to Wagner because of his writings is essentially equivalent to this.


----------



## hagridindminor

Francis Poulenc said:


> If one is to not consume any knowledge produced by a racist, then you must abandon literally everything created by man and move back into nature. Refusing to listen to Wagner because of his writings is essentially equivalent to this.


I'm not saying that. Of course if you are studying classical music you should of course in the process study Wagner. With that being said I think there is a limit to how much we can praise him and admire him as a composer


----------



## Balthazar

Francis Poulenc said:


> My point is that Wagner is always singled out for moral judgement only because his ideas had consequences after he died. Countless others had similar ideas, but people don't always rush to the moral issue whenever their names are mentioned. I think this fact is in itself a way of trying to discredit the composer's work, by rushing to question his character the second his name is mentioned.


No one that I am aware has ever tried to discredit Wagner's artistic accomplishments due to his personal views. You have raised this issue more than once. Please support this contention if you want it to be given serious consideration.

Chopin is one of my favorite composers. People often raise the issue of his anti-Semitism, and often exaggerate it. I acknowledge it and shrug it off. Why can't Wagner's fans do the same?

Edit: And just to be clear - if, for example, someone posits the theory that Mime is representative of Wagner's view of Jews, that is not "an attempt to discredit" Wagner's art. That is the basic substance of textual criticism. Every artist in history has been subjected to similar trials. Wagner is no different in this regard.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Quite and exactly true.* And in any event, Wagner never advocated violence against Jews. Or if he did, nobody has pointed to an example*.
> 
> The roots of anti-Semitism in Germany lay deeper and far earlier, regardless of what Hitler said. And his regime bears responsibility for what happened, his regime and those who supported his programs either actively or passively. That was a lot of people. No use blaming what happened on people who had been dead for many years.
> 
> Regarding Lithuanians (for Balthazar): Just to point out the often narrow targets of our righteous indignation. Who cried for the Tutsi in Rwanda, or the educated classes of Cambodia? Did you? Did I? Nonetheless, righteous indignation is a wonderful emotion, allowing us to express hate while feeling noble about ourselves.


In 1871, Cosima, his wife, told him about a fire at a theater in a Jewish section of Vienna, during which 416 Jews died. Wagner's "drastic joke," as she called it: All Jews should be burned during a performance of "Nathan the Wise."


----------



## Faustian

Balthazar said:


> I suppose it's possible. And so? It doesn't change history.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- my musical judgment of Wagner's operas is in no way influenced by anything that occurred after his death.
> 
> But why fight facts?


What facts am I fighting? I'm simply pointing out that Hitler's statement is absurd, and it goes to support the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Hitler's familiarity with Wagner extended beyond an enthusiasm for the music. And when you have other Nazi leaders, like Alfred Rosenberg, who wrote a propagandist book on Nazi mythos and held Wagner in little more than utter contempt -- again it highlights the absurdness of the statement. So all the facts point to Wagner having no influence on Nazi ideology whatsoever, and the only inspiration he served for Hitler was a highly personal appreciation for his art.

I don't have any problem acknowledging and accepting the truths about Wagner, inconvenient or not, and applying them to our understanding of the man and his works. And it is self evidently quite important to understand both his faults and virtues if we wish to understand the man. Once we apply an understanding of the man to his art it's apparent that his antisemitism played little to no role in that. Indeed there was much that was important to Wagner the man, that he wrote on at great length, that did not find any sort of outlet in the works he produced. So not all that big of a surprise really.

And that's where we stand. No need to make apologies for his obvious shortcomings or exaggerate and manufacture his influence in spheres where it doesn't exist.


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> In 1871, Cosima, his wife, told him about a fire at a theater in a Jewish section of Vienna, during which 416 Jews died. Wagner's "drastic joke," as she called it: All Jews should be burned during a performance of "Nathan the Wise."


Telling ones wife a tasteless joke in privacy now counts as advocating something? Are we just redefining words at this point?


----------



## Balthazar

^^ Faustian, my point was that whether or not Hitler's statement was true, it has had an effect on history. Recent history is making clear that whether a statement is true or false does not necessarily determine its impact on the general populace. Words and ideas matter, for better or for worse.

I welcome the open-minded tone of your post, but I must disagree with your seemingly categorical statement:

"And once we apply an understanding of the man to his art it's apparent that his antisemitism played little to no role in that."

I reject your conclusion completely. In another forum I will be happy to offer you evidence to the contrary.


----------



## hagridindminor

Balthazar said:


> ^^ Faustian, my point was that whether or not Hitler's statement was true, it has had an effect on history. Recent history is making clear that whether a statement is true or false does not necessarily determine its impact on the general populace.
> 
> I welcome the open-minded tone of your post, but I must disagree with your seemingly categorical statement:
> 
> "And once we apply an understanding of the man to his art it's apparent that his antisemitism played little to no role in that."
> 
> I reject your conclusion completely. In another forum I will be happy to offer you evidence to the contrary.


I don't think you can hold someone accountable for influencing another if he didn't intend to influence that person in that way though. In that sense you can take any white accomplishment and promote it as white-supremacy and then the original accomplishment would be at blame.

I think what is in question is Wagner's intent, and how we truly felt about the issues. If he could have his way how would things be like. Not so much how much Hitler picked up from him


----------



## Balthazar

hagridindminor said:


> I don't think you can hold someone accountable for influencing another if he didn't intend to influence that person in that way though. In that sense you can take any white accomplishment and promote it as white-supremacy and then the original accomplishment would be at blame.
> 
> I think what is in question is Wagner's intent, and how we truly felt about the issues. If he could have his way how would things be like. Not so much how much Hitler picked up from him


Just to be clear, hagridindminor, I really don't care what Hitler thought of Wagner. It has no effect on my appreciation of his music.

My only issue is with those who would have others believe that Wagner's well-documented thoughts never impacted his 14 hour music dramas. Or subsequent history.

Peace.


----------



## Faustian

Balthazar said:


> I reject your conclusion completely. In another forum I will be happy to offer you evidence to the contrary.


That's fine, however I sincerely doubt either of us would change the other's mind. To be clear, I don't have any objection to postulating that it could be, and if Wagner had written a music drama about Jews it would be pointless not assessing the role his antisemitism played in portraying them. However in my experience of the works, antisemitism and race are not themes that are detectable or that hold any coherent meaning in the context of the music and drama as presented.


----------



## Balthazar

Oh my. We'll be in touch. It is late and my books are buried.

There are many Wagner apologists who seem to take the view that unless and until one discovers a Wagner aria entitled "Kill all the Jews!" that there is no cause to view his libretti as containing any possible anti-Semitism.

I trust you are not one of them.


----------



## Faustian

I don't have any problem hearing your point of view, but I also don't care to be painted as a "Wagner apologist" if I see things from a different perspective. Perhaps the discussion would be better if it took place privately.


----------



## Balthazar

Very good. Perhaps we could create a private Group after the holidays. I would truly enjoy a measured discussion on the subject.


----------



## hagridindminor

Balthazar said:


> Just to be clear, hagridindminor, I really don't care what Hitler thought of Wagner. It has no effect on my appreciation of his music.
> 
> My only issue is with those who would have others believe that Wagner's well-documented thoughts never impacted his 14 hour music dramas. Or subsequent history.
> 
> Peace.


No I agree, I just felt the urge to argue on the other position for a bit so I can feel like an unbiased individual


----------



## ArtMusic

So what if Hitler adored Wagner's music? I am sure there are insane criminals locked up in jail that love Mozart's music right now, as I type. But does that make Mozart's music rubbish? Pure and simple.


----------



## Barbebleu

SiegendesLicht said:


> The "chosen people" with their holy books, their guilt trips, their ideas of everlasting punishment and their sanctions to kill everybody who does not worship their Jehova/Jesus/Allah deity have murdered a far greater number of spirits than Wagner has ever been able to get a hold of. And a great number of bodies too. Wagner's art empowers and invigorates the spirit unto life. The faiths of the "chosen people" weigh down on the spirit, pulling it into death.


I tend to agree with you in this. I have one philosophy in life. If you don't interfere with or hurt me or anyone I care for, I will grant you that same favour. If you choose to ignore that and try to hurt me or those that I care for, well, in the words of the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, "the next time you see me comin', you'd better run."

Too many people in the world of all faiths don't seem to adhere to that practice.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

KenOC said:


> If Wagner had a nasty prejudice against Lithuanians, and published a pamphlet with his views, would we condemn him so loudly?


That would depend on the scale and fierceness of the witch hunt that the Lithuanians would set up against him in revenge. Somehow I doubt there would be any though. But seeing, how fiercely the "chosen" people attack Wagner and his heritage, makes me wonder: just what was there first, the chicken or the egg...


----------



## Balthazar

SiegendesLicht said:


> That would depend on the scale and fierceness of the witch hunt that the Lithuanians would set up against him in revenge. Somehow I doubt there would be any though. But seeing, how fiercely the "chosen" people attack Wagner and his heritage, makes me wonder: just what was there first, the chicken or the egg...


Who are these people you speak of? I would like to know.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Balthazar said:


> Who are these people you speak of? I would like to know.


Why, the nation chosen by the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob, the same people Wagner had so little love for. I am just starting to wonder who really disliked whom first.


----------



## Balthazar

I find it sad that people still think this way.

So much time, so little progress.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Yes, I also find it sad that people still hold to these century-old feuds and refuse to let the sleeping dogs (which are probably dead dogs by now) lie, but instead awaken them over and over again just because of their hatred of a great man.


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> Telling ones wife a tasteless joke in privacy now counts as advocating something? Are we just redefining words at this point?


Wagner's words: 'All Jews should be burned during a performance of "Nathan the Wise."' Not mine! I think you have redefined 'advocating' at this point! Of course, he may have been joking but influential public figures have to watch what they say as there is always someone who might take them up on it!


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> http://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/richard-wagner/
> 
> *"Calm, rational, fact-based" - and biased. *Facts can be carefully selected. One would think that Wagner had no good qualities at all, something even his Jewish friends and associates would not have agreed to. Hermann Levi, first conductor of _Parsifal,_ who worked with Wagner late in the composer's life when that life had been the notorious subject of public discussion for decades, wrote to his skeptical father, a rabbi: "Wagner is the best and noblest of men ... I thank God daily for the privilege to be close to such a man. It is the most beautiful experience of my life." Levi's association with Wagner was intimate and lengthy, and he was neither stupid nor a so-called "self-hating Jew," as a contemporary Jewish scholar (I forget his name) has suggested in rationalizing his own anti-Wagner bias. Levi was not unique in being impressed by Wagner. But our calm, rational author doesn't think it's important to tell us that. After all, it might give the impression that Wagner was human.
> 
> Facts are one thing. Value judgments are another. But it's common for "facts" to be judgments in disguise. The wholesale judging of human beings we do not know - even, or especially, by means of quoting the judgments of "authoritative" others - is repellent.
> 
> The article is far from objective on the subject of the antisemitism some want to attribute to the operas. Here we find some of those slippery "facts":
> 
> _ "Even Wagner's operas seem to carry anti-Semitic overtones."_ Seem? To whom? What sort of "overtones"? Does that mean subtle hints, or intentional messages, or incidental associations, or what?
> 
> _"Such Wagnerian characters as Mime, Alberich, Hagen, Klingsor, Kundry, and Beckmesser can be interpreted as Jewish caricatures."_ "Such" characters? Are there other characters that also "seem" to be Jewish? "Can be interpreted"? How? _"From their speech, from their singing, from their roles, from their body language."_ What does this mean? What speech, from which of Wagner's characters, is "Jewish?" What does Jewish speech sound like in the German of Wagner's libretti? _"From their singing"?_ Which characters sing like Jews? What does Jewish singing sound like?...etc.
> 
> _"Beckmesser, the pedantic, ludicrous singer in 'Die Meistersinger,' is certainly meant to be Jewish."_ "Certainly"? Is the author certain, or is he just reading other writers who are certain? What if some people, or many people, or most people, are not certain? What if there is good reason to believe the contrary? Might it not be "fact-based" to cite some opposing views?
> 
> "It's hard to believe that Wagner, possessed as he was with Jew-hatred, could write 10 major operas without his anti-Semitism sneaking in." *The unstated assumptions in this ought to be obvious, but obviously are not to everyone.*
> 
> *This sort of "fact-based" commentary can't really be taken seriously. It's popular journalism, nothing more. And it's precisely in popular media that the same tired memes are parroted, second- and third- and fourth-hand. I don't expect to live to see the end of it.*
> 
> The author concludes:_ "The overall lesson about Richard Wagner is that we must simply acknowledge that even unquestionable geniuses, like Wagner, may be thoroughly loathsome."
> _
> Someone forgot to tell that calm, rational Jew, Hermann Levi - who, unlike Warren Boroson and unlike anyone here, knew Wagner personally.


Can I ask you, Woodduck, are you coming to this subject as an unbiased observer? Of course not! None of us are unbiased. Anyone who has read history knows that every historian comes to the subject with their own biases. You are as biased are everyone else - we all are - it's just when people say things we disagree with that we call them 'biased'.
As one who has done written a few books and many articles which involve historical research can I just point to how it works. There are the facts which the historian may research. They are hopefully objective. Then there are the assumptions one makes from the facts.
The facts are that Wagner wrote what any decent person must consider a terrible lengthy tract against Jews. He was not just someone who went along with the anti-semitic mood of the day - he was a huge champion of anti-semitism. His own statements bear witness to the fact he hated the Jewish race: "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it." Her himself stated that his hatred of Jews was "as necessary to my nature as gall is to the blood." As a contemporary of his once said: "Day and night he curses the Jews" Hence you have the undisputed fact that Wagner was a vicious anti-semite and that such a philosophy was central to his make up and art.
However, you also have the fact that Wagner had friends and admirers of his art who were Jewish so obviously the matter was not quite as simple as would first be suggested. The historian has to also take this fact into account when dealing with Wagner's personality. You, of course, choose your facts to suit your opinion as well as the next person, placing a huge emphasis on his friendship (which certainly wasn't on equal terms) with Levi and little on his actual writings. 
When we come to the operas your statement that "The unstated assumptions in this ought to be obvious, but obviously are not to everyone." The problem you have is that they are not unstated assumptions - they are recognised by many people including Wagnerian scholars like Barry Middleton in his book, "The Sorcerer of Bayreuth" He calls it 'The grit in the oyster'. Now it simply will not do to accuse people like Middleton of 'lazy scholarship' because they come to a different conclusion. Whether he is right or wrong in your opinion I wouldn't call him a lazy scholar.
The question raised is whether Wagner's anti-semitic philosophy spills over into some of the types in his operas. We know just about every other philosophy Wagner embraced comes into his operas so why not a philosophy which he himself confessed was absolutely central to his life and work? To me it is a reasonable conclusion to draw from Wagner's own writings and also from the type of music he wrote for certain of the characters. After all, it was no less a Wagner advocate that Gustav Mahler who recognised it and stated: "I am Mime!" This does not necessarily make his operas an anti-semitic tract but it does mean some of the types he despised are present in the operas. Authors use this tool all the time in their writings. it is not unreasonable to think that Wagner may have done as well.
Just to dismiss these things as "popular journalism, nothing more," when it comes from a leading Wagnerian scholar such as Middleton, does not convince me. 
Of course, it is opinion. It is an interpretation of the facts, just as yours is. Because someone takes a different interpretation of history from you does not make them 'mediocre' in some way. Just that people disagree about history and its characters.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Can I ask you, Woodduck, are you coming to this subject as an unbiased observer? Of course not! None of us are unbiased. Anyone who has read history knows that every historian comes to the subject with their own biases. You are as biased are everyone else - we all are - it's just when people say things we disagree with that we call them 'biased'.
> As one who has done written a few books and many articles which involve historical research can I just point to how it works. There are the facts which the historian may research. They are hopefully objective. Then there are the assumptions one makes from the facts.
> The facts are that Wagner wrote what any decent person must consider a terrible lengthy tract against Jews. He was not just someone who went along with the anti-semitic mood of the day - he was a huge champion of anti-semitism. His own statements bear witness to the fact he hated the Jewish race: "I hold the Jewish race to be the born enemy of pure humanity and everything noble in it." Her himself stated that his hatred of Jews was "as necessary to my nature as gall is to the blood." As a contemporary of his once said: "Day and night he curses the Jews" Hence you have the undisputed fact that Wagner was a vicious anti-semite and that such a philosophy was central to his make up and art.
> However, you also have the fact that Wagner had friends and admirers of his art who were Jewish so obviously the matter was not quite as simple as would first be suggested. The historian has to also take this fact into account when dealing with Wagner's personality. You, of course, choose your facts to suit your opinion as well as the next person, placing a huge emphasis on his friendship (which certainly wasn't on equal terms) with Levi and little on his actual writings.
> When we come to the operas your statement that "The unstated assumptions in this ought to be obvious, but obviously are not to everyone." The problem you have is that they are not unstated assumptions - they are recognised by many people including Wagnerian scholars like Barry Middleton in his book, "The Sorcerer of Bayreuth" He calls it 'The grit in the oyster'. Now it simply will not do to accuse people like Middleton of 'lazy scholarship' because they come to a different conclusion. Whether he is right or wrong in your opinion I wouldn't call him a lazy scholar.
> The question raised is whether Wagner's anti-semitic philosophy spills over into some of the types in his operas. We know just about every other philosophy Wagner embraced comes into his operas so why not a philosophy which he himself confessed was absolutely central to his life and work? To me it is a reasonable conclusion to draw from Wagner's own writings and also from the type of music he wrote for certain of the characters. After all, it was no less a Wagner advocate that Gustav Mahler who recognised it and stated: "I am Mime!" This does not necessarily make his operas an anti-semitic tract but it does mean some of the types he despised are present in the operas. Authors use this tool all the time in their writings. it is not unreasonable to think that Wagner may have done as well.
> Just to dismiss these things as "popular journalism, nothing more," when it comes from a leading Wagnerian scholar such as Middleton, does not convince me.
> Of course, it is opinion. It is an interpretation of the facts, just as yours is. Because someone takes a different interpretation of history from you does not make them 'mediocre' in some way. Just that people disagree about history and its characters.


This is easily disposed of. NO ONE has denied that Wagner had antisemitic views. But your repeated insistence that those views are expressed in his operas is not backed by a shred of real evidence. The idea that he MUST have put Jewish characters in his operas because that MUST have been so important to him that he couldn't avoid doing is utterly and transparently fallacious and groundless, and if you are unable to see that I don't know what can be done for you. I don't give a fig what Barry Millington (whom you incessantly invoke) says. I've challenged you on several occasions to make a sound case for your position. Would you like to try again, or just throw in the towel?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Wagner's words: 'All Jews should be burned during a performance of "Nathan the Wise."' Not mine! I think you have redefined 'advocating' at this point! Of course, he may have been joking but influential public figures have to watch what they say as there is always someone who might take them up on it!


Oh please. Most of us have made black jokes like this. Heck, God himself supposedly once wiped out everyone on the planet except the occupants of a wooden boat, and sometimes I think the world would be better off if he'd do it again. But I'm not out there with a semiautomatic rifle mowing down people in shopping malls.


----------



## Woodduck

Balthazar said:


> Chopin is one of my favorite composers. *People often raise the issue of his anti-Semitism, and often exaggerate it. I acknowledge it and shrug it off. Why can't Wagner's fans do the same?*
> 
> Edit: And just to be clear - *if, for example, someone posits the theory that Mime is representative of Wagner's view of Jews, that is not "an attempt to discredit" Wagner's art. That is the basic substance of textual criticism. * Every artist in history has been subjected to similar trials. Wagner is no different in this regard.


Two comments.

The Wagner fans do exactly that: we acknowledge his personal vices, shrug, and go listen to his music. But what happens then? People whose obsessions with Hitler and Nazism and Jews and racism and eugenics (or whatever) keep on parading notions about Wagner's relationship to these subjects which either can't be supported by real evidence or which contradict known facts. The assumption seems to be that if Wagner had bad thoughts or behaved badly, almost any attribution of any evil to him is justified. So what do you expect the Wagner fans here to do? Shrug?

As for "basic textual criticism," the attribution of Jewishness to Wagner's characters cannot be based on the actual texts of his operas. You have to want to find it, and you have to try to justify it on the basis of assumptions drawn from outside the "text."

I would be happy to take on any specific attribution of this kind on a textual basis. I've challenge DavidA on this. I issue the same challenge to you.


----------



## Morton

Barry Millington believes that Wagner's anti-semitism found its way into some of the characters in the operas, but there are equally respected scholars such as Michael Tanner, Brian Magee & Roger Scruton who do not.
I tend to agree with the doubts expressed in this paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Wagner controversies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies

"Some biographers, such as Theodor Adorno and Robert Gutman[15] have advanced the claim that Wagner's opposition to Jews was not limited to his articles, and that the operas contained such messages. In particular the characters of Mime in the Ring, Klingsor in Parsifal and Sixtus Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger are supposedly Jewish stereotypes, although none of them are identified as Jews in the libretto. Such claims are disputed. Wagner, over the course of his life, produced a huge amount of written material analyzing every aspect of himself, including his operas and his views on Jews (as well as many other topics); these purportedly 'Jewish' characterizations are never mentioned, nor are there any such references in Cosima Wagner's copious diaries"

If fact, Beckmesser holds the post of Town Clerk which I don't believe would not have been available to him had he been Jewish in 16th century Nurnberg.
I can believe however that he might be a caricature of the music critic Eduard Hanslick, or is that too obvious?


----------



## Woodduck

Morton said:


> Barry Millington believes that Wagner's anti-semitism found its way into some of the characters in the operas, but there are equally respected scholars such as Michael Tanner, Brian Magee & Roger Scruton who do not.
> I tend to agree with the doubts expressed in this paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Wagner controversies.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies
> 
> "Some biographers, such as Theodor Adorno and Robert Gutman[15] have advanced the claim that Wagner's opposition to Jews was not limited to his articles, and that the operas contained such messages. In particular the characters of Mime in the Ring, Klingsor in Parsifal and Sixtus Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger are supposedly Jewish stereotypes, although none of them are identified as Jews in the libretto. Such claims are disputed. *Wagner, over the course of his life, produced a huge amount of written material analyzing every aspect of himself, including his operas and his views on Jews (as well as many other topics); these purportedly 'Jewish' characterizations are never mentioned, nor are there any such references in Cosima Wagner's copious diaries"*
> 
> If fact, Beckmesser holds the post of Town Clerk which I don't believe would not have been available to him had he been Jewish in 16th century Nurnberg.
> I can believe however that he might be a caricature of the music critic Eduard Hanslick, or is that too obvious?


I'm with Tanner, Magee and Scruton. The "Jew-spotting" approach to Wagner's operas has been carried to some unsavory extremes, but always rests on conjecture and always contradicts essential aspects of the operas themselves. What's less well-known is that Wagner not only never confirmed by any statement that his villains are supposed to represent Jews, but stated outright that he did not consider Jews fit subjects for artistic representation. Not an admirable thought, but there it is.

Once all the attempts at finding antisemitic messages coded in the operas have been dissected, it always comes down to one's personal assessment of Wagner's concerns and their expression in his art. The final argument is: hatred for the Jews was so important a part of Wagner's view of life, he simply MUST have intended to convey it in his operas.

That's not good enough. I also don't think that Beckmesser was created to represent Hanslick specifically, though the portrait of the tradition-bound clerk, opposed to the young genius Walther, fits the Hanslick-Wagner relationship nicely, which was duly noted at the time. Wagner himself was at some point struck by the association, and supposedly toyed with naming Beckmesser "Hans Lick."


----------



## Balthazar

Woodduck said:


> .... I issue the same challenge to you.


For anyone else interested in the topic, you may want to go to your local library and check out some books. Barry Millington is a good place to start. Some authors seem to adopt the view that because Wagner didn't write an aria titled "Kill All the Jews" that there must be no anti-Semitism in his operas. Such fallacious books are easy to spot.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> This is easily disposed of. NO ONE has denied that Wagner had antisemitic views. But your repeated insistence that those views are expressed in his operas is not backed by a shred of real evidence. The idea that he MUST have put Jewish characters in his operas because that MUST have been so important to him that he couldn't avoid doing is utterly and transparently fallacious and groundless, and if you are unable to see that I don't know what can be done for you. I don't give a fig what Barry Millington (whom you incessantly invoke) says. I've challenged you on several occasions to make a sound case for your position. Would you like to try again, or just throw in the towel?


Again Woodduck It is pointless arguing with someone who is so dogmatic in his views as you are. You have also sadly misunderstand what people are saying. I wonder if you have actually read my post before starting your response. It's pointless discussing things when you simply can't appear to get the point of what people bare saying.


----------



## Woodduck

Balthazar said:


> For anyone else interested in the topic, you may want to go to your local library and check out some books. Barry Millington is a good place to start. Some authors seem to adopt the view that because Wagner didn't write an aria titled "Kill All the Jews" that there must be no anti-Semitism in his operas. Such fallacious books are easy to spot.


"Such fallacious books"? What fallacious books? I've read Millington's arguments. They prove nothing. Which ones convince you? Which other fallacious books are "easy to spot"?

An easy book to spot, for those wishing to see to what absurd lengths the semitic obsessives will go, is Robert Gutman's "Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music." When you get to the part about homosexuality in _Parsifal,_ try not to burst out laughing.


----------



## DavidA

Morton said:


> Barry Millington believes that Wagner's anti-semitism found its way into some of the characters in the operas, but there are equally respected scholars such as Michael Tanner, Brian Magee & Roger Scruton who do not.
> I tend to agree with the doubts expressed in this paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Wagner controversies.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_controversies
> 
> "Some biographers, such as Theodor Adorno and Robert Gutman[15] have advanced the claim that Wagner's opposition to Jews was not limited to his articles, and that the operas contained such messages. In particular the characters of Mime in the Ring, Klingsor in Parsifal and Sixtus Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger are supposedly Jewish stereotypes, although none of them are identified as Jews in the libretto. Such claims are disputed. Wagner, over the course of his life, produced a huge amount of written material analyzing every aspect of himself, including his operas and his views on Jews (as well as many other topics); these purportedly 'Jewish' characterizations are never mentioned, nor are there any such references in Cosima Wagner's copious diaries"
> 
> *If fact, Beckmesser holds the post of Town Clerk which I don't believe would not have been available to him had he been Jewish in 16th century Nurnberg.
> I can believe however that he might be a caricature of the music critic Eduard Hanslick, or is that too obvious?*


Most people agree that Beckmesser (whose name was originally to be Veit Hanslich) is a caricature of Hanslick . In 1869, in a revised edition of his essay Jewishness in Music, Wagner attacked Hanslick as 'of gracefully concealed Jewish origin', and asserted that his supposedly Jewish style of criticism was anti-German. Of course Beckmesser is not Jewish in the opera but many believe the type of music he is given caricatures Jewishness.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Balthazar said:


> If 50 years later a dictator who singled him out as an inspiration rose to power and murdered 6 million Lithuanians (and more Slavs and disabled and homosexuals and Catholics), I am pretty sure we would.


The bit about Slavs, disabled, homosexuals and Catholics is important, in that Wagner had nothing inflammatory to say about them, so he can scarcely be said to have inspired Hitler in respect to their inclusion in the Holocaust. It makes little sense to argue that Wagner should be implicated "only" as the inspiration for the _Shoah_ component of the Holocaust, but not to have inspired the T4 "eugenics" programme or the _Porajmos_ of the Romani, so why should we implicate him at all?

Bear in mind that these ghastly events evolved gradually once the Third Reich got into full swing and most, if not all of them, were the ideas of people other than Hitler. None, I'd suggest, could have had their origin in Hitler's fanaticism for Wagner.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Still ducking the challenge, eh?


No. I'll take up the challenge when you actually address the issues rather than pouring scorn on things people don't say.


----------



## Richard8655

How about a poll on this subject? Should Wagner be condemned for his antisemitism, or accepted because his music transcended his personal beliefs? Results might be surprising.


----------



## Chronochromie

Richard8655 said:


> How about a poll on this subject? Should Wagner be condemned for his antisemitism, or accepted because his music transcended his personal beliefs? Results might be surprising.


Or better yet, we could separate the art from the artist.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Well, that's a convenient out. You're going to let an old personal gudge deprive everyone here of your arguments? C'mon, Balthazar! You don't have to do it for me! Do it for the enlightenment of the others!
> 
> "Such fallacious books"? What fallacious books?* I've read Millington's arguments. They prove nothing.* Which ones convince you? Which other fallacious books are "easy to spot"?
> 
> An easy book to spot, for those wishing to see to what absurd lengths the semitic obsessives will go, is Robert Gutman's "Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music." When you get to the part about homosexuality in _Parsifal,_ try not to burst out laughing.


Woodduck, I can say the same for your arguments. They prove nothing because as I have said nothing can be proved beyond doubt. Nothing can be proved one way or another. What is in no doubt is that Wagner implicated himself by his writings.
And please address Millington's actual arguments instead of just saying they prove nothing!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

DavidA said:


> Most people agree that Beckmesser (whose name was originally to be Veit Hanslich) is a caricature of Hanslick . In 1869, in a revised edition of his essay Jewishness in Music, Wagner attacked Hanslick as 'of gracefully concealed Jewish origin', and asserted that his supposedly Jewish style of criticism was anti-German. Of course Beckmesser is not Jewish in the opera *but many believe the type of music he is given caricatures Jewishness*.


Do they believe then that Jews are incapable of producing decent music and poetry without messing up - because that is exactly what Beckmesser does. Isn't this opinion thus more anti-semitic than Wagner's own? Do you see the faulty logic here: Beckmesser is a worthless artist = Beckmesser Jewish -- > Jews are worthless artists? Obviously anyone who thinks like that has never listened to Mendelssohn :lol:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> An easy book to spot, for those wishing to see to what absurd lengths the semitic obsessives will go, is Robert Gutman's "Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music." *When you get to the part about homosexuality in Parsifal, try not to burst out laughing*.


Too late, I already did, just from reading that line. Let me guess, he believes Klingsor has the hots for Amfortas, that is why he tried to "corrupt" him. Or for Amfortas, Parsifal and the entire brotherhood together?


----------



## Taggart

Please argue nicely and respect the other person's point of view.

Some posts have been edited and others deleted because of inappropriate comments.


----------



## Morton

DavidA said:


> Most people agree that Beckmesser (whose name was originally to be Veit Hanslich) is a caricature of Hanslick . In 1869, in a revised edition of his essay Jewishness in Music, Wagner attacked Hanslick as 'of gracefully concealed Jewish origin', and asserted that his supposedly Jewish style of criticism was anti-German. Of course Beckmesser is not Jewish in the opera but many believe the type of music he is given caricatures Jewishness.


I think this article gives an alternative view much better than I could.
https://sites.google.com/a/carleton...europe-2010/home/beckmesser-as-a-music-critic

I think Meistersinger has a pretty good plot and in Hans Sachs Wagner has created one of the most real and human characters in all of opera, but this would all count for naught if the music was the not the sublime creation it is.
For me an opera's worth is 99% music 1 % everything else, so I think we are arguing over this 1%.


----------



## Woodduck

Nobody on this forum has "actually addressed" more issues pertaining to Wagner than I have.

The issue which I am _actually addressing_ right now is the issue of the supposed antisemitic content of Wagner's operas. I can go on asking for solid evidence of that for as long as people can go on not providing it. If people insist on asserting its existence without delivering the goods, is scorn an inappropriate response?

I don't want to be scornful, David. But I have an incurable devotion to reality which will not give a pass to poorly grounded views on subjects which I have studied carefully and others keep bringing up. The subject of this thread is not a frivolous one, and if we're going to try to address it we'd better take it seriously and not just regurgitate memes. Barry Millington must surely be tired of being dragged out as a witness for the prosecution.
*
Well, the post to which this is a response has been deleted!*


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> Do they believe then that Jews are incapable of producing decent music and poetry without messing up - because that is exactly what Beckmesser does. Isn't this opinion thus more anti-semitic than Wagner's own? Do you see the faulty logic here: Beckmesser is a worthless artist = Beckmesser Jewish -- > Jews are worthless artists. Obviously anyone who thinks like that has never listened to Mendelssohn :lol:


Even Wagner criticized Mendelssohn only for lacking profundity, not for being a poor composer.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Woodduck, I can say the same for your arguments. They prove nothing because as I have said nothing can be proved beyond doubt. Nothing can be proved one way or another. What is in no doubt is that Wagner implicated himself by his writings.
> And please address Millington's actual arguments instead of just saying they prove nothing!


I don't have to prove that there are no Jews in Wagner's operas. The burden of proof is on those who claim to find them there, and that's why good evidence needs to be forthcoming if anyone is expected to take that view seriously.

Millington's arguments are not at issue. Besides, where are they? I know them and you know them - but how is anyone else reading this thread going to know them? Besides, I'm not debating this with Millington but with you.

Evidence, evidence, evidence. As I say, I'm happy to consider it, point for point.


----------



## KenOC

As I understand it, Nazi racial theory developed from a combination of historic European anti-Semitism and two new ingredients: Eugenics (first named in 1883) and social Darwinism. In fact, modern eugenics was formulated by Francis Galton, Darwin’s half-cousin, inspired by the theory of evolution.

These ideas, especially social Darwinism, were very hot topics of discussion within the German military classes after WWI, or so I’ve read. For the first time, it was suggested that one racial group could “win” the Darwinian struggle by simply exterminating the other – and that would be a good thing because the “fitter” race would have won.

Wagner’s spleen is certainly reflected in Nazi racial theory, but it seems to me that Darwin’s contribution was greater.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> As I understand it, Nazi racial theory developed from a combination of historic European anti-Semitism and two new ingredients: Eugenics (first named in 1883) and social Darwinism. In fact, modern eugenics was formulated by Francis Galton, Darwin's half-cousin, inspired by the theory of evolution.
> 
> These ideas, especially social Darwinism, were very hot topics of discussion within the German military classes after WWI, or so I've read. For the first time, it was suggested that one racial group could "win" the Darwinian struggle by simply exterminating the other - and that would be a good thing because the "fitter" race would have won.
> 
> Wagner's spleen is certainly reflected in Nazi racial theory, but it seems to me that Darwin's contribution was greater.


And - importantly - Wagner rejected that racial theory when Gobineau, the theory's first major propounder, presented it to him. Cosima's diary reports that they argued loudly about it.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> *I don't have to prove that there are no Jews in Wagner's operas.* The burden of proof is on those who claim to find them there, and that's why good evidence needs to be forthcoming if anyone is expected to take that view seriously.
> 
> Millington's arguments are not at issue. Besides, where are they? I know them and you know them - but how is anyone else reading this thread going to know them? Besides, I'm not debating this with Millington but with you.
> 
> Evidence, evidence, evidence. As I say, I'm happy to consider it, point for point.


Did I say there were? As I say please address what I said.


----------



## TxllxT

I think it is much more fruitful & interesting to try to understand Wagner's impact from German romantic thinking than to keep bashing him anachronistically with Nazi wrongdoings. I read that Wagner got his idea of the _Gesamtkunstwerk_ from Friedrich Schelling. This perhaps ultimate German romantic thinker came forward with the proposition of the "_nothwendige Gottwerdung des Menschen_". Out of this Pandora's box IMO the modern (aesthetic) version of fascism broke loose. Wagner's _Ring des Nibelungen_ lures us into becoming as divine as Wotan. Nietzsche thought that Wagner with Parsifal tracked back on this trail and therefore betrayed the romantic project of man becoming G/god.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Did I say there were? As I say please address what I said.


What you said when? Which statement in particular do you want me to address? I've said what _I'm_ talking about. What are _you_ talking about? You asked me to address Millington's arguments, so I assume you're talking about his reading of Jewishness into the operas. Are there some other Millington views you have in mind? And why do we need to be talking about Millington, except for the fact that you like to bring him up? I can assure you, I'd hardly consider his opinion on this subject worthy of discussion otherwise.

So. You've expressed sympathy with Millington's point of view many times. Why? What do you think is right about his view, and what do you base your appraisal on? Do you understand the views of those who disagree with him? If so, why are his views more plausible than theirs?

I have some unconventional ideas about this subject which I haven't yet presented, but if I keep running into a wall of fog it'll be hard to feel that it would be of value to present them. Few members seem willing to stay with discussions in which the same old theories are constantly trotted out without someone making a genuine effort to substantiate them. The "Wagner's operas contain Jewish caricatures" theory is badly in need of substantiation.

And a final reminder to anyone still hanging in: no one is obliged to prove a negative!


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> I think it is much more fruitful & interesting to try to understand Wagner's impact from German romantic thinking than to keep bashing him anachronistically with Nazi wrongdoings. I read that Wagner got his idea of the _Gesamtkunstwerk_ from Friedrich Schelling. This perhaps ultimate German romantic thinker came forward with the proposition of the "_*nothwendige Gottwerdung des Menschen*_". Out of this Pandora's box IMO *the modern (aesthetic) version of fascism* broke loose. Wagner's _Ring des Nibelungen_ *lures us into becoming as divine as Wotan. *Nietzsche thought that Wagner with Parsifal tracked back on this trail and therefore betrayed the romantic project of man becoming G/god.


This is a little hard to understand. Could you translate the quote, provide some context, define an "aesthetic version of fascism," and explain how the _Ring_ "lures" us into becoming divine? Anyway, how divine is Wotan, who cheats and steals, bungles the creation of "heroes," engineers his own demise, and leaves the world to us poor human beings? I see no men attempting to become gods in the _Ring_, but more the opposite. Wotan learns to let go of power and glory, and Brunnhilde can bring about his end only by becoming human. Nietzsche didn't understand how Parsifal - a man, not a god nor an aspirant to godhood - fulfills the promise of _Gotterdammerung_'s final leitmotif. Wagner's "heroes" are not Nietzschean "supermen," and Parsifal is the first and only one (except for the very human Walther in the comedy, _Die __Meistersinger_) who is not tragic.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> What you said when? Which statement in particular do you want me to address? I've said what _I'm_ talking about. What are _you_ talking about? You asked me to address Millington's arguments, so I assume you're talking about his reading of Jewishness into the operas. Are there some other Millington views you have in mind? And why do we need to be talking about Millington, except for the fact that you like to bring him up? I can assure you, I'd hardly consider his opinion on this subject worthy of discussion otherwise.
> 
> So. You've expressed sympathy with Millington's point of view many times. Why? What do you think is right about his view, and what do you base your appraisal on? Do you understand the views of those who disagree with him? If so, why are his views more plausible than theirs?
> 
> I have some unconventional ideas about this subject which I haven't yet presented, but if I keep running into a wall of fog it'll be hard to feel that it would be of value to present them. Few members seem willing to stay with discussions in which the same old theories are constantly trotted out without someone making a genuine effort to substantiate them. The "Wagner's operas contain Jewish caricatures" theory is badly in need of substantiation.
> 
> And a final reminder to anyone still hanging in: *no one is obliged to prove a negative!*


It is not proving a negative at all as I have said, But there is no point in continuing this conversation on this level when it appears we keep telling at cross purposes and you don't appear to grasp what the point actually is. Let's just leave it. Life is too short!


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> This is a little hard to understand. Could you translate the quote, provide some context, define an "aesthetic version of fascism," and explain how the _Ring_ "lures" us into becoming divine? Anyway, how divine is Wotan, who cheats and steals, bungles the creation of "heroes," engineers his own demise, and leaves the world to us poor human beings? I see no men attempting to become gods in the _Ring_, but more the opposite. Wotan learns to let go of power and glory, and Brunnhilde can bring about his end only by becoming human. Nietzsche didn't understand how Parsifal - a man, not a god nor an aspirant to godhood - fulfills the promise of _Gotterdammerung_'s final leitmotif. Wagner's "heroes" are not Nietzschean "supermen," and Parsifal is the first and only one (except for the very human Walther in the comedy, _Die __Meistersinger_) who is not tragic.


The quote from Schelling is the reversal of the Biblical message that God (the God of the Jews) became man, became human. It is quite Nietzschean _avant la lettre_ of Schelling to have proposed this idea. I would say that the younger Wagner followed this Nietzschean track (from _Mensch_ to _Übermensch = Gott_), but the older Parsifal-Wagner went again against the mainstream... The link to Schelling's romantic idealism & _Gesamtkunstwerk_ can be found in Wikipedia.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> It is not proving a negative at all as I have said, But there is no point in continuing this conversation on this level when it appears we keep telling at cross purposes and you don't appear to grasp what the point actually is. Let's just leave it. Life is too short!


Leave it? I'm not forcing you to talk, David. I'm merely asking questions. I've asked you very specific questions about views you've expressed, but you're refusing to answer them and telling me that I don't "appear" to grasp what you're talking about. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? If you'd answer a direct question directly I just might "appear" to understand the answer. On the other hand, if you really don't want to defend your oft-stated views - a choice I could well understand, as the issue is complex - the honest thing to do is to say so rather than to tell me repeatedly that I don't seem to know what you're saying.

Here's the crux of it, as I understand the matter: you have said that you find it overwhelmingly likely, perhaps even obviously true, that Wagner's antisemitic attitudes are embodied or expressed in some of the characters and dramatic themes of his operas, and you usually cite Barry Millington in support of this view. I disagree with this claim and hold that there there is no compelling evidence of it, and indeed evidence to the contrary.

I believe this issue is quite pertinent here. If we're inquiring into Wagner's influence, the question of whether his personal beliefs and attitudes are embodied in his work is not a trivial one. If there are antisemitic messages encoded in the operas, they have very likely had some impact; indeed, if they had no impact, what would be the use of putting them there? Wagner was not a careless artist. His personal life may have been something of a wild mess, but in his art he chose his targets with care and nearly always hit the bull's eye. Is this really one of the targets he chose, and if so how good was his aim?

If you don't want to support your view on this, a clear statement to that effect would be nice. It just now occurs to me that the subject might perhaps have a thread of its own. I presume you would not be interested in such a thread, but it might draw back into the conversation some members who have grown tired of this one.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> The quote from Schelling is the reversal of the Biblical message that God (the God of the Jews) became man, became human. It is quite Nietzschean _avant la lettre_ of Schelling to have proposed this idea. I would say that the younger Wagner followed this Nietzschean track (from _Mensch_ to _Übermensch = Gott_), but the older Parsifal-Wagner went again against the mainstream... The link to Schelling's romantic idealism & _Gesamtkunstwerk_ can be found in Wikipedia.


OK, but I think you misunderstand Wagner. His stories may reside in the realms of myth and romance, but for all his grandeur of utterance his characters are typically neither godlike nor aspirants to godhood. They are all too human, and often in search of a deeper humanity that eludes them. The Dutchman is a poor sailor who has fallen afoul of life (accursed by Satan) and desires only the faithful love of a woman to save him from an immortality of loneliness and despair. Tannhauser is a misfit who also seeks love, but cannot negotiate his oppressive society's dichotomy between the spirit and the flesh. Lohengrin dwells in a seemingly superhuman realm, but descends into a world of human weakness and conflict in search of completion through a woman's love; his return to Montsalvat is not an achievement but a tragedy. Tristan and Isolde seek transcendent bliss, but hardly godhood, in a world that destroys them. No one in the _Ring_ achieves godhood; in fact, the aspiration to power and glory is the cause and essence of its catastrophic conclusion. Hans Sachs is Wagner himself, contemplating life after Tristan's tragedy, looking not for godhood but for ways to live wisely among his fellow men and to help them find earthly happiness. At the end, in _Parsifal_, the godlike Titurel, a reincarnation of Wotan (Wagner himself pointed out the parallel), dies as a new Siegfried renounces the illusions of both love and power by learning the healing power of compassion.

_Parsifal_ is not a reversal on Wagner's part, but a natural evolution. Nietzsche couldn't see that, and certainly Hitler couldn't either. But there's no excuse for us.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

DavidA said:


> Most people agree that Beckmesser (whose name was originally to be Veit Hanslich) is a caricature of Hanslick . In 1869, in a revised edition of his essay Jewishness in Music, Wagner attacked Hanslick as 'of gracefully concealed Jewish origin', and asserted that his supposedly Jewish style of criticism was anti-German. Of course Beckmesser is not Jewish in the opera but many believe the type of music he is given caricatures Jewishness.


I'm sure that "most people" have no idea who Hanslick is or his relation to Wagner, let alone agree that Beckmesser was a caricature of him. Not even Barry Millington agrees with that.

I responded to this idea some time back, and since you didn't respond to my comments then, perhaps you would like to do so now. Here's what I said:

"In fact, it's only because we know so much about Wagner's life and opinions that we even make these connections (caricature of Wagner's critics or a particular critic). With most artists, including most of the great composers, we know relatively little about their lives and can't begin to make reductionisms of this sort.

The reason that it is assumed that Beckmesser is a caricature of the famed Viennese critic Hanslick is because in an earlier draft of the opera the character's name had been Viet Hanslich. Hanslick, by the way, had a Jewish mother and a Christian father, and for this Wagner considered him Jewish. It should be noted that Wagner's antisemitism was highly peculiar and unique; there are numerous examples of him calling someone a Jew who had no Jewish heritage whatsoever, while he maintained strong friendships with many actual Jews. Anyways, the fact that the character was named Viet Hanslich could very well indicate that Hanslick was at least a partial inspiration for the character. It also could have been Wagner's way of taking a jab at Hanslick, since the critic was invited to attend a reading of the text of Die Meistersinger in a private home in 1862, and Wagner subsequently changed the name. However, here is the problem with simply pronouncing that Beckmesser is a caricature of critics, or of a particular "Jewish" critic: Wagner first conceived the basic outline of Die Meistersinger in 1845 during a trip to the Marienbad spa that also yielded the ideas for Lohengrin and other projects. In 1845, the only contact that Wagner had had with a young Hanslick was when Hanslick introduced himself and stated that he was an admirer of Tannhäuser. Hanslick only became hostile to Wagner's operas at a later date. And of course 1845 was still years before Wagner had written Das Judenthum in der Musik. So it's simply not possible that Beckmesser could be the caricature of a critic like Hanslick and nothing more."

As for Millington's pet theory about Jewishness caricatures in the operas, these ideas are far from widely accepted. In fact most writers, thinkers, and scholars I've read who have evaluated them find his conclusions highly questionable at best. Here's an article where Millington lays out his argument, and that notorious "Wagner apologist" Charles Rosen lol rejects it point by point:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/06/10/wagners-anti-semitism/


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> OK, but I think you misunderstand Wagner. His stories may reside in the realms of myth and romance, but for all his grandeur of utterance his characters are typically neither godlike nor aspirants to godhood. They are all too human, and often in search of a deeper humanity that eludes them. The Dutchman is a poor sailor who has fallen afoul of life (accursed by Satan) and desires only the faithful love of a woman to save him from an immortality of loneliness and despair. Tannhauser is a misfit who also seeks love, but cannot negotiate his oppressive society's dichotomy between the spirit and the flesh. Lohengrin dwells in a seemingly superhuman realm, but descends into a world of human weakness and conflict in search of completion through a woman's love; his return to Montsalvat is not an achievement but a tragedy. Tristan and Isolde seek transcendent bliss, but hardly godhood, in a world that destroys them. No one in the _Ring_ achieves godhood; in fact, the aspiration to power and glory is the cause and essence of its catastrophic conclusion. Hans Sachs is Wagner himself, contemplating life after Tristan's tragedy, looking not for godhood but for ways to live wisely among his fellow men and to help them find earthly happiness. At the end, in _Parsifal_, the godlike Titurel, a reincarnation of Wotan (Wagner himself pointed out the parallel), dies as a new Siegfried renounces the illusions of both love and power by learning the healing power of compassion.
> 
> _Parsifal_ is not a reversal on Wagner's part, but a natural evolution. Nietzsche couldn't see that, and certainly Hitler couldn't either. But there's no excuse for us.


I just want to point at the German romantic idealistic mindset that was shared by both Wagner, Nietzsche and their respective audiences. Wagner didn't have the typical dogmatic rigidity of German philosophers. But now you seem to play down Wagner's quest for Walhalla with the German Gods. I see Wagner as a double dealer, sometimes suffocatingly romantic, at other times ecstatically calling people to arms & war ... Wagner immorally prepared young Germans for looking at war as _"der fröhliche Krieg"_ (The merry war, the nickname of WWI).


----------



## Woodduck

SilenceIsGolden said:


> I'm sure that "most people" have no idea who Hanslick is or his relation to Wagner, let alone agree that Beckmesser was a caricature of him. Not even Barry Millington agrees with that.
> 
> I responded to this idea some time back, and since you didn't respond to my comments then, perhaps you would like to do so now. Here's what I said:
> 
> "In fact, it's only because we know so much about Wagner's life and opinions that we even make these connections (caricature of Wagner's critics or a particular critic). With most artists, including most of the great composers, we know relatively little about their lives and can't begin to make reductionisms of this sort.
> 
> The reason that it is assumed that Beckmesser is a caricature of the famed Viennese critic Hanslick is because in an earlier draft of the opera the character's name had been Viet Hanslich. Hanslick, by the way, had a Jewish mother and a Christian father, and for this Wagner considered him Jewish. It should be noted that Wagner's antisemitism was highly peculiar and unique; there are numerous examples of him calling someone a Jew who had no Jewish heritage whatsoever, while he maintained strong friendships with many actual Jews. Anyways, the fact that the character was named Viet Hanslich could very well indicate that Hanslick was at least a partial inspiration for the character. It also could have been Wagner's way of taking a jab at Hanslick, since the critic was invited to attend a reading of the text of Die Meistersinger in a private home in 1862, and Wagner subsequently changed the name. However, here is the problem with simply pronouncing that Beckmesser is a caricature of critics, or of a particular "Jewish" critic: Wagner first conceived the basic outline of Die Meistersinger in 1845 during a trip to the Marienbad spa that also yielded the ideas for Lohengrin and other projects. In 1845, the only contact that Wagner had had with a young Hanslick was when Hanslick introduced himself and stated that he was an admirer of Tannhäuser. Hanslick only became hostile to Wagner's operas at a later date. And of course 1845 was still years before Wagner had written Das Judenthum in der Musik. So it's simply not possible that Beckmesser could be the caricature of a critic like Hanslick and nothing more."
> 
> As for Millington's pet theory about Jewishness caricatures in the operas, these ideas are far from widely accepted. In fact most writers, thinkers, and scholars I've read who have evaluated them find his conclusions highly questionable at best. Here's an article where Millington lays out his argument, and that notorious "Wagner apologist" Charles Rosen lol rejects it point by point:
> 
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/06/10/wagners-anti-semitism/


Thanks for that, Silence. Actually I find Rosen a little too generous to Millington and the other "Jew-spotters" who approach Wagner with their peculiar quest in mind. If there are even "overtones" of antisemitism in the _Ring_ and _Parsifal_, I would say that those, like the more essential qualities the Millingtons and Gutmans claim to find, can only be detected by those predisposed to find them by a pre-formed image of Wagner and his supposed ideological purposes. Any qualities that might be cited as "overtones" in those works are easily understood and accounted for without reference to antisemitism.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> I think it is much more fruitful & interesting to try to understand Wagner's impact from German romantic thinking...


Yes, that is precisely the way Wagner should be understood best - in the broader context of Romanticism.



TxllxT said:


> I just want to point at the German romantic idealistic mindset that was shared by both Wagner, Nietzsche and their respective audiences. Wagner didn't have the typical dogmatic rigidity of German philosophers. But now you seem to play down Wagner's quest for Walhalla with the German Gods. *I see Wagner as a double dealer, sometimes suffocatingly romantic, at other times ecstatically calling people to arms & war ... Wagner immorally prepared young Germans for looking at war as "der fröhliche Krieg" (The merry war, the nickname of WWI)*.


Sorry TxllxT, but where exactly do you see this? The only extatic call to war I can think of is that of Hagen, and then it is not really a call to war, but a premonition of the entire wedding disaster.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for that, Silence. Actually I find Rosen a little too generous to Millington and the other "Jew-spotters" who approach Wagner with their peculiar quest in mind. If there are even "overtones" of antisemitism in the _Ring_ and _Parsifal_, I would say that those, like the more essential qualities the Millingtons and Gutmans claim to find, can only be detected by those predisposed to find them by a pre-formed image of Wagner and his supposed ideological purposes. Any qualities that might be cited as "overtones" in those works are easily understood and accounted for without reference to antisemitism.


Oh I absolutely agree with you, Rosen is going out of his way to be as sympathetic to Millington's ideas as possible, and so can hardly be labelled a biased commentator. He is bending over backwards in an attempt to be objective. And yet he still finds the crux of the argument suspect.


----------



## Woodduck

TxllxT said:


> I just want to point at the German romantic idealistic mindset that was shared by both Wagner, Nietzsche and their respective audiences. Wagner didn't have the typical dogmatic rigidity of German philosophers. But now you seem to play down Wagner's quest for Walhalla with the German Gods. I see Wagner as a double dealer, sometimes suffocatingly romantic, at other times ecstatically calling people to arms & war ... Wagner immorally prepared young Germans for looking at war as _"der fröhliche Krieg"_ (The merry war, the nickname of WWI).


I'm not playing down anything. You haven't given us anything definite to play down. What does this quest for "Walhalla" consist of? When does Wagner call people to arms and war?

"Idealistic mindsets" are hardly unique to Wagner or Germans, and Wagner's idealism was never militaristic. On the contrary, after his youthful dalliance with revolution in 1848 (which aspired to anarchistic socialism, not militarism or dictatorship), he became quite skeptical of political solutions to humanity's problems.

I feel as if you're lumping a lot of things together here. I also suspect that you're being influenced by Hitler's embrace of Wagner, whose work he viewed through the distorting lens of his own ideology, to the extent that he had any real concept of it all. A gaggle of shrieking Valkyries and loud trombones do not lead to blitzkriegs, eugenics and concentration camps.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> I feel as if you're lumping a lot of things together here. I also suspect that you're being influenced by Hitler's embrace of Wagner, whose work he viewed through the distorting lens of his own ideology, to the extent that he had any real concept of it all. A gaggle of shrieking Valkyries and loud trombones do not lead to blitzkriegs, eugenics and concentration camps.


It seems to me that the modern 21st century man's reception of this entire part of cultural heritage: of Wagner, Nietzsche, German Romanticism almost always happens to some extent through the lens of the events of the 20th century. It takes a personal effort to get rid of this distorting lens in one's consciousness and to see the things that were brought forth long before Hitler and the Nazis for what they are, in their true light. The 19th century German Romantics, no matter how sharply perceptive they were, had no way of seeing into the future.

Another very obvious example of this distorted perception is the German language itself. Many people's opinion of it as rough, ugly and unmusical comes from seeing too many war films and most definitely not from listening to opera.


----------



## DavidA

SilenceIsGolden said:


> I'm sure that "most people" have no idea who Hanslick is or his relation to Wagner, let alone agree that Beckmesser was a caricature of him. Not even Barry Millington agrees with that.
> 
> I responded to this idea some time back, and since you didn't respond to my comments then, perhaps you would like to do so now. Here's what I said:
> 
> "In fact, it's only because we know so much about Wagner's life and opinions that we even make these connections (caricature of Wagner's critics or a particular critic). With most artists, including most of the great composers, we know relatively little about their lives and can't begin to make reductionisms of this sort.
> 
> The reason that it is assumed that Beckmesser is a caricature of the famed Viennese critic Hanslick is because in an earlier draft of the opera the character's name had been Viet Hanslich. Hanslick, by the way, had a Jewish mother and a Christian father, and for this Wagner considered him Jewish. It should be noted that Wagner's antisemitism was highly peculiar and unique; there are numerous examples of him calling someone a Jew who had no Jewish heritage whatsoever, while he maintained strong friendships with many actual Jews. Anyways, the fact that the character was named Viet Hanslich could very well indicate that Hanslick was at least a partial inspiration for the character. It also could have been Wagner's way of taking a jab at Hanslick, since the critic was invited to attend a reading of the text of Die Meistersinger in a private home in 1862, and Wagner subsequently changed the name. However, here is the problem with simply pronouncing that Beckmesser is a caricature of critics, or of a particular "Jewish" critic: Wagner first conceived the basic outline of Die Meistersinger in 1845 during a trip to the Marienbad spa that also yielded the ideas for Lohengrin and other projects. In 1845, the only contact that Wagner had had with a young Hanslick was when Hanslick introduced himself and stated that he was an admirer of Tannhäuser. Hanslick only became hostile to Wagner's operas at a later date. And of course 1845 was still years before Wagner had written Das Judenthum in der Musik. So it's simply not possible that Beckmesser could be the caricature of a critic like Hanslick and nothing more."
> 
> As for Millington's pet theory about Jewishness caricatures in the operas, these ideas are far from widely accepted. In fact most writers, thinkers, and scholars I've read who have evaluated them find his conclusions highly questionable at best. Here's an article where Millington lays out his argument, and that notorious "Wagner apologist" Charles Rosen lol rejects it point by point:
> 
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/06/10/wagners-anti-semitism/


'It should be clear that I respect Millington's research and acknowledge its importance. *The argument is only about the extent of its relevance and the manner of its application*.' (Charles Rosen)
That hardly seems a rejection point by point of Millington's argument. In fact Rosen appears to suggest that there are overtones of anti-semitism in Mastersingers:
'If Millington wants to maintain, however, that anti-Semitism was so important to Wagner's thought that it must have contaminated Die Meistersinger, then he is probably right-but it also contaminated the Ring and Parsifal, too. *There are overtones of anti-Semitism about those works, too, *but no more than overtones'
I think if you read my posts properly I have implied that.The argument is over the degree


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> I'm not playing down anything. You haven't given us anything definite to play down. What does this quest for "Walhalla" consist of? When does Wagner call people to arms and war?
> 
> "Idealistic mindsets" are hardly unique to Wagner or Germans, and Wagner's idealism was never militaristic. On the contrary, after his youthful dalliance with revolution in 1848 (which aspired to anarchistic socialism, not militarism or dictatorship), he became quite skeptical of political solutions to humanity's problems.
> 
> I feel as if you're lumping a lot of things together here. I also suspect that you're being influenced by Hitler's embrace of Wagner, whose work he viewed through the distorting lens of his own ideology, to the extent that he had any real concept of it all. A gaggle of shrieking Valkyries and loud trombones do not lead to blitzkriegs, eugenics and concentration camps.







I'm not on the Hitler stuff but on the road to WWI.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ That is some fine barbarian music  But what it really is is a prelude to the disaster that befalls both the valiant Siegfried and all who conspired against him.

I can very well believe that some people who were not very knowledgeable about the entire message of the Ring could take it as a call to battle, at face value. People with only a little knowledge can distort just about anything, as we can in part see from this very thread. But how is it Wagner's fault?


----------



## TxllxT

SiegendesLicht said:


> ^ That is some fine barbarian music  But what it really is is a prelude to the disaster that befalls both the valiant Siegfried and all who conspired against him.
> 
> I can very well believe that some people who were not very knowledgeable about the entire message of the Ring could take it as a call to battle, at face value. People with only a little knowledge can distort just about anything, as we can in part see from this very thread. But how is it Wagner's fault?


Wagner is responsible like nobody else for making the going to war aesthetically beautiful. No military band can make your blood boil like he does.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

TxllxT said:


> Wagner is responsible like nobody else for making the going to war aesthetically beautiful. No military band can make your blood boil like he does.


I am listening to Tristan und Isolde right now.. War?... what war?...


----------



## millionrainbows

Wagner's operas have a lot of mythological content, and myths are the stuff of archetypes.

There doesn't need to be any explicit antisemitism in Wagner; the symbolism is there in myth form.

It reflects Nationalism, and the workings of the German psyche. As was said earlier, this is the "mythological groundwork" for what followed.

This is the same way that Carl Orff's Carmina Burana freaked a lot of people out in America in the late 1930s, when it was the current thing coming out of Germany; it scared people because of the concurrent social tenor and political happenings in Germany.

Carmina Burana was not explicit, any more than Wagner; but, as art, it triggered an archetype. It evoked a climate of fear, in its pagan-sounding, cultic, darkness-evoking tone, and in dealing with a darker, secular aspect of Humanity.

That's why it is such an interesting work; it evokes the darkness; ahh, the darkness.

The darkness allows the light to appear so bright. It illuminates the sacred by compromising it and penetrating it. The light does not exist without the darkness.




​





​


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Wagner's operas have a lot of mythological content, and myths are the stuff of *archetypes.
> *
> There doesn't need to be any explicit antisemitism in Wagner; the *symbolism* is there in myth form.
> 
> It *reflects Nationalism*, and *the workings of the German psyche*. As was said earlier, this is the "mythological groundwork" for what followed.
> 
> This is the same way that Carl Orff's Carmina Burana freaked a lot of people out in America in the late 1930s, when it was the current thing coming out of Germany; it scared people because of the concurrent social tenor and political happenings in Germany.
> 
> Carmina Burana was not explicit, any more than Wagner; but, as art, it triggered an archetype. It evoked a climate of fear, in its pagan-sounding, cultic, darkness-evoking tone, and in dealing with a darker, secular aspect of Humanity.
> 
> That's why it is such an interesting work; it evokes the darkness; ahh, the darkness.
> 
> The darkness allows the light to appear so bright. It illuminates the sacred by compromising it and penetrating it. The light does not exist without the darkness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


Words are such slippery things. Archetypes? Symbolism? Symbols of what, particularly? Nationalism? What are the nationalist messages of the operas? Something beyond a Nuremberger extolling the beauty of German music and saying that it will outlast empires that rise and fall? How, exactly, does "the German psyche" work? Darkness and light? I'd say there's plenty of both in Wagner, as there is in the human soul, and as no opera composer before him ever revealed.

Be careful of assigning causal relationships. Like the Bible for Jews and Christians, Wagner's operas may be cited as symbolizing, and inspiring, the noblest and the basest things. They are big, complex, powerful, sometimes disturbing and baffling and, yes, unmistakably German works of art. But Hitler's fanciful adoption of him to the contrary, the atrocities of the 20th century are not rooted in any Gospel According to Wagner.


----------



## Becca

I am fascinated that this thread has reached over 300 posts and has not yet been extended to the concurrent impact of Verdi on Italian nationalism or whether he was one of the triggers for Mussolini. We all know about the impact of _Nabucco_ but the possibilities of analyzing _Otello or_, better yet, _Falstaff_ should be fodder for at least another 300 posts.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> I am fascinated that this thread has reached over 300 posts and has not yet been extended to the concurrent impact of Verdi on Italian nationalism or whether he was one of the triggers for Mussolini. We all know about the impact of _Nabucco_ but the possibilities of analyzing _Otello or_, better yet, _Falstaff_ should be fodder for at least another 300 posts.


Apparently Italian nationalism is picturesque, while German nationalism is deadly.

Curiously, Verdi's operas were more popular than Wagner's in Nazi Germany.


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> I am fascinated that this thread has reached over 300 posts and has not yet been extended to the concurrent impact of Verdi on Italian nationalism or whether he was one of the triggers for Mussolini. We all know about the impact of _Nabucco_ but the possibilities of analyzing _Otello or_, *better yet, Falstaff *should be fodder for at least another 300 posts.


The last chorus of Falstaff: "We've all been fooled!" - why not start with that!


----------



## Morton

It is curious that Wagner is obsessed over for his obvious anti-semitism while at the same time it is largely ignored in others such as Stravinsky or Mussorgsky.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1989/06/15/jews-and-geniuses-an-exchange/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/11/musorgsky-and-his-circle-by-stephen-walsh-review/
The main reason, I suppose, is that he wrote that dreadful book, but as far as I know, even though he felt an overwhelming urge at all times to constantly write and talk about himself, his views and his works, both in publicly and privately, the topic of Jewish caricatures or anti-Semitic subtext in the operas never came up.


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> Apparently Italian nationalism is picturesque, while German nationalism is deadly.
> 
> Curiously, Verdi's operas were more popular than Wagner's in Nazi Germany.


Italy = operetta, Germany = opera. Now tell me, which opera you would choose for Germany...


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

DavidA said:


> 'It should be clear that I respect Millington's research and acknowledge its importance. *The argument is only about the extent of its relevance and the manner of its application*.' (Charles Rosen)
> That hardly seems a rejection point by point of Millington's argument. In fact Rosen appears to suggest that there are overtones of anti-semitism in Mastersingers:
> 'If Millington wants to maintain, however, that anti-Semitism was so important to Wagner's thought that it must have contaminated Die Meistersinger, then he is probably right-but it also contaminated the Ring and Parsifal, too. *There are overtones of anti-Semitism about those works, too, *but no more than overtones'
> I think if you read my posts properly I have implied that.The argument is over the degree


Ah, well you'll have to excuse me for engaging in a bit of hyperbole won't you, but we are talking about Wagner here. That's only to be expected, isn't that right? 

You are correct my good sir, Rosen is obviously no expert in the matter, and defers to Millington's superior knowledge on the topic by conceding that there may be "overtones of anti-Semitism" in the works, without ever elaborating on what those overtones may consist of. Overtones. A deliciously ambiguous term, don't you think David? It suggest that there's _something_ in the works, an element that is difficult to put ones finger on, but that simply _must_ exist, because "anti-Semitism was so important to Wagner's thought that it *must* have contaminated" the works. I'll return to this idea shortly. However even Rosen can spot some of the major logical deficiencies of Millington's argument. He notes that "Only if Beckmesser is supposed to have Jewish traits clearly recognizable by the German public can anti-Semitism be 'woven into the ideological fabric of Die Meistersinger'. However, except for an esoteric pun about an anti-Semitic Grimm fairy tale, all the arguments Millington brings forward in his Grove Opera article and in his fully documented Cambridge Opera Journal article, which I have now read, do not prove what he thinks they prove." And later, "Therefore, according to Millington, any part of Wagner's ideology like anti-Semitism which does not appear on the surface of the opera must be considered to be woven into its fabric-*the only thing it could be woven into, as it is not part of the plot*, and there are no Jewish characters." Woven into the fabric. I love this phrase. It makes the operas out to be dangerously subversive, and is just hazy enough to sound plausible. Anyways, Rosen has his thumb on the pulse of the issue when he writes "*Millington's confusion is a common one among biographers; he thinks he is entitled to read into a work of Wagner's any of the composer's beliefs which the composer himself did not see fit to put into it. He allows his imagination full rein, searching Beckmesser's traits for some kind of a relation to Wagner's characterization of Jews*."

Now I know you and I have been over most of this in the past, but for clarity I'm happy to briefly summarize a few of the reasons I don't personally find Millington's theory convincing:

1. As already mentioned, Millington's whole argument hinges on the unsupported assumption that antisemitism was simply such an important part of Wagner's life and philosophy that it has to find a way into the artwork. But even the basis of this argument is wrong, because Wagner's thinking and prose works are full of ideas that mattered strongly to him him and yet never found their way into the stage works. There were other subjects which plagued him just as much as the Jews, above all the question about how the artist (i.e. himself) could make enough money to create his works without concentrating on income and compromising his ideals. His correspondence with his family, with Liszt, Uhlig and countless others is as sad and revealing of how far Wagner spent his life eating his heart out over fees and finances. These worries dominated his life until his dying day, and as Cosima's diaries show all too poignantly, they consumed and drained his energies. Even so, Wagner's financial concerns were too petty and dismal to feature in his artisitc creations because they warranted bigger and better themes.

2. Millington broadly applies some of the adjectives and descriptions that Wagner uses to describe Jews and Jewish musicians in his essay Das Judenthum in der Musik, such as their possessing speech that is a "creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle", and Wagner's statement that Jews have no melody or art of their own, to attributes of a few of the "antagonists" in the dramas like Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger or Mimi in Der Ring (while ignoring the negative attributes of the "protagonists" and how they could potentially be construed as portraying Jews if one had the desire). Well of course anyone who holds Das Judenthum in der Musik in one hand, a libretto to one of the dramas in the other hand, and a creative imagination can trace loose correlations between the two. But first of all, I think these are actually quite poor descriptions of Beckmesser or Mimi. "Creaking", "squeaking" or "buzzing" aren't very accurate descriptions of the music of either of these characters, unless one is stretching to make a connection, and furthermore in Die Meistersinger Beckmesser _does_ have melody and art of his own, and is one of the proud carriers of the great German musical tradition. He is a rather uninspired and close-minded musician to be sure, symptoms of the guild as a whole, and why it is in need of rejuvenation. However, that is quite different. Second of all, none of these attributes are or were even in Wagner's day _specifically_ recognized as belonging only to Jews, and it's ridiculous to think that Wagner believed all negative attributes of a person's character were _exclusively_ Jewish. Wagner had plenty of critical things to say about non-Jews and non-Jewish musicians, Verdi only being one example.

It's just incredibly difficult to figure out a way these antisemitic elements credibly and sensibly fit into the dramas. If they _are_ there, they are incredibly out of place with all of the other themes and components that _are_ explicit in the works, and that is only one more reason I find it hard to believe they exist. With amazing insight Wagner was able to assemble stories that make sense on every level on interpretation: literal, metaphorical, symbolic, and mythical, using the raw material of Germanic myth to compose new myths of his own. But then we are expected to believe that he sat alone, rubbing his hands and thinking to himself about how he would interject antisemtic caricatures into the works that are totally out of place, as a way to stick it to the Jews, despite the fact that they are so well hidden most people are completely ignorant of them. At that point he never uttered a word about it in private to his wife and fellow antisemitic Cosima, discussed it in correspondence or expounded upon it in any of his essays, secretly grinning as he went to his grave, knowing he had gotten one over on the Jews. Yes, all that sounds extremely plausible. 

3. Without a person's prior knowledge of Wagner's personal opinions and prejudices, or having the subject thrown in their face by "experts" like Millington, there's simply no way that they would ever detect antisemetic elements in the works. And the proof of this is that most people do, and have enjoyed these works completely unhindered by such esoteric discussions. The idea that these elements are important to one's experience or understanding of the operas is wrong.

But now I would like to engage with you, David. That's all that many of us are asking for. For years you have been on a crusade of sorts to inject these arguments into any thread on Wagner where you see an opportunity, but refuse to discuss them in greater detail. And then those of us who calmly analyze the arguments, think them over, and find them to be groundless and unimportant to our enjoyment of the operas are continuously called biased, unable to accept reality. Why? Are you really so concerned about those poor souls who might just be able to enjoy these works without feelings of guilt, unhindered by such questions, completely unaware they are at risk of being corrupted by this "devil who wrote some good tunes?" If so, while that's quite touching, I'm sure they will get by just fine. Let's have a discussion.


----------



## DavidA

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Ah, well you'll have to excuse me for engaging in a bit of hyperbole won't you, but we are talking about Wagner here. That's only to be expected, isn't that right?
> 
> You are correct my good sir, Rosen is obviously no expert in the matter, and defers to Millington's superior knowledge on the topic by conceding that there may be "overtones of anti-Semitism" in the works, without ever elaborating on what those overtones may consist of. Overtones. A deliciously ambiguous term, don't you think David? It suggest that there's _something_ in the works, an element that is difficult to put ones finger on, but that simply _must_ exist, because "anti-Semitism was so important to Wagner's thought that it *must* have contaminated" the works. I'll return to this idea shortly. However even Rosen can spot some of the major logical deficiencies of Millington's argument. He notes that "Only if Beckmesser is supposed to have Jewish traits clearly recognizable by the German public can anti-Semitism be 'woven into the ideological fabric of Die Meistersinger'. However, except for an esoteric pun about an anti-Semitic Grimm fairy tale, all the arguments Millington brings forward in his Grove Opera article and in his fully documented Cambridge Opera Journal article, which I have now read, do not prove what he thinks they prove." And later, "Therefore, according to Millington, any part of Wagner's ideology like anti-Semitism which does not appear on the surface of the opera must be considered to be woven into its fabric-*the only thing it could be woven into, as it is not part of the plot*, and there are no Jewish characters." Woven into the fabric. I love this phrase. It makes the operas out to be dangerously subversive, and is just hazy enough to sound plausible. Anyways, Rosen has his thumb on the pulse of the issue when he writes "*Millington's confusion is a common one among biographers; he thinks he is entitled to read into a work of Wagner's any of the composer's beliefs which the composer himself did not see fit to put into it. He allows his imagination full rein, searching Beckmesser's traits for some kind of a relation to Wagner's characterization of Jews*."
> 
> Now I know you and I have been over most of this in the past, but for clarity I'm happy to briefly summarize a few of the reasons I don't personally find Millington's theory convincing:
> 
> 1. As already mentioned, Millington's whole argument hinges on the unsupported assumption that antisemitism was simply such an important part of Wagner's life and philosophy that it has to find a way into the artwork. But even the basis of this argument is wrong, because Wagner's thinking and prose works are full of ideas that mattered strongly to him him and yet never found their way into the stage works. There were other subjects which plagued him just as much as the Jews, above all the question about how the artist (i.e. himself) could make enough money to create his works without concentrating on income and compromising his ideals. His correspondence with his family, with Liszt, Uhlig and countless others is as sad and revealing of how far Wagner spent his life eating his heart out over fees and finances. These worries dominated his life until his dying day, and as Cosima's diaries show all too poignantly, they consumed and drained his energies. Even so, Wagner's financial concerns were too petty and dismal to feature in his artisitc creations because they warranted bigger and better themes.
> 
> 2. Millington broadly applies some of the adjectives and descriptions that Wagner uses to describe Jews and Jewish musicians in his essay Das Judenthum in der Musik, such as their possessing speech that is a "creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle", and Wagner's statement that Jews have melody or art of their own, to attributes of a few of the "antagonists" in the dramas like Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger or Mimi in Der Ring (while ignoring the negative attributes of the "protagonists" and how they might be construed to portray Jews if one had the desire). Well of course anyone who holds Das Judenthum in der Musik in one hand, a libretto to one of the dramas in the other hand, and a creative imagination can trace loose correlations between the two. But first of all, I think these are actually quite poor descriptions of Beckmesser or Mimi. "Creaking", "squeaking" or "buzzing" aren't very accurate descriptions of the music of either of these characters, unless one is stretching to make a connection, and furthermore in Die Meistersinger Beckmesser _does_ have melody and art of his own, and is one of the proud carriers of the great German musical tradition. He is a rather uninspired and close-minded musician to be sure, symptoms of the guild as a whole, and why it is in need of rejuvenation. However, that is quite different. Second of all, none of these attributes are or were even in Wagner's day _specifically_ recognized as belonging only to Jews, and it's ridiculous to think that Wagner believed all negative attributes of a person's character were _exclusively_ Jewish. Wagner had plenty of critical things to say about non-Jews and non-Jewish musicians, Verdi only being one example.
> 
> It's just incredibly difficult to figure out a way these antisemitic elements credibly and sensibly fit into the dramas. If they _are_ there, they are incredibly out of place with all of the other themes and components that _are_ explicit in the works, and that is only one more reason I find it hard to believe they exist. With amazing insight Wagner was able to assemble stories that make sense on every level on interpretation: literal, metaphorical, symbolic, and mythical, using the raw material of Germanic myth to compose new myths of his own. But then we are expected to believe that he sat alone, rubbing his hands and thinking to himself about how he would interject antisemtic caricatures into the works that are totally out of place, as a way to stick it to the Jews, despite the fact that they are so well hidden most people are completely ignorant of them. At that point he never uttered a word about it in private to his wife and fellow antisemitic Cosima, discussed it in correspondence or expounded upon it in any of his essays, secretly grinning as he went to his grave, knowing he had gotten one over on the Jews. Yes, all that sounds extremely plausible.
> 
> 3. Without a person's prior knowledge of Wagner's personal opinions and prejudices, or having the subject thrown in their face by "experts" like Millington, there's simply no way that they would ever detect antisemetic elements in the works. And the proof of this is that most people do, and have enjoyed these works completely unhindered by such esoteric discussions. The idea that these elements are important to one's experience or understanding of the operas is wrong.
> 
> But now I would like to engage with you, David. That's all that many of us are asking for. For years you have been on a crusade of sorts to inject these arguments into any thread on Wagner where you see an opportunity, but refuse to discuss them in greater detail. And then those of us who calmly analyze the arguments, think them over, and find them to be groundless and unimportant to our enjoyment of the operas are continuously called biased, unable to accept reality. Why? Are you really so concerned about those poor souls who might just be able to enjoy these works without feelings of guilt, unhindered by such questions, completely unaware they are at risk of being corrupted by this "devil who wrote some good tunes?" If so, while that's quite touching, I'm sure they will get by just fine. Let's have a discussion.


Accusing me of a 'crusade' because I voice an opinion on TC? I know it's Wagner but no need to indulge in such hyperbole. What about all the other opinions about Wagner - positive and negative - expressed on TC - and your own? Does this not appear as some sort of 'crusade'? Please don't use words like that! You might give me an inflated opinion of my own worth! :lol:
I am merely giving my opinion together with the opinions of many other people that have been expressed about Wagner. I do not worry if anyone agrees with me or not. A 'crusader' does! I am merely giving and opinion and responding to arguments which have been put by people who think differently. I thought that was the purpose of TC. Why try to isolate me as if I were the only person in history to say these things? They have been said about Wagner ever since he wrote the operas. And also much more strongly expressed by people on TC if you like to look back even on this thread.
As I have said (and as Rosen implies) it is a matter of opinion. Rosen himself appears quite happy to accept there are 'overtones' of anti-semitism built into some of the characterisations. That is what I feel. The question is the extent. If you feel differently then fine - I have no problem with that. But then why quote Rosen?
To accuse someone of a sinister agenda - of trying to put feelings of guilt upon people by expressing an opinion which has been put forward by many scholars and which is available to anyone who likes to peruse the net - is not really on. Or are you trying to make me feel guilty? 
I had said all I was going to say on the subject but the you posted and I felt I had to reply to it. Please there is no sinister agenda - even with Wagner. I'm never quite sure why people get so intense about these matters. It's opera not real life. I have no problem with accepting certain parts of Mozart's operas have an element of racism and misogyny in them but it doesn't stop me enjoying them for their glorious music. I can enjoy Verdi's Requiem even though I disagree with the theology. And I also accept Wagner's Faustian pact and listen to him when I am in the mood. I also realise there are some people to whom Wagner is completely unacceptable and I respect their opinion also. Fine! there are lots of other composers to listen to.
Thanks for enlightening me on Rosen's opinion. I'm always glad to see the opinion of such a scholar.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Be careful of assigning causal relationships.


Oh, so Wagner is kinda like your atheist secular religion? Lord knows I should not ascribe any religious connections.

Always trust your intuition. Do you mean to say that "scary archetypes" are not raining their heads at this very moment in history?

Ahh, the darkness!


----------



## millionrainbows

What are the best "nazi" Verdi operas?


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> What are the best "nazi" Verdi operas?


Rigoletto. Duke had aryan superiority complex, without conscience, stealing and raping the daughter of the crippled, obviously unter-mensch Rigoletto.

Otello. Iago was so evil, he must have been an unter-mensch, probably a first cousin of the schemer Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger. Neither of them would attend church on Sundays, if you catch my drift. Odd men out. Both destined for the camps.


----------



## Dr Johnson

Wagner's fan base seems to be a broad church:


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> What are the best "nazi" Verdi operas?


What are the best "nazi" operas by anyone?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, so Wagner is kinda like your atheist secular religion? Lord knows I should not ascribe any religious connections.
> 
> Always trust your intuition. Do you mean to say that "scary archetypes" are not raining their heads at this very moment in history?
> 
> Ahh, the darkness!


Is this supposed to mean anything? Or have any relevance? Or any value? What is "my" atheist secular religion (and your chronic need to rag on atheists)? Who is ascribing what religious connections to what? I'm sure I don't "mean to say" anything related to this post, and I'm sure this post is not a meaningful response to anything I've said.

There is more than enough disruptive, uninformative provocation going on with respect to Wagner. It generates heat but little light. Why add to it?


----------



## TxllxT

Woodduck said:


> What are the best "nazi" operas by anyone?


I think the TC moderators ought to ban the word 'nazi'. It doesn't add anything except rant & trolling.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

^ I would vote for that.


----------



## Dim7

We could certainly do with Führer jokes about Nazism.


----------



## Dr Johnson

Although, to be fair, the good ones often Hit ler spot.


----------



## Guest

Dim7 said:


> We could certainly do with Führer jokes about Nazism.


No jokes please!!!!!!!!


----------



## Pugg

Traverso said:


> No jokes please!!!!!!!!


 I would vote for that also.


----------



## hpowders

The best way I can describe Wagner's impact on the world is to imagine a huge meteor (Wagner) hurtling through space, gaining the recognition and respect of major astronomers and every major newspaper. But, fortunately for us, friction does its thing and that huge space rock disintegrates when it reaches the upper earth's atmosphere and becomes a "notung to even bother paying attention to".


----------



## Guest

Paying no attention is often the best thing to do.


----------



## millionrainbows

TxllxT said:


> I think the TC moderators ought to ban the word 'nazi'. It doesn't add anything except rant & trolling.


Yes, "nazi" is rather old-school. These are modern times. Nobody wants a negative label.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Is this supposed to mean anything? Or have any relevance? Or any value? What is "my" atheist secular religion (and your chronic need to rag on atheists)? Who is ascribing what religious connections to what? I'm sure I don't "mean to say" anything related to this post, and I'm sure this post is not a meaningful response to anything I've said.
> 
> There is more than enough disruptive, uninformative provocation going on with respect to Wagner. It generates heat but little light. Why add to it?


powders probably understands, and answered my Verdi question real good.

Wagner is a "religion" to many.

Remember that since secular/social realities and behaviors are rooted in religion.

Religion goes hand in hand with cultural and ethnic realities, all part of the same "package."

So if an atheist opposes religion (or negates it, thinks it is false, harmful, etc), and justifies this by saying state and religion should be separated, then this is a losing proposition, since "secular" is not really secular in its net result.

Religious moral values and behaviors have already insinuated their influence in the secular realm, via social and cultural norms and standards.

Even the founding fathers were Freemasons, and this surely influenced their thinking, in instituting a "Bill of Rights."

Yes, pseudo-religions do count as "religions," including Freemasons, AA, feminism, gay rights, etc.


----------



## Guest

It is only meant to avoid stirring up the henhouse,see what is going on TC and agree that it is better not to use such big words.Not because of the content of that word but to shape a friendly open place where music can discussed.
Some TC members leave their droppings in the Wagner threads and they do not contribute in a constructive way.
If you don't like Wagner stay away and let others free to exchange in mutual satisfaction.


----------



## Guest

If this goes on like this I am afraid that this tread will close down.


----------



## mmsbls

Earlier several posts were deleted which had political references and were off-topic. More recently there's some discussion of religion or atheism having nothing to do with the thread topic. Please refrain from such topics.


----------



## millionrainbows

Why did Wagner have such an impact on the world? 

So we can flush out the neo-nazis.


----------



## millionrainbows

Why did Wagner have such an impact on the world?
Because everyone really loved Natalie Wood.


----------



## millionrainbows

Why did Wagner have such an impact on the world?
Because he hit it really hard with loud music and pointed helmets.


----------



## Vaneyes

“I just can't listen to any more Wagner, you know...I'm starting to get the urge to conquer Poland.” - Woody Allen


----------



## millionrainbows

Wagner is a metaphor for Trump. Can't you see that yet? The dark archetypes are raising their heads. This is not just a synchronicity!


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Wagner is a metaphor for Trump. Can't you see that yet? The dark archetypes are raising their heads. This is not just a synchronicity!


Never, Trump brings money to the table - Wagner takes it away!


----------



## ArtMusic

Wagner will probably continue to be controversial for the rest of my lifetime (hopefully many decades) but I have no doubt whatsoever that his music will continue to be with the top tier of notes composed.


----------



## hpowders

Wagner happened to be one of the three greatest opera composers (Mozart and Verdi, the others) who ever lived.

His music had to rise to the top because it happens to be so magnificent.

The problem is not to be distracted by the man's politics and prejudices.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Wagner happened to be one of the three greatest opera composers (Mozart and Verdi, the others) who ever lived.
> 
> His music had to rise to the top because it happens to be so magnificent.
> 
> *The problem is not to be distracted by the man's politics and prejudices.*


The solution to that problem is to understand that all artists have "politics and prejudices," and that it's up to them to create art and up to us not to be distracted from it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> The solution to that problem is to understand that all artists have "politics and prejudices," and that it's up to them to create art and up to us not to be distracted from it.


I don't know. Sometimes the politics and prejudices inform the work in subtle ways that make it part of the work, even if it is under a layer of innocent storytelling.


----------



## Tallisman

OP fundamentally doesn't warrant/deserve 329 responses


----------



## hpowders

Woodduck said:


> The solution to that problem is to understand that all artists have "politics and prejudices," and that it's up to them to create art and up to us not to be distracted from it.


I just think of Trump and all of a sudden Wagner looks good to me!! A trick I learned at the Schumann Asylum for Prolifically Insane Posters C/O Feverish Department Wing.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> I just think of Trump and all of a sudden Wagner looks good to me!!


Hah. I should hope almost _anything_ would look good to you.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't know. Sometimes the politics and prejudices inform the work in subtle ways that make it part of the work, even if it is under a layer of innocent storytelling.


True. But those subtleties acquire different meanings from the prejudices of different listeners, and factors extraneous to the works come to determine those prejudices and dominate popular perception. The impact of 20th-century history and intellectual fashion (trying to elude Godwin's law here!) have made that a significant pitfall in Wagner's case, to the extent that one can hardly attend a performance or read an article without being treated to someone's views of his presumed politics and prejudices. Memes feed off themselves, and that's the real problem.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> True. But those subtleties acquire different meanings from the prejudices of different listeners, and factors extraneous to the works come to determine those prejudices and dominate popular perception. The impact of 20th-century history and intellectual fashion (trying to elude Godwin's law here!) have made that a significant pitfall in Wagner's case, to the extent that one can hardly attend a performance or read an article without being treated to someone's views of his presumed politics and prejudices. Memes feed off themselves, and that's the real problem.


I agree that in almost every every article I've read about Wagner the author can't resist shoehorning this into the narrative. This will doubtless have a negative effect upon his general perception and legacy in a way that most other composers don't have to suffer (even where they also have a chequered history).


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I agree that in almost every every article I've read about Wagner the author can't resist shoehorning this into the narrative. This will doubtless have a negative effect upon his general perception and legacy in a way that most other composers don't have to suffer (even where they also have a chequered history).


Unfortunately it really does get in the way of what would be normal encounters with the music. A friend of mine tells me how his partner, who's Jewish and enjoys music but knows little about it, heard the _Tannhauser_ overture on radio and liked it, but when told the composer seemed unsure whether he ought to. Another acquaintance, on hearing _Die Walkure,_ exclaimed in surprise, "There's nothing Nazi about this!" Surely no other composer has to break through such barriers.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

It's that his music is representative......it's supposed to be representative of things in the world rather than a self-contained musical structure...that's why his harmony developed the way it did, and that's why people are drawn to Wagner.


----------



## hpowders

Wagner's impact on the world?

What % of the world's population are avid opera lovers? 1%? Wagner lovers? 0.3?

Just because some folks on TC are avid Wagner lovers, let's not project that love onto the rest of the world, because 99% of the world's inhabitants wouldn't even know how to pronounce "Wagner" correctly, let alone name any of his operas.

My answer to the OP: Except for the slight blip due to Hitler's promotion of Wagner's music, "negligible impact on the world".


----------



## 20centrfuge

Francis Poulenc said:


> ... I cannot think of any other musician who has had this kind of impact on the world. What do you think was his magic, what did he have that other composers didn't?


Answer: sex appeal









Just look at this image, but be careful not to get lost in his gaze.


----------



## WildThing

What would all those people march down the aisle to on their wedding day if it wasn't for Wagner?


----------



## hpowders

WildThing said:


> What would all those people march down the aisle to on their wedding day if it wasn't for Wagner?


They could always choose Mendelssohn instead. I know I would, if some lucky girl asks me. Superior music.


----------



## Botschaft

hpowders said:


> They could always choose Mendelssohn instead. I know I would, if some lucky girl asks me. Superior music.


Or you could choose both, if only to make Wagner turn in his grave.


----------



## eugeneonagain

hpowders said:


> My answer to the OP: Except for the slight blip due to Hitler's promotion of Wagner's music, "negligible impact on the world".


Well, as is known, I'm no Wagner fan, but the above is patently false. Among musicians and composers his impact was immense - All one has to do is listen to the music of many composers during Wagner's time and you can can hear the influence everywhere. Not just in Germany, but France, England, Scandinavia.

If he hadn't been this influential why would there have needed to be such a reaction in France, encapsulated in the remark attributed to Satie: "to have a music of our own-preferably with no sauerkraut"?


----------



## larold

Briefly put, Wagner invented what is today music at the movies. He called it music-scene-text; it incorporated all the elements you hear when you see a big screen film with a loud score accompanying the story. Wagner was Liszt's son-in-law and learned his visionary and mystical ways with music, then put his own stamp on them in the Ring tetralogy. He was a century ahead of what we take for granted in movie houses today.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> Wagner's impact on the world?
> 
> What % of the world's population are avid opera lovers? 1%? Wagner lovers? 0.3?
> 
> Just because some folks on TC are avid Wagner lovers, let's not project that love onto the rest of the world, because 99% of the world's inhabitants wouldn't even know how to pronounce "Wagner" correctly, let alone name any of his operas.
> 
> My answer to the OP: *Except for the slight blip due to Hitler's promotion of Wagner's music, "negligible impact on the world"*.


For you and anyone else who may be unaware of the extent of Wagner's musical and cultural impact, I suggest reading back over this thread, to which you yourself have made numerous contributions. Here are some highlights, along with their post numbers.

*****Wagner's impact/influence is owed in a good part to the manner in which he inspired those beyond the realm of music alone. His idea of the "Gesamtkunstwerk" had a profound impact upon theater, designers, architects, and visual artists. There are endless writers, poets, painters, etc... whose works were inspired by or homages to Wagner and his operas. I don't think any classical composer since has come close to Wagner's impact and influence. (Post #6)

*****You have also forgotten to mention his influence on Nietzsche, as well as on Bruckner, Mahler and other major figures of the musical world. (Post #14)

*****He also influenced literature (Baudelaire, Mallarmé, Verlaine, Rilke, Mann, Proust, Lawrence, Joyce, Eliot) and the visual arts (Beardsley, Renoir, Klimt)--not to mention theatrical design. (Post #15)

*****All music can be divided into Pre and Post-Wagnerian periods. Even music that could be said to show zero influence from Wagner would be music that had reckoned with Wagner and willfully chose to turn away from him. (Post #23)

*****It seems to me that Wagner's impact upon peers and subsequent composers, artists, writers, designers, philosophers, conductors, etc... is well documented. Anton Bruckner, Hugo Wolf, César Franck, Henri Duparc, Ernest Chausson, Jules Massenet, Richard Strauss, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Hans Pfitzner, Gustav Mahler, Engelbert Humperdinck, Koechlin, Tchaikovsky, Schoenberg, Berg, etc... were all admittedly influenced by his work. For better or worse, Wagner was undoubtedly the linchpin pointing toward the innovations of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. Tchaikovsky, Debussy and others later rebelled against Wagner... but again he was still the figure influencing their work in one way or another. Puccini and Richard Strauss, arguably the greatest opera composers active in the 20th century, were both clearly influenced by Wagner. Even Verdi... his arch-rival in many ways... came around to admitting that Tristan und Isolde may be "one of the greatest creations of the human spirit". Mahler, arguably the greatest symphonic composer of the 20th century was also profoundly influenced by Wagner. Wagner's continued influence upon subsequent Post-Romantic composers and especially upon the music of films is equally undeniable. Within the realm of classical music, who (after Wagner) has had as much influence upon so many composers of the highest merit? Who has matched his impact not only upon music but upon the "Arts" as a whole? (post #38)

*****What didn't he influence? In addition to all the composers, artists and writer's already mentioned, he also anticipated the ideas of Freud and Jung by half a century, and even...

"Du siehst, mein Sohn, zum Raum wird hier die Zeit."

... Einstein. (All right, that last one is a bit of a stretch!)

Love him or hate him, he was simply a titanic figure; along with Marx and Darwin (both just as influential and just as divisive), one of the dominant thinkers of the nineteenth century. (Post #39)

*****The more we study the arts and culture from the middle of the 19th century to the present the more pervasive we find the reach of Wagner's artistic ideas and accomplishments to be. To one degree or another, as Stlukes points out, he is almost everywhere: musical composition, conducting, theater architecture and acoustics, stagecraft, dance, literature, film, philosophy, politics... We find in the late 19th and early 20th centuries a worldwide phenomenon, embracing artistic elites and ordinary lovers of the arts, known as "Wagnerism," which could denote something as narrow as a devotion to Wagner's works, or as broad as a belief, almost religious in its heady certainty, that Wagner's artistic goals were a blueprint for a more enlightened civilization. There has never been a comparable movement called "Beethovenism" or "Schoenbergism." (Post #40)

*****For the benefit of non-comprehenders of German, that line from Parsifal translates as "You see, my son, here time becomes space." Even if we don't take it as a premonition of Einstein's relativity theory, it's typical of the intense attunement to subjective experience that marks the highly original Wagnerian genre of music drama, a drama of the subconscious, interior life as represented by mythical symbols and articulated through music, presaging the psychology of Jung and the 20th century's exploration of the archetypes of myth and dreams. (Post #42)

*****Influence can be both positive and negative; something to react against as much as something to imitate or emulate. Until at least WW1, there was hardly a composer in Europe who did not need to position themselves according to their attitude towards Wagner. A whole generation of composers in France fell under his spell, e.g. D'Indy and Chabrier, who both attempted (quite unsuccessfully), to write operas in a Wagnerian manner. Debussy was also initially entranced, and always retained his admiration for Wagner's music, if not his dramatic methods, but of all the French composers of his day he was the only one with a strong enough musical personality to be able to able to successfully resist and forge his own unique musical voice, one that was, in fact, nonetheless heavily influenced, albeit in quite subtle ways by Wagner. I would recommend Robin Holloway's excellent study Wagner and Debussy for a detailed analysis of those influences.

*****At least up until WW1, hardly any European composer could ignore Wagner, who simply cast such an enormous shadow. I recall reading (I don't remember where) the contention that Stravinsky was the only one able to do so, but I also seem to recall that he once performed an "ostentatious walkout" of Parsifal, which hardly seems the actions of a man who could be merely indifferent. (Post #88)

There is much more of interest in this thread (and others on this forum). At a certain point Godwin's Law took over and the discussion morphed into the inevitable argument about Wagner's supposed influence on you-know-who and the awful things you-know-who did. That seems to be where some people are most comfortable when the subject is Wagner, in part because they don't actually know or care much about his real achievement and influence. But they could learn about it very easily if they wanted to. Wagner's impact on musical composition, musical performance, opera, art, literature, film, theatrical production, theater architecture, and even philosophy and psychology, greatly affected the way most of these things developed, beginning in his lifetime and extending even to the present. From the perspective of 2017, it's easy for many of us to miss the line of descent extending back from our cultural productions to the ground-breaking and ground-shaking work of a composer who died in 1883. But many have not missed it and have written plenty about it.

"Wagnerism," that peculiar and amazingly widespread phenomenon in which culturally sophisticated people studied Wagner's every utterance and imagined him as even more important than he actually was or than anyone ever could be, is long since dead, but what actually remains as his legacy is still amazingly large, and that includes the mere fact that "Wagnerism" ever existed as a real thing. I've argued elsewhere that Wagner could make a fair claim to be the most broadly influential artist in history, with an influence extending far beyond his own primary art of music and his own German culture. If anyone can suggest any comparable one-man phenomenon in any single field of endeavor, I'd be quite interested.

So what were you saying about a "blip"? I would say that what Wagner received from Hitler was a "dip" rather than a "blip," and that, fortunately, Der Fuhrer's personal infatuation with the music dramas had no real effect at all on the effects of Wagner's work on Western culture, except on the minds of those who can't stop obsessing about it.


----------



## hpowders

Improbus said:


> Or you could choose both, if only to make Wagner turn in his grave.


I doubt if he's that flexible anymore. I've simply discounted that unlikely scenario.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Didn't Wagner said that the Dutch were inferior to germans and only good at painting or something...........


----------



## Neward Thelman

"Arguably, Wagner is the most influential composer of all time".

The examples you offer and the line of argument you pursue is to demonstrate Wagner's extra musical influence.

From a purely music point of view, Wagner was extremely influential - but no more so than Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck

Neward Thelman said:


> "Arguably, Wagner is the most influential composer of all time".
> 
> The examples you offer and the line of argument you pursue is to demonstrate Wagner's extra musical influence.
> 
> From a purely music point of view, Wagner was extremely influential - but no more so than Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven.


I could see Beethoven, who excited the Romantics, but not Bach or Mozart... Then again, not even Beethoven. Schubert, Weber, Spohr, Mendelssohn and Berlioz were up to quite new, un-Beethovenian things, and later on Brahms and Wagner were inspired by Beethoven, but neither sounds like him at all. After Wagner, we hear him all over the place, even in unlikely places like Italy (Puccini and verismo) Russia (Rimsky-Korsakov) and France (Franck, Debussy, Chausson, Dukas, D'Indy, Schmitt, etc.).


----------



## eugeneonagain

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Didn't Wagner said that the Dutch were inferior to germans and only good at painting or something...........


He was probably miffed because they ran the debt collecting bureaus pursuing him.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

I think the net influence is easily equal to Bach, Beethoven or Mozart, when you consider that Wagner's conceptualization of total art work is the direct ancestor of film music, which I think probably has a bigger impact across the world than its non-film classical counterpart.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> I think the net influence is easily equal to Bach, Beethoven or Mozart, when you consider that Wagner's conceptualization of total art work is the direct ancestor of film music, which I think probably has a bigger impact across the world than its non-film classical counterpart.


If this means Wagner is directly responsible for Hans Zimmer's ubiquitous fog hanging over the film world then I'm going to be turning on him again.


----------



## Larkenfield

Francis Poulenc said:


> Arguably, Wagner is the most influential composer of all time. The king of Bavaria built a castle in his honor, he was an obsessive fan much like you could see nowadays with teenage girls and boy bands.
> 
> Hitler was an equally obsessive fan, and almost seemed to structure his whole life around Wagner. I need not say that Wagner indirectly inspired the Holocaust, but there's more. Hitler went out of his way to meet and honour Wagner's descendants, and went to serious efforts to elevate him in the regime. He wasn't interested only in his music, but in every facet of his life, reading everything he wrote, and taking an interest in his personal life and relatives (again, much like a teenage fangirl would do). Not only that, but he set out in search of the Holy Grail, going to Spain specifically to find it. This is a remarkable coincidence if you consider the story of Parsifal.
> 
> So here we have a composer, who managed to seduce not one, but two major historical figures into absolute obsession. I cannot think of any other musician who has had this kind of impact on the world. What do you think was his magic, what did he have that other composers didn't?


 I personally don't consider him the most influential composer of all time. Why? Because he can be extremely polarizing as a person and an artist. One could go in entire lifetime without him, but the big three of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven seem far more inescapable and influential as great prolific composers because they're highly revered and loved and not just admired as a genius. But that doesn't mean Wagner wasn't a great composer... I do not consider it Wagner's fault that Hitler was obsessed with him. As deeply prejudiced as Wagner was, I believe he would have been horrified by the barbaric and inhumane holocaust - humanity sinking to its lowest level... and I believe Wagner was trying to elevate and awaken people, no matter how misguided it might appear to some, rather than dragging them down into the absolute abyss of self-destruction. I do not see how Wagner could have anticipated any of the horrors that were to come. While he may have been deeply imperfect as a person, prejudiced, a narcissist and egoist, I have never viewed him as insane like the collective insanity that took place in Germany during the War many, many years after his death.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> I personally don't consider him the most influential composer of all time. Why? Because he can be extremely polarizing as a person and an artist. One could go in entire lifetime without him, but the big three of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven seem far more inescapable and influential as great prolific composers because they're highly revered and loved and not just admired as a genius. But that doesn't mean Wagner wasn't a great composer... I do not consider it Wagner's fault that Hitler was obsessed with him. As deeply prejudiced as Wagner was, I believe he would have been horrified by the barbaric and inhumane holocaust - humanity sinking to its lowest level... and I believe Wagner was trying to elevate and awaken people, no matter how misguided it might appear to some, rather than dragging them down into the absolute abyss of self-destruction. I do not see how Wagner could have anticipated any of the horrors that were to come. While he may have been deeply imperfect as a person, prejudiced, a narcissist and egoist, I have never viewed him as insane like the collective insanity that took place in Germany during the War many, many years after his death.


This is an odd post, Larkenfield, in that it seems to argue for something other than your opening sentence. People's personal feelings about Wagner and Hitler's attempt to adopt him as a predecessor were not the major factors that determined his influence and legacy (and in the long run the only legacy of the latter association has been to erect an unnecessary obstacle to some people enjoying his work).

A few other composers may have played a similarly great role in determining the subsequent course of music - Beethoven and Debussy, perhaps - but you won't find another composer who similarly impacted literature (symbolist poetry, the stream of consciousness novel), drama (Appia and 20th-century stagecraft, theater design, and film), painting, conducting (the conductor as interpretive artist), philosophy (Nietzsche), and even psychology (Freud and Jung). Far more than with any other composer, Wagner and his art and ideas were the talk of the Western world, their impact was felt throughout and beyond the arts, and his vision of the "total art work" as an all-encompassing, imaginary cosmos still lives in modern theatrical and film technology, multimedia art, and virtual reality.


----------



## Littlephrase

Woodduck said:


> A few other composers may have played a similarly great role in determining the subsequent course of music - Beethoven and Debussy, perhaps - but you won't find another composer who similarly impacted literature (symbolist poetry, the stream of consciousness novel), drama (Appia and 20th-century stagecraft, theater design, and film), painting, conducting (the conductor as interpretive artist), philosophy (Nietzsche), and even psychology (Freud and Jung). Far more than with any other composer, Wagner and his art and ideas were the talk of the Western world, their impact was felt throughout and beyond the arts, and his vision of the "total art work" as an all-encompassing, imaginary cosmos still lives in modern theatrical and film technology, multimedia art, and virtual reality.


My exact thoughts when I saw this thread, Woodduck! Wagner's influence expands far beyond the musical world.


----------



## Guest

I don't doubt that Wagner was both a great composer, and a very influential one. I also accept that he was influential in various other arts-related activities. However, it's all very well to say that Wagner was highly influential but it's another thing to say that this influence was necessarily a good thing in its entirety. 

Obviously Wagner lovers will argue that his influence was highly beneficial in all areas, but there are other people who do not enjoy Wagner to anything liked the same extent, with some having little or no interest at all in his music or supposed legacy. To these latter people, Wagner's "influence" is an irrelevance.

Another factor that needs to be borne in mind is that it could be that Wagner's influence was so great that it created a chain reaction on later developments in music that some people may like even less than they do Wagner's music. For example, if Wagner's innovations part-influenced the beginnings of various types of atonal music from the early 20th C onwards, this development might have helped to alienate even more people who do not favour that kind of music.

In addition, I think that it's arguable that if Wagner had not lived, then some other composer, or group of composers working closely together, might have moved matters forward in terms of incorporating increased chromaticism and whatever else. I'm not so sure about Wagner's novel blending of music with other art forms in quite the form he achieved, but it doesn't strike me as being completely beyond the realms of possibility that someone else might have come up with a similar idea at some stage. That's because Wagner's innovations took place during the height of the "romantic" era, when classical music generally was increasingly associated with the literary arts, and it may therefore have just been a matter of time before music, drama, literature were combined in some way, independently of Wagner.

For me personally, I do enjoy Wagner's music up to a point, but there are other composers whose work and influence I value a lot more than Wagner's. I don't know how far my view is shared by others as the various polls I have seen don't tell a consistent story. Some show him highly placed and others quite a lot further down. What I am reasonably sure about is that whatever is his general popularity it has very little to do with his perceived "influence" on other composers, but mainly with the quality of his music as judged by his fans.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> I don't doubt that Wagner was both a great composer, and a very influential one. I also accept that he was influential in various other arts-related activities. However, it's all very well to say that Wagner was highly influential but it's another thing to say that this influence was necessarily a good thing in its entirety.
> 
> Obviously Wagner lovers will argue that his influence was highly beneficial in all areas,


This is not obvious, because it isn't true. It's possible to acknowledge Wagner's artistic greatness and the scale of his impact without finding every aspect of that impact enjoyable or beneficial. My own suspicion is that he was so disruptive and overwhelming to composers during and after his time that we were probably deprived of a great deal of marvelous music which would have been written had the course of music moved forward more smoothly. And of course there was always his contribution to the mood of European antisemitism, which tends to be unfairly exaggerated but which has to be acknowledged.



> but there are other people who do not enjoy Wagner to anything liked the same extent, with some having little or no interest at all in his music or supposed legacy.


Why "supposed" legacy? It is what it is.



> To these latter people, Wagner's "influence" is an irrelevance.


It isn't irrelevant to a cultural historian, even if she's tone-deaf.



> Another factor that needs to be borne in mind is that it could be that Wagner's influence was so great that it created a chain reaction on later developments in music that some people may like even less than they do Wagner's music. For example, if Wagner's innovations part-influenced the beginnings of various types of atonal music from the early 20th C onwards, this development might have helped to alienate even more people who do not favour that kind of music.


Absolutely. There was also the extreme reaction against the German Romantic and post-Romantic tradition in the "craftsman's" approach of Neoclassicim, which produced a cerebral sort of music which, outside the work of Stravinsky, few people seem very fond of. Worse, perhaps, there's the immense quantity of late-Romantic bombast in works now deservedly forgotten, produced by composers seduced by Wagnerian grandeur and hyperchromaticism into attempting things beyond them and, probably, beyond the capacity of anyone with less genius than Strauss or Mahler.



> In addition, I think that it's arguable that if Wagner had not lived, then some other composer, or group of composers working closely together, might have moved matters forward in terms of incorporating increased chromaticism and whatever else. I'm not so sure about Wagner's novel blending of music with other art forms in quite the form he achieved, but it doesn't strike me as being completely beyond the realms of possibility that someone else might have come up with a similar idea at some stage. That's because Wagner's innovations took place during the height of the "romantic" era, when classical music generally was increasingly associated with the literary arts, and it may therefore have just been a matter of time before music, drama, literature were combined in some way, independently of Wagner.


Very likely. It's often the case that the great creative geniuses bring to fruition ideas and trends which are "in the air" in their eras.



> For me personally, I do enjoy Wagner's music up to a point, but there are other composers whose work and influence I value a lot more than Wagner's. I don't know how far my view is shared by others as the various polls I have seen don't tell a consistent story. Some show him highly placed and others quite a lot further down. What I am reasonably sure about is that whatever is his general popularity it has very little to do with his perceived "influence" on other composers, but mainly with the quality of his music as judged by his fans.


Does anyone listen to any music for its "perceived influence"? I sure don't. We listen because we like the music. But whether or not we like Wagner's music or approve of the effect it had on subsequent music, his importance to his and subsequent times is unique for a composer. Credit where credit is due.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> This is not obvious, because it isn't true. It's possible to acknowledge Wagner's artistic greatness and the scale of his impact without finding every aspect of that impact enjoyable or beneficial. *My own suspicion is that he was so disruptive and overwhelming to composers during and after his time that we were probably deprived of a great deal of marvelous music which would have been written had the course of music moved forward more smoothly*. And of course there was always his contribution to the mood of European antisemitism, which tends to be unfairly exaggerated but which has to be acknowledged.


This is one of the main points I was making, i.e. what might called the "displacement effect".



> Absolutely. There was also the extreme reaction against the German Romantic and post-Romantic tradition in the "craftsman's" approach of Neoclassicim, which produced a cerebral sort of music which, outside the work of Stravinsky, few people seem very fond of. Worse, perhaps, there's the immense quantity of late-Romantic bombast in works now deservedly forgotten, produced by composers seduced by Wagnerian grandeur and hyperchromaticism into attempting things beyond them and, probably, beyond the capacity of anyone with less genius than Strauss or Mahler.


Agreed. I wasn't so much thinking about Neoclassicism and "late-Romantic bombast", but more the possible impetus to various kinds of atonal music. You are quite right to add these to the list.



> Very likely. It's often the case that the great creative geniuses bring to fruition ideas and trends which are "in the air" in their eras.


You agree with that possibility I mentioned, so I have nothing further to add regards Wagner.



> Does anyone listen to any music for its "perceived influence"? I sure don't. We listen because we like the music. But whether or not we like Wagner's music or approve of the effect it had on subsequent music, his importance to his and subsequent times is unique for a composer. Credit where credit is due.


Nor me. I thought I'd mention it because I have seen people occasionally going on about Wagner's influence as if it's a part of the reason they like his work.

On the whole I have nothing to argue about with your response. They all seem to be fair points.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> On the whole I have nothing to argue about with your response. They all seem to be fair points.


As a brief addendum, I remember reading years ago a remark by a contemporary composer of note (I can't remember who) quoted in a music magazine. He said he hated Wagner for "what he did to music." I suspect there was more to the article that would be of interest here, and I think the question of what Wagner "did to music" is a complex one that goes well beyond the commonly cited enrichment of harmony through increased chromaticism.

That might be interesting to discuss another time. Tonight I have to get to bed in order to be up early tomorrow to watch the Mueller hearings.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> As a brief addendum, I remember reading years ago a remark by a contemporary composer of note (I can't remember who) quoted in a music magazine. *He said he hated Wagner for "what he did to music."* I suspect there was more to the article that would be of interest here, and I think the question of what Wagner "did to music" is a complex one that goes well beyond the commonly cited enrichment of harmony through increased chromaticism.


Your comment above reminds me of the discussion here a couple of months ago concerning a 2005 newspaper article claim _"How Beethoven ruined classical music"_. I'll just quote the introductory paragraphs of that article to give the flavour of it:

_Beethoven certainly changed the way that people thought about music, but this was a change for the worse. From the speculations of Pythagoras about the "music of the spheres" in ancient Greece onwards, most Western musicians had agreed that musical beauty was based on a mysterious connection between sound and mathematics, and that this provided music with an objective goal, something that transcended the individual composer's idiosyncrasies and aspired to the universal. Beethoven managed to put an end to this noble tradition by inaugurating a barbaric U-turn away from an other-directed music to an inward-directed, narcissistic focus on the composer himself and his own tortured soul.

This was a ghastly inversion that led slowly but inevitably to the awful atonal music of Schönberg and Webern. In other words, almost everything that went wrong with music in the 19th and 20th centuries is ultimately Beethoven's fault. Schönberg was simply taking Beethoven's original mistake to its ultimate, monstrous, logical conclusion.

This is not to deny Beethoven's genius, but simply to claim that he employed his genius in the service of a fundamentally flawed idea. If Beethoven had dedicated his obvious talents to serving the noble Pythagorean view of music, he might well have gone on to compose music even greater than that of Mozart. You can hear this potential in his early string quartets, where the movements often have neat conclusions and there is a playfulness reminiscent of Mozart or Haydn. ​_
source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3617581/How-Beethoven-ruined-classical-music.html​
So maybe it should be Beethoven, aided and abetted by Wagner, who ought to receive most of the blame for "ruining" classical music, if that is a suitable description. According to the above article, if neither of these composers had come along when they did we might still be experiencing today a greater preponderance of music in the style of Haydn and Mozart, or possibly not but something else instead that might have been even more satisfying.

On the last point, determining the "counterfactual" - i.e. what might be expected to have happened in the absence of the actual sequence of events - is often very difficult. But it's essential in order to make a full and proper assessment of the impact of the event in question, in this case the arrival of LvB in 1770 and all that he achieved over the next 57 years.


----------



## DavidA

With respect to all our contributors I do think we need to get out of our Western classical music bubble and into the real world sometimes. I have travelled to many parts of the world and can assure you that Wagner's music has not made much of an impact in the jungles of Africa or the slums of India or the refugee camps in various parts of the world or the kids picking a living from the garbage heaps of Manila. You can stroll round most of the world as I have and never hear him or other Western classical music. Let's face it, in most of the world, people's priority is just staying alive for that day! So please let's not kid ourselves that it is 'world changing'. It is only world changing as far as western classical music is concerned and even in the west most kids have never heard it except perhaps in a certain movie with helicopters. Go to any comprehensive school and most kids don't know about Wagner, for better or worse, if they even know the name. The main influence he has is probably through film music and that to a limited extent.


----------



## NLAdriaan

This thread is absolutely hilarious:clap: a great satire on classical music. For a moment, I thought it was all serious. 
I can recommend the mockumentary 'This is Spinal Tap' for a similar experience.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> ...I have travelled to many parts of the world and can assure you that Wagner's music has not made much of an impact in the jungles of Africa or the slums of India or the refugee camps in various parts of the world or the kids picking a living from the garbage heaps of Manila.


Probably true but I guess that's only because when they tried it they decided there was a bit too much chromaticism for their tastes and went back to Bach and Handel.

As for the modern generation of adolescent school kids in countries like the UK, I bet if the name Wagner was mentioned all you'd get is a row of bewildered, toothless grins. As far as I can tell from what I hear in public places like parks etc, all they want to listen to in the music area is "rap".


----------



## NLAdriaan

Partita said:


> Probably true but I guess that's only because when they tried it they decided there was a bit too much chromaticism for their tastes and went back to Bach and Handel.
> 
> As for the modern generation of adolescent school kids in countries like the UK, I bet if the name Wagner was mentioned all you'd get is a row of bewildered, toothless grins. As far as I can tell from what I hear in public places like parks etc, all they want to listen to in the music area is "rap".











& there is plenty of life changing rap & hiphop music around


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> With respect to all our contributors I do think we need to get out of our Western classical music bubble and into the real world sometimes. I have travelled to many parts of the world and can assure you that Wagner's music has not made much of an impact in the jungles of Africa or the slums of India or the refugee camps in various parts of the world or the kids picking a living from the garbage heaps of Manila.


With all DUE respect to this contributor, I wonder why he thinks anyone would would look for the influence of classical music in jungles, refugee camps or garbage heaps, or why he thinks those things are of any relevance to this conversation or of any interest to participants in it.

Of course we are all entitled to frequent the environments in which we are most comfortable and to talk about things we're capable of understanding. There must be forums about jungles, refugee camps and garbage heaps where this member's insights would find a sympathetic audience.


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread is absolutely hilarious:clap: a great satire on classical music. For a moment, I thought it was all serious.
> I can recommend the mockumentary 'This is Spinal Tap' for a similar experience...
> 
> & there is plenty of life changing rap & hiphop music around


I see that you've been unable to resist the urge to troll yet another Wagner thread.

If you think a conversation about Wagner's influence on music and culture is not serious, perhaps you can do something to elevate the level of discussion rather than engage in adolescent snark for the purpose of annoying people who do have an interest in the subject and are trying to say something about it.

Or have you learned nothing from your last attempt to do this?


----------



## Zhdanov

DavidA said:


> please let's not kid ourselves that it is 'world changing'.


the world is changed by a few, not by many.


----------



## Zhdanov

Partita said:


> all they want to listen to in the music area is "rap".


that is why they are not allowed to ruling and changing the world.


----------



## DavidA

Zhdanov said:


> the world is changed by a few, not by many.


But not by composers


----------



## Zhdanov

DavidA said:


> But not by composers


by those behind them, and composers are part of it.


----------



## Dimace

Francis Poulenc said:


> Arguably, Wagner is the most influential composer of all time. The king of Bavaria built a castle in his honor, he was an obsessive fan much like you could see nowadays with teenage girls and boy bands.
> 
> Hitler was an equally obsessive fan, and almost seemed to structure his whole life around Wagner. *I need not say that Wagner indirectly inspired the Holocaust,* but there's more. Hitler went out of his way to meet and honour Wagner's descendants, and went to serious efforts to elevate him in the regime. He wasn't interested only in his music, but in every facet of his life, reading everything he wrote, and taking an interest in his personal life and relatives (again, much like a teenage fangirl would do). Not only that, but he set out in search of the Holy Grail, going to Spain specifically to find it. This is a remarkable coincidence if you consider the story of Parsifal.
> 
> So here we have a composer, who managed to seduce not one, but two major historical figures into absolute obsession. I cannot think of any other musician who has had this kind of impact on the world. What do you think was his magic, what did he have that other composers didn't?


No! Directly and indirectly. That was an idea of another pig and realized here in Berlin before the War, at a time Wagner was dust and ashes. They were much worse pigs than Hitler in my country.


----------



## Red Terror

Impact on the world? Wagner was an artist, and art doesn’t have the power to substantially change anything.


----------



## Woodduck

Red Terror said:


> Impact on the world? Wagner was an artist, and art doesn't have the power to substantially change anything.


"Substantially"? "Anything"? What do those word mean?

Art embodies ideas, and ideas are prime movers. Rather than spout empty generalizations, why not look at the specific effects of Wagner's art and ideas? They're extremely well-documented.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think we tend to overlook the term "antisemitism" in its true nature, and this has to do with religion. If we take note that antisemitism is largely founded on religious grounds, Christianity, then this explains much; and it allows us to identify antisemites with more specificity, as "pro Christians."

This recognition might bode ill for Wagner, as much pseudo-Christian imagery as is embodied in his work: the Holy Grail, Knights on noble quests, etc.

Even Hitler's nationalism, and all of Germany's, can be attributed to the fact that the German nation was Christian.










So instead of characterizing antisemites as being simply "racist" or "haters," Christians get uncomfortable when the true cause is emphasized, complete with an identification of the real root of the problem: Christianity vs. Judaism.

The problem existed from the beginning of Christianity, and later became a form of Christianity which arose in the nineteenth century which sought to "demystify" Christianity by denying the Old Testament, Judaism, as well as the New Testament's miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, and asserted that Christ was mortal, not divine. Many "liberals" today have adopted this form.

I think this tacit denial of Christianity's role is part of what creates this ambivalence towards Wagner. As Christians, they are uncomfortable when confronted with their own "shadow" in Jungian terms.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I think we tend to overlook the term "antisemitism" in its true nature, and this has to do with religion. If we take note that antisemitism is largely founded on religious grounds, Christianity, then this explains much; and it allows us to identify antisemites with more specificity, as "pro Christians."
> 
> This recognition might bode ill for Wagner, as much pseudo-Christian imagery as is embodied in his work: the Holy Grail, Knights on noble quests, etc.
> 
> Even Hitler's nationalism, and all of Germany's, can be attributed to the fact that the German nation was Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So instead of characterizing antisemites as being simply "racist" or "haters," Christians get uncomfortable when the true cause is emphasized, complete with an identification of the real root of the problem: Christianity vs. Judaism.
> 
> *The problem existed from the beginning of Christianity,* and later became a form of Christianity which arose in the nineteenth century which sought to "demystify" Christianity by denying the Old Testament, Judaism, as well as the New Testament's miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, and asserted that Christ was mortal, not divine. Many "liberals" today have adopted this form.
> 
> I think this tacit denial of Christianity's role is part of what creates this ambivalence towards Wagner. As Christians, they are uncomfortable when confronted with their own "shadow" in Jungian terms.


Sorry but this is complete nonsense. Christianity was built on Judaism. All the early Christians were jews following a Jewish Messiah. The doctrine of the New testament is derived from the Jewish scriptures and their fulfilment in the crucified and risen Messiah. There was never in the minds of people like Paul a conflict between Christianity and Judaism - that is an aberration built in by people's lack of understanding - he saw the Messiah as a fulfilment of all that was written. As for the 19th century liberal movement that was a denial of Christianity itself anyway, whatever its influence. It was, in fact, one of the most anti-Christian movements ever that did immense harm to Christianity and emptied churches faster than any Hitler or Stalin!
Note though that Hitler himself was virulently anti-christian in that his writings reveal that after the Jews he would have got rid of the church as Christianity opposed his ideals.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Sorry but this is complete nonsense. Christianity was built on Judaism. All the early Christians were jews following a Jewish Messiah. The doctrine of the New testament is derived from the Jewish scriptures and their fulfilment in the crucified and risen Messiah.


I'm aware of all that. Why do you mention it?



> There was never in the minds of people like Paul a conflict between Christianity and Judaism - that is an aberration built in by people's lack of understanding - he saw the Messiah as a fulfilment of all that was written.


I'm aware of everything that Paul did, but orthodox jews did not believe Jesus was the messiah.



> As for the 19th century liberal movement that was a denial of Christianity itself anyway, whatever its influence. It was, in fact, one of the most anti-Christian movements ever that did immense harm to Christianity and emptied churches faster than any Hitler or Stalin!


You sound like a fundamentalist Christian who goes by the Nicene creed. Modern Christianity, as taught in places like Harvard Divinity School, does not insist that Christ was divine or was resurrected.



> Note though that Hitler himself was virulently anti-christian in that his writings reveal that after the Jews he would have got rid of the church as Christianity opposed his ideals.


His writings (Mein Kampf) also have him professing to be Christian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Also, the Nazi Party advocated a form of Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Even if not explicitly Christian in a traditional sense, it is noted:
According to historian Lucy Dawidowicz, anti-Semitism has a long history within Christianity, and the line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw". In her _The War Against the Jews,_ 1933-1945, she writes that Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. Dawidowicz states that the similarities between Luther's anti-Semitic writings and modern anti-Semitism are no coincidence, because they derived from a common history of Judenhass which can be traced to Haman's advice to Ahasuerus, although modern German anti-Semitism also has its roots in German nationalism.

Catholic historian José M. Sánchez argues that Hitler's anti-Semitism was explicitly rooted in Christianity.

Writers including Heschel and Toland, have drawn links between Hitler's Catholic background and his anti-Semitism.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think we tend to overlook the term "antisemitism" in its true nature, and this has to do with religion. If we take note that antisemitism is largely founded on religious grounds, Christianity, then this explains much; and it allows us to identify antisemites with more specificity, as "pro Christians."
> 
> This recognition might bode ill for Wagner, as much pseudo-Christian imagery as is embodied in his work: the Holy Grail, Knights on noble quests, etc.
> 
> Even Hitler's nationalism, and all of Germany's, can be attributed to the fact that the German nation was Christian.
> 
> So instead of characterizing antisemites as being simply "racist" or "haters," Christians get uncomfortable when the true cause is emphasized, complete with an identification of the real root of the problem: Christianity vs. Judaism.
> 
> I think this tacit denial of Christianity's role is part of what creates this ambivalence towards Wagner. As Christians, they are uncomfortable when confronted with their own "shadow" in Jungian terms.


The historical roots of antisemitism pre-date its rise among Christians. According to the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism "relations between the Jews in Judea and the occupying Roman Empire were antagonistic from the very start," and if we know any history at all we should be aware of Roman hostility to and persecution of foreign religions, obviously including Judaism's offshoot, Christianity itself. That said, there is no denying that intense hatred of Jews arose among Christians, and that the Church of Rome institutionalized and perpetuated this hatred, resulting in the most extraordinary beliefs about Jews and the most extreme forms of persecution stretching across many centuries. The Holocaust was not unique, either in its irrational ideology nor in its violence.

I don't see either recognition of the antisemitism of the Christian church or denial of it as having any impact on anyone's views of Wagner. Discomfort with his personal antisemitism seems pretty straightforward to me, and is not going to be evoked by the Christian/Medieval sources on which he drew for dramatic material. People observing the "Holy Grail, Knights on noble quests, etc." in _Lohengrin_ or _Parsifal_ are not likely to feel "confronted with their own 'shadow' side in Jungian terms," by which you appear to mean their own repressed "Christian antisemitism." You really need to supply some evidence that this is more than a fantasy on your part.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Sorry but this is complete nonsense. Christianity was built on Judaism. All the early Christians were jews following a Jewish Messiah. The doctrine of the New testament is derived from the Jewish scriptures and their fulfilment in the crucified and risen Messiah. There was never in the minds of people like Paul a conflict between Christianity and Judaism - that is an aberration built in by people's lack of understanding - he saw the Messiah as a fulfilment of all that was written. As for the 19th century liberal movement that was a denial of Christianity itself anyway, whatever its influence. It was, in fact, one of the most anti-Christian movements ever that did immense harm to Christianity and emptied churches faster than any Hitler or Stalin!
> Note though that Hitler himself was virulently anti-christian in that his writings reveal that after the Jews he would have got rid of the church as Christianity opposed his ideals.


What you regard as correct theology and what happened to Jews at the hands of the Church historically are very different things.


----------



## Guest

The following "Wiki" article on the "History of Antisemitism" is well worth a read. There is large amount of useful information contained in this article, together with various links that enable a deeper study of any particular aspects for anyone who may be interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

It identifies 6 different types of antisemitism going back to pre-Christian times, followed by various later manifestations in different parts of the world, including Germany and Russia in the 19th C.

The background to the Nazi's form of antisemitism is discussed. This was not religion based, Christian or any "liberal" derivative, as suggested in an earlier post. It was much more to do with a racial theory that placed people of different races at different levels, to put it as mildly as possible.


----------



## millionrainbows

Partita said:


> The background to the Nazi's form of antisemitism is discussed. This was not religion based, Christian or any "liberal" derivative, as suggested in an earlier post. It was much more to do with a racial theory that placed people of different races at different levels, to put it as mildly as possible.


It may have involved eugenics, but it was essentially religion-based. Your retort doesn't explain why Jehovah's Witnesses were also persecuted; over 6,000 were put in camps.

I think Hitler started out as Christian, then as his power increased, he discouraged all religions that were not state-sponsored, because he saw religions as a threat.

In the next series of posts, I think we'll see plenty more Christian apologists emerge, because the truth of all this hits too close to home.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I'm aware of all that. Why do you mention it?
> 
> I'm aware of everything that Paul did, but orthodox jews did not believe Jesus was the messiah.
> 
> You sound like a* fundamentalist Christian *who goes by the Nicene creed. Modern Christianity, as taught in places like Harvard Divinity School, *does not insist that Christ was divine or was resurrected*.
> 
> His writings (Mein Kampf) also *have him professing to be Christian. *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
> 
> Also, the Nazi Party advocated a form of Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
> 
> Even if not explicitly Christian in a traditional sense, it is noted:
> According to historian Lucy Dawidowicz, anti-Semitism has a long history within Christianity, and the line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw". In her _The War Against the Jews,_ 1933-1945, she writes that Luther and Hitler were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. Dawidowicz states that the similarities between Luther's anti-Semitic writings and modern anti-Semitism are no coincidence, because they derived from a common history of Judenhass which can be traced to Haman's advice to Ahasuerus, although modern German anti-Semitism also has its roots in German nationalism.
> 
> Catholic historian José M. Sánchez argues that Hitler's anti-Semitism was explicitly rooted in Christianity.
> 
> Writers including Heschel and Toland, have drawn links between Hitler's Catholic background and his anti-Semitism.


Of course orthodox jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. I never said they did. please read what I put.

'Christianity' which does not teach that Christ was divine or resurrected is not Christianity. These two things are absolutely at the root of Christianity. Havard? St Paul had more brains than all of them put together. His remark about such people? "Professing to be wise they became fools!" You can name all the people you like but we are talking about the origins of Christianity and they are straight from Judaism. These other aberrations may have occurred but they are not Christianity as taught by the founders. 
Hitler was in no way a Christian. I have talked to a member of Hitler youth who told me Hitler professed to be an awful lot of things in his ascent to power but basically he was anti-Christian. "In Hitler's eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves," wrote Alan Bullock "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny," a seminal biography. "Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest." His 'religion' was Fuhrer worship with himself at the centre. Yes, you can quote whoever you like but the fact is that Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion, was founded by Jews and derived from the Jewish scriptures. Later aberrations do not alter this fact.


----------



## Woodduck

The difficulty of defining "religion," and individual religions such as Judaism or Christianity, in discussions of how human beliefs affect history tends to set people to defending their separate camps and talking at cross purposes. I don't think a debate over what constitutes "true" Christianity is helpful here. It's enough that people have defended all sorts of ideas and behaviors by appealing to something that goes by that name. It's a cliche containing a large measure of truth that the Bible - and by extension it's putative author, God - can be invoked to defend almost any perversity, including misogyny, racism, nationalism, slavery and genocide. Whether or not any of these things "ought" to be considered Christian, the fact remains that they have been, and still are, so considered by people convinced of the rightness of their beliefs, based on their interpretation of scripture and tradition.

None of this has anything to do with Wagner's "impact on the world." His personal take on Christianity - liberal, non-Judaic, apparently a-theistic, and influenced by Buddhism - probably had negligible influence on anyone.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Today I learned that my sons have a car in GTA (a videogame, if you wouldn't know, for which they chose the Valkyries-ride theme as a horn. I put on Solti right away to let them hear where it came from. So far the influence of Wagner on the world. But let this not interrupt this discussion on all big issues where Forest Gump, excuse me: RW, was involved:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

If Wagner represents the apotheosis of Western music, and I've heard it said, then it seems impossible to ignore the elephant in the room. Western music is a Christian institution. 
Western music's roots are in Gregorian chant (derived from Judaic chant), then goes to Bach, a Lutheran, who said the purpose of all music was to glorify God, to the nineteenth century, with Wagner and his more 'metropolitan' Christianity, popular all over Europe. There are strains of antisemitism (or at least the desire to separate it from judaism) all through the history of Christianity.

If this is what upsets people about Wagner, it seems that they should be upset about the whole institution and history of the Christian Church, and additionally see that Wagner was just part of a larger picture.

I'm tired of seeing anti-semitism depicted as some simplistic racist hatred, never by Christians, but only bigots. 
This cover-up is perpetuated for the (probably unconscious) reason of denial, and the refusal to confront one's own shadow. It's time for the _righteous_ people who call themselves Christians (or who are apologists for it for one reason or another) to admit that they, too, are part of the problem, and stop blaming Wagner. 
The whole business of religious institutions is rotten to the core, once it loses sight of its higher purpose.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> If Wagner represents the apotheosis of Western music, and I've heard it said, then *it seems impossible to ignore the elephant in the room. Western music is a Christian institution. *
> Western music's roots are in Gregorian chant (derived from Judaic chant), then goes to Bach, a Lutheran, who said the purpose of all music was to glorify God, to the nineteenth century, with Wagner and his more 'metropolitan' Christianity, popular all over Europe. *There are strains of antisemitism (or at least the desire to separate it from judaism) all through the history of Christianity.
> *
> *If this is what upsets people about Wagner,* it seems that they should be upset about the whole institution and history of the Christian Church, and additionally see that Wagner was just part of a larger picture.
> 
> I'm tired of seeing anti-semitism depicted as some simplistic racist hatred, never by Christians, but only bigots.
> This cover-up is perpetuated for the (probably unconscious) reason of denial, and the refusal to confront one's own shadow. It's time for the _righteous_ people who call themselves Christians (or who are apologists for it for one reason or another) to admit that they, too, are part of the problem, and stop blaming Wagner.
> The whole business of religious institutions is rotten to the core, once it loses sight of its higher purpose.


This looks like an effort to address some basic cultural assumptions, million, but I think the apparently huge elephant you've brought into the room may turn out to be just a plastic toy elephant viewed at too close range.

Your argument seems to rest on the following syllogism:

1. Antisemitism originates in Christianity.
2. Western music originates in Christianity.
3. Therefore, Western music, including Wagner's, is in some sense antisemitic.

You may not be the first to make any of these assertions, or to suggest that "this is what upsets people about Wagner." But I don't think either premise can escape major qualification, major enough to undermine the conclusion. In your defense, perhaps, I'll say that I have actually read an intricately developed argument to the effect that the very nature of Wagner's music - not his philosophy or personal attitudes, but his music as music - is opposed to the theological assumptions and existential sensibility of Judaism, an argument which, as far as I could see, largely boiled down to the claim that Wagner's attempt to seduce and engulf the listener in some sort of transcendental ecstasy was essentially uncivilized, and presented a view of man's nature and destiny incompatible with the responsibility of the chosen people to seek righteousness, do good works on earth, and wait patiently upon the Lord for the blessings of their daily bread. I think I understand this: it isn't a stretch to identify Wagnerian ecstasy with a religious experience having more in common with Christian (and Asian, or pagan) mysticism and its transcendence of time than with the sense of a journey and struggle _in_ and _with_ time which is (as far as I, a non-Jew, can understand it) basic to the Jewish experience.

With all of that said, things are not so simple and pure. It's almost amusing to point out that some of Wagner's most passionate proponents have, since his own lifetime, been Jews, who apparently haven't found his "Christian" music alien in any way. The view of Wagner as a "problem" for Jews dates mainly from WW II and the association with Hitler; before that, the composer's antisemitism was generally viewed as an unfortunate personal vice which Jewish musicians were sufficiently used to finding in the culture as a whole not to hold against music they knew was powerful, important, and deserving of their advocacy.

To classify Western music, in all its incredible diversity - around the world and through centuries of time - as a "Christian institution" because the church made use of it and shaped some of its styles and genres, is either an astonishing narrowing and diminution of a great artistic tradition or an extreme inflation of the concept "Christian." Handel's aesthetic is radically unlike Perotin's; Mahler's is radically unlike Handel's. If you're looking for those aspects of Western culture that classical music has given expression to, you need to look at much more than Christianity.

There's just too much in your essay to pull apart, and I'm not sure where you want to go with it vis a vis the topic at hand. You seem to end up in an anti-Christian rant which is really pretty far off-topic, and I don't want to get involved in it. My only concern here is to say that the conflation of Christianity = Western music = antisemitism = Wagner holds together, to the extent that it does, by some very thin threads, and that the real tapestry of Western culture is, thank goodness, much more complex.


----------



## Larkenfield

millionrainbows said:


> There are strains of antisemitism (or at least the desire to separate it from judaism) all through the history of Christianity..


 I think there's truth in that. Not to justify it, but the situation of anti-Semitism precedes Wagner historically by centuries:

"Jewish deicide is a belief held by some Christians that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for the death of Jesus. The antisemitic slur "Christ-killer" was used by mobs to incite violence against Jews and contributed to many centuries of pogroms, the murder of Jews during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust.

"In the catechism produced by the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church affirmed that the collectivity of sinful humanity was responsible for the death of Jesus, not only the Jews. In the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI repudiated belief in collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus. It declared that the accusation could not be made "against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."

Such a deep prejudice can certainly exist at the subconscious level of the collective unconsciousness of humanity even if it's no longer consciously believed on the surface.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> I think we tend to overlook the term "antisemitism" in its true nature, and this has to do with religion. If we take note that antisemitism is largely founded on religious grounds, Christianity, then this explains much; and it allows us to identify antisemites with more specificity, as "pro Christians."
> 
> This recognition might bode ill for Wagner, as much pseudo-Christian imagery as is embodied in his work: the Holy Grail, Knights on noble quests, etc.
> 
> *Even Hitler's nationalism, and all of Germany's, can be attributed to the fact that the German nation was Christian.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So instead of characterizing antisemites as being simply "racist" or "haters," Christians get uncomfortable when the true cause is emphasized, complete with an identification of the real root of the problem: Christianity vs. Judaism.
> 
> The problem existed from the beginning of Christianity, and later became a form of Christianity which arose in the nineteenth century which sought to "demystify" Christianity by denying the Old Testament, Judaism, as well as the New Testament's miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, and asserted that Christ was mortal, not divine. Many "liberals" today have adopted this form.
> 
> I think this tacit denial of Christianity's role is part of what creates this ambivalence towards Wagner. As Christians, they are uncomfortable when confronted with their own "shadow" in Jungian terms.


Hitler and Nazism was a extreme and twisted form of Nietzschism, sort of like ISIS and Islam. Christianity had nothing to do with it. I've seen examples of Anti-Semitism, and religion is mainly only the scapegoat, in current times. It is base on pure prejudice.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> Of course orthodox jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. I never said they did. please read what I put.
> 
> 'Christianity' which does not teach that Christ was divine or resurrected is not Christianity. These two things are absolutely at the root of Christianity. Havard? *St Paul had more brains than all of them put together*. His remark about such people? "Professing to be wise they became fools!" You can name all the people you like but we are talking about the origins of Christianity and they are straight from Judaism. These other aberrations may have occurred but they are not Christianity as taught by the founders.
> Hitler was in no way a Christian. I have talked to a member of Hitler youth who told me Hitler professed to be an awful lot of things in his ascent to power but basically he was anti-Christian. "In Hitler's eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves," wrote Alan Bullock "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny," a seminal biography. "Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest." His 'religion' was Fuhrer worship with himself at the centre. Yes, you can quote whoever you like but the fact is that Christianity has its roots in the Jewish religion, was founded by Jews and derived from the Jewish scriptures. Later aberrations do not alter this fact.


Just presenting my view, and sharing my own experience. I've heard the Apostle Paul was a genius, mainly from Church speakers. But when I look at his writings from a more critical view, he was more a clever and charismatic writer than anything. He was not able to argue or prove anything from first principles, hard facts or without a lot of presumptions. He basically invents arguments or other ideas to support his ideas. Like Jesus, I felt he encouraged blind faith, and discouraged skeptism (I would call prudence) as a weakness.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> Just presenting my view, and sharing my own experience. I've heard the Apostle Paul was a genius, mainly from Church speakers. But when I look at his writings from a more critical view, he was more a clever and charismatic writer than anything. *He was not able to argue or prove anything from first principles, hard facts or without a lot of presumptions. *He basically invents arguments or other ideas to support his ideas. Like Jesus, I felt he encouraged blind faith, and discouraged skeptism (I would call prudence) as a weakness.


I think you need to take a closer look. He was able too do all these things. One thing he or Jesus certainly didn't encourage was blind faith. That is an aberration that people have built into their own lack of understanding. Paul encouraged enquiry as you can see from his vigorous debates with both Jews and pagans. he knew both Jewish scriptures and the Pagan philosophers. He had quite a mind. He was in fact a genius People who have studied him in depth say this.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> If Wagner represents the apotheosis of Western music, and I've heard it said, then it seems impossible to ignore the elephant in the room. Western music is a Christian institution.
> Western music's roots are in Gregorian chant (derived from Judaic chant), then goes to Bach, a Lutheran, who said the purpose of all music was to glorify God, to the nineteenth century, with Wagner and his more 'metropolitan' Christianity, popular all over Europe. There are strains of antisemitism (or at least the desire to separate it from judaism) all through the history of Christianity.
> 
> If this is what upsets people about Wagner, it seems that they should be upset about the whole institution and history of the Christian Church, and additionally see that Wagner was just part of a larger picture.
> 
> I'm tired of seeing anti-semitism depicted as some simplistic racist hatred, never by Christians, but only bigots.
> This cover-up is perpetuated for the (probably unconscious) reason of denial, and the refusal to confront one's own shadow. It's time for the _righteous_ people who call themselves Christians (or who are apologists for it for one reason or another) to admit that they, too, are part of the problem, and stop blaming Wagner.
> The *whole business of religious institutions is rotten to the core*, once it loses sight of its higher purpose.


Frankly I'm sick of hearing this nonsense trotted out. As someone who is married to a Jew and a member of a church which is completed non-racist (we have members from all over the word of all nations) and has the worship of a Man who walked the earth as a Jew as its founder, it is an insult both to the morals and to the intelligence. While it may be true of aberrations it is certainly not true of the Christian faith and about time people like you remembered it was Wagner and no-one else - not the Vatican or any Christian organisation who was responsible for writing 'Judaism and Music'. For goodness sake stop trying to make excuses for your hero. It was him who hated the Jews and produced the poisonous literature.


----------



## Guest

DavidA quotes millionR (DavidA's bold):



DavidA said:


> The *whole business of religious institutions is rotten to the core*, once it loses sight of its higher purpose.


And then says...



DavidA said:


> Frankly I'm sick of hearing this nonsense trotted out.


It is, of course, not nonsense, if one quotes the whole sentence. See the difference?



millionrainbows said:


> The whole business of religious institutions is rotten to the core, *once it loses sight of its higher purpose.*


Once religions lose sight of the worship of their god(s) and the message of peace found in their holy texts, (what I take to be their "higher purpose") and start instead to assume a superiority over others that must be enacted through persecution and war with non-believers, religion can be seen to rot.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> *Frankly I'm sick of hearing this nonsense trotted out.* As someone who is married to a Jew and a member of a church which is completed non-racist (we have members from all over the word of all nations) and has the worship of a Man who walked the earth as a Jew as its founder, it is an insult both to the morals and to the intelligence. While it may be true of aberrations it is certainly not true of the Christian faith and *about time people like you remembered it was Wagner and no-one else - not the Vatican or any Christian organisation who was responsible for writing 'Judaism and Music'.* For goodness sake stop trying to make excuses for your hero. *It was him who hated the Jews and produced the poisonous literature.*


It helps to read more than half of a sentence before responding to it. Millionrainbows wrote: "The whole business of religious institutions is rotten to the core, *once it loses sight of its higher purpose."*

There is indeed a "lot of nonsense trotted out" when history is ignored. What is one eccentric essay by a composer, an essay few have read and fewer taken seriously, compared with centuries of cruel abuse in the name of religious "truth"? Wagner said unpleasant things about Jews, but he did not subject them to harsh treatment, did not recommend their persecution or restrictions on their civil rights, and did not advocate violence against their persons, property and livelihoods. Across many shameful centuries, religious institutions did all of those things. Clearly those institutions "lost sight of their higher purpose."

Jesus and his Jewish disciples obviously were not antisemites - Jesus himself was a strict Jew who exhorted his followers to observe every "jot and tittle" of the law of Moses - but the same cannot be said of the Church which was founded in his name. Despite anti-Judaic elements in the theology of Paul, it took a few centuries for Christianity to forget the Jesus of history, acquire political hegemony, and define Jews as deluded, diabolical and damned. But once that happened the legacy would be dire and long-lasting, and is alive to this day.

If most (?) Christians today are tolerant of Jews, or harbor no prejudices or hostility toward them, it is more to the credit of modern liberal thought than of Christian tradition.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> .. Wagner said unpleasant things about Jews, but he did not subject them to harsh treatment, did not recommend their persecution or restrictions on their civil rights, and did not advocate violence against their persons, property and livelihoods. Across many shameful centuries, *religious institutions did all of those things*. Clearly those institutions "lost sight of their higher purpose."


I assume you are referring mainly to the Catholic Church at various times during the Medieval period and perhaps later.

Can you provide any specific examples of where religious institutions subjected Jews to harsh treatment, recommended their persecution or restrictions on their civil rights, and advocated violence against their persons, property and livelihoods?

If you can provide any such examples, are you suggesting that this was done in compliance with Church teaching and recommendation, or were they the result of purely rogue elements within parts of the Church acting in isolation, or the result of actions taken by bodies outside of the Church altogether?

If you consider that these actions were indeed in accordance with standard Church teaching, how do you reconcile this with the various Papal Bulls issued at various times from the early Medieval period onwards that specifically instructed that Jews should not be subject to any such treatment, but rather that Christians are duty-bound to protect the Jews?


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> If you consider that these actions were indeed in accordance with standard Church teaching, how do you reconcile this with the various Papal Bulls issued at various times from the early Medieval period onwards that specifically instructed that Jews should not be subject to any such treatment, but rather that Christians are duty-bound to protect the Jews?


Well the Catholic Church took until 1962 for the Pope to make a declaration (Vatican II) about the innocence of Jews in the death of Jesus. What was their teaching between the medieval period and the 20thC?

And relations between Jews and Moslems have not exactly been cordial, have they?

The problem for this analysis is that the politics of religion are so closely intertwined with the theology that they are difficult to separate. Is there a single Church of Islam or Judaism in the same way as there is the Vatican, to enable us to see what "official" attitudes are?


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> I assume you are referring mainly to the Catholic Church at various times during the Medieval period and perhaps later.
> 
> Can you provide any specific examples of where religious institutions subjected Jews to harsh treatment, recommended their persecution or restrictions on their civil rights, and advocated violence against their persons, property and livelihoods?
> 
> If you can provide any such examples, are you suggesting that this was done in compliance with Church teaching and recommendation, or were they the result of purely rogue elements acting in isolation?
> 
> If you consider that these actions were indeed in accordance with standard Church teaching, how do you reconcile this with the various Papal Bulls issued at various times that specifically instructed that Jews should not be subject to any such treatment?


Plenty has been written documenting abuse and persecution of Jews (and other people) in the name of religion. I'm not interested in doing extensive research for purposes of this thread, to which this subject is peripheral and which I only addressed to try to restore some perspective. But this article is pretty interesting: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-catholic-church


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> The problem for this analysis is that the politics of religion are so closely intertwined with the theology that they are difficult to separate.


Quite so. The separation of church and state was one of the best ideas ever conceived. ................


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> DavidA quotes millionR (DavidA's bold):
> 
> And then says...
> 
> It is, of course, not nonsense, if one quotes the whole sentence. See the difference?
> 
> Once religions lose sight of the worship of their god(s) and the message of peace found in their holy texts, (what I take to be their "higher purpose") and start instead to assume a superiority over others that must be enacted through persecution and war with non-believers, religion can be seen to rot.


The nonsense that was trotted out was the so-called 'higher criticism' which denies the fundamentals of Christianity. I'd sooner be an atheist than believe in that sort of nonsense. I am also sick of hearing Christianity blamed for Wagner's racism. It was Wagner who wrote his poisonous stuff not anyone else. He did it as a free agent. Yet people a[p[ear to want to make allowances for it. Incredible!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The nonsense that was trotted out was the so-called 'higher criticism' which denies the fundamentals of Christianity.


What 'higher criticism'? I must have missed it. I was just going on what you'd quoted in your post.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> I think you need to take a closer look. He was able too do all these things. One thing he or Jesus certainly didn't encourage was blind faith. That is an aberration that people have built into their own lack of understanding. Paul encouraged enquiry as you can see from his vigorous debates with both Jews and pagans. he knew both Jewish scriptures and the Pagan philosophers. He had quite a mind. He was in fact a genius People who have studied him in depth say this.


I came much later to Plato's dialogues after studying the Bible. I felt Plato's dialogues cut much deeper to reason and logic personally. Paul was not a philosopher, but a theologian. Incidentally, even a book I read during seminary called the early church Neo-Platonists.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Well the Catholic Church took until 1962 for the Pope to make a declaration (Vatican II) about the innocence of Jews in the death of Jesus. What was their teaching between the medieval period and the 20thC?


So what?

The doctrine about Jewish innocence wasn't changed in Vat II. It was a claricatory measure to re-affirm the position set out in the Council Of Trent in the 16th C that it was the collective sinfulness of all humanity, Jews included, that was responsible for the death of Jesus, not just the Jews of the time or subsequent generations.

On the matter of Jewish innocence, The Council of Trent itself didn't change anything compared with pre-existing doctrine on this matter, but was a clarification of doctrine to bring all matters up to date with the times vis-a-vis the Protestant Reformation.



> And relations between Jews and Moslems have not exactly been cordial, have they?


This is a comment you should have directed at millionrainbows, who appears to reckon that it's Christianity that's wholly responsible for antisemitism.

By far the greatest amount of antisemitism in terms of aggressive action since the end WW2 has come from sections of the Moslem world, as hardly needs mention.

Prior to 1945, the Holocaust was obviously the main issue causing the greatest damage, and that had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. It was the result of Hitler's (a madman) views about racial superiority, and the German nation's gullibility in voting this madman into office, and later being even more gullible in believing that he had limited territorial ambitions thus justifying invasion of neighbouring countries, leading to the outbreak of WW2 in September 1939.



> The problem for this analysis is that the politics of religion are so closely intertwined with the theology that they are difficult to separate. Is there a single Church of Islam or Judaism in the same way as there is the Vatican, to enable us to see what "official" attitudes are?


Compared with the several hundred much smaller sects of Christianity, the RC Church is a much easier target for criticism on these matters purely because of its size, organisation and longetivity.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Plenty has been written documenting abuse and persecution of Jews (and other people) in the name of religion. I'm not interested in doing extensive research for purposes of this thread, to which this subject is peripheral and which I only addressed to try to restore some perspective. But this article is pretty interesting: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-catholic-church


I simply asked if you could provide any examples of the actions you referred to that were done in compliance with RC Church teaching and recommendation on this subject. I didn't ask you to carry out "extensive research" and nor would I expect it.

Since it never has been part of Church teaching to persecute the Jews, but rather the opposite, I can only assume that you cannot provide any such examples. I am not surprised that you declined to answer my question.

It would seem therefore that you are basing your assertions on actions, if they are correct, that were not the result of RC Church teaching (or that of any other major denomination) but carried out in the name of "religion" very loosely, with no specific religious body in mind. For all you know, they could have been actions by people with very weird religious views, or possibly mental cases claiming to have been inspired by some kind of religious urge.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> I came much later to Plato's dialogues after studying the Bible. I felt Plato's dialogues cut much deeper to reason and logic personally. Paul was not a philosopher, but a theologian. Incidentally, even a book I read during seminary called the early church Neo-Platonists.


The New testament is not built on human reason and logic. Paul knew the Greek philosophers and could have argued from them but was seeking a higher form of logic. As he said, "The foolishness of God is higher than the wisdom of man." Or as a former professor of philosophy once said, "Philosophy is the art of making the simple appear complicated."


----------



## DavidA

Partita said:


> So what?
> 
> The doctrine about Jewish innocence wasn't changed in Vat II. It was a claricatory measure to re-affirm the position set out in the Council Of Trent in the 16th C that it was the collective sinfulness of all humanity, Jews included, that was responsible for the death of Jesus, not just the Jews of the time or subsequent generations.
> 
> On the matter of Jewish innocence, The Council of Trent itself didn't change anything compared with pre-existing doctrine on this matter, but was a clarification of doctrine to bring all matters up to date with the times vis-a-vis the Protestant Reformation.
> 
> This is a comment you should have directed at millionrainbows, who appears to reckon that it's Christianity that's wholly responsible for antisemitism.
> 
> By far the greatest amount of antisemitism in terms of aggressive action since the end WW2 has come from sections of the Moslem world, as hardly needs mention.
> 
> Prior to 1945, the Holocaust was obviously the main issue causing the greatest damage, and that had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. *It was the result of Hitler's (a madman) views about racial superiority,* and the German nation's gullibility in voting this madman into office, and later being even more gullible in believing that he had limited territorial ambitions thus justifying invasion of neighbouring countries, leading to the outbreak of WW2 in September 1939.
> 
> Compared with the several hundred much smaller sects of Christianity, the RC Church is a much easier target for criticism on these matters purely because of its size, organisation and longetivity.


Hitler hated Christianity:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...thed-christianity-too/?utm_term=.4aadeb8ba430


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> So what?


So it showed that the Catholic Church felt it necessary to issue a clarification of something that should have been implemented since the 16th C. I wonder why that was?



Partita said:


> The doctrine about Jewish innocence wasn't changed in Vat II. It was a claricatory measure to re-affirm the position set out in the Council Of Trent in the 16th C that it was the collective sinfulness of all humanity, Jews included, that was responsible for the death of Jesus, not just the Jews of the time or subsequent generations.
> 
> On the matter of Jewish innocence, The Council of Trent itself didn't change anything compared with pre-existing doctrine on this matter, but was a clarification of doctrine to bring all matters up to date with the times vis-a-vis the Protestant Reformation.


My knowledge of the _official _teachings of the world's leading religions on attitudes to Jews is thin. That is why my simplistic research was necessary to find out what the Vatican position is.



Partita said:


> This is a comment you should have directed at millionrainbows, who appears to reckon that it's Christianity that's wholly responsible for antisemitism.


My bad. I didn't realise you were referring only to Christianity when you said, "Can you provide any specific examples of where religious institutions subjected Jews [etc]"



Partita said:


> Compared with the several hundred much smaller sects of Christianity, the RC Church is a much easier target for criticism on these matters purely because of its size, organisation and longetivity.


Exactly so.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> I simply asked if you could provide any examples of the actions you referred to that were done in compliance with RC Church teaching and recommendation on this subject. I didn't ask you to carry out "extensive research" and nor would I expect it.
> 
> Since it never has been part of Church teaching to persecute the Jews, but rather the opposite, I can only assume that you cannot provide any such examples. I am not surprised that you declined to answer my question.
> 
> It would seem therefore that you are basing your assertions on actions, if they are correct, that were not the result of RC Church teaching (or that of any other major denomination) but carried out in the name of "religion" very loosely, with no specific religious body in mind. For all you know, they could have been actions by people with very weird religious views, or possibly mental cases claiming to have been inspired by some kind of religious urge.


Look, if you want specific instances just do your own research. I don't spend my time studying the history of religious atrocities. Does the existence of antisemitic biases, teachings and practices in religious people and institutions (and not only the RC church, which you seem eager to defend) really come as a surprise to you? Isn't it a well-established part of our cultural heritage?

Your last sentence here made me chuckle. "Loosely"? "Weird religious views"? "Mental cases"? Yes, precisely. Evidently you regard weird views as peripheral to religion. I mean, when did guys wearing chasubles and mitres ever express weird views?

Here are some more articles, just in case you're actually interested in the subject and not just looking to prove me wrong.

https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20070119-persecution.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers.htm

I'm sure the resources are endless.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> The New testament is not built on human reason and logic.


I'll say it wasn't!



> Paul knew the Greek philosophers and could have argued from them but was seeking a higher form of logic.


Logic is logic. There are no "higher" forms of it.



> As he said, "The foolishness of God is higher than the wisdom of man."


He said a lot of things not worth repeating.

This isn't Sunday school. No one is here for religious instruction. Could you try to stay somewhere in the vicinity of the subject?


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> The New testament is not built on human reason and logic. Paul knew the Greek philosophers and could have argued from them but was seeking a higher form of logic. As he said, "The foolishness of God is higher than the wisdom of man." Or as a former professor of philosophy once said, "Philosophy is the art of making the simple appear complicated."


I wouldn't call it a higher form of logic, but alluding to a special knowledge of the Divine, only given to a select few. My reasoning is if there was a higher knowledge imparted to these individuals, they could make statements/arguments that would, for others with a less advantageous perspective, be able to grasp, like an answer to a math problem that can only be solved with a higher concept. Those struggling would see the missing link as a perfect fit. But instead it is at odds to human knowledge. We are to become like little children. The scribes and teachers of the laws who knew the law of Moses, better than the average uneducated Jew are condemned. I feel they (Jesus and Paul) are alluding to some concept that will never be attainable (Paul was caught up in the 3rd heaven, or the visions of John in the Revelation *while still alluding to a flat Earth*), and our human reasoning is deemed worthless. It is the devaluing of earthly knowledge and reasoning, sacrificing family relationships, and encouragement to stay single because the end is coming soon, etc. to the cause of one human individual (for all we know), that I find suspect. Plato on the other hand, valued reasoning as the highest asset.


----------



## Woodduck

Phil loves classical said:


> I wouldn't call it a higher form of logic, but alluding to a special knowledge of the Divine, only given to a select few. My reasoning is if there was a higher knowledge imparted to these individuals, they could make statements/arguments that would, for others with a less advantageous perspective, be able to grasp, like an answer to a math problem that can only be solved with a higher concept. Those struggling would see the missing link as a perfect fit. But instead it is at odds to human knowledge. We are to become like little children. The scribes and teachers of the laws who knew the law of Moses, better than the average uneducated Jew are condemned. I feel they (Jesus and Paul) are alluding to some concept that will never be attainable (Paul was caught up in the 3rd heaven), and our human reasoning is deemed worthless. It is the devaluing of earthly knowledge and reasoning, sacrificing family relationships, and encouragement to stay single because the end is coming soon, etc. to the cause of one human individual (for all we know), that I find suspect. Plato on the other hand, valued reasoning as the highest asset.


There's no arguing with "higher logic," Phil.


----------



## Enthusiast

Was Wagner an early practitioner of fake news? According a quiz in the UK paper The Guardian today Wagner spread the "news" that Brahms was a serial killer of cats, a crime that could endanger his life if he was alive today and lived in Britain. I suppose it could have been true but it looks like fake news to me.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Look, if you want specific instances just do your own research. I don't spend my time studying the history of religious atrocities. Does the existence of antisemitic biases, teachings and practices in religious people and institutions (and not only the RC church, which you seem eager to defend) really come as a surprise to you? Isn't it a well-established part of our cultural heritage?
> 
> Your last sentence here made me chuckle. "Loosely"? "Weird religious views"? "Mental cases"? Yes, precisely. Evidently you regard weird views as peripheral to religion. I mean, when did guys wearing chasubles and mitres ever express weird views?
> 
> Here are some more articles, just in case you're actually interested in the subject and not just looking to prove me wrong.
> 
> https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20070119-persecution.pdf
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
> 
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers.htm
> 
> I'm sure the resources are endless.


Just in case you have lost the plot, as seems likely from the above post, let me re-iterate that what started my interest in this latest part of the thread was the following comment at post # 387:



millionrainbows said:


> If we take note that antisemitism is largely founded on religious grounds, Christianity, then this explains much; and it allows us to identify antisemites with more specificity, as "pro Christians."


Your reaction to this was set out in post #390:



Woddduck said:


> … there is no denying that intense hatred of Jews arose among Christians, and that the *Church of Rome* institutionalized and perpetuated this hatred, resulting in the most extraordinary beliefs about Jews and the most extreme forms of persecution stretching across many centuries. The Holocaust was not unique, either in its irrational ideology nor in its violence.


You elaborated further in your post #405:



Woddduck said:


> Wagner said unpleasant things about Jews, but he did not subject them to harsh treatment, did not recommend their persecution or restrictions on their civil rights, and did not advocate violence against their persons, property and livelihoods. Across many shameful centuries, religious institutions did all of those things. Clearly those institutions "lost sight of their higher purpose."


In connection with the above allegations made against the "religious institutions" - which I took to mean the Church of Rome" (your terminology) - I asked you to provide evidence to support your statements. You have been unable to do do, but instead suggested that I do more research in order that I might find it! This is ridiculous, not unlike Robert Newman's tactics when cornered.

I don't need to do any more research since I have already done all that I need to do to establish that there is no truth in your statement quoted below at post #390. The onus is clearly on you to provide the evidence to support your assertions.

You have not been able to provide any such evidence because they are fallacious. In fact, I would guess from the way you have been prevaricating on this matter in your two recent replies that you have probably discovered that what you have said is not true, and are simply hoping that the matter will go away if you waffle enough.

You have clearly staked your colours to the mast on this. I'm left wondering whether there might be some other aspect of the Church of Rome's actual teaching, as opposed to the make-believe nonsense you are prepared to dream up in order to smear it, that you do not happen to like for some reason.


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> Just in case you have lost the plot, as seems likely from the above post, let me re-iterate that what started my interest in this latest part of the thread was the following comment at post # 387:
> 
> Your reaction to this was set out in post #390:
> 
> You elaborated further in your post #405:
> 
> In connection with the above allegations made against the "religious institutions" - which I took to mean the Church of Rome" (your terminology) - I asked you to provide evidence to support your statements. You have been unable to do do, but instead suggested that I do more research in order that I might find it! This is ridiculous, not unlike Robert Newman's tactics when cornered.
> 
> I don't need to do any more research since I have already done all that I need to do to establish that there is no truth in your statement quoted below at post #390. The onus is clearly on you to provide the evidence to support your assertions.
> 
> You have not been able to provide any such evidence because they are fallacious. In fact, I would guess from the way you have been prevaricating on this matter in your two recent replies that you have probably discovered that what you have said is not true, and are simply hoping that the matter will go away if you waffle enough.
> 
> You have clearly staked your colours to the mast on this. I'm left wondering whether there might be some other aspect of the Church of Rome's actual teaching, as opposed to the make-believe nonsense you are prepared to dream up in order to smear it, that you do not happen to like for some reason.


Your aggression is obnoxious. I don't care to be drawn into "gotcha" games.

I should think you'd be more concerned with refuting the articles I've taken the trouble to send you than with berating me for not having a head full of facts and figures to regurgitate on demand. I'm a musician, not a historian.

Ignore and deny the history of irrationality, bigotry and cruelty against Jews (and others) in "Christendom" if you must. To ignore and deny is to sanction. And, just by the way, how do you think your beloved church dealt with Hitler and the Holocaust?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/10/the-holocaust-and-the-catholic-church/305061/


----------



## ECraigR

It’s somewhat amusing that a multi-year discussion of Wagner’s influence comes down to Anti-Semitism and the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## Woodduck

ECraigR said:


> It's somewhat amusing that a multi-year discussion of Wagner's influence comes down to Anti-Semitism and the Roman Catholic Church.


I don't think the discussion has necessarily "come down" to that. But if you hang around the forum long enough, you'll find that any discussion of Wagner is fertile ground for the demonstration of Godwin's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law I'm sure Wagner would much prefer that his actual achievements be discussed, but religion and genocide seem to be more attractive subjects to a lot of people, particularly those who don't care about Wagner but feel the need to chime in.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Was Wagner an early practitioner of fake news? According a quiz in the UK paper The Guardian today Wagner spread the "news" that Brahms was a serial killer of cats, a crime that could endanger his life if he was alive today and lived in Britain. I suppose it could have been true but it looks like fake news to me.


According to one version, Brahms was said to have killed the cats with a crossbow given to him for the purpose by Dvorak. Nowadays there'd be a faked photo of Brahms holding a crossbow in one hand and a dead cat in the other.


----------



## Guest

ECraigR said:


> It's somewhat amusing that a multi-year discussion of Wagner's influence comes down to Anti-Semitism and the Roman Catholic Church.


You've only been on the Forum a matter of weeks. Stick around a few years and you'll discover that this sort of thing, with sleight variation from thread to thread, is par for the course in connection with many Wagner discussions. The disputes normally arise in connection with attempts made by some of his most ardent admirers to minimise his antisemitic leanings in some way.

Usually, it's done by refuting arguments that his operas contained any antisemitic content. Another is to say that he was merely voicing opinions of an antisemitic flavour that were not uncommon at the time across several parts of Europe, even though Wagner himself was perhaps in the more openly outspoken camp. Yet another partial excuse was that his bark was far worse than his bite insofar that he actually got on quite well with some leading Jewish musicians on whom he relied.

In this thread a rather new avenue of defence appears to have been opened up which makes it quite interesting. The recent problem began at post #387. This was an attempt to take the heat off Wagner and to throw it onto Christianity as root cause of all the antisemitism there has ever been in the entire history of the world. The intention was to imply that Wagner has received much bad publicity that ought to be directed at the Christian Church instead.

As a fairly novel excuse, this nonsense was quickly seized upon as manna from heaven by one of the Board's most ardent Wagner supporters, who added more fuel to the fire by saying the_ "... the Church of Rome institutionalized and perpetuated this hatred, resulting in the most extraordinary beliefs about Jews and the most extreme forms of persecution stretching across many centuries"._

When such ignorance and bile is directed against the world's leading religions it is not surprising that they face the risk of challenge. Not only have these people overlooked the Nazi and Moslem aspects of antisemitism, which have been by far the largest features over the past 90 years, but they also fail to acknowledge that the negative view of Christendom they present is a highly one-sided account of history.

As may seen, some of them don't take kindly when their brand of nonsense is questioned. If they can so badly misconstrue and distort the historical evidence to suit their predilections about Wagner in this particular context, it makes me wonder whether much else they say on other topics , in the hope that it passes off as valid musical opinion, can have much credibility. I have long wondered about this.


----------



## Guest

The Episcopal Church acknowledges a past for which repentance is necessary.



> The relations between Jews and Christians have unique characteristics, since Christianity historically emerged out of early Judaism. Christian understanding of that process constitutes a necessary part of the dialogue and gives urgency to the enterprise. As Christianity came to define its own identity in relation to Judaism, the Church developed interpretations, definitions and terms for those things it had inherited from Jewish traditions. It also developed its own understanding of the Scriptures common to Jews and Christians. In the process of defining itself, the Church produced its own definition of God's acts of salvation. It should not be surprising that Jews resent those scriptural and theological interpretations in which they are assigned negative roles. Tragically, such patterns of thought have led Christians to overt acts of condescension, prejudice and even violent acts of persecution. In the face of those acts, a profound sense of penitence is the necessary response.


https://www.episcopalchurch.org/lib...-church-guidelines-christian-jewish-relations

From an article in the Anglican News:



> The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has joined other Christian and Jewish leaders to speak out against the rise of anti-Semitism in the UK and the persecution of Christians in many parts of the world. Britain's Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis; the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Vincent Nichols; and the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Great Britain, Archbishop Gregorious; are amongst the religious leaders who co-signed a letter to _The Times_ newspaper today (Thursday). The religious leaders, Co-Presidents of the Council of Christians and Jews (CCJ), used their letter to express concern about the rise in anti-Semitism in the UK. [...] The Chair of CCJ, Bishop of Lichfield Dr Michael Ipgrave, welcomed the letter, saying it came at a time when a survey has shown a sharp rise in concern about anti-Jewish sentiment in the UK, with 29 per cent of Jews saying they had considered emigrating as a result. "Churches today have a particular responsibility to address historic Christian anti-Judaism which in some cases still informs prejudice in our society", he said.


https://www.anglicannews.org/news/2...i-semitism-and-persecution-of-christians.aspx

As has already been pointed out, it is not easy to separate the acts of the followers of a religion from the official doctrine of its churches. But then it's not easy to identify the official doctrines either. Nevertheless, what we see here is a recognition from two branches of the Anglican communion of the role played in the past - and still influencing the present - of the Church in anti-semitism.

It's not all about the Catholic Church

But then again, I fail to see that it has much to do with Wagner either. Perhaps the few who wish to perpetuate a fruitless debate about Wagner's anti-semitism should just be ignored (eg post #387). If the question is, "_Why did Wagner have such an impact on the world?_" this can surely be answered without an extended debate about which of the world's religions has the worst history of anti-semitism?


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> You've only been on the Forum a matter of weeks. Stick around a few years and you'll discover that this sort of thing, with sleight variation from thread to thread, is par for the course in connection with many Wagner discussions. The disputes normally arise in connection with *attempts made by some of his most ardent admirers* to minimise his antisemitic leanings in some way.
> 
> .......................................
> 
> As a fairly novel excuse, *this nonsense was quickly seized upon as manna from heaven by one of the Board's most ardent Wagner supporters,** who added more fuel to the fire* by saying the_ "... the Church of Rome institutionalized and perpetuated this hatred, resulting in the most extraordinary beliefs about Jews and the most extreme forms of persecution stretching across many centuries"._
> 
> When *such ignorance and bile* is directed against the world's leading religions it is not surprising that they face the risk of challenge. Not only have *these people* overlooked the Nazi and Moslem aspects of antisemitism, which have been by far the largest features over the past 90 years, but *they also fail to acknowledge* that the negative view of Christendom they present is a highly one-sided account of history.
> 
> As may seen, *some of them don't take kindly when their brand of nonsense is questioned.* If *they can so badly misconstrue and distort* the historical evidence *to suit their predilections* about Wagner in this particular context, *it makes me wonder whether much else they say on other topics , in the hope that it passes off as valid musical opinion, can have much credibility. I have long wondered about this.*


God, what a pompous, nasty load of horse manure. Can't get enough of taking swipes at other people here, can you? "_They_ say...", "_some of them_ do...", blah blah blah. A nice little ego trip for you.

Try spending less time putting down those anonymous persons who disagree with you and more time doing something less transparently vindictive.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> If the question is, "_Why did Wagner have such an impact on the world?_" this can surely be answered without an extended debate about which of the world's religions has the worst history of anti-semitism?[/B]


That should be possible. We've all been through this before, and I know I'm weary of it.

It's easy to forget that any remark, made in any context, which touches on religion in a less than positive way will elicit defensive reactions on someone's part. There are things you just can't bring up, even if you're not really bringing them up but only glancing off them in the course of talking about something else. In this case, millionrainbows was probably rash in referring to the role of Christianity in shaping Western antisemitism. A reaction such as DavidA's in defense of religion was inevitable, and off we went.

Maybe we can all agree to drop the subject at this point, since it has predictably stalled over certain basic premises about which people will never agree.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> I wouldn't call it a higher form of logic, but alluding to a special knowledge of the Divine, only given to a select few. My reasoning is if there was a higher knowledge imparted to these individuals, they could make statements/arguments that would, for others with a less advantageous perspective, be able to grasp, like an answer to a math problem that can only be solved with a higher concept. Those struggling would see the missing link as a perfect fit. But instead it is at odds to human knowledge. We are to become like little children. The scribes and teachers of the laws who knew the law of Moses, better than the average uneducated Jew are condemned. I feel they (Jesus and Paul) are alluding to some concept that will never be attainable (Paul was caught up in the 3rd heaven, or the visions of John in the Revelation *while still alluding to a flat Earth*), and our human reasoning is deemed worthless. It is the *devaluing of earthly knowledge and reasoning, sacrificing family relationships, and encouragement to stay single because the end is coming soon, etc. to the cause of one human individual* (for all we know), that I find suspect. Plato on the other hand, valued reasoning as the highest asset.


For a start you completely misunderstand John's vision in that it is apocalyptic and does not allude to a flat earth. Such literalistic readings completely miss the point. Same with Paul. He was merely using language that was comm0n in the day. Like 'there is a half moon'. 
Jesus and Paul had their feet on the ground and alluded to something that came through the death and resurrection of Christ - ie justification by faith which allowed man (whatever his standing) a relationship with God and also peace with his fellow man. Human reasoning is not worthless as Paul is full of reasoning but it has to be put in its place. Paul reasoned with the best of them - even when on trial for his life in from of the philosophers at Athens, such were his powers of reasoning. The 'devaluing of earthly knowledge and reasoning, sacrificing family relationships, and encouragement to stay single because the end is coming soon, etc. to the cause of one human individual' is a total misreading of what Paul was actually saying and what he says throughout his letters. There was a present crisis at Corinth (maybe a plague) and in response to a question about marriage Paul was saying it was better for the time being to remain unmarried. In Ephesians he talks about close family relationships. You see, much of what has been written about Paul is based on superficial reading and misunderstanding.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Maybe we can all agree to drop the subject at this point,


In view of post #432, it seems not.


----------



## janxharris

Partita said:


> You've only been on the Forum a matter of weeks. Stick around a few years and you'll discover that this sort of thing, with sleight variation from thread to thread, is par for the course in connection with many Wagner discussions. The disputes normally arise in connection with attempts made by some of his most ardent admirers to minimise his antisemitic leanings in some way.
> 
> Usually, it's done by refuting arguments that his operas contained any antisemitic content. Another is to say that he was merely voicing opinions of an antisemitic flavour that were not uncommon at the time across several parts of Europe, even though Wagner himself was perhaps in the more openly outspoken camp. Yet another partial excuse was that his bark was far worse than his bite insofar that he actually got on quite well with some leading Jewish musicians on whom he relied.
> 
> In this thread a rather new avenue of defence appears to have been opened up which makes it quite interesting. The recent problem began at post #387. This was an attempt to take the heat off Wagner and to throw it onto Christianity as root cause of all the antisemitism there has ever been in the entire history of the world. The intention was to imply that Wagner has received much bad publicity that ought to be directed at the Christian Church instead.
> 
> As a fairly novel excuse, this nonsense was quickly seized upon as manna from heaven by one of the Board's most ardent Wagner supporters, who added more fuel to the fire by saying the_ "... the Church of Rome institutionalized and perpetuated this hatred, resulting in the most extraordinary beliefs about Jews and the most extreme forms of persecution stretching across many centuries"._
> 
> When such ignorance and bile is directed against the world's leading religions it is not surprising that they face the risk of challenge. Not only have these people overlooked the Nazi and Moslem aspects of antisemitism, which have been by far the largest features over the past 90 years, but they also fail to acknowledge that the negative view of Christendom they present is a highly one-sided account of history.
> 
> As may seen, some of them don't take kindly when their brand of nonsense is questioned. If they can so badly misconstrue and distort the historical evidence to suit their predilections about Wagner in this particular context, it makes me wonder whether much else they say on other topics , in the hope that it passes off as valid musical opinion, can have much credibility. I have long wondered about this.


I'm curious Partita - you speak as if you consider true Catholicism to be beyond reproach (in all matters, not just regarding anti-semitism) - is that correct? Do you accept, for example, that Pope Urban II instigated the first crusade (1095 I believe) in order to take the Holy Land back - in effect, to war against the Muslims?

I'm not picking a fight - just curious regarding you opinion.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> It's easy to forget that any remark, made in any context, which touches on religion *in a less than positive way *will elicit defensive reactions on someone's part. There are things you just can't bring up, even if you're not really bringing them up but only glancing off them in the course of talking about something else. In this case, millionrainbows was probably rash in referring to the role of Christianity in shaping Western antisemitism. A reaction such as DavidA's in defense of religion was inevitable, and off we went.


That's a laugh. You now admit that the recent discussion has been an unfortunate side issue but you try to shift the blame for this on to millionrainbows. I wonder what he will make of that?

_ "In a less than positive way"_ (from your post above) is surely a gross understatement of what you and millionrainbows actually said, which was nothing less than a scurrilous attack on Christianity itself and the "Roman Church" (your terminology) regards the history of antisemitism. In your case, you implied in your post # 390 that the Roman Church had previously committed atrocities against Jews on a scale comparable with the Holocaust of Nazi Germany.

Both of you ought to know that you can't expect to get away with comments of the type you made without the risk of being challenged. You can wriggle as much as you like to try to get off the hook, but the record of what you said about the basic cause of antisemitiism and its chief practitioners before The Holocaust is there for others to see. This comment is insulting to many people. You must surely regret saying that.

However, because you didn't express any regret or qualify it in any way, all that I have tried to do is to question your and millionrainbow's extraordinarily one-sided and blinkered view of history in this area. Your various attempts to side-step the issue are quite obvious. Your most recent reference to my posts as "horse manure" hardly does your credibility much good. I would have thought that a comment of this specific nature must be considered as being insulting.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> I'm curious Partita - you speak as if you consider true Catholicism to be beyond reproach (in all matters, not just regarding anti-semitism) - is that correct? Do you accept, for example, that Pope Urban II instigated the first crusade (1095 I believe) in order to take the Holy Land back - in effect, to war against the Muslims?
> 
> I'm not picking a fight - just curious regarding you opinion.


I think your question is deviously motivated, despite what you say.

In any case it is totally irrelevant to this thread, and I am not going to attempt an answer.

If you would like to make a comment about Wagner's antisemitism and how his views fitted in with mainstream Christianity of his times I'd be happy to participate further in that kind of discussion.


----------



## janxharris

Partita said:


> I think your question is deviously motivated, despite what you say.
> 
> In any case it is totally irrelevant to this thread, and I am not going to attempt an answer.
> 
> If you would like to make a comment about Wagner's antisemitism and how his views fitted in with mainstream Christianity of his times I'd be happy to participate further in that kind of discussion.


It's a real shame that you think I am motivated as you describe. I can assure you I am not. I do not have an agenda.

I accept that Wagner was anti-Semitic.


----------



## Strange Magic

Article, from a Jewish perspective, on Catholicism's historical relationship with Judaism and the Jews:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-catholic-church


----------



## janxharris

Strange Magic said:


> Article, from a Jewish perspective, on Catholicism's historical relationship with Judaism and the Jews:
> 
> https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-catholic-church


"This site can't provide a secure connection"


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> "This site can't provide a secure connection"


I got/get no such message.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> a scurrilous attack on Christianity itself and the "Roman Church" (your terminology) regards the history of antisemitism.


I didn't read it that way. In fact, in several posts, Woodduck makes a point of trying to return to the topic of the OP but, like you, wishes to see the absurd analysis by MR challenged, as well as pointing out what we all know - that the various parts of the Christian church have made a significant contribution to anti-semitism over time, something that they themselves now acknowledge (as evidenced in a recent post of mine which you have chosen not to comment on).


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I didn't read it that way. In fact, in several posts, *Woodduck *makes a point of trying to return to the topic of the OP but, like you, *wishes to see the absurd analysis by MR challenged*, as well as pointing out what we all know - that the various parts of the Christian church have made a significant contribution to anti-semitism over time, something that they themselves now acknowledge (as evidenced in a recent post of mine which you have chosen not to comment on).


Woodduck did not say my analysis was "absurd," just in case someone falls for your implication that he did. He acknowledges that other scholars have also espoused this view. In fact, he said:



Woodduck said:


> This looks like an effort to address some basic cultural assumptions, million, but I think the apparently huge elephant you've brought into the room may turn out to be just a plastic toy elephant viewed at too close range.
> 
> Your argument seems to rest on the following syllogism:
> 
> 1. Antisemitism originates in Christianity.
> 2. Western music originates in Christianity.
> 3. Therefore, Western music, including Wagner's, is in some sense antisemitic.
> 
> *You may not be the first to make any of these assertions, or to suggest that "this is what upsets people about Wagner."* But I don't think either premise can escape major qualification, major enough to undermine the conclusion. *In your defense, perhaps, I'll say that I have actually read an intricately developed argument to the effect that the very nature of Wagner's music - not his philosophy or personal attitudes, but his music as music - is opposed to the theological assumptions and existential sensibility of Judaism, an argument which, as far as I could see, largely boiled down to the claim that Wagner's attempt to seduce and engulf the listener in some sort of transcendental ecstasy was essentially uncivilized, and presented a view of man's nature and destiny incompatible with the responsibility of the chosen people to seek righteousness, do good works on earth, and wait patiently upon the Lord for the blessings of their daily bread.* I think I understand this: it isn't a stretch to identify Wagnerian ecstasy with a religious experience having more in common with Christian (and Asian, or pagan) mysticism and its transcendence of time than with the sense of a journey and struggle _in_ and _with_ time which is (as far as I, a non-Jew, can understand it) basic to the Jewish experience.
> 
> With all of that said, things are not so simple and pure. It's almost amusing to point out that some of Wagner's most passionate proponents have, since his own lifetime, been Jews, who apparently haven't found his "Christian" music alien in any way. The view of Wagner as a "problem" for Jews dates mainly from WW II and the association with Hitler; before that, the composer's antisemitism was generally viewed as an unfortunate personal vice which Jewish musicians were sufficiently used to finding in the culture as a whole not to hold against music they knew was powerful, important, and deserving of their advocacy.
> 
> *To classify Western music, in all its incredible diversity - around the world and through centuries of time - as a "Christian institution" because the church made use of it and shaped some of its styles and genres, is either an astonishing narrowing and diminution of a great artistic tradition or an extreme inflation of the concept "Christian."* Handel's aesthetic is radically unlike Perotin's; Mahler's is radically unlike Handel's. If you're looking for those aspects of Western culture that classical music has given expression to, you need to look at much more than Christianity.
> 
> There's just too much in your essay to pull apart, and I'm not sure where you want to go with it vis a vis the topic at hand. You seem to end up in an anti-Christian rant which is really pretty far off-topic, and I don't want to get involved in it. *My only concern here is to say that the conflation of Christianity = Western music = antisemitism = Wagner holds together, to the extent that it does, by some very thin threads, and that the real tapestry of Western culture is, thank goodness, much more complex.*


So Woodduck seems to say "exaggerated" but not absurd.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Woodduck did not say my analysis was "absurd," just in case someone falls for your implication that he did. He acknowledges that other scholars have also espoused this view. In fact, he said:
> 
> So Woodduck seems to say "exaggerated" but not absurd.


You're right. Woodduck didn't say 'absurd'. I did. What Woodduck did say (that you don't choose to highlight in your post above) was,



> There's just too much in your essay to pull apart, and I'm not sure where you want to go with it vis a vis the topic at hand. You seem to end up in an anti-Christian rant which is really pretty far off-topic, and I don't want to get involved in it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> For a start you completely misunderstand John's vision in that it is apocalyptic and does not allude to a flat earth. Such literalistic readings completely miss the point. Same with Paul. He was merely using language that was comm0n in the day. Like 'there is a half moon'.
> Jesus and Paul had their feet on the ground and alluded to something that came through the death and resurrection of Christ - ie justification by faith which allowed man (whatever his standing) a relationship with God and also peace with his fellow man. Human reasoning is not worthless as Paul is full of reasoning but it has to be put in its place. Paul reasoned with the best of them - even when on trial for his life in from of the philosophers at Athens, such were his powers of reasoning. The 'devaluing of earthly knowledge and reasoning, sacrificing family relationships, and encouragement to stay single because the end is coming soon, etc. to the cause of one human individual' is a total misreading of what Paul was actually saying and what he says throughout his letters. There was a present crisis at Corinth (maybe a plague) and in response to a question about marriage Paul was saying it was better for the time being to remain unmarried. In Ephesians he talks about close family relationships. You see, much of what has been written about Paul is based on superficial reading and misunderstanding.


The 'agreed' way to interpret the Bible, at least from most scholars, is in the way the original audience and readers would have understood. When the beast swipes stars from the sky with its tail which fell to the earth, that was what people of the day believed, not knowing the true scale and geometry. Daniel says there was a tower that was so high that everyone on the Earth could see it (including those on the other side). God was even disturbed with the tower of Babel reaching heaven, saying there was nothing impossible for Man if they spoke the same language. The Bible was intended to be taken more literally than what many modern day Christians want to take it in light of scientific discoveries. We still use half moons and crescent moon terminology to describe what portion of the moon is visible, different from the way the flat Earth was presented.

Agree Paul made concessions for marriage, but the forefront of his message is still "time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not". Jesus and Paul thought the world would end within their generation, which didn't pan out. I know generation has been interpreted to mean race, maybe because it didn't pan out, but when Jesus says "I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things [signs of the end of the age] have taken place", he wasn't making an empty statement such as the sun will rise tomorrow, since it was known the Jewish race would never be wiped off the Earth. Whenever he started with "I tell you the truth..." it was always something shocking. Jesus and Paul were radicals. We've toned down their messages over time. One thing my seminary teacher said which I thought was quite open-minded was we would interpret the Bible with preconceptions, it is impossible not to.

Going into the devaluing of knowledge. Jesus felt entitled to break any rule of Moses or reinterpreting any scripture of the past, in light he knew better or had higher purpose. One of the old Messianic prophecies that Christians point to as most evident Jesus the fulfilment was the sign of Immanuel, being born of a virgin. The context of that prophecy was that the 2 raiding armies of Judah would fail with the child born of a virgin. As the 2 armies did fail back in the past, it was already fulfilled at the time. The Bible sometimes skips on certain narratives, but it is assumed a virgin did give birth at the time, as Balaam had sinned supposedly, but how was not detailed. Jesus reinterpreted it to mean him as fulfillment or 2nd fulfillment. It was not even a Messianic prophecy. The only true Messianic prophecy was that he was to have the government on his shoulders, which Jesus obviously did not fulfill in his time on Earth. The scribes and teachers of the law knew full well of these facts, which was why Jesus had to condemn them, and at the same time condemn knowledge.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I didn't read it that way. In fact, in several posts, Woodduck makes a point of trying to return to the topic of the OP but, like you, wishes to see the absurd analysis by MR challenged, as well as pointing out what we all know - that the various parts of the Christian church have made a significant contribution to anti-semitism over time, something that they themselves now acknowledge (as evidenced in a recent post of mine which you have chosen not to comment on).


Several comments in response:

I can only express bewilderment if you think that Woodduck's comments at post # 390 and 405 were attempts to distance himself from the "absurd analysis" by MR at post # 387. They seemed to me to reinforce it. For example, the comment at post # 390 tries to argue that the RC Church was guilty of atrocities against Jews not totally dissimilar to the Nazi's Holocaust: 
_
"… there is no denying that intense hatred of Jews arose among Christians, and that the Church of Rome institutionalized and perpetuated this hatred, resulting in the most extraordinary beliefs about Jews and the most extreme forms of persecution stretching across many centuries. The Holocaust was not unique, either in its irrational ideology nor in its violence"_​
It could be argued that the kind of comments made in posts # 387, 390 and 415 are the "anti-Christian" version of "anti-Semitism". In principle I see little if any difference. I would have thought that antagonistic views of this nature against Christianity, and the RC Church as the leading denomination within it, are inappropriate on TC.

In fact, they are the kind of comments that could conceivably be considered deserving of a warning along the lines that the expression of such views are inappropriate on TC. That, at least, was the message given not long ago by one of the moderators in the context of "sexist" remarks by another member in another recent thread on a different topic (Misogyny on the Podium - check it out].

I am not interested in discussing your view that _"various parts of the Christian church have made a significant contribution to anti-Semitism over time, something that they themselves now acknowledge"_. To the best of my knowledge, it never has been the policy of any major denomination of Christianity that the practice of any form of anti-semitism was ever considered acceptable or excusable by its members. Therefore, I would assume that any such practices, where they occurred, were the result of deviant behaviour that was entirely outwith the general moral teaching of the Christian denomination in question.

In fact, to argue as you do that any such deviant behaviour should be considered as evidence of anti-semitism by the Christian Church is quite ridiculous. It is obvious that any such lapses are more or less bound to have occurred from time to time over such a long time scale of history, especially given the remote nature of various parts of Christendom, and the poor communications between the central authorities and outlying areas in centuries past.

To pick on any selective examples of alleged anti-semitism would be like arguing that the occasional lapses of discipline in the US Army over its entire history is evidence that it has always been morally corrupt. It would be like someone suggesting that the series of human rights violations of the US Army and CIA in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq - involving physical and sexual abuse, torture, rape, and murder of detainees - was evidence that the entire history of US Administrations and their defence forces since George Washington have been corrupt.

I'm afraid to say that I see these recent manifestations of adverse comment against Christianity, and the major organised churches within it, as nothing more than evidence that some people on here have a general problem with religion, and will use any opportunity that arises to take a swipe at it. I wonder if any of these people would dare voice any criticism they may have of Islam in a similar antagonistic tone. If they did, they and others had better put on their tin hats, in case this place gets blown up in retaliation.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> The 'agreed' way to interpret the Bible, at least from most scholars, is in the way the original audience and readers would have understood. When the beast swipes stars from the sky with its tail which fell to the earth, that was what people of the day believed, not knowing the true scale and geometry. Daniel says there was a tower that was so high that everyone on the Earth could see it (including those on the other side). God was even disturbed with the tower of Babel reaching heaven, saying there was nothing impossible for Man if they spoke the same language. The Bible was intended to be taken more literally than what many modern day Christians want to take it in light of scientific discoveries. We still use half moons and crescent moon terminology to describe what portion of the moon is visible, different from the way the flat Earth was presented.
> 
> Agree Paul made concessions for marriage, but the forefront of his message is still "time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not". Jesus and Paul thought the world would end within their generation, which didn't pan out. I know generation has been interpreted to mean race, maybe because it didn't pan out, but when Jesus says "I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things [signs of the end of the age] have taken place", he wasn't making an empty statement such as the sun will rise tomorrow, since it was known the Jewish race would never be wiped off the Earth. Whenever he started with "I tell you the truth..." it was always something shocking. Jesus and Paul were radicals. We've toned down their messages over time. One thing my seminary teacher said which I thought was quite open-minded was we would interpret the Bible with preconceptions, it is impossible not to.
> 
> Going into the devaluing of knowledge. Jesus felt entitled to break any rule of Moses or reinterpreting any scripture of the past, in light he knew better or had higher purpose. One of the old Messianic prophecies that Christians point to as most evident Jesus the fulfilment was the sign of Immanuel, being born of a virgin. The context of that prophecy was that the 2 raiding armies of Judah would fail with the child born of a virgin. As the 2 armies did fail back in the past, it was already fulfilled at the time. The Bible sometimes skips on certain narratives, but it is assumed a virgin did give birth at the time, as Balaam had sinned supposedly, but how was not detailed. Jesus reinterpreted it to mean him as fulfillment or 2nd fulfillment. It was not even a Messianic prophecy. The only true Messianic prophecy was that he was to have the government on his shoulders, which Jesus obviously did not fulfill in his time on Earth. The scribes and teachers of the law knew full well of these facts, which was why Jesus had to condemn them, and at the same time condemn knowledge.


Frankly I don't know what 'scholars' you follow but it is not the 'beast' that swipes the stars to earth but the dragon! In apocalyptic terms this has nothing to do with a flat earth geometry but with a cosmic rebellion. But you seem to have a bit of a thing about the flat earth. Yet I bet you still say, "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west" although scientifically it doesn't! There is no tower in Daniel, btw, as the Tower of Babel is found in Genesis. Nebuchadrezzar was walking on 'the roof of his palace' when he gloated over the glories of Babylon. We need to read the text not what people read into it. The language of the Genesis text presents no problems as you say for people for whom it was written and presents no problems for us today in that it presents cosmic facts in a way people could understand then and can still appreciate today. 
Your problem with Paul is that you do not appear to have grasped (and you are certainly not alone in this) the fact that his letters were written for specific situations and therefore certain statements should be interpreted in the light of his other writings. So the words, 'Now for the matters you wrote about' make it clear he addressing some particular issues the Corintihians (living in a place of huge pagan immortality) were concerned about. The frustrating thing is we don't know the question and have to guess it! Much of what Paul says is straightforward but when he comes to the 'unmarried' he makes it clear he is giving his own opinion, not a command from God. 'Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.' Maybe a plague was sweeping the city? Or persecution? Or something causing great difficulty? We don't know. People have misinterpreted Paul when he said 'the time is short' to mean he thought the world would end when he probably meant the time for the current crisis they were going through was short. It shows the difficulty of putting too much emphasis on something we don't really know the full background to. In any case, Paul tells them that marrying is certainly no sin. You talk about being open minded but your seminary teacher appears to have come with many Western preconceptions especially if he taught you that 'Jesus felt entitled to break any rule of Moses or reinterpreting any scripture of the past'. Of course he didn't break the law of Moses he kept it. What he didn't keep were the laws of men that had been imposed by the various religious groups. He actually interpreted the law of Moses to a higher standard, in fact. 
As to prophecy, a general rule is it can have more than one application and often does. There is the initial application as in the sign of Immannuel (where Balaam comes into this I don't know!) which was actually given before the two invading armies failed as a sign to Ahaz and the nation was saved. The second application was that picked up by Matthew's Gospel was the sign of the virgin conceiving in which the whole world was saved. And Jesus condemned knowledge? Where on earth? I think you somewhat have your prophecies mixed up.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Article, from a Jewish perspective, on Catholicism's historical relationship with Judaism and the Jews:
> 
> https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-catholic-church


The article shows the sad misconceptions and errors that arose in the Dark Ages towards the Jews. I was interested in the statement that 'The early Church Fathers , eager to complete the break with the synagogue, urged the substitution of Sunday for the Jewish Sabbath and the abandonment of Passover, commemorative of the Exodus, for Easter, commemorative of the crucifixion.' This was not because they were 'eager to complete the break with the synagogue' but because they saw the Passover and the Exodus fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. True Christianity does not see Judaism as 'an aberration from the Divine Will' but views the Messiah Jesus as a fulfilment of the Jewish scriptures.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> The article shows the sad misconceptions and errors that arose in the Dark Ages towards the Jews. I was interested in the statement that 'The early Church Fathers , eager to complete the break with the synagogue, urged the substitution of Sunday for the Jewish Sabbath and the abandonment of Passover, commemorative of the Exodus, for Easter, commemorative of the crucifixion.' This was not because they were 'eager to complete the break with the synagogue' but because they saw the Passover and the Exodus fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. True Christianity does not see Judaism as 'an aberration from the Divine Will' but views the Messiah Jesus as a fulfilment of the Jewish scriptures.


Glad you read the article from beginning to end, and seemingly concur with the overwhelming bulk of its material. Question: why then did the early church jettison Saturday as the Sabbath, replacing it with Sunday? If the article advanced the wrong reason, what is the correct explanation for repudiating the Jewish Sabbath (other than your assertion)?


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> You now admit that the recent discussion has been an unfortunate side issue but you try to shift the blame for this on to millionrainbows. I wonder what he will make of that?


I haven't "blamed" millionrainbows. I've simply pointed out that he made Christianity central to the discussion in post #387, and if you'll check you'll see that I took immediate exception to that move in post #390.



> _ "In a less than positive way"_ (from your post above) is surely a gross understatement of what you and millionrainbows actually said,


Don't conflate my views with those of millionrainbows. If you don't agree with his views, talk to him.



> which was nothing less than a scurrilous attack on Christianity itself and the "Roman Church" (your terminology) regards the history of antisemitism. In your case, you implied in your post # 390 that the Roman Church had previously committed atrocities against Jews on a scale comparable with the Holocaust of Nazi Germany.


Germany was one country, and Hitler was in power from 1933 to 1945. The Church was in power all over Europe and beyond for centuries. I would not say that the "scale" of Jewish persecution was comparable.



> Both of you ought to know that you can't expect to get away with comments of the type you made without the risk of being challenged.


I have nothing against a statement being challenged. I do object to being badgered, misrepresented and insulted.



> You can wriggle as much as you like to try to get off the hook, but the record of what you said about the basic cause of antisemitiism and its chief practitioners before The Holocaust is there for others to see. This comment is insulting to many people. You must surely regret saying that.


I haven't said that anything was "the chief cause" of antisemitism. That was (apparently) million's assertion in post #387. To set the record straight, this was my response to him:

_The historical roots of antisemitism pre-date its rise among Christians. According to the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism "relations between the Jews in Judea and the occupying Roman Empire were antagonistic from the very start," and if we know any history at all we should be aware of Roman hostility to and persecution of foreign religions, obviously including Judaism's offshoot, Christianity itself. That said, there is no denying that intense hatred of Jews arose among Christians, and that the Church of Rome institutionalized and perpetuated this hatred, resulting in the most extraordinary beliefs about Jews and the most extreme forms of persecution stretching across many centuries. The Holocaust was not unique, either in its irrational ideology nor in its violence. _

You can reasonably object that Christian condemnation and persecution of Jews wasn't quite as bad as I (seem to) think. You can't claim that it wasn't serious and didn't significantly determine the fate of the Jews in Western society.



> However, because you didn't express any regret or qualify it in any way, all that I have tried to do is to question your and millionrainbow's extraordinarily one-sided and blinkered view of history in this area.


Again, my views are not identical to million's. As for one-sided, I'm perfectly happy to concede that not all Christians between the time of the Roman Empire and the modern era were antisemites and that some Church leaders issued statements defending Jews against certain abuses. That doesn't negate the main point.



> Your various attempts to side-step the issue are quite obvious.


I haven't side-stepped any issue. My view is simple: the Christian church, both as an institution and as a collection of individuals calling themselves Christian, has been a principal source and sustainer of hatred for and persecution of Jews in the Western world. There seems to be a fairly broad consensus about that, even among present-day Christians who express regret for the abuses of the past, and no present-day Christian needs to feel "insulted" when the crimes of his forebears are pointed out.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I haven't "blamed" millionrainbows. I've simply pointed out that he made Christianity central to the discussion in post #387, and if you'll check you'll see that I took immediate exception to that move in post #390.
> 
> Don't conflate my views with those of millionrainbows. If you don't agree with his views, talk to him.
> 
> Germany was one country, and Hitler was in power from 1933 to 1945. The Church was in power all over Europe and beyond for centuries. I would not say that the "scale" of Jewish persecution was comparable.
> 
> I have nothing against a statement being challenged. I do object to being badgered, misrepresented and insulted.
> 
> I haven't said that anything was "the chief cause" of antisemitism. That was (apparently) million's assertion in post #387. To set the record straight, this was my response to him:
> 
> _The historical roots of antisemitism pre-date its rise among Christians. According to the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism "relations between the Jews in Judea and the occupying Roman Empire were antagonistic from the very start," and if we know any history at all we should be aware of Roman hostility to and persecution of foreign religions, obviously including Judaism's offshoot, Christianity itself. That said, there is no denying that intense hatred of Jews arose among Christians, and that the Church of Rome institutionalized and perpetuated this hatred, resulting in the most extraordinary beliefs about Jews and the most extreme forms of persecution stretching across many centuries. The Holocaust was not unique, either in its irrational ideology nor in its violence. _
> 
> You can reasonably object that Christian condemnation and persecution of Jews wasn't quite as bad as I (seem to) think. You can't claim that it wasn't serious and didn't significantly determine the fate of the Jews in Western society.
> 
> Again, my views are not identical to million's. As for one-sided, I'm perfectly happy to concede that not all Christians between the time of the Roman Empire and the modern era were antisemites and that some Church leaders issued statements defending Jews against certain abuses. That doesn't negate the main point.
> 
> I haven't side-stepped any issue. My view is simple: the Christian church, both as an institution and as a collection of individuals calling themselves Christian, has been a principal source and sustainer of hatred for and persecution of Jews in the Western world. There seems to be a fairly broad consensus about that, even among present-day Christians who express regret for the abuses of the past, and no present-day Christian needs to feel "insulted" when the crimes of his forebears are pointed out.


Basically, your opinion does not seem to have budged an inch. You have written all of the above by way of defence of your earlier statements, and it's all complete flannel as far as I'm concerned.

I am not impressed by your attempt to draw a distinction between what you and MB have said on the issue. To all intents and purposes, you are both very largely spouting the same message that the Christian church has been a principal source and "sustainer" of hatred for and persecution of Jews in the Western world.

I do not doubt in the slightest that there has been a long history of anti-semitism stretching a long way back into history. What I object to is (i) the argument that this is all largely due to Christianity, and (ii) the suggestion that this is the result of deliberate policy/teaching of the Church. The former is a gross exaggeration of the facts, and the latter is plain wrong.

Of course, I fully accept that there has been a great deal of anti-semitism down the ages. However, it is wrong to lay all the blame for this at the door of Christianity, or to suggest that has been a principal source and sustainer of hatred for and persecution of Jews in the Western world. The causes of anti-semitism have varied according to different times, and by no means has all of it been the result of purely religious tensions.

Following the Jewish Diaspora, many preferred to live in closed groups with their own laws, ways of preparing food, how they prayed, having their own festivals etc - all of which made them stand out. In some areas, these differences tended to cause suspicion, fear and occasional hatred amongst other segments of the populations. Such reactions where they occurred were probably spontaneous, and it would be very difficult to pin the blame on Christianity.

Jews also tended to move around a lot and in some areas they were not welcome, creating problems for absorption into the local labour forces. They were often forbidden to engage in certain occupations, and this forced them into activities such as money-lending, which caused further grounds for concern and suspicion in some areas. This reaction was more the way ordinary folk and civil authorities responded in some areas cases to an inflow of Jewish immigrants.

In other words, the long history of conflict between Jews and non-Jews was partly because of the social and economic relations between Jews wherever there were substantial communities of the Jewish population and non-Jews around them. This had little if anything to do with the Christian teaching or Church practice, although I do accept that some of it was religion inspired.

It must be remembered here that we're talking about a long period in history when education levels and social etiquette standards were primitive compared with modern standards, and the kind of behaviour towards fellow citizens that is often branded "anti-semitic" in the language of today was seen as nothing unusual at the time. It is the standard problem of trying to apply modern standards to historical situations, where in some areas it cannot be done without making large qualifications.

All of the above is minor compared with the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust, which you constantly seem to downplay as a virtual side-note, whilst placing all of your emphasis on historical aspects of anti-semitism. What needs to be emphasised is that the biggest factor in the entire discussion about "anti-semitism" over the past century was the Holocaust.

It is true that Nazis were not the only people who hated Jews during the 20th Century. There were others whose views were not mainly shaped by religious issues, but on other grounds. However, the Nazis hatred of Jews in a different way to most other people. Their hatred - which led to the death of some 6 million in death camps, plus various other groups - was of a completely different kind to what had gone on before, in that was racial and biological.

To the Nazi mind, Jews were not just adherents to an alien religious doctrine, or feared and distrusted because it was felt that that the Jews had grabbed too much economic influence. The main objection the Nazis against Jews was that they believed them to be biologically and racially distinct (and inferior to the supreme Aryan race) such that and that there was a biological struggle for dominance over the entire human race. They saw it as a struggle for survival and therefore necessary to exterminate the Jews before between the Jews gained the upper hand.

The point of the above three paragraphs is that the form of anti-semitism in the past century has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, and in the case of the Nazis none at all. I therefore conclude, yet again, that the opinions of both you and MB on this general subject are way off track in being far too simplistic. You have focused on the distant past, misconstrued much of that history, and virtually neglected one of the chief causes of anti-semitism in modern times, namely the Holocaust. The other main factor has, of course, been hatred by various Moslem factions, which again you have completely ignored.


----------



## janxharris

Among the curses prophesied for the Hebrews (for not obeying their God):

Deuteronomy 28 :
37 You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the Lord will drive you.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> It could be argued that the kind of comments made in posts # 387, 390 and 415 are the "anti-Christian" version of "anti-Semitism". In principle I see little if any difference. I would have thought that antagonistic views of this nature against Christianity, and the RC Church as the leading denomination within it, are inappropriate on TC.


Criticism of Christianity does not necessarily imply an "anti-Christian" position.



Partita said:


> I am not interested in discussing your view that _"various parts of the Christian church have made a significant contribution to anti-Semitism over time, something that they themselves now acknowledge"_.


Why are you "not interested"? Could it be that it offers evidence to counter your assertions?



Partita said:


> *To the best of my knowledge,* it never has been the policy of any major denomination of Christianity that the practice of any form of anti-semitism was ever considered acceptable or excusable by its members.


And to mine too. I tried to find out what the policy has been, but it's a bit of a challenge finding what "policy" is for Christianity over the 2000 years of its existence. And that's why I decided I'd simply quote from two current official publications by branches of the Church. What I posted is not my opinion, but theirs.



Partita said:


> In fact, to argue as you do that any such deviant behaviour should be considered as evidence of anti-semitism by the Christian Church is quite ridiculous.


I didn't. So is there evidence of official policy that may be deemed anti-semitic? If, in the case of Catholicism, for example, it's what the Pope declares, we can find instances through history of such policy. So the 4th Council of the Lateran (1215) which instructed that Jews should wear distinguishing dress - that was official policy. And the Papal Bull issued in 1555 that revoked Jewish rights and led to the creation of ghettoes in the Papal States - that was official policy.

Of course, the problem for the Popes is that they had diminishing power over time as the world's populations grew and State policy increasingly overtook the rule of the Church. Here's an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV_and_Judaism


----------



## janxharris

Presumably Saint John's words preclude nobody:

1 John 1
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

So, regarding anti-Semitism and the RCC, it would be very surprising if it has never occurred.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Criticism of Christianity does not necessarily imply an "anti-Christian" position.
> 
> Why are you "not interested"? Could it be that it offers evidence to counter your assertions?
> 
> And to mine too. I tried to find out what the policy has been, but it's a bit of a challenge finding what "policy" is for Christianity over the 2000 years of its existence. And that's why I decided I'd simply quote from two current official publications by branches of the Church. What I posted is not my opinion, but theirs.
> 
> I didn't. So is there evidence of official policy that may be deemed anti-semitic? If, in the case of Catholicism, for example, it's what the Pope declares, we can find instances through history of such policy. So the 4th Council of the Lateran (1215) which instructed that Jews should wear distinguishing dress - that was official policy. And the Papal Bull issued in 1555 that revoked Jewish rights and led to the creation of ghettoes in the Papal States - that was official policy.
> 
> Of course, the problem for the Popes is that they had diminishing power over time as the world's populations grew and State policy increasingly overtook the rule of the Church. Here's an example.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV_and_Judaism


I do not much care for the nit-picking style of questioning you often adopt, as per the above, selecting bits of posts here and there and asking seemingly relevant points of clarification, but essentially trying to gain some purely semantic victory. It has been a trait of yours ever since you first set foot in this Forum.

May I request that you do not try it on with me, as I will not play ball. Especially, I do not like being thrown odd links to documents that you have chanced upon, and being asked what my impression is.

Rather, I would prefer that you look at the entirety of what I have written, especially my last post (of today) which set out my response to the latest post of Woodduck, whose protector and apologist you somewhat mysteriously appear to have a become of late.

Given your obviously very fragile and incomplete knowledge of the relevant history in this area, may I suggest that it would be even better if you wandered off some place nice and quiet for as long as it takes, read all the guff on this subject you think may be relevant, digest it, follow up all the necessary leads, and then come back and tell us what you make of it in a clear statement.


----------



## janxharris

Partita said:


> I do not much care for the nit-picking style of questioning you often adopt, as per the above, selecting bits of posts here and there and asking seemingly relevant points of clarification, but essentially trying to gain some purely semantic victory. It has been a trait of yours ever since you first set foot in this Forum.
> 
> May I request that you do not try it on with me, as I will not play ball. Especially, I do not like being thrown odd links to documents that you have chanced upon, and being asked what my impression is.
> 
> Rather, I would prefer that you look at the entirety of what I have written, especially my last post (of today) which set out my response to the latest post of Woodduck, whose protector and apologist you somewhat mysteriously appear to have a become of late.
> 
> Given your obviously very fragile and incomplete knowledge of the relevant history in this area, may I suggest that it would be even better if you wandered off some place nice and quiet for as long as it takes, read all the guff on this subject you think may be relevant, digest it, follow up all the necessary leads, and then come back and tell us what you make of it in a clear statement.


Are you claiming the doctrine infallibility of the RCC Partita?


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> I do not much care for the nit-picking style of questioning you often adopt, as per the above, selecting bits of posts here and there


Yes, it's inconvenient when I refer to specific points in a post as evidence of what you've said and as a basis on which to make my own points in response. My main reason for doing it is partly to avoid simply quoting a whole post and leaving the reader to wade through the whole in order to match up what I'm saying with what you've said.

The other reason is to avoid making generalisations about what you've said.

And yes, it has been my approach since I started here. I'm not sure what to make of such an observation.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Are you claiming the doctrine infallibility of the RCC Partita?


If you can think of a vaguely relevant question to what I have said I might be tempted to answer it, but that's perhaps an optimistic assumption.


----------



## mmsbls

We've allowed the discussion to move from Wagner and musical influence to Wagner and antisemitism and finally to purely religious topics. As long as the discussion remained civil and did not completely derail the thread away from Wagner, we wanted to give posters some leeway. Unfortunately, the discussion has lead to insults and chiding. Please refrain from personal comments and bring the discussion back to Wagner.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Yes, it's inconvenient when I refer to specific points in a post as evidence of what you've said and as a basis on which to make my own points in response. My main reason for doing it is partly to avoid simply quoting a whole post and leaving the reader to wade through the whole in order to match up what I'm saying with what you've said.
> 
> The other reason is to avoid making generalisations about what you've said.
> 
> And yes, it has been my approach since I started here. I'm not sure what to make of such an observation.


Although I appreciate that you are clearly seeking information in order to become better informed in this area, I'm afraid that I'm not here either to fill up every little gap in your knowledge, or to respond to any chance documents you may care to throw at me. As you probably well know, whatever I say you will find some way to disagree with it.

However, in order to be as helpful as I can, I'd like to hear your considered views on the history of anti-semitism, having researched the situation to your satisfaction. If you find it somewhat difficult, there's no rush, just take your time.

Once you've gained a better appreciation, I look forward to finding out what you think have been the main features of anti-semitism down the ages. You might start by giving your opinion on the worst examples of this phenomenon. I would advise you that if you come up with "Christianity" then I fear that you have down down the wrong track. If that should happen, I'd advise that you start again and look out for the word "Holocaust". After that, the many post WW2 conflicts involving Israel and various Arab States would be worth looking at too. And, of course, there is the ever present threat by Iran to obliterate Israel given half a chance.

Once you've got all that vital information under your belt, you can then safely move on to look at examples of anti-semitism in earlier periods, if of course you think it worthwhile. If you do so, you might hit upon the name of Wagner. I wouldn't dwell too long on that aspect because it's very difficult and you might get stuck for a long time. Go back further into earlier centuries and you will probably find reference to Christian persecution of Jews.

Now here's the thing: what you have watch out for is avoid becoming confused with Christianity and Christendom. Specifically, you have to be careful to distinguish between instances of anti-semitism that probably resulted mainly from actions by civic authorities or individuals acting in isolation within parts of Christendom, as opposed to those resultying from Church teaching and those connected with the Church. This is often a source of misunderstanding, as it sometimes suits some people - especially those who are not well disposed towards religion - to blame it all on the Church.

Good luck with it all. I trust that you'll come back one day when you feel ready. Or possibly you might instead save a lot of time and just read my summary of the issues referred to above earlier today in my response to Woodduck.


----------



## millionrainbows

OK, back to Wagner.
Wagner=Christian=antisemitism.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> OK, back to Wagner.
> Wagner=Christian=antisemitism.


Please furnish the appropriate forum with a defence of your assertion that Christian = antisemitism.
A link to it posted here would be helpful.

If you don't, then perhaps we can assume you misspoke.


----------



## Strange Magic

I remind everyone that the place to discuss religion _qua_ religion is in the Groups, specifically in the Group quaintly but accurately named Religious Discussion Group.

How to access the Groups: 
Go to the thin black bar just under the blue-grey bar under the Talk Classical masthead. Click or tap "Community", then click or tap on "groups", and you're there. Scroll to the bottom right and you'll find the complete listing of Groups. Bring your friends; the more the merrier, and the more vibrant and maybe contentious (though the mods do check in now and then, but display admirable circumspection and tolerance).


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Glad you read the article from beginning to end, and seemingly concur with the overwhelming bulk of its material. Question: why then did the early church jettison Saturday as the Sabbath, replacing it with Sunday? If the article advanced the wrong reason, what is the correct explanation for repudiating the Jewish Sabbath (other than your assertion)?


Quite simply because Sunday was the day Jesus rose from the dead and the church met to celebrate the resurrection. In Christianity there is actually no such thing as the 'Sabbath' as such as Hebrews tells us 'we have entered his rest'. What Sunday is described as is 'the Lord's Day'. Later aberrations made it a sabbath. It has no justification in new Testament Christianity as many of the early Christians would've been slaves and would had to work on that day anyway!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Quite simply because Sunday was the day Jesus rose from the dead and the church met to celebrate the resurrection. In Christianity there is actually no such thing as the 'Sabbath' as such as Hebrews tells us 'we have entered his rest'. What Sunday is described as is 'the Lord's Day'. Later aberrations made it a sabbath. It has no justification in new Testament Christianity as many of the early Christians would've been slaves and would had to work on that day anyway!


But if Jesus wasn't really the Messiah, as the Jews claim, then keeping the Jewish Saturday Sabbath would have been somewhat of a contradiction, wouldn't it? The changing of the "Holy Day" (The Lord's Day, Sabbath, whatever) to Sunday was one of the first steps to establishing Christianity as _separate_ from Judaism. This is obvious. Didn't Christianity want to distinguish itself as a separate religion from Judaism?

The distinction between "Lord's Day" and "Sabbath" can be used as a way of either saying that Christianity is separate (but not opposed) to Judaism, or used as a way of differentiating it in opposition to Judaism. Whether or not this is an "opposition" or "neutral difference" is tenuous; the belief in Christ as The Messiah seems to be in direct opposition to orthodox Jewish belief, although Christians seem very reluctant to acknowledge this and other differences.

It seems that Christians are still torn between recognizing the _differences_ in Judaism from the _similarities._ Whatever is most convenient to whitewash the issue seems to be the operant principle. Good luck! What a mess!

So my overall point is that Christianity has always had a somewhat tenuous relationship to Judaism, and this opened the door to some real opposition through history. 
As a Christian, Wagner felt comfortable in using Christian-derived imagery and elements.

Take the focus off of Wagner the individual, and see him as an exponent of a prevailing European view, including all its musical history as Western music, and all its sociological history, elements which went in to building the Wagnerian world.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> But if Jesus wasn't really the Messiah, as the Jews claim, then keeping the Jewish Saturday Sabbath would have been somewhat of a contradiction, wouldn't it? The changing of the "Holy Day" (The Lord's Day, Sabbath, whatever) to Sunday was one of the first steps to establishing Christianity as _separate_ from Judaism. This is obvious. Didn't Christianity want to distinguish itself as a separate religion from Judaism?
> 
> The distinction between "Lord's Day" and "Sabbath" can be used as a way of either saying that Christianity is separate (but not opposed) to Judaism, or used as a way of differentiating it in opposition to Judaism. Whether or not this is an "opposition" or "neutral difference" is tenuous; the belief in Christ as The Messiah seems to be in direct opposition to orthodox Jewish belief, although Christians seem very reluctant to acknowledge this and other differences.
> 
> *It seems that Christians are still torn between recognizing the differences in Judaism from the similarities*_._ Whatever is most convenient to whitewash the issue seems to be the operant principle. Good luck! What a mess!
> 
> So my overall point is that Christianity has always had a somewhat tenuous relationship to Judaism, and this opened the door to some real opposition through history.
> As a Christian, Wagner felt comfortable in using Christian-derived imagery and elements.
> 
> Take the focus off of Wagner the individual, and see him as an exponent of a prevailing European view, including all its musical history as Western music, and all its sociological history, elements which went in to building the Wagnerian world.


Of course seeing Jesus as Messiah is a contradiction to orthodox Jewish belief. A crucified Messiah? Why Paul uses the term 'stumbling block' - 'skandelion' - 'cursed is he who hangs on a tree'! Your basic problem is you don't appear to understand either Christianity or Judaism and are putting statements in the air at will. Sorry this is not rational argument. 'It seems that Christians are still torn between recognizing the _differences_ in Judaism from the _similarities' No that is not our position it is yours. Please do not project your own muddled thinking on to others! We are quite clear what we believe. 
Whatever Wagner felt comfortable in doing is up to him. What I have said is that Wagner's use of imagery is not compatible with the Christianity of the New testament, a point you seem unable to fathom._


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> Wagner=Christian=antisemitism.


how is it paganism omitted?


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> Although I appreciate that you are clearly seeking information in order to become better informed in this area, I'm afraid that I'm not here either to fill up every little gap in your knowledge, or to respond to any chance documents you may care to throw at me. As you probably well know, whatever I say you will find some way to disagree with it.
> 
> However, in order to be as helpful as I can, I'd like to hear your considered views on the history of anti-semitism, having researched the situation to your satisfaction. If you find it somewhat difficult, there's no rush, just take your time.
> 
> Once you've gained a better appreciation, I look forward to finding out what you think have been the main features of anti-semitism down the ages. You might start by giving your opinion on the worst examples of this phenomenon. I would advise you that if you come up with "Christianity" then I fear that you have down down the wrong track. If that should happen, I'd advise that you start again and look out for the word "Holocaust". After that, the many post WW2 conflicts involving Israel and various Arab States would be worth looking at too. And, of course, there is the ever present threat by Iran to obliterate Israel given half a chance.
> 
> Once you've got all that vital information under your belt, you can then safely move on to look at examples of anti-semitism in earlier periods, if of course you think it worthwhile. If you do so, you might hit upon the name of Wagner. I wouldn't dwell too long on that aspect because it's very difficult and you might get stuck for a long time. Go back further into earlier centuries and you will probably find reference to Christian persecution of Jews.
> 
> Now here's the thing: what you have watch out for is avoid becoming confused with Christianity and Christendom. Specifically, you have to be careful to distinguish between instances of anti-semitism that probably resulted mainly from actions by civic authorities or individuals acting in isolation within parts of Christendom, as opposed to those resultying from Church teaching and those connected with the Church. This is often a source of misunderstanding, as it sometimes suits some people - especially those who are not well disposed towards religion - to blame it all on the Church.
> 
> Good luck with it all. I trust that you'll come back one day when you feel ready. Or possibly you might instead save a lot of time and just read my summary of the issues referred to above earlier today in my response to Woodduck.


This is sheer arrogance and calculated condescension. I sincerely hope that you would never try to speak this way to anyone in person. I recognize that your post is addressed to MacLeod, and I usually try to avoid intervening in other people's exchanges, but the crescendo of snark here floors me. I couldn't find it any more offensive if it were addressed to me personally. MacLeod has certainly done nothing to deserve it.

You should realize that it's very possible that the people who disagree with your perspective on this subject are not just making stuff up. Even those who don't have heads crammed with facts and figures pertaining to the historic prevalence of Christian antisemitism (whether because they've forgotten what they've read over the years or because they had no great interest in remembering it to begin with) have arrived at conceptions and conclusions to which they are as entitled as you are to yours. Half a dozen relevant articles have been offered here in support of their positions, but all you can say is "I'm afraid that I'm not here either to fill up every little gap in your knowledge, or to respond to any chance documents you may care to throw at me." With a dismissive attitude like that, you're inviting people to throw things at you other than "chance documents"!

I want to address just one paragraph of what you've written:

_"Now here's the thing: what you have to watch out for is avoid becoming confused with Christianity and Christendom. Specifically, you have to be careful to distinguish between instances of anti-semitism that probably resulted mainly from actions by civic authorities or individuals acting in isolation within parts of Christendom, as opposed to those resulting from Church teaching and those connected with the Church. This is often a source of misunderstanding, as it sometimes suits some people - especially those who are not well disposed towards religion - to blame it all on the Church."_

This is, I think, a misconception of what's been said here. It certainly doesn't characterize _my_ perception or position. I do not believe that anyone is "blaming 'it all' on the Church" (by which I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, since you capitalize it). I think we all recognize that in the persecution of the Jews there have been many actors, some officially sanctioned by church and state, others not. However, your breakdown of the possibilities omits (accidentally?) what may be the vast majority of these actors: those who act _in the name of religion_, and on beliefs and attitudes in some way derived or deduced from, whether or not directly sanctioned or permitted by, religious dogma and religious authorities. This is typical of religion-based discrimination and violence all through history: it need not be action initiated by religious institutions themselves, but it is nonetheless an expression of the beliefs of people who regard themselves as voices or defenders of whatever religious body they claim membership in. And these are not properly described as "individuals acting in isolation within parts of Christendom." Religion is not a mere "institution"; in times and places where religious beliefs permeate the culture, a command from the Pope or high priest is not needed for public sentiment to be inflamed and for thousands of infidels to be uprooted and killed and their homes burned to the ground. All that's needed is a conviction that _my_ religion is the true religion and _yours_ is both wrong and evil - or, at the very least, a trust that the prevailing religion can serve me as a excuse or a cover to indulge my own worst impulses and political ambitions. Every sort of atrocity can follow from that, and every sort has done so and continues to do so.

You have every right not to believe that the persistence and severity of antisemitism in the Common Era is to be attributed _in large part, directly or indirectly,_ to the assumption that Christianity is the only right religion and that the Jews, who refuse to accept its claims, are wrong and evil. But many people, even as they recognize other factors involved, do believe this to be the case, whether or not they are "well-disposed toward religion." I suspect that this may even be the majority opinion, and I'm afraid you're just going to have to live with it, no matter how much it raises your hackles.


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> Frankly I don't know what 'scholars' you follow but it is not the 'beast' that swipes the stars to earth but the dragon! In apocalyptic terms this has nothing to do with a flat earth geometry but with a cosmic rebellion. But you seem to have a bit of a thing about the flat earth. Yet I bet you still say, "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west" although scientifically it doesn't! There is *no tower in Daniel*, btw, as the Tower of Babel is found in Genesis. Nebuchadrezzar was walking on 'the roof of his palace' when he gloated over the glories of Babylon. We need to read the text not what people read into it. The language of the Genesis text presents no problems as you say for people for whom it was written and presents no problems for us today in that it presents cosmic facts in a way people could understand then and can still appreciate today.
> Your problem with Paul is that you do not appear to have grasped (and you are certainly not alone in this) the fact that his letters were written for specific situations and therefore certain statements should be interpreted in the light of his other writings. So the words, 'Now for the matters you wrote about' make it clear he addressing some particular issues the Corintihians (living in a place of huge pagan immortality) were concerned about. The frustrating thing is we don't know the question and have to guess it! Much of what Paul says is straightforward but when he comes to the 'unmarried' he makes it clear he is giving his own opinion, not a command from God. 'Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.' Maybe a plague was sweeping the city? Or persecution? Or something causing great difficulty? We don't know. People have misinterpreted Paul when he said 'the time is short' to mean he thought the world would end when he probably meant the time for the current crisis they were going through was short. It shows the difficulty of putting too much emphasis on something we don't really know the full background to. In any case, Paul tells them that marrying is certainly no sin. You talk about being open minded but your seminary teacher appears to have come with many Western preconceptions especially if he taught you that 'Jesus felt entitled to break any rule of Moses or reinterpreting any scripture of the past'. Of course he didn't break the law of Moses he kept it. What he didn't keep were the laws of men that had been imposed by the various religious groups. He actually interpreted the law of Moses to a higher standard, in fact.
> As to prophecy, *a general rule is it can have more than one application and often does*. There is the initial application as in the sign of Immannuel (where Balaam comes into this I don't know!) which was actually given before the two invading armies failed as a sign to Ahaz and the nation was saved. The second application was that picked up by Matthew's Gospel was the sign of the virgin conceiving in which the whole world was saved. And Jesus condemned knowledge? Where on earth? I think you somewhat have your prophecies mixed up.


Sorry for confusion, I was jumping around too much, and going by memory. Daniel spoke of a tree not a tower (Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."). It still talked about a flat earth. My point is if these people with divine knowledge could know the future, and we are to believe them, how could they not know the earth is not flat. To me it lessens their credibility.

The Jews did not accept a prophecy can have more than one application. Agree that Christians obviously do, since they are trying to validate Jesus as the Messiah, and reconcile when Jesus breaks the old law. Basically I was taught the Old Testament rules apply unless explicitly contravened by Jesus, not a very stable or solid system. I've even seen a book explain "the turn the other cheek" mentality with detailed limits. Anyway, back to the sign of Immanuel. The sign of Immanuel was already fulfilled in the OT, as far as the Jews are concerned. Once the invading armies left. It doesn't make sense the sign would come much later after the outcome in which the prophecy was made had already been decided. It was understood there was already a virgin birth to the effect of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:16 "for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." Also it couldn't be about Jesus since he always knew what was right and was sinless. But Christians conveniently ignore that part.

Here is another fulfilled 'prophecy' taken in the wrong context, basically wilful manipulation. Regarding John the Baptist, Matthew 3:3 "This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one *calling in the wilderness*, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" While the original words in Isaiah 40:3 "*A voice of one calling*: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." Notice that in Isaiah it is not a *voice in the wilderness*, that John the Baptist so conveniently was from, but a voice calling about the wilderness. Huge difference. John the Baptist was not a fulfillment of a prophecy. The voice is meant to be of an angel or something as later in the chapter in Isaiah the same voice: "A voice says, "Cry out!" And I asked, "What should I cry out?"". There is no way that voice was John the Baptist talking to Isaiah hundreds of years earlier. That was taken completely out of context in the New Testament. Personally after noting that discrepancy alone, I'm totally convinced the New Testament is an elaborate fraud. But there were others, a few that I illustrated. No, it wasn't my seminary teacher who encouraged this, he only said we all interpret the Bible based on our preconceptions regardless of what angle we take. The scribes and teachers of the law also know these discrepancies, why are they condemned when the fulfillment of the 'prophecy' was at best, not clear? (more like suspicious to me). I maintain there is reasonable doubt, which doesn't stem from interpretation alone.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> This is sheer arrogance and calculated condescension. I sincerely hope that you would never try to speak this way to anyone in person. I recognize that your post is addressed to MacLeod, and I usually try to avoid intervening in other people's exchanges, but the crescendo of snark here floors me. I couldn't find it any more offensive if it were addressed to me personally. MacLeod has certainly done nothing to deserve it.
> 
> You should realize that it's very possible that the people who disagree with your perspective on this subject are not just making stuff up. Even those who don't have heads crammed with facts and figures pertaining to the historic prevalence of Christian antisemitism (whether because they've forgotten what they've read over the years or because they had no great interest in remembering it to begin with) have arrived at conceptions and conclusions to which they are as entitled as you are to yours. Half a dozen relevant articles have been offered here in support of their positions, but all you can say is "I'm afraid that I'm not here either to fill up every little gap in your knowledge, or to respond to any chance documents you may care to throw at me." With a dismissive attitude like that, you're inviting people to throw things at you other than "chance documents"!
> 
> I want to address just one paragraph of what you've written:
> 
> _"Now here's the thing: what you have to watch out for is avoid becoming confused with Christianity and Christendom. Specifically, you have to be careful to distinguish between instances of anti-semitism that probably resulted mainly from actions by civic authorities or individuals acting in isolation within parts of Christendom, as opposed to those resulting from Church teaching and those connected with the Church. This is often a source of misunderstanding, as it sometimes suits some people - especially those who are not well disposed towards religion - to blame it all on the Church."_
> 
> This is, I think, a misconception of what's been said here. It certainly doesn't characterize _my_ perception or position. I do not believe that anyone is "blaming 'it all' on the Church" (by which I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, since you capitalize it). I think we all recognize that in the persecution of the Jews there have been many actors, some officially sanctioned by church and state, others not. However, your breakdown of the possibilities omits (accidentally?) what may be the vast majority of these actors: those who act _in the name of religion_, and on beliefs and attitudes in some way derived or deduced from, whether or not directly sanctioned or permitted by, religious dogma and religious authorities. This is typical of religion-based discrimination and violence all through history: it need not be action initiated by religious institutions themselves, but it is nonetheless an expression of the beliefs of people who regard themselves as voices or defenders of whatever religious body they claim membership in. And these are not properly described as "individuals acting in isolation within parts of Christendom." Religion is not a mere "institution"; in times and places where religious beliefs permeate the culture, a command from the Pope or high priest is not needed for public sentiment to be inflamed and for thousands of infidels to be uprooted and killed and their homes burned to the ground. All that's needed is a conviction that _my_ religion is the true religion and _yours_ is both wrong and evil - or, at the very least, a trust that the prevailing religion can serve me as a excuse or a cover to indulge my own worst impulses and political ambitions. Every sort of atrocity can follow from that, and every sort has done so and continues to do so.
> 
> You have every right not to believe that the persistence and severity of antisemitism in the Common Era is to be attributed _in large part, directly or indirectly,_ to the assumption that Christianity is the only right religion and that the Jews, who refuse to accept its claims, are wrong and evil. But many people, even as they recognize other factors involved, do believe this to be the case, whether or not they are "well-disposed toward religion." I suspect that this may even be the majority opinion, and I'm afraid you're just going to have to live with it, no matter how much it raises your hackles.


But surely Woodduck you would accept that there is no room for anti-Semitism if one reads the words of Jesus Christ himself? True Christianity will not tolerate it.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> Although I appreciate that you are clearly seeking information in order to become better informed in this area, I'm afraid that I'm not here either to fill up every little gap in your knowledge, or to respond to any chance documents you may care to throw at me. As you probably well know, whatever I say you will find some way to disagree with it.


I'm not here to "seek information in order to become better informed". I am here (in this particular set of exchanges) to respond to your assertion that there has never been any "official" policy permitting anti-semitism. I'm not asking you to fill gaps in my knowledge, (although if you are better informed than me, you might want to share a little pearl).

I'm asking as a bare minimum to acknowledge that there is evidence that both Anglican and Episcopal Churches (see, I'm not picking on the RCC) have themselves acknowledged in their own officlal publications, the part that their churches have historically played in anti-semitic behaviour down the centuries.

I'm asking you to comment on evidence that the Popes have, at times in the past, issued instructions that have been directly anti-semitic in their effects.

The fact that you are "not interested" in engaging with this debate undermines any claim you have to superior authority in this matter.



Partita said:


> Now here's the thing: what you have watch out for [etc]


Thanks for the tip 

If you feel compelled to advise me not to get confused, you can't have absorbed the point that I made in earlier posts, that it is difficult to establish what is official Christian Church policy, for three reasons. One, there are many branches of Christianity (in effect, no such thing as the Christian Church); two, the intertwining of the acts of church and state make it difficult to know what, in past history, belongs to church and which to state; three, the sheer length of that history. Furthermore, Christian authorities have in past times undoubtedly relied on the convenience of being able to hide behind state actions to further their own ends. In short, they have played politics as much as the politicians, and they still do. In the UK, it is officially sanctioned (the role of Church in the State, that is), built into our political system, and enacted every time the House of Lords sits. I have direct knowledge and experience of the influence of religious authority on state policy in my own field of state education.

So, kindly desist from lecturing me from your high tower. Thanks.

By the way, I cannot be held responsibile for the opinions of others. Post #460 in which the broad generalisation against Christianity as a whole is levelled again is not my post and I do not agree with it.



Woodduck said:


> I do not believe that anyone is "blaming 'it all' on the Church" (by which I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, since you capitalize it).


Alas, whilst you and I have been careful not to make such an assertion, MR at least has implied exactly that (perhaps explicitly so) with his simplistic "Wagner=Christian=antisemitism" formula. I note however that Partita prefers to debate with you than with MR and in doing so, tar us all with the same brush.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> This is sheer arrogance and calculated condescension. I sincerely hope that you would never try to speak this way to anyone in person. I recognize that your post is addressed to MacLeod, and I usually try to avoid intervening in other people's exchanges, but the crescendo of snark here floors me. I couldn't find it any more offensive if it were addressed to me personally. MacLeod has certainly done nothing to deserve it.
> 
> You should realize that it's very possible that the people who disagree with your perspective on this subject are not just making stuff up. Even those who don't have heads crammed with facts and figures pertaining to the historic prevalence of Christian antisemitism (whether because they've forgotten what they've read over the years or because they had no great interest in remembering it to begin with) have arrived at conceptions and conclusions to which they are as entitled as you are to yours. Half a dozen relevant articles have been offered here in support of their positions, but all you can say is "I'm afraid that I'm not here either to fill up every little gap in your knowledge, or to respond to any chance documents you may care to throw at me." With a dismissive attitude like that, you're inviting people to throw things at you other than "chance documents"!
> 
> I want to address just one paragraph of what you've written:
> 
> _"Now here's the thing: what you have to watch out for is avoid becoming confused with Christianity and Christendom. Specifically, you have to be careful to distinguish between instances of anti-semitism that probably resulted mainly from actions by civic authorities or individuals acting in isolation within parts of Christendom, as opposed to those resulting from Church teaching and those connected with the Church. This is often a source of misunderstanding, as it sometimes suits some people - especially those who are not well disposed towards religion - to blame it all on the Church."_
> 
> This is, I think, a misconception of what's been said here. It certainly doesn't characterize _my_ perception or position. I do not believe that anyone is "blaming 'it all' on the Church" (by which I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church, since you capitalize it). I think we all recognize that in the persecution of the Jews there have been many actors, some officially sanctioned by church and state, others not. However, your breakdown of the possibilities omits (accidentally?) what may be the vast majority of these actors: those who act _in the name of religion_, and on beliefs and attitudes in some way derived or deduced from, whether or not directly sanctioned or permitted by, religious dogma and religious authorities. This is typical of religion-based discrimination and violence all through history: it need not be action initiated by religious institutions themselves, but it is nonetheless an expression of the beliefs of people who regard themselves as voices or defenders of whatever religious body they claim membership in. And these are not properly described as "individuals acting in isolation within parts of Christendom." Religion is not a mere "institution"; in times and places where religious beliefs permeate the culture, a command from the Pope or high priest is not needed for public sentiment to be inflamed and for thousands of infidels to be uprooted and killed and their homes burned to the ground. All that's needed is a conviction that _my_ religion is the true religion and _yours_ is both wrong and evil - or, at the very least, a trust that the prevailing religion can serve me as a excuse or a cover to indulge my own worst impulses and political ambitions. Every sort of atrocity can follow from that, and every sort has done so and continues to do so.
> 
> You have every right not to believe that the persistence and severity of antisemitism in the Common Era is to be attributed _in large part, directly or indirectly,_ to the assumption that Christianity is the only right religion and that the Jews, who refuse to accept its claims, are wrong and evil. But many people, even as they recognize other factors involved, do believe this to be the case, whether or not they are "well-disposed toward religion." I suspect that this may even be the majority opinion, and I'm afraid you're just going to have to live with it, no matter how much it raises your hackles.


Well now, let's see what we have here. All sorts of things.

Yes, my post # 459 was in answer to MacLeod, as you recognise. It was my latest attempt to request that he stops asking me to comment on bits and pieces of so-called evidence he has chosen to lob in my direction, and instead to set out his own position clearly on this subject so that I can see what overall conclusions he has reached in forming an assessment of anti-semitism in general, and the relative importance of its various manifestations in the Medieval period and beyond. I do not care what he chooses to read for his own education, provided he comes up with an opinion that I can look at. I am not going to comment piecemeal on odd bits of his own selected research material, just to please him.

I have on several occasions set out what I consider to be an explanation of why I believe your and MB's pinning all the blame for anti-semitism on Christianity to be exaggerated. I have also pointed out that what the Nazis did in the context of the Holocaust, and various more recent activities of a hostile nature against Israel since 1945, should be taken into account, if this discussion is to have any chance of making any sense.

However, it seems that neither you nor Macleod want to pick up on any of this, but instead keep harping on about the alleged anti-semitism of the Church in bygone ages. It does seem very strange indeed that you have made very light of this 20th/21st Century aspect of history, despite my repeated references to it, and asking you to comment on how seriously you regard these instances of anti-semitism vis-à-vis the far more ancient ones going back into the Medieval period and the Dark Ages.

I do not know why you appear to want to ignore the Holocaust in this way, but I wonder whether perchance this may have something to do with your penchant for things German. This Forum knows how much you adore Wagner, especially as its chief defender against all criticism. You have gone to great lengths in other threads to create a mystique about his greatness in several spheres. On several occasions you have tried to sanitise his reputation in various ways. You have stated in many previous threads that you do not believe that Wagner's views impacted Nazi "philosophy" on race (if that's a suitable word to describe its abhorrent underpinnings). It leads me to wonder whether your chief motive in this thread has been to latch on to the idea that anti-semitism's chief roots are based in Christianity, so that it helps you create a big smokescreen around your favourite composer, Wagner, and his associations with the development of Nazi thought.

Moving on, even though my post was in answer to Macleod, I don't object to you commenting if you so wish but why do you take it upon yourself to be the arbiter of what constitutes _"sheer arrogance and calculated condescension"?_ I must say that I find your repeated comments of this nature more than a little irritating. They are especially irritating because you yourself have dished out more insulting comments than anyone in recent exchanges.

For example, in what's left of your post # 430 you stated _"God, what a pompous, nasty load of *horse manure*. Can't get enough of taking swipes at other people here, can you? "They say...", "some of them do...", blah blah blah. A nice little ego trip for you."_ It's a shame that you feel the need to descend to such gutter-level language in order to express yourself, but I wonder if this could be simply true colours coming out. For my part, I have done my best to avoid replying to your posts in a similarly arrogant way, or with any such insulting language. My responses to unsavoury comments by you, and various nit-picking ones by one or two others, have either been to ignore them or to state that I'm deliberately not going to respond to bait, which some have been, including MacLeod's latest one.

In my reference above to _"what's left of your post # 430_", I am referring to the fact that you have subsequently edited it considerably and simply left in the last insulting comment. Readers should glance back at 430 to see the evidence. What you edited out were several paragraphs trying to qualify what you had said in your previous posts in order to make your position more tenable. When I pointed the illogicality of your position in an earlier post replying to the full post before you edited it, you must have second thoughts about it and edited out all the stuff except the bit about "horse manure". That's quite devious behaviour, I would suggest.

Moving on further, as I have more recently pointed out (in the post quoted at the top), I think that quite probably a lot of the anti-semitism that took place in the Medieval period was carried out by individuals acting in isolation or by civic authorities, rather than due to direct action by the Church itself. Here, I drew a distinction between Christendom and Christianity.

I see that have picked up on this point. I guess you did so because it has worried you, judging from the length of your comment. I bet you had never thought of the distinction between Christendom and Christianity, did you? When I spotted your post first thing today commenting on this, I thought to myself I bet that caused Woodduck a problem. I could see your feet running around in quite agitated small circles wondering how to knock it on its head, to save face yet again. I am afraid that your comments look pathetic. A very large part of what is now Western Europe came under "Christendom". There were all sorts of different socio/economic and political systems in place against a general backcloth of religion. Some of the religion was probably of a very unsophisticated kind, as practised by the vast masses, especially given the generally low educational levels of the time.

Bearing all this in mind, it seems less surprising that occasional problems, that we would call anti-semitism today, may have occurred occasionally over a very long period of history, given the way Jews of the period tended to live in their own groups pursuing their own lifestyles separate from mainstream Christian communities. That's clearly not to express approval of any such incidents, but simply to note that it was to some extent inevitable given the sociological circumstances of the day. To this extent, the association of any such behaviour with the Church itself or its teaching is made weaker. By how much, I do not venture to suggest a strong opinion but I would guess that it could be by a significant amount.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> Sorry for confusion, I was jumping around too much, and going by memory. Daniel spoke of a tree not a tower (Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."). It still talked about a flat earth. My point is if these people with divine knowledge could know the future, and we are to believe them, how could they not know the earth is not flat. To me it lessens their credibility.
> 
> The Jews did not accept a prophecy can have more than one application. Agree that Christians obviously do, since they are trying to validate Jesus as the Messiah, and reconcile when Jesus breaks the old law. Basically I was taught the Old Testament rules apply unless explicitly contravened by Jesus, not a very stable or solid system. I've even seen a book explain "the turn the other cheek" mentality with detailed limits. Anyway, back to the sign of Immanuel. The sign of Immanuel was already fulfilled in the OT, as far as the Jews are concerned. Once the invading armies left. It doesn't make sense the sign would come much later after the outcome in which the prophecy was made had already been decided. It was understood there was already a virgin birth to the effect of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:16 "for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." Also it couldn't be about Jesus since he always knew what was right and was sinless. But Christians conveniently ignore that part.
> 
> Here is another fulfilled 'prophecy' taken in the wrong context, basically wilful manipulation. Regarding John the Baptist, Matthew 3:3 "This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one *calling in the wilderness*, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'" While the original words in Isaiah 40:3 "*A voice of one calling*: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." Notice that in Isaiah it is not a *voice in the wilderness*, that John the Baptist so conveniently was from, but a voice calling about the wilderness. Huge difference. John the Baptist was not a fulfillment of a prophecy. The voice is meant to be of an angel or something as later in the chapter in Isaiah the same voice: "A voice says, "Cry out!" And I asked, "What should I cry out?"". There is no way that voice was John the Baptist talking to Isaiah hundreds of years earlier. That was taken completely out of context in the New Testament. Personally after noting that discrepancy alone, *I'm totally convinced the New Testament is an elaborate fraud*. But there were others, a few that I illustrated. No, it wasn't my seminary teacher who encouraged this, he only said we all interpret the Bible based on our preconceptions regardless of what angle we take. The scribes and teachers of the law also know these discrepancies, why are they condemned when the fulfillment of the 'prophecy' was at best, not clear? (more like suspicious to me). I maintain there is reasonable doubt, which doesn't stem from interpretation alone.


For goodness sake, Daniel 4:11 is here talking about a VISION not a scientific investigation! It is not meant to be taken literally. Nebuchadrezzar was not a literal tree just like the tree didn't literally touch the sky. It was a dream! For goodness sake, if we keep interpreting things like this you with your modern Western mindset you miss the point entirely. 
I must confess I am gobsmacked that you can call something an 'elaborate fraud' because it does not interpret prophecy according to your literal Western mind. The prophecies in Isaiah 40 are Messianic and John was applying the Isaiah's prophecy (which does mean 'a voice crying in the wilderness' if you check the Hebrew). The people in John's day would have seen the fulfilment in John of the voice crying in the wilderness preparing the way for the Messiah. If you actually read the New testament (have you read it rather than some book about it?) the scribes and teachers are condemned for not bringing fruit for meet for repentance - ie for relying on their Abrahamic heritage rather than conforming to the law - not for not believing the prophecy.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> But surely Woodduck you would accept that there is no room for anti-Semitism if one reads the words of Jesus Christ himself? True Christianity will not tolerate it.


Of course. If we can tell anything genuine about him at all from the clearly embellished record of the Gospels, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who insisted that the principles of the Jewish religion ("every jot and tittle") were to be upheld by his followers, and whose goal as a teacher was to clarify the essential spirit behind the law. If there was ever a "true Christianity" it was the religion of his personal followers, and it bloomed briefly in Jerusalem but was soon marginalized by those who thought a less Jewish, more mystical Jesus would be more appealing to the pagan Hellenistic world. During a period rife with doctrinal disputes and "heresies," the church with the greatest appeal proceeded to conquer the West with ideas that Jews - and presumably Jesus himself - would not recognize. "True Christianity" has not had many adherents for the last two millennia, leaving plenty of room for antisemitism to flourish.

I'm not interested in arguing religion here, merely in looking at history.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> it seems that neither you nor Macleod want to pick up on any of this, but instead keep harping on about the alleged anti-semitism of the Church in bygone ages.


I'm not 'harping on'. I'm offering evidence in response to earlier posts.



Partita said:


> Can you provide any specific examples of where religious institutions subjected Jews to harsh treatment, recommended their persecution or restrictions on their civil rights, and advocated violence against their persons, property and livelihoods?


Yes, but in your own words, you are not interested in it.



Partita said:


> If you consider that these actions were indeed in accordance with standard Church teaching, how do you reconcile this with the various Papal Bulls issued at various times from the early Medieval period onwards that specifically instructed that Jews should not be subject to any such treatment, but rather that Christians are duty-bound to protect the Jews?


How do you reconcile your claim with the evidence I provided yesterday of edicts from two Popes which specifically instructed to treat Jews differently than Christians?



Partita said:


> Since it never has been part of Church teaching to persecute the Jews


See the evidence I've provided that contradicts your 'never'.



Partita said:


> I didn't ask you to carry out "extensive research" and nor would I expect it.


Interesting that you may not have been asking Woodduck to carry out extensive research, but you now ask me to "go away and read up", to "take my time".

I have no intention of doing any such thing, of course.


----------



## Jacck

Wagner's impact on the world


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> Yes, my post # 459 was in answer to MacLeod, as you recognise. It was my latest attempt to request that he stop asking me to comment on bits and pieces of so-called evidence he has chosen to lob in my direction, and instead to set out his own position clearly on this subject so that I can see what overall conclusions he has reached in forming an assessment of anti-semitism in general, and the relative importance of its various manifestations in the Medieval period and beyond.


MacLeod states his positions clearly, but you scorn them. When you ask for concrete bits of evidence, you reject references when they're offered. What could possibly please you? Anything short of penitence?



> I do not care what he chooses to read for his own education, provided he comes up with an opinion that I can look at. I am not going to comment piecemeal on odd bits of his own selected research material, just to please him.


I'm certain he doesn't require you to please him.



> I have on several occasions set out what I consider to be an explanation of why I believe your and MB's pinning all the blame for anti-semitism on Christianity to be exaggerated.


I have never pinned "all the blame" for antisemitism on Christianity. Why do you keep repeating that? Because the realization that my position is not that extreme would make all your huffing and puffing pointless? I've pretty well summarized my position in my last post. I'll thank you to stop misrepresenting it.



> I have also pointed out that what the Nazis did in the context of the Holocaust, and various more recent activities of a hostile nature against Israel since 1945, should be taken into account, if this discussion is to have any chance of making any sense. However, it seems that neither you nor Macleod want to pick up on any of this, but instead keep harping on about the alleged anti-semitism of the Church in bygone ages.


No one has denied the Holocaust's importance, and I, at least, do not blame it on the Church. As for discussing antisemitism and religion through the millennia, that isn't "harping."



> It does seem very strange indeed that you have made very light of this 20th/21st Century aspect of history, despite my repeated references to it, and asking you to comment on how seriously you regard these instances of anti-semitism vis-à-vis the far more ancient ones going back into the Medieval period and the Dark Ages.


I have never made light of Nazism. You need to drop that accusation right now.



> I do not know why you appear to want to ignore the Holocaust in this way, but I wonder whether perchance this may have something to do with your penchant for things German.


Actually I prefer things Scandinavian.



> This Forum knows how much you adore Wagner, especially as its chief defender against all criticism.


Only against ill-informed criticism. I talk about Wagner because I know about Wagner. Believe it or not, a lot of people appreciate my efforts.



> You have gone to great lengths in other threads to create a mystique about his greatness in several spheres. On several occasions you have tried to sanitise his reputation in various ways. You have stated in many previous threads that you do not believe that Wagner's views impacted Nazi "philosophy" on race (if that's a suitable word to describe its abhorrent underpinnings).


Read me more carefully. I'm much more nuanced than that. What I don't believe is the common but erroneous notion that Nazi "philosophy" is based on Wagner's antisemitic ideas. Nazi racial theories about the biological superiority of the "Aryan" races, including the notion of a "master race," were not accepted by Wagner. When these concepts were presented to him the year before he died by Gobineau, he argued against them.



> It leads me to wonder whether your chief motive in this thread has been to latch on to the idea that anti-semitism's chief roots are based in Christianity, so that it helps you create a big smokescreen around your favourite composer, Wagner, and his associations with the development of Nazi thought.


Stop wondering. Wagner doesn't need me to create any mystiques. His "associations" with Nazi thought tend to be spoken of in those terms by people who haven't done their homework and want to look smart. Since Wagner died 50 years before Hitler came to power, the "association" was, at best, one-sided.



> Moving on further, as I have more recently pointed out (in the post quoted at the top), I think that quite probably a lot of the anti-semitism that took place in the Medieval period was carried out by individuals acting in isolation or by civic authorities, rather than due to direct action by the Church itself. Here, I drew a distinction between Christendom and Christianity. I see that you have picked up on this point. I guess you did so because it has worried you, judging from the length of your comment.


Not worried at all. My comments were as long and as short as they needed to be.



> I bet you had never thought of the distinction between Christendom and Christianity, did you?


I'm not an idiot, Clyde. But you, evidently, can't read what I wrote.



> When I spotted your post first thing today commenting on this, I thought to myself I bet that caused Woodduck a problem. I could see your feet running around in quite agitated small circles wondering how to knock it on its head, to save face yet again. I am afraid that your comments look pathetic.


:lol: Have you ever considered doing standup?



> A very large part of what is now Western Europe came under "Christendom". There were all sorts of different socio/economic and political systems in place against a general backcloth of religion. Some of the religion was probably of a very unsophisticated kind, as practised by the vast masses, especially given the generally low educational levels of the time.


I know all that. But it's odd to describe religion as a "general backcloth." It's more like the dye the fabric of society is stained with. Too often a red dye.



> Bearing all this in mind, it seems less surprising that occasional problems, that we would call anti-semitism today, may have occurred occasionally over a very long period of history,


Is that really how you want to describe the history of the Jews? Have you bounced that off of any Jews?



> given the way Jews of the period tended to live in their own groups pursuing their own lifestyles separate from mainstream Christian communities. That's clearly not to express approval of any such incidents, but simply to note that it was to some extent inevitable given the sociological circumstances of the day. To this extent, the association of any such behaviour with the Church itself or its teaching is made weaker. By how much, I do not venture to suggest a strong opinion but I would guess that it could be by a significant amount.


Well, against your "guess" about what "could be a significant amount" of whatever, I will merely suggest that there could have been a "significant amount" of something else.

In parting, I will just lob this at you, to be scorned and ignored at your pleasure:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers.htm


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Of course. If we can tell anything genuine about him at all from the clearly embellished record of the Gospels, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who insisted that the principles of the Jewish religion ("every jot and tittle") were to be upheld by his followers, and whose goal as a teacher was to clarify the essential spirit behind the law. If there was ever a "true Christianity" it was the religion of his personal followers, and it bloomed briefly in Jerusalem but was soon marginalized by those who thought a less Jewish, more mystical Jesus would be more appealing to the pagan Hellenistic world.


Paul clarifies how the law was to be fulfilled in Romans 10:1-4

_Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they are zealous for God, but not on the basis of knowledge. Because they were ignorant of God's righteousness and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law, to bring righteousness to everyone who believes._

So too Galatians 3:1-5

_O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?

Are you so foolish? After starting in the Spirit, are you now finishing in the flesh? Have you suffered so much for nothing, if it really was for nothing? Does God lavish His Spirit on you and work miracles among you because you practice the law, or because you hear and believe?_

Clearly, the bible teaches only through faith and reliance in Christ would anyone achieve righteousness.



> During a period rife with doctrinal disputes and "heresies," the church with the greatest appeal proceeded to conquer the West with ideas that Jews - and presumably Jesus himself - would not recognize. "True Christianity" has not had many adherents for the last two millennia, leaving plenty of room for antisemitism to flourish.


Right - no one need assume that someone purporting to be a Christian is in any way following the true teaching of Christ.

BTW, my post is merely my understanding - I am not acting as a Christian apologist.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Paul clarifies how the law was to be fulfilled in Romans 10:1-4
> 
> _Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they are zealous for God, but not on the basis of knowledge. Because they were ignorant of God's righteousness and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law, to bring righteousness to everyone who believes._
> 
> So too Galatians 3:1-5
> 
> _O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
> 
> Are you so foolish? After starting in the Spirit, are you now finishing in the flesh? Have you suffered so much for nothing, if it really was for nothing? Does God lavish His Spirit on you and work miracles among you because you practice the law, or because you hear and believe?_
> 
> Clearly, the bible teaches only through faith and reliance in Christ would anyone achieve righteousness.
> 
> Right - no one need assume that someone purporting to be a Christian is in any way following the true teaching of Christ.
> 
> BTW, my post is merely my understanding - I am not acting as a Christian apologist.


What we're told in the Gospels that Jesus said his followers should think and do, and what Paul said that Jesus's followers should think and do, are not identical. Jesus tried to illuminate the spirit of the Jewish law where it was in danger of becoming mere observance, not to eliminate the law or make it optional for pagans. He stated this explicitly.

The religion of Jesus was Judaism, in which there was obviously no possibility of antisemitism arising. Christianity as we know it originates (so far as we can tell from the Bible) with Paul. It is no longer Judaism, hence no longer the religion of Jesus.


----------



## DavidA

'Of course. If we can tell anything genuine about him at all from the clearly embellished record of the Gospels, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who insisted that the principles of the Jewish religion ("every jot and tittle") were to be upheld by his followers, and whose goal as a teacher was to clarify the essential spirit behind the law. If there was ever a "true Christianity" it was the religion of his personal followers, and it bloomed briefly in Jerusalem but was soon marginalized by those who thought a less Jewish, more mystical Jesus would be more appealing to the pagan Hellenistic world.'

This is usually trotted out by those who have no understanding between abolition and fulfilment and no understanding whatever of the central message of Christianity - that of the crucified and risen messiah. The statement that the gospels are 'clearly embellished' is of course made with no proof whatsoever, as if this person writing 2000 years later knows better than the eyewitnesses at the time! But back to Jesus' statement about the law: He was answering the Pharisees who were accusing him of putting aside the law when actually he was putting aside their traditions (eg hand washing). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus actually raises the application of the moral law to a much higher standard if you care to read it. The 'law' was of course fulfilled (not abolished) in the death and resurrection of the Messiah Jesus as he explained to his disciples both on the Road to Emmaus and later on when he appeared to them over 40 days. The law was fulfilled in the crucified messiah which meant that there was a completely new ball game and a completely new world. The statement about Jesus just being a Jewish rabbi shows an ignorance about who the New testament tells us that Jesus actually was. You might not believe it but you might at least try and not trot out these tired old maxims which have been discredited. The statement that it 'bloomed briefly in Jerusalem' I find unbelievable as Christianity spread to the Roman empire. Sorry, but that is historical fact which these fantasies do not change!


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> Paul clarifies how the law was to be fulfilled in Romans 10:1-4
> 
> _Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they are zealous for God, but not on the basis of knowledge. Because they were ignorant of God's righteousness and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law, to bring righteousness to everyone who believes._
> 
> So too Galatians 3:1-5
> 
> _O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
> 
> Are you so foolish? After starting in the Spirit, are you now finishing in the flesh? Have you suffered so much for nothing, if it really was for nothing? Does God lavish His Spirit on you and work miracles among you because you practice the law, or because you hear and believe?_
> 
> *Clearly, the bible teaches only through faith and reliance in Christ would anyone achieve righteousness.
> *
> 
> Right - no one need assume that someone purporting to be a Christian is in any way following the true teaching of Christ.
> 
> BTW, my post is merely my understanding - I am not acting as a Christian apologist.


This is partially right but we must see what 'faith' means. The word 'pistes' does not just mean 'belief' but a 'faithfulness' and a 'total reliance upon'. The fact that for the Christian righteousness is imputed by Christ's faithfulness - we are saved by Christ's faithfulness in his obedience as sin bearer as the crucified Messiah and then through his resurrection proving that he had conquered the powers of sin and death. Only then, by putting our faith in him, is his righteousness imputed to us. ie righteousness is a gift 'by grace (ie a gift) are you saved through 'faith' (the means by which we accepted it). We do not achieve it - it is achieved for us.
The early church would have understood the word faith to mean far more than the superficial 'belief' we sometimes mean. They would have identified with the words of Jesus 'if any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.'


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> 'Of course. If we can tell anything genuine about him at all from the clearly embellished record of the Gospels, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who insisted that the principles of the Jewish religion ("every jot and tittle") were to be upheld by his followers, and whose goal as a teacher was to clarify the essential spirit behind the law. If there was ever a "true Christianity" it was the religion of his personal followers, and it bloomed briefly in Jerusalem but was soon marginalized by those who thought a less Jewish, more mystical Jesus would be more appealing to the pagan Hellenistic world.'
> 
> This is usually trotted out by those who have *no understanding between abolition and fulfilment and no understanding whatever of the central message of Christianity - that of the crucified and risen messiah.* *The statement that the gospels are 'clearly embellished' is of course made with no proof whatsoever, *as if this person writing 2000 years later knows better than the eyewitnesses at the time! But back to Jesus' statement about the law: He was answering the Pharisees who were accusing him of putting aside the law when actually he was putting aside their traditions (eg hand washing). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus actually raises the application of the moral law to a much higher standard if you care to read it.* The 'law' was of course fulfilled (not abolished) in the death and resurrection of the Messiah Jesus* as he explained to his disciples both on the Road to Emmaus and later on when he appeared to them over 40 days. *The law was fulfilled in the crucified messiah which meant that there was a completely new ball game* and a completely new world. The statement about Jesus just being a Jewish rabbi shows an ignorance about who the New testament tells us that Jesus actually was. You might not believe it but you might at least try and not trot out these tired old maxims which have been discredited. *The statement that it 'bloomed briefly in Jerusalem' I find unbelievable as Christianity spread to the Roman empire.* Sorry, but that is historical fact which these fantasies do not change!


These are the assumptions of Pauline Christianity, which you call historical facts. Don't pretend that this orthodoxy hasn't been disputed for centuries by people as well-informed as you.

What spread through the Roman Empire was Pauline Christianity, not the Judaism of Jesus and his disciples.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The statement that the gospels are 'clearly embellished' is of course made with no proof whatsoever, as if the person writing 2000 years later knows better than the eyewitnesses at the time! But back to Jesus' statement


Anyone who chooses to read the four gospels can see that the four accounts have a number of discrepancies that may be partly accounted for by the fact that they are not wholly first-hand witness testimony.

No matter. The fact is that your understanding of Christianity is as partial as everyone else's. No one here can lay claim to an authoritative perspective sufficient to show what Jesus said about antisemitism, or might have said about Wagner, who recedes further into the background the longer this thread rumbles on.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Anyone who chooses to read the four gospels can see that the four accounts have a number of discrepancies that may be partly accounted for by the fact that they are not wholly first-hand witness testimony.
> 
> No matter. The fact is that your understanding of Christianity is as partial as everyone else's. No one here can lay claim to an authoritative perspective sufficient to show what Jesus said about antisemitism, or might have said about Wagner, who recedes further into the background the longer this thread rumbles on.


I'd like to think that Jesus would have commissioned Wagner to write music for the resurrection. Actually, Wagner was at one point planning an opera called "Jesus of Nazareth." He remarked to someone, "What? Jesus a tenor? Pfui!"


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> These are the assumptions of Pauline Christianity, which you call historical facts. Don't pretend that this orthodoxy hasn't been disputed for centuries by people as well-informed as you.
> 
> What spread through the Roman Empire was Pauline Christianity, not the Judaism of Jesus and his disciples.


Pauline Christianity is Christianity if you take the trouble to actually read the New Testament. Unfortunately those who deny the historical facts of those who actually wrote them are those who engage in fantasies. Of course it has been disputed. It was disputed from the beginning as you can see in the New Testament itself. The teaching of a crucified Messiah was a 'skadalion' - a stumbling stone. The letters of Paul deal with the subject in detail. What is clear is that they follow on from the clear message of the gospels, and Jesus' teaching, that the Messiah should suffer for sins and rise again and that repentance and forgiveness of sins be preached starting at Jerusalem and then to the whole world. This differentiation between 'Pauline Christianity' and 'the Judaism of Jesus' is frankly based on ignorance and a total misunderstanding of Jesus' message. Whether you believe it or not, don';t pretend it isn't there. That is just pure fantasy.,


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Anyone who chooses to read the four gospels can see that the four accounts have a number of *discrepancies* that may be partly accounted for by the fact that they are not wholly first-hand witness testimony.
> 
> No matter. The fact is that your understanding of Christianity is as partial as everyone else's. No one here can lay claim to an authoritative perspective sufficient to show what Jesus said about antisemitism, or might have said about Wagner, who recedes further into the background the longer this thread rumbles on.


They have differences but of course differences are not necessarily discrepancies. You read a number of modern biographies and they are different because the biographer has different priorities and sees the thing from different perspectives. You can read two different accounts of a football match and wonder whether they were at the same game! And we haven't started on record reviews! My understanding of Christianity is based on the study of the best accounts we have, based around people who were there at the time. If that's being partial then I am quite happy to live with that rather than the jaded (and often uninformed) opinions of those who live 2000 years later.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> These are the assumptions of Pauline Christianity, which you call historical facts. Don't pretend that this orthodoxy hasn't been disputed for centuries by people as well-informed as you.
> 
> What spread through the Roman Empire was Pauline Christianity, not the Judaism of Jesus and his disciples.


I think that is correct. In reality, Christ was an apocalyptic prophet, who thought that the apocalypse would occur during his lifetime. When this "new world" came to be, everything would be reversed, in terms of power: the meek shall inherit the earth. The "kingdom of God" was going to be here, on Earth. It never came to be, did it? So Christianity morphed into something totally different than what Jesus had in mind.




DavidA said:


> Pauline Christianity is Christianity if you take the trouble to actually read the New Testament. Unfortunately those who deny the historical facts of those who actually wrote them are those who engage in fantasies. Of course it has been disputed. It was disputed from the beginning as you can see in the New Testament itself. The teaching of a crucified Messiah was a 'skadalion' - a stumbling stone. The letters of Paul deal with the subject in detail. What is clear is that they follow on from the clear message of the gospels, and Jesus' teaching, that the Messiah should suffer for sins and rise again and that repentance and forgiveness of sins be preached starting at Jerusalem and then to the whole world. This differentiation between 'Pauline Christianity' and 'the Judaism of Jesus' is frankly based on ignorance and a total misunderstanding of Jesus' message. Whether you believe it or not, don';t pretend it isn't there. That is just pure fantasy.,


News flash: Paul was Human, and in his past had actually killed many Christians.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> What we're told in the Gospels that Jesus said his followers should think and do, and what Paul said that Jesus's followers should think and do, are not identical. Jesus tried to illuminate the spirit of the Jewish law where it was in danger of becoming mere observance, not to eliminate the law or make it optional for pagans. He stated this explicitly.
> 
> The religion of Jesus was Judaism, in which there was obviously no possibility of antisemitism arising. Christianity as we know it originates (so far as we can tell from the Bible) with Paul. It is no longer Judaism, hence no longer the religion of Jesus.


Are you suggesting that the teaching of Paul - though his various epistles and whatever else is known about him - was somehow inconsistent with the views of his fellow apostles once they had chance to meet and ponder over the events and purpose of Jesus' life?

If you are suggesting something along these lines, then it would seem that you believe that the Church that Jesus set up was somehow inconsistent with his own teachings. This would be quite an incredible opinion to hold even by your generally lax standards of separating truth from fiction.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I think that is correct. In reality,* Christ was an apocalyptic prophet, who thought that the apocalypse would occur during his lifetime.* When this "new world" came to be, everything would be reversed, in terms of power: the meek shall inherit the earth. The "kingdom of God" was going to be here, on Earth. It never came to be, did it? So Christianity morphed into something totally different than what Jesus had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> News flash: Paul was Human, and in his past had actually *killed many Christians.*


Totally wrong I'm afraid! Another of your made up phrases. Apocalyptic prophet? What does that mean? Jesus never claimed to know when the apocalypse was coming. Rather the opposite in his words: 'But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.' If you would actually read the New testament rather than your own fantasies it would help. Your problem is that you completely misunderstand Christianity and its message.

Of course Paul was human and killed many Christians. He said so himself. Why are you telling us things that are quite obvious as if they are some form of gigantic discovery? That didn't, however, stop him being God's 'chosen instrument' to bring the gospel to the world.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> My understanding of Christianity is based on the study of the best accounts we have, based around people who were there at the time. *If that's being partial *then I am quite happy to live with that rather than the jaded (and often uninformed) opinions of those who live 2000 years later.


It is being partial, and we all have to live with it - yours, mine, Woodduck's, Partita's, MR's etc.

We don't live with it by claiming to speak with some definitive authority. We allow for the fact that not only have scholars argued about this for centuries, but even the church authorities have themselves changed their positions over time. That means that no definitive policy, or account on which to base policy exists.

BTW, how come the "2000 years later" point only applies to the jaded and uninformed? Or are you at least as old as Methuselah?


----------



## DavidA

Partita said:


> Are you suggesting that the teaching of Paul - though his various epistles and whatever else is known about him - was somehow inconsistent with the views of his fellow apostles once they had chance to meet and ponder over the events and purpose of Jesus' life?
> 
> If you are suggesting something along these lines, then it would seem that you believe that the Church that Jesus set up was somehow inconsistent with his own teachings. This would be quite an incredible opinion to hold even by *your generally lax standards of separating truth from fiction*.


It is of course a fantasy which used to be held by certain theologians who wanted to impose their own views on the New testament rather like a Regietheatre director wants to impose his views on an opera. .These things have nothing to do with the New testament when rightly read but are part of the fantasy of people who want to fit the message of the new testament into their own views. As I say Regietheatre. Sorry it's a fantasy! Thankfully these wild theories are now being rejected by modern Pauline theologians like Professor Tom Wright.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> If you are suggesting something along these lines, then it would seem that you believe that the Church that Jesus set up was somehow inconsistent with his own teachings. This would be quite an incredible opinion to hold even by your generally lax standards of separating truth from fiction.


Whatever Woodduck was suggesting, he can clarify for himself, but I would like to highlight your "Church Jesus set up". There's a whole theological parcel waiting to be unpacked, but since neither Jesus nor Paul are still around to comment on whether the Church we've got, and had for the last 2000 years looks like the Church Jesus set up, I guess we'll be disappointed.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Interesting that you may not have been asking Woodduck to carry out extensive research, but you now ask me to "go away and read up", to "take my time".
> 
> I have no intention of doing any such thing, of course.


I didn't ask Woodduck to do any "extensive research" because there was no need to. He has presumably carried out all the research he considers it necessary in order to reach whatever conclusions he has reached. I say "whatever" conclusions he has reached because I'm not entirely sure what these may be, given that he seems somewhat prone to editing chunks out of his previous posts, and finessng his original comments in ways to make them look less extreme.

In your case, as you have admitted, you are not well-informed on these matters and are seeking to gain further insights. In a spirit of helpfulness, what I have suggested to you is that it would be better if you were to read all the various links that you have dug up from the internet, digest what they tell you, pursue any others you may think could also be relevant. Once you have done all that and come back with your considered opinion on the subject, rather than merely asking questions, I repeat that I will gladly examine with care whatever you come up with.

Sadly, from comment above (last sentence) I note that you have no intention of doing anything along those lines. Are you sure you won't reconsider? I did note from another thread that you are now retired so maybe it won't take you quite so long to wade through through all the guff you have so diligently assembled.

I'm sorry to say so again but I'm going to play tutor to you by way of offering comments on any of this material. if you remain adamant and will not read the stuff that you want me to read then it makes me wonder whether you are serious about acquiring knowledge in this area, and that your chief aim is to take a mischievous poke at me.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> duplicate post


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> your chief aim is to take a mischievous poke at me.


[email protected]! You've found me out.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Just a friendly reminder: the concept of religion and mythology has nothing to do with reality, facts and science, but everything with assumptions, various opinions and belief. So, you can fight each other until death (and perhaps resurrection?:angel, but it doesn't matter....just negative energy sources.

The only fact of the matter is that religion up to this day has incredibly more impact on the world than Wagner(ism) will ever have. It depends if you consider Wagnerism to be a religion in its own right (some of you seem to do that). I think considering Wagnerism as a religion is not appropriate, I guess you could call it a cult.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Whatever Woodduck was suggesting, he can clarify for himself, but I would like to highlight your "Church Jesus set up". There's a whole theological parcel waiting to be unpacked, but since neither Jesus nor Paul are still around to comment on whether the Church we've got, and had for the last 200 years looks like the Church Jesus set up, I guess we'll be disappointed.


Interesting how people can complicate the obvious. The word 'church' in the NT (ekklesia) means 'called out ones'. It is not an institution but a gathering of people who follow Jesus the Messiah. It was and is a totally radical concept (quite unlike the buildings and stained glass windows that often pass for Christianity) and was seen so in its day. Why Jesus was crucified and why Paul had riots everywhere he preached.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Just a friendly reminder: the concept of religion and mythology *has nothing to do with reality, facts and science*, but everything with assumptions, various opinions and belief. So, you can fight each other until death (and perhaps resurrection?:angel, but it doesn't matter....just negative energy sources.
> 
> The only fact of the matter is that religion up to this day has incredibly more impact on the world than Wagner(ism) will ever have. It depends if you consider Wagnerism to be a religion in its own right (some of you seem to do that). I think considering Wagnerism as a religion is not appropriate, I guess you could call it a cult.


Interesting that some of the greatest scientists like Newton, Faraday and Maxwell found that religion and science could live together very well in their own lives, their faith and science complementing each other. Christianity is not built on assumptions but history. It is a positive energy source! :lol:


----------



## Bourdon

DavidA said:


> Interesting that some of the greatest scientists like Newton, Faraday and Maxwell found that religion and science could live together very well in their own lives, their faith and science complementing each other. Christianity is not built on assumptions but history. It is a positive energy source! :lol:


*Yeah,people get hypnotized by it.*


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Whatever Woodduck was suggesting, he can clarify for himself, but I would like to highlight your "Church Jesus set up". There's a whole theological parcel waiting to be unpacked, but since neither Jesus nor Paul are still around to comment on whether the Church we've got, and had for the last 200 years looks like the Church Jesus set up, I guess we'll be disappointed.


I assume you mean 2000 years.

Obviously I meant the church Jesus entrusted to his apostles, chief among whom at the time of his death was St Peter. Later to join them was St Paul. I wouldn't necessarily quibble over certain later "reformed" churches provided they remained trinitarian.

As far as I recall from my reading of the early history of Christianity, there were several areas where it took several years to straighten out all the issues so as to reach a common agreement amongst them all of the main issues that identified Christianity as distinct from Judaism.

The Pauline influence view on a number of important issues, e.g. access to the church by gentiles, was extremely important in shaping all this. His letter to the Romans was of key importance in forming the fundamental theology.

To suggest that the result of these developments in the form of the early Christian church was somehow alien to Jesus' teaching, as stated by Woodduck, is ludicrous.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Interesting that some of the greatest scientists like Newton, Faraday and Maxwell found that religion and science could live together very well in their own lives, their faith and science complementing each other.


From what I understand of human nature, professing atheism by scientists is more difficult socially than professing some religious belief. But I decided to look into what is known. Examining data from four sources--Ecklund, Pew, AAAS, NAS--it appears that professed atheists comprise a range between 30% and 49% of US scientists. The NAS survey asked who believed "in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer". 7% answered yes. The above figures contrast with figures of 6-10% of the US general public saying there is no god, while 15% have no religious affiliation. Another interesting factoid from the NAS figures is that the older you are (as a scientist), the less you are a believer. 18-24 year olds are 32% atheists, 35-49 year olds are 42%, for 50-64 it's 44%, and for 65+ it's 48%.


----------



## DavidA

Bourdon said:


> *Yeah,people get hypnotized by it.*


Oh yes? Can you relate how I was hypnotised and how? Amazing how people love these meaningless cliches! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> From what I understand of human nature, professing atheism by scientists is more difficult socially than professing some religious belief. But I decided to look into what is known. Examining data from four sources--Ecklund, Pew, AAAS, NAS--it appears that professed atheists comprise a range between 30% and 49% of US scientists. The NAS survey asked who believed "in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer". 7% answered yes. The above figures contrast with figures of 6-10% of the US general public saying there is no god, while 15% have no religious affiliation. Another interesting factoid from the NAS figures is that the older you are (as a scientist), the less you are a believer. 18-24 year olds are 32% atheists, 35-49 year olds are 42%, for 50-64 it's 44%, and for 65+ it's 48%.


well God is no doubt interested in these figures. He'll no doubt take a democratic vote on whether he is to exist or not! :lol:

Note that truth is truth whether everyone believes it or no-one believes it!


----------



## Bourdon

DavidA said:


> Oh yes? Can you relate how I was hypnotised and how? Or just another inaccuracy among many? Amazing how people love these meaningless cliches! :lol:


First of all,it was not personally meant,so I apologize if it looked that way,look what is going on in the world today in the name of religion.


----------



## DavidA

Bourdon said:


> First of all,it was not personally meant,so I apologize if it looked that way,look what is going on in the world today in the name of religion.


It is a pretty meaningless statement because it is certainly not accurate about what is going on where we are!


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> I assume you mean 2000 years.


Yes, I meant 2000 years. I've corrected my error. Thanks


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> well God is no doubt interested in these figures. He'll no doubt take a democratic vote on whether he is to exist or not! :lol:
> 
> Note that truth is truth whether everyone believes it or no-one believes it!


Just reporting the facts.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> I wouldn't necessarily quibble over certain later "reformed" churches provided they remained trinitarian.


I wouldn't quibble either over the differences of opinion between Protestant and Catholic churches that have led to considerable bloodshed over the years. To quibble would be absurd.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Just reporting the facts.


Well the 'facts' as some kind of poll has made them out. And we all know how accurate (or otherwise) polls can be! :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Well the 'facts' as some kind of poll has made them out. And we all know how accurate (or otherwise) polls can be! :lol:


Just reporting the facts.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Just reporting the facts.


No the results of a poll.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> No the results of a poll.


And those results are factual. Whether this specific poll accurately represents the various proportions of atheists, believers etc is of course open to dispute. But these results are factual.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Interesting how people can complicate the obvious. The word 'church' in the NT (ekklesia) means 'called out ones'. It is not an institution but a gathering of people who follow Jesus the Messiah. It was and is a totally radical concept (quite unlike the buildings and stained glass windows that often pass for Christianity) and was seen so in its day. Why Jesus was crucified and why Paul had riots everywhere he preached.


Interesting  how you think someone is "complicating" the obvious. What's obvious to me is that we only have the opinions of others handed down through history of what "church" Jesus wanted to set up. So we have no way of knowing whether what we currently have, or have had over the past 2000 years, is what Jesus wanted. We may make an educated guess by studying what he reportedly said to his disciples and to others who heard him speak - but that's still just hearsay. This all seems quite simple and obvious to me.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Interesting that some of the greatest scientists like Newton, Faraday and Maxwell found that religion and science could live together very well in their own lives, their faith and science complementing each other. Christianity is not built on assumptions but history. It is a positive energy source! :lol:


Science is threatening to worldly religious powers, as basic scientific research undermines all religious assumptions. And when there is proof there was no God-creature who created earth and human life in 7 days, all wordly religious powerhouses would loose their reason of being (which would be a giant relief!). So, the old scientists you mention were probably only saving their lives or their science budgets in openly committing to religion. I don't think Darwin was one of them.

Actually it is shocking how much power religions still have to this day: to decide how people behave, how people dress, that it is OK (and legitimized) to kill someone who openly criticizes your religion, to start a war, killing endless numbers of people.

The French are pretty clear in dividing church and state. Imagine each country would follow them, what kind of heaven on earth we would live in!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

NLAdriaan said:


> Science is threatening to worldly religious powers, as basic scientific research undermines all religious assumptions. And when there is proof there was no God-creature who created earth and human life in 7 days, all wordly religious powerhouses would loose their reason of being (which would be a giant relief!). So, the old scientists you mention were probably only saving their lives or their science budgets in openly committing to religion. I don't think Darwin was one of them.
> 
> Actually it is shocking how much power religions still have to this day: to decide how people behave, how people dress, that it is OK (and legitimized) to kill someone who openly criticizes your religion, to start a war, killing endless numbers of people.
> 
> The French are pretty clear in dividing church and state. Imagine each country would follow them, what kind of heaven on earth we would live in!


Would you volunteer to go to the middle east and tell the muslims that there is no God.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Science is threatening to worldly religious powers, as basic scientific research undermines all religious assumptions. And when there is proof there was no God-creature who created earth and human life in 7 days, all wordly religious powerhouses would loose their reason of being (which would be a giant relief!). *So, the old scientists you mention were probably only saving their lives or their science budgets in openly committing to religion*. I don't think Darwin was one of them.
> 
> Actually it is shocking how much power religions still have to this day: to decide how people behave, how people dress, that it is OK (and legitimized) to kill someone who openly criticizes your religion, to start a war, killing endless numbers of people.
> 
> The French are pretty clear in dividing church and state. Imagine each country would follow them, what kind of heaven on earth we would live in!


Frankly your posts get funnier as time goes on. What scientific research undermines religious assumptions? Science assumes a rational universe and therefore one which was created by a rational mind and not unguided forces. If the latter is so then we don;'t even know whether out so-called rationality is rational as we are not made by a rational being. You appear expert in speaking about things you appear to know nothing about as it was Maxwell's equations that are the basis for all modern electro-magnetics and therefore all modern life and his faith was certainly not saving his science budget. Having written on him I can affirm this. You really need to talk about what you know rather than these wild statements. 
In authorising people to kill other people it's interesting that the greatest mass murderers of the last century were all atheists who killed countless believers as well as countless people who they saw as a threat. So I think atheists need to put their own house in order on this one.
Heaven on earth in dividing state and religion? I am one who agrees with that anyway. Heaven on earth was seen during the Great Terror of the French Revolution no doubt.
Actually I suggest you go and live in the officially atheist state of North Korea and you will find the Utopia all atheists crave! :lol:

PS the other official atheist state was Albania but they seemed to get tired of that Utopia too! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Interesting  how you think someone is "complicating" the obvious. What's obvious to me is that we only have the opinions of others handed down through history of what "church" Jesus wanted to set up. So we have no way of knowing whether what we currently have, or have had over the past 2000 years, is what Jesus wanted. We may make an educated guess by studying what he reportedly said to his disciples and to others who heard him speak - but that's still just hearsay. This all seems quite simple and obvious to me.


Well of course you can say that of any history. What is obvious to me is that we have some pretty naive reports of Jesus' life carefully written by people who were so convinced of the truth that they laid down their lives. You can actually say the same as you said about any ancient history but the fact is that when we can check the gospels appear remarkably accurate. What is to you hearsay is to others history. Or perhaps all ancient history is merely 'hearsay' to you, using the same rule?


----------



## NLAdriaan

> Would you volunteer to go to the middle east and tell the muslims that there is no God.


Well, I would probably be shot with a weapon delivered by your country, paid for by myself at the gas station round the corner

But let's stay closer to home, how about Christianity? Anti-abortion laws are coming back in the US and are purely religious motivated, while in fact only inspired by male white dominance. In both our countries, we have had the issue of child-abuse within the Catholic Church. Let's take care of this. And let Muslims take care of their own business.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Well, I would probably be shot with a weapon delivered by your country, paid for by myself at the gas station round the corner
> 
> But let's stay closer to home, how about Christianity? Anti-abortion laws are coming back in the US and are purely religious motivated, while in fact only inspired by male white dominance. In both our countries, we have had the issue of child-abuse within the Catholic Church. Let's take care of this. And let Muslims take care of their own business.


A weapon delivered by my country? What country?

Well if you think killing unborn children is OK then you support abortion. I never have as I believe the taking of life is wrong. Funny that people like you who make these sort of statements have had a right to be born! Btw I have heard some things in my time but 'inspired by male white dominance' is a new one on me. Do you make these things up yourself? :lol:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

NLAdriaan said:


> Well, I would probably be shot with a weapon delivered by your country, paid for by myself at the gas station round the corner
> 
> But let's stay closer to home, how about Christianity? Anti-abortion laws are coming back in the US and are purely religious motivated, while in fact only inspired by male white dominance. In both our countries, we have had the issue of child-abuse within the Catholic Church. Let's take care of this. And let Muslims take care of their own business.


Muslims are moving into the Netherlands in large numbers think they will like ideas of atheists any better than the muslims in the middle east?


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Frankly your posts get funnier as time goes on. What scientific research undermines religious assumptions? Science assumes a rational universe and therefore one which was created by a rational mind and not unguided forces. If the latter is so then we don;'t even know whether out so-called rationality is rational as we are not made by a rational being. You appear expert in speaking about things you appear to know nothing about as it was Maxwell's equations that are the basis for all modern electro-magnetics and therefore all modern life and his faith was certainly not saving his science budget. Having written on him I can affirm this. You really need to talk about what you know rather than these wild statements.
> In authorising people to kill other people it's interesting that the greatest mass murderers of the last century were all atheists who killed countless believers as well as countless people who they saw as a threat. So I think atheists need to put their own house in order on this one.
> Heaven on earth in dividing state and religion? I am one who agrees with that anyway. Heaven on earth was seen during the Great Terror of the French Revolution no doubt.
> Actually I suggest you go and live in the officially atheist state of North Korea and you will find the Utopia all atheists crave! :lol:
> 
> PS the other official atheist state was Albania but they seemed to get tired of that Utopia too! :lol:


You obviously didn't write about the French revolution, as you don't have a clue. And if you can't figure out how science would undermine fundamental Christian religious assumptions, well, you must be a firm believer:lol:

Maybe you could explain to us dummies how it works: Christian science. Where is the proof that it all happened as it was written? And if you can't deliver proof, what is the value and foundation of your own writings and on your outrageously empty accusations to anyone who doesn't agree with you? Am really curious!


----------



## NLAdriaan

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Muslims are moving into the Netherlands in large numbers think they will like ideas of atheists any better than the muslims in the middle east?


What exactly are the 'large numbers' you mention? Why exactly would Muslims be willing to leave the middle east at all? And the tiny percentage of Muslims who are actually made angry and willing to harm us, what could be their logical motivation or of the Imam or Ayatollah?

But all things aside, you didn't say anything yet about the influence of Christian fundamentalism in your state of Texas?


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> You obviously didn't write about the French revolution, as you don't have a clue. And if you can't figure out how science would undermine fundamental Christian religious assumptions, well, you must be a firm believer:lol:
> 
> Maybe you could explain to us dummies how it works: Christian science. Where is the proof that it all happened as it was written? And if you can't deliver proof, what is the value and foundation of your own writings and on your outrageously empty accusations to anyone who doesn't agree with you? Am really curious!


You obviously haven't read about the French Revolution from what you have put let alone write about it. You really need to get clued up before you accuse others of not having a clue! As you have given no explicit idea of how science will undermine faith and I have been trained as a scientist, then you are really pushing a lost cause! I just cannot see how my faith undermines the experiments I did on superconductive electron tunnelling. But perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten me with your immense knowledge on the subject?
Perhaps before I start may I ask you where is the proof of the outrageously empty accusations you yourself make to anyone who doesn't agree with you. You are the one who started this conversation. Now prove to me that your propositions are correct. You really need to put your own house in order before you start accusing others.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Well of course you can say that of any history. What is obvious to me is that we have some pretty naive reports of Jesus' life carefully written by people who were so convinced of the truth that they laid down their lives. *You can actually say the same as you said about any ancient history* but the fact is that *when we can check the gospels appear remarkably accurate.* What is to you hearsay is to others history. Or *perhaps all ancient history is merely 'hearsay' to you, using the same rule?*


The key phrase here is "when we can check." Unfortunately, the life and sayings of Jesus, along with most of the rest of so-called Biblical history, are not checkable by the usual method of consulting outside sources. Stories of virgin births and resurrections are not comparable to "all ancient history." What they're comparable to, and are, is ancient mythology.

The collection of writings that were more or less approved by the 5th century as "the Bible" because they could be rationalized to fit with the then-dominant dogmas of Christianity is a potpourri of myth, poetry, history, allegory and propaganda.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> From what I understand of human nature, professing atheism by scientists is more difficult socially than professing some religious belief. But I decided to look into what is known. Examining data from four sources--Ecklund, Pew, AAAS, NAS--it appears that professed atheists comprise a range between 30% and 49% of US scientists. The NAS survey asked who believed "in a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer". 7% answered yes. The above figures contrast with figures of 6-10% of the US general public saying there is no god, while 15% have no religious affiliation. Another interesting factoid from the NAS figures is that the older you are (as a scientist), the less you are a believer. 18-24 year olds are 32% atheists, 35-49 year olds are 42%, for 50-64 it's 44%, and for 65+ it's 48%.


Why do you place emphasis on the opinions expressed by scientists compared with those of the population at large?

From the Pew Research you refer to above, I've had a quick look at it, and it shows that among scientists 51% believe in some form of deity or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power.

The 51% for scientists is a figure that is somewhat higher than might have been expected from the tone of your comment, but the 95% for the general population is very highly, surely, and should have been given greater prominence in your post.

Do you have any reason for suggesting that scientists are more likely to have hit upon the "truth" about the existence of God than non-scientists?

For example, do you know personally know any scientists who have studied God and decided that such a "being" doesn't exist? Did you ask about their methodology for probing this matter?

Or possibly, you know a scientist who hasn't studied God but knows a thing or two about, say, biology. Are you more impressed with his/her opinion about the existence of God compared with the guy who possibly delivers your mail, or works in the local pharmacy, or is a school-teacher of music or drama or English? Why precisely?

Whether or not you can provide an answer to my question above, if you believe that scientists are more likely than non-scientists to have reached the "correct" verdict on the existence of God (whatever "cortrect" is), would you advocate giving such people more importance in regard to other issues, not related to God. For example, do you think that their political opinions should carry more weight than those of non-scientists? If so, how might this work?

If you think I'm being cynical about your implied opinion about the extra value of scientists' opinions about the existence of God, you'd be absolutely right.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> A weapon delivered by my country? What country?


Johnnie's country (the USA), presumably. After all, the post was addressed to him.



DavidA said:


> Well of course you can say that of any history. What is obvious to me is that we have some pretty naive reports of Jesus' life carefully written by people who were so convinced of the truth that they laid down their lives. You can actually say the same as you said about any ancient history but the fact is that when we can check the gospels appear remarkably accurate. What is to you hearsay is to others history. Or perhaps all ancient history is merely 'hearsay' to you, using the same rule?


If I am to consider the proposition that the teachings of a man born 2000 years ago, perpetuated by his "church" since that time, hold the secret of eternal life, then I would want to apply a degree of evidence similar to both the courtroom and to any other claims made of historical figures.

So, yes, I would apply similar standards to all history - recent as well as ancient. As you'll note, it's hard enough establishing unanimity about what Wagner believed, when we have a great deal more first hand evidence in his case. How much more difficult is it with a figure like Jesus to establish what he intended by his "church", and consequently, whether the various policies and practices of the "official" churches are actually consistent with what Jesus wanted.

Partita prefers not to comment on the bits of history I've been allegedly lobbing at him, but it seems clear to me on a fairly cursory search for evidence that the Christian churches have not all acted consistently and coherently with each other - note the well-documented schisms - never mind with Jesus actual intent.

I referred previously to the Fourth Lateran Council:



> The *Fourth Council of the Lateran* was convoked by Pope Innocent III with the papal bull _Vineam domini Sabaoth_ of 19 April 1213, and the Council gathered at Rome's Lateran Palace beginning 11 November 1215.[SUP][1][/SUP] Due to the great length of time between the Council's convocation and meeting, many bishops had the opportunity to attend. It is considered by the Catholic Church to have been the twelfth ecumenical council and is sometimes called the "Great Council" or "General Council of Lateran" due to the presence of 71 patriarchs and metropolitan bishops, 412 bishops, 900 abbots and priors together with representatives of several monarchs.


So, it would seem that this was a fairly official meeting, yes? Not some aberrant or extreme version of Christianity that can be lightly dismissed?

Let's look at what the Pope confirmed as church policy:



> *67. Jews and excessive Usury* The more the Christian religion is restrained from usurious practices, so much the more does the perfidy of the Jews grow in these matters, so that within a short time they are exhausting the resources of Christians. Wishing therefore to see that Christians are not savagely oppressed by Jews in this matter, we ordain by this synodal decree that if Jews in future, on any pretext, extort oppressive and excessive interest from Christians, then they are to be removed from contact with Christians until they have made adequate satisfaction for the immoderate burden.


and



> *68. Jews appearing in public*
> A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every Christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress


and



> *69. Jews not to hold public offices*
> It would be too absurd for a blasphemer of Christ to exercise power over Christians. We therefore renew in this canon, on account of the boldness of the offenders, what the council of Toledo providently decreed in this matter : we forbid Jews to be appointed to public offices, since under cover of them they are very hostile to Christians.


http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#67

Is this the church that Jesus wanted established in his name?

Let me be clear. I am not claiming that these policies are still pertinent; nor that the Christian churches were wholly responsible for anti-semitism because they officially sanctioned such practices.

I am simply rejecting the proposition that Partita put forward previously that there has never been any official anti-semitic policy in the Christian churches.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> Why do you place emphasis on the opinions expressed by scientists compared with those of the population at large?


You might like to read the post by DavidA to which Strange Magic posted the response you question.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Johnnie's country (the USA), presumably. After all, the post was addressed to him.
> 
> If I am to consider the proposition that the teachings of man born 2000 years ago, perpetuated by his "church" since that time, hold the secret of eternal life, then I would want to apply a similar degree of evidence to both the courtroom and to any other claims made of historical figures.
> 
> So, yes, I would apply similar standards to all history - recent as well as ancient. As you'll note, it's hard enough establishing unanimity about what Wagner believed, and we have a great deal more first hand evidence in his case. How much more difficult is it with a figure like Jesus to establish what he intended by his "church", and consequently, whether the various policies and practices of the "official" churches are actually consistent with what Jesus wanted.
> 
> Partita prefers not to comment on the bits of history I've been allegedly lobbing at him, but it seems clear to me on a fairly cursory search for evidence that the Christian churches have not all acted consistently and coherently with each other - note the well-documented schisms - never mind with Jesus actual intent.
> 
> I referred previously to the Fourth Lateran Council:
> 
> So, it would seem that this was a fairly official meeting, yes? Not some aberrant or extreme version of Christianity that can be lightly dismissed?
> 
> Let's look at what the Pope confirmed as church policy:
> 
> and
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#67
> 
> Is this the church that Jesus wanted established in his name?


Interesting that many legal men have testified that if the evidence for the resurrection of Christ was presented in court it would be accepted. I had the privilege of hearing and talking to Professor Norman Anderson on the subject who at the time was one of Britain's top lawyers. He affirmed the evidence for Christ's resurrection to a hall of students most convincingly. The evidence of legal historical evidence such has convinced many sceptics who have actually studied it with an open mind. 
With Wagner we are concerned with what he thought and that is not difficult from his writings. We know what Jesus taught from what is recorded in the gospels by first hand accounts. Of course it's not difficult focus to see what Jesus meant by his church - unless you want to make difficulties. The word itself explains it. It is the congregation of the followers of Christ not some politicised institution. It certainly isn't the politicised version you keep lobbing out statements from. Sorry mate, but this is out of court stuff and has no bearing on the faith of the Jewish Messiah. It is an aberration and you know it as any intelligent person does. I just don't know what you aim to gain by this sort of stuff unless to reinforce your own prejudices. I don't believe it and neither does anyone else probably.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It is an aberration and you know it as any intelligent person does.


So Pope Innocent, head of the church at that time, was not upholding the teachings of Christ? Thank you. That's all I wanted to establish.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> So Pope Innocent, head of the church at that time, was not upholding the teachings of Christ? Thank you. That's all I wanted to establish.


Absolutely! Where in the teachings of Christ were those things?


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> You might like to read the post by DavidA to which Strange Magic posted the response you question.


Yes, God is having to reconsider his existence because of this poll! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> The key phrase here is "when we can check." Unfortunately, the life and sayings of Jesus, along with most of the rest of so-called Biblical history, are not checkable by the usual method of consulting outside sources. Stories of virgin births and resurrections are not comparable to "all ancient history." What they're comparable to, and are, is ancient mythology.
> 
> The collection of writings that were more or less approved by the 5th century as "the Bible" because they could be rationalized to fit with the then-dominant dogmas of Christianity is a potpourri of myth, poetry, history, allegory and propaganda.


You are of course totally wrong in this. The writings that consist of our New testament were considered scripture long before the 5th century. Of course virgin births and resurrections are not comparable - that is why Jesus is the Son of God. If they didn't happen then forget the Christian faith. But as people with greater expertise than me have pointed out the gospels do not read like myths. The problem with people like you is that you make did statements which are totally unprovable, and think they are fact. The documents were not, in fact included 'because they could be rationalized to fit with the then-dominant dogmas of Christianity is a potpourri of myth, poetry, history, allegory and propaganda'. This is a typical wild and unproven statement which does not bare examination with what actually happened and how the New testament writings came into being. I would point you to Professor F F Bruce's study on 'The New Testament Documents - are they reliable' which actually examines these issues in a scholarly fashion rather than with wild statements


----------



## Phil loves classical

DavidA said:


> For goodness sake, Daniel 4:11 is here talking about a VISION not a scientific investigation! It is not meant to be taken literally. Nebuchadrezzar was not a literal tree just like the tree didn't literally touch the sky. It was a dream! For goodness sake, if we keep interpreting things like this you with your modern Western mindset you miss the point entirely.
> I must confess I am gobsmacked that you can call something an 'elaborate fraud' because it does not interpret prophecy according to your literal Western mind. The prophecies in Isaiah 40 are Messianic and John was applying the Isaiah's prophecy (which does mean 'a voice crying in the wilderness' if you check the Hebrew). The people in John's day would have seen the fulfilment in John of the voice crying in the wilderness preparing the way for the Messiah. If you actually read the New testament (have you read it rather than some book about it?) the scribes and teachers are condemned for not bringing fruit for meet for repentance - ie for relying on their Abrahamic heritage rather than conforming to the law - not for not believing the prophecy.


Yes, I've read the entire Old and New Testaments twice. Also went to countless Bible studies, etc. As a bit of background. I was a hardcore Christian for most of my life, and was happy to accept every explanation in favour of validating the whole Bible, in light of scientific evidence and discrepancies. But in the end what I read for myself and felt the messages were from the *words themselves* was essentially different than the picture painted by commentaries, Bible studies, sermons, etc. The picture from present day Christian ministers and authors, I felt put Christianity in a more appealing light than what I read myself.

Do you think the world created in 7 days was literal 24 hour days or figurative? Many Christians in light of scientific evidence of the Earth being older than the dating of 11,000 years from the geneologies in the Bible, started interpreting it as not 24 hour days literally, but as I said before, the audience and readers would have understood it as 24 hour days. It did say in Genesis there was evening and and there was morning, so to say it was figurative is a stretch. It basically shot itself in the foot with that additional detail. No room for interpretation (well anyone can always find a way, and I've read some). The audiences of the time were much less informed scientifically than us of the modern age. The whole Bible could well be figurative in every aspect, including the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. Where do you draw the line? The miracles were all hearsay, written over 40 years after the death of Jesus (or when he ascended into Heaven). No independent source ever wrote anything validating what Jesus performed. I don't read Hebrew, but the Jews also interpret it not as a voice in the wilderness or desert here:

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15971/jewish/Chapter-40.htm

All I can say is I found the Jewish case against Christianity more compelling than the Christian case for. Are the Jews reading from a skewed perspective, or Christians? I would say both, but as I said there is reasonable doubt against Jesus as the Messiah. And yes, Jesus did condemn them as blind guides, and "seeing but not never perceiving" (quoting from Isaiah again, and using it a different context). I can relate to everything you're saying David. I'm aware of the accepted interpretations and views of mainstream Christianity. I just saying I don't agree with them as a free thinker, while I used to conform to their mould and views.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> You might like to read the post by DavidA to which Strange Magic posted the response you question.


Of course, I had already ready that post. It refers to "... the *greates*t scientists like Newton, Faraday and Maxwell..."

It wasn't referring to the far less illustrious mortals who are loosely referred to as "scientists" in the Pew Research.

But what is the point you make?


----------



## Strange Magic

Partita said:


> Of course, I had already ready that post. It refers to "... the *greates*t scientists like Newton, Faraday and Maxwell..."
> 
> It wasn't referring to the far less illustrious mortals who are loosely referred to as "scientists" in the Pew Research.
> 
> But what is the point you make?


Here is Wikipedia's list of avowed atheists in science and technology:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> You are of course totally wrong in this. The writings that consist of our New testament were considered scripture long before the 5th century. Of course virgin births and resurrections are not comparable - that is why Jesus is the Son of God. If they didn't happen then forget the Christian faith. But as people with greater expertise than me have pointed out the gospels do not read like myths. The problem with people like you is that you make did statements which are totally unprovable, and think they are fact. The documents were not, in fact included 'because they could be rationalized to fit with the then-dominant dogmas of Christianity is a potpourri of myth, poetry, history, allegory and propaganda'. This is a typical wild and unproven statement which does not bare examination with what actually happened and how the New testament writings came into being. I would point you to Professor F F Bruce's study on 'The New Testament Documents - are they reliable' which actually examines these issues in a scholarly fashion rather than with wild statements


True believer that you are, your posts tend to be peppered with "of course," as if all your propositions were self-evident and common knowledge. It's amusing. Another amusing expression you like is "the problem with people like you." Well, Clyde, there is no "problem," and "people like me" are outside your frame of reference.

The Biblical canon has never been entirely agreed upon. I'm not interested in quibbling over disputed dates.

Maybe the gospels "do not read like myths" to you. But hey, that's easy to achieve if you define myth in such a way as to exclude the gospels. If virgin births, walking on water, and resurrections accompanied by seismic activity are not mythological, what are they? Fairy tales? Hallucinations? Cons? Fine. I'm not choosy.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> But what is the point you make?


DavidA made claims about "scientists". That was why SM's post "placed emphasis" on the opinions of scientists.


----------



## Strange Magic

Partita said:


> Why do you place emphasis on the opinions expressed by scientists compared with those of the population at large?
> 
> From the Pew Research you refer to above, I've had a quick look at it, and it shows that among scientists 51% believe in some form of deity or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power.
> 
> The 51% for scientists is a figure that is somewhat higher than might have been expected from the tone of your comment, but the 95% for the general population is very highly, surely, and should have been given greater prominence in your post.
> 
> Do you have any reason for suggesting that scientists are more likely to have hit upon the "truth" about the existence of God than non-scientists?
> 
> For example, do you know personally know any scientists who have studied God and decided that such a "being" doesn't exist? Did you ask about their methodology for probing this matter?
> 
> Or possibly, you know a scientist who hasn't studied God but knows a thing or two about, say, biology. Are you more impressed with his/her opinion about the existence of God compared with the guy who possibly delivers your mail, or works in the local pharmacy, or is a school-teacher of music or drama or English? Why precisely?
> 
> Whether or not you can provide an answer to my question above, if you believe that scientists are more likely than non-scientists to have reached the "correct" verdict on the existence of God (whatever "cortrect" is), would you advocate giving such people more importance in regard to other issues, not related to God. For example, do you think that their political opinions should carry more weight than those of non-scientists? If so, how might this work?
> 
> If you think I'm being cynical about your implied opinion about the extra value of scientists' opinions about the existence of God, you'd be absolutely right.


Thank you for regurgitating the very material I posted. I'm glad somebody read it. Beyond that, I remind all that the Religious Discussion Group, downstairs in Groups, is where the moderators have wisely decreed that discussions of religion _qua_ religion are to take place. Once there, you will find years of past discussion of many of these very issues and may want to join in. Otherwise, I post these brief facts about the views of scientists on religion in a sense of play, of testing the rigor of the rules, and of getting people to think about how they value the views of scientists. DavidA thought some scientists' views were important.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Thank you for regurgitating the very material I posted. I'm glad somebody read it. Beyond that, I remind all that the Religious Discussion Group, downstairs in Groups, is where the moderators have wisely decreed that discussions of religion _qua_ religion are to take place. Once there, you will find years of past discussion of many of these very issues and may want to join in. Otherwise, I post these brief facts about the views of scientists on religion in a sense of play, of testing the rigor of the rules, and of getting people to think about how they value the views of scientists. DavidA thought some scientists' views were important.


I don't doubt that the views of some highly distinguished scientists of the past have been important in shedding light in certain areas that may assist the rest of us to reach our conclusions on theological matters on a better informed basis. The same doesn't apply to the generality of people who call themselves "scientists" for the purpose of polls like the one to which you referred, and to which I properly gave you the credit for flagging up earlier. The main point I drew from that poll, if it can be trusted, was the very high figure of 95% of the USA public who believe in God or a higher being.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> DavidA made claims about "scientists". That was why SM's post "placed emphasis" on the opinions of scientists.


I understood that the reference was to "... the *greatest scientists* like Newton, Faraday and Maxwell..."

That is different from what you allege relating to "scientists". I did emphasise this point before but it appears to have escaped your notice.

Could you therefore please clarify whether your believe that all scientists are as great as scientists like Newton, Faraday, Maxwell.

If so then what you say would seem to make sense, otherwise I fear it doesn't make sense.

I await your further advice.


----------



## Strange Magic

Recent Pew numbers show 18% of Americans neither ''religious" nor "spiritual".

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...s-now-say-theyre-spiritual-but-not-religious/

For me, the real interest would lie in the discrepancy between the figures quoted for those you have chosen to label "scientists" (as opposed to scientists) and the general public. Scientists (with or without quotation marks) subscribe to a particular, shared methodology for reaching shared conclusions--temporary/tentative to be sure--about the reality around them. So far, that methodology has held up well over the years, decades, centuries as a template yielding results increasingly congruent with both experiment and with ordinary experience. Perhaps that explains the discrepancy.


----------



## Guest

I'm just floating an idea at this moment. It's the proposition that whether or not an activity of some kind can be deemed to be justly called anti-semitic (or racist) can only be determined after taking into account the prevailing social/political circumstances of the day.

To give some examples:


Soon after the outbreak of WW2 in the USA, I understand that a lot of Japanese citizens were rounded up and placed in special camps against their will, out of fear by the authorities that some among them could be a threat to USA security. Was that a racist act? I don't think so.
 During and early after the end of WW2 in parts of Britain there was quite a lot of ill-feeling towards people of German origin, due almost entirely to the fact that Britain had been under grave threat of invasion by the Nazis during the War itself, especially in 1940 when Britain stood alone against Hitler, and very nearly lost it. Was that attitude racist? I think arguably not, even though some of it was probably unjust. It was mainly the result of a widespread general anti-German mood for some time, generated entirely by the War.
In the USA before the Civil Rights Movement got under way in the 1960s, there was appalling discrimination against black Americans in certain areas, e.g. blacks not allowed in certain areas etc. Was that racist. I thing it definitely was.
Was Apartheid in South Africa racist? In my opinion it probably was in practice, but I gather there were some justifications put forward for it in principle. I'm no expert on any this, so I wont comment further.
In the Middle Ages the practice of usury was frowned upon, and was mainly practised by Jewish people but they had to comply with maximum interest rates or else face severe punishment, e.g. being banned. Was the practice of banning Jews who breached the rules racist/anti-semitic? I think not provided the rules were clear and were applied consistently, even though it happened that Jews were the main victims since this was a major profession for them.

I could probably go on giving further examples, but I hope you those above will suffice to illustrate the problem. The above examples clearly don't all relate to anti-semitism per se, but the ones that do not have racist features and are reasonably close.

The point is that is that some practices that may seem to us today to be unreasonable and glaringly anti-semitic may not have been viewed that way in the circumstance of the time in question, but simply a normal and perfectly reasonable treatment. For the avoidance of any doubt, I am obviously not including any such outright ghastly practices as occurred during the Holocaust, which were clearly appalling in any circumstances.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Could you address the issue of Semites (Muslim Arabs) directing discriminatory behavior against other Semites (Jews)? It would appear such behavior is purely religious in origin, and not rooted in "race".


----------



## Woodduck

Partita said:


> I'm just floating an idea at this moment. It's the proposition that whether or not an activity of some kind can be deemed to be justly called anti-semitic (or racist) can only be determined after taking into account the prevailing social/political circumstances of the day.
> 
> To give some examples:
> 
> 
> Soon after the outbreak of WW2 in the USA, I understand that a lot of Japanese citizens were rounded up and placed in special camps against their will, out of fear by the authorities that some among them could be a threat to USA security. Was that a racist act? I don't think so.
> During and early after the end of WW2 in parts of Britain there was quite a lot of ill-feeling towards people of German origin, due almost entirely to the fact that Britain had been under grave threat of invasion by the Nazis during the War itself, especially in 1940 when Britain stood alone against Hitler, and very nearly lost it. Was that attitude racist? I think arguably not, even though some of it was probably unjust. It was mainly the result of a widespread general anti-German mood for some time, generated entirely by the War.
> In the USA before the Civil Rights Movement got under way in the 1960s, there was appalling discrimination against black Americans in certain areas, e.g. blacks not allowed in certain areas etc. Was that racist. I thing it definitely was.
> Was Apartheid in South Africa racist? In my opinion it probably was in practice, but I gather there were some justifications put forward for it in principle. I'm no expert on any this, so I wont comment further.
> In the Middle Ages the practice of usury was frowned upon, and was mainly practised by Jewish people but they had to comply with maximum interest rates or else face severe punishment, e.g. being banned. Was the practice of banning Jews who breached the rules racist/anti-semitic? I think not provided the rules were clear and were applied consistently, even though it happened that Jews were the main victims since this was a major profession for them.
> 
> I could probably go on giving further examples, but I hope you those above will suffice to illustrate the problem. The above examples clearly don't all relate to anti-semitism per se, but the ones that do not have racist features and are reasonably close.
> 
> The point is that is that some practices that may seem to us today to be unreasonable and glaringly anti-semitic may not have been viewed that way in the circumstance of the time in question, but simply a normal and perfectly reasonable treatment. For the avoidance of any doubt, I am obviously not including any such outright ghastly practices as occurred during the Holocaust, which were clearly appalling in any circumstances.


Being a stickler for precision in language, I agree that these distinctions are worth making. The difficulty is that language evolves whether or not we like the changes that happen. "Racism" presents special difficulties. Can we be racist if we have no concept of race, or if we can't agree on what a race is? This question both resembles, and overlaps with, the question of antisemitism. Are we antisemitic if we find the Jewish religion repugnant? Is anti-Judaism antisemitism? Are we antisemitic if, as in your example, we punish usury in a society where money lending is practiced only by Jews because it's forbidden to Christians? Is antisemitism "racist" if Jews are disliked or mistreated for reasons having nothing to do with race, assuming that Jews are thought of as a "race" at all?

Race, in the modern sense of something biologically distinct, immutable, and determinative of human ability and behavior, seems not to have been a firm category with a "scientific" imprimatur until the late 19th century. Nazism was based on a division of humans into biologically distinct races which were presumed to have certain innate traits and capacities. There were said to be superior and inferior races, and the inferior races were considered capable of corrupting not only the culture of the superior races but their very biological fitness through intermarriage. Prior to the rise of biological racial theory, "race" was a less value-laden descriptor, often a loose, ad hoc designation for a national or ethnic group sharing a common ancestry or culture. How important is this distinction? Where prejudice and discrimination occur, does it matter whether the justification it claims for itself is cultural or biological? Why should or shouldn't we use the term "racism" in either case? And the same questions apply to "antisemitism": does it matter whether Jews are mistreated because they are thought "racially" inferior, or because they are believed, rightly or wrongly, to represent certain cultural traits considered undesirable?

I agree that it's important to view in cultural context attitudes and behaviors which resemble each other on the surface. We may nevertheless have to settle for using generalized terms and then explaining exactly what we mean.


----------



## Guest

^ Based on the various examples I provided in my previous post, I see that there is at least one person in this discussion who agrees that it is important to take into account the cultural context of attitudes and behaviour that resemble each other on the surface before leaping to conclusions about the existence of anti-semitism.

That apart, there has hardly been a rush by others adding their two-penneth. Maybe they are still thinking about the situation, or in one particular case I can easily think of, dreaming up some minor, nit-picking point of detail to question me on. I can imagine feverish activity grubbing around the internet, fingers hard at work on Mac or PC, trying to dig out anything that looks remotely relevant to try clobber me with. 

For anyone who may be a bit slow on the uptake, although each of the examples I gave earlier has some relevance to the topic of racial/religious discrimination, it was primarily the last bullet point that I wanted to highlight, concerning the situation in the Middle Ages relating to the treatment of Jews who breached the rules on usury. 

Yes, at a superficial level - especially for anyone who is simply out to score a few points - it may appear that there was considerable discrimination against Jewish people during the Middle Ages based on matters such as the usury laws and the treatment of people who breached the rules. But in practice a lot of these restrictions either had some logic based on the general ethical standards of the day, or were ignored completely, or were mainly used as devices to raise extra tax revenue to the local prince or whoever. The latter came about because it was sometimes possible to pay a “fine” (basically a tax), and carry on the same activity until the next time. It was all part of a fairly standard ritual, a "game" if you like, that was mostly understood as such by all concerned. Admittedly, on some occasions, the game got out of hand and there were some major bans, but as far as I know these were at the behest of non-Church authorities in the relevant jurisdictions. 

On a matter I did not refer to, the rules imposed on Jews in connection with the requirement to comply with certain items of dress, these were very inconsistently applied across Europe. They were largely created initially by non-Church authorities in earlier times, and later rubber-stamped by the Church. It was a bit of a joke because the dress codes often simply ratified the preferred choices on Jews and Muslims, in order that they may be distinguished from Christian members of the local society. This was partly done to prevent inter-marriage, which is another matter that also needs to be looked at in the context of the standards of the time.

Again, these rules were not always applied, and when they were, it often caused no hardship because the dress items imposed were mainly consistent with the preferred clothing of the Jews and Muslims. Where it might have been a problem, it was often possible to pay the local prince, or whoever, a bit of extra tax in order to become exempt from the dress rules. In other words, these rules were partly used as tax-raising devices that were accepted as such, causing little bother except for the requirement to pay extra tax, but which could have been raised in other ways if needed.

It must also be remembered that after the fall of the Roman Empire it was the Church that became the main stabilising institution across large parts of Europe, and without it there would have no doubt been a far less civilised social structure in place. It was necessary to have rules on conduct, admittance to certain activities etc in order to keep the structure in tact. Without rules and restrictions of various kinds, the whole edifice would have faced the risk of mal-function or collapse. 

I don't intend to spend much more of my time explaining all this stuff, especially for people who can't be bothered to do some proper research for themselves, but instead who become dazzled by headline items that they think contains all the evidence they need that the Middle Ages was rotten to the core in terms of anti-semitism. I am certainly not suggesting that there was no anti-semitism in the Middle Ages that existed in connection with Christian attitudes. That would be absurd as it is clear that there was, but it was mainly aberrant. Remember too that we’re talking about a very long period in history, and over much of this time the fine detail of exactly what happened, its causes etc, are not available or very sketchy. What I stated much earlier in this thread is that the Church did not deliberately create or condone any persecution of Jews, but did the opposite to try to stop any that came to its attention. I do not regard the usury laws and certain dress requirements as being persecution, given the social structures of the time, the general ethical standards of the day, and the overall protection security of the Church against potential attack. In other circumstance, the situation would need to be re-assessed.

The above hopefully explains why I refused earlier to comment specifically on certain Wiki articles with which I was confronted on certain Medieval restrictions placed on Jews and Muslims. The people who read information like that and take it all at face value must be very sloppy thinkers, who were never taught to study properly with an open and inquiring mind, on the lookout for over-simplistic interpretations etc. They are the same people who rely on others to correct their misunderstandings of odd bits of detail they have dug up from here and there. It is difficult to feel much sympathy towards them, especially when they do the same thing repeatedly in thread after thread, and achieve little for themselves except the presumed pleasure of thinking they have gained a few points at another’s expense, but in reality have only further increased the contempt of their attempted victims.


----------



## Woodduck

I had hoped that affirming your observation that cultural context was an important factor in evaluating charges of antisemitism might induce a more respectful attitude toward those whose perspective on the matter of Christian maltreatment of Jews is more severe than yours. I see that there was no warrant for that hope.

Please peruse the following chronology, which is offered without comment.

*Year C.E. 306:* The church Synod of Elvira banned marriages, sexual intercourse and community contacts between Christians and Jews.

*315:* Constantine published the Edict of Milan which extended religious tolerance to Christians. Jews lost many rights with this edict. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize.

*325:* The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded."

*337:* Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.

*339:* Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.

*343-381:* The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: "It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety."

*367 - 376:* St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.

*379-395:* Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.

*380:* The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as "an act pleasing to God."

*415:* The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.

*415:* St. Augustine wrote "The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus."

*418: *St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: "If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil's refuge, Satan's fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves."

*489 - 519:* Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.

*528:* Emperor Justinian (527-564) passed the Justinian Code. It prohibited Jews from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court.

*535:* The "Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians."

*538:* The 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans prohibited Jews from appearing in public during the Easter season. Canon XXX decreed that "From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians." Marriages between Christians and Jews were prohibited. Christians were prohibited from converting to Judaism.

*561:* The bishop of Uzes expelled Jews from his diocese in France.

*612: *Jews were not allowed to own land, to be farmers or enter certain trades.

*613: *Very serious persecution began in Spain. Jews were given the options of either leaving Spain or converting to Christianity. Jewish children over 6 years of age were taken from their parents and given a Christian education

*692: *Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council stated: "Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off." 5

*694: *The 17th Church Council of Toledo, Spain defined Jews as the serfs of the prince. This was based, in part, on the beliefs by Chrysostom, Origen, Jerome, and other Church Fathers that God punished the Jews with perpetual slavery because of their alleged responsibility for the execution of Jesus.

*722: *Leo III outlawed Judaism. Jews were baptized against their will.

*855:* Jews were exiled from Italy.

*1050: *The Synod of Narbonne prohibited Christians from living in the homes of Jews.

*1078: *"Pope Gregory VII decreed that Jews could not hold office or be superiors to Christians."

*1078:* The Synod of Gerona forced Jews to pay church taxes.

*1096: *The First Crusade was launched in this year. Although the prime goal of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, Jews were a second target. As the soldiers passed through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, large numbers of Jews were challenged: "Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!" 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade. This behavior continued for 8 additional crusades until the 9th in 1272.

*1099: *The Crusaders forced all of the Jews of Jerusalem into a central synagogue and set it on fire. Those who tried to escape were forced back into the burning building.

*1121: *Jews were exiled from Flanders (now part of present-day Belgium)

*1130: *Some Jews in London allegedly killed a sick man. The Jewish people in the city were required to pay 1 million marks as compensation.

*1146: *The Second Crusade began. A French Monk, Rudolf, called for the destruction of the Jews.

*1179: *Canon 24 of the Third Lateran Council stated: "Jews should be slaves to Christians and at the same time treated kindly due of humanitarian considerations." Canon 26 stated that "the testimony of Christians against Jews is to be preferred in all causes where they use their own witnesses against Christians."

*1180: *The French King of France, Philip Augustus, arbitrarily seized all Jewish property and expelled the Jews from the country. There was no legal justification for this action. They were allowed to sell all movable possessions, but their land and houses were stolen by the king.

*1189: *Jews were persecuted in England. The Crown claimed all Jewish possessions. Most of their houses were burned.

TO BE CONTINUED IN NEXT POST


----------



## Woodduck

*1205: *Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..."

*1215: *The Fourth Lateran Council approved canon laws requiring that "Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress." They also had to wear a badge in the form of a ring. This was to enable them to be easily distinguished from Christians. This practice later spread to other countries.

*1227:*The Synod of Narbonne required Jews to wear an oval badge. This requirement was reinstalled during the 1930's by Hitler, who changed the oval badge to a Star of David.

*1229:* The Spanish inquisition starts. Later, in 1252, Pope Innocent IV authorizes the use of torture by the Inquisitors.

*1236:* Pope Gregory ordered that church leaders in England, France, Portugal and Spain confiscate Jewish books on the first Saturday of Lent.

*1259:* A "synod of the archdiocese in Mainz ordered Jews to wear yellow badges."

*1261: *Duke Henry III of Brabant, Belgium, stated in his will that "Jews...must be expelled from Brabant and totally annihilated so that not a single one remains, except those who are willing to trade, like all other tradesmen, without money-lending and usury."

*1267: *The Synod of Vienna ordered Jews to wear horned hats. Thomas Aquinas said that Jews should live in perpetual servitude.

*1290: *Jews are exiled from England. About 16,000 left the country.

*1298: *Jews were persecuted in Austria, Bavaria and Franconia. 140 Jewish communities were destroyed; more than 100,000 Jews were killed over a 6 month period.

*1306: *100,000 Jews are exiled from France. They left with only the clothes on their backs, and food for only one day.

*1320: *40,000 French shepherds went to Palestine on the Shepherd Crusade. On the way, 140 Jewish communities were destroyed.

*1321: *In Guienne, France, Jews were accused of having incited criminals to poison wells. 5,000 Jews were burned alive, at the stake.

*1338:* The councilors of Freiburg banned the performance of anti-Jewish scenes from the town's passion play because of the lethal bloody reactions against Jews which followed the performances. 9

*1347 +:* The Black Death originated in the Far East. China, Mongolia, India, central Asia, and southern Russia have all been suggested as the source. Mongol invaders brought it to Caffa in the Crimea (modern-day Fedodosiya). Defenders from the city later spread the disease throughout many Mediterranean ports. Rats initially carried the Black Death; their fleas spread the disease from the rats to humans. As the plague worsened, the germs spread from human to human. In five years, the death toll had reached 25 million. In England, two centuries passed before its population levels recovered from the plague. People searched for someone to blame. They noted that a smaller percentage of Jews than Christians caught the disease. This was undoubtedly due to the Jewish sanitary and dietary laws, which had been preserved from Old Testament times. Rumors circulated that Satan was protecting the Jews and that they were paying back the Devil by poisoning wells used by Christians. The solution was to torture, murder and burn the Jews. "In Bavaria...12,000 Jews...perished; in the small town of Erfurt...3,000; Rue Brul©e...2,000 Jews; near Tours, an immense trench was dug, filled with blazing wood and in a single day 160 Jews were burned." In Strausberg 2,000 Jews were burned. In Maintz 6,000 were killed...; in Worms 400..."

*1354: *12,000 Jews were executed in Toledo, Spain.

*1374: *An epidemic of possession broke out in the lower Rhine region of what is now Germany. People were seen "dancing, jumping and [engaging in] wild raving." This was triggered by enthusiastic revels on St. John's Day -- a Christianized version of an ancient Pagan seasonal day of celebration which was still observed by the populace. The epidemic spread throughout the Rhine and in much of the Netherlands and Germany. Crowds of 500 or more dancers would be overcome together. Exorcisms were tried, but failed. Pilgrimages to the shrine of St. Vitus were tried, but this only seemed to exacerbate the problem. Finally, the rumor spread that God was angry because Christians had been excessively tolerant towards the Jews. God had cursed Europe as He did Saul when he showed mercy towards God's enemies in the Old Testament. Jews "were plundered, tortured and murdered by tens of thousands." The epidemic finally burned itself out two centuries later, in the late 16th century.

*1391 :* Jewish persecutions begin in Seville and in 70 other Jewish communities throughout Spain.

*1394 : *Jews were exiled, for the second time, from France.

*1431 +:* The Council of Basel "forbade Jews to go to universities, prohibited them from acting as agents in the conclusion of contracts between Christians, and required that they attend church sermons."

*1434: *"Jewish men in Augsburg had to sew yellow buttons to their clothes. Across Europe, Jews were forced to wear a long undergarment, an overcoat with a yellow patch, bells and tall pointed yellow hats with a large button on them."

*1453 : *The Franciscan monk, Capistrano, persuaded the King of Poland to terminate all Jewish civil rights.

*1478: *Spanish Jews had been heavily persecuted from the 14th century. Many had converted to Christianity. The Spanish Inquisition was set up by the Church in order to detect insincere conversions. Laws were passed that prohibited the descendants of Jews or Muslims from attending university, joining religious orders, holding public office, or entering any of a long list of professions.

*1492 :* Jews were given the choice of being baptized as Christians or be banished from Spain. 300,000 left Spain penniless. Many migrated to Turkey, where they found tolerance among the Muslims. Others converted to Christianity but often continued to practice Judaism in secret.

*1497:* Jews were banished from Portugal. 20 thousand left the country rather than be baptized as Christians.

*1516:* The Governor of the Republic of Venice decided that Jews would be permitted to live only in one area of the city. It was located in the South Girolamo parish and was called the "Ghetto Novo." This was the first ghetto in Europe. Hitler made use of the concept in the 1930's.

*1523: *Martin Luther distributed his essay "That Jesus Was Born a Jew. " He hoped that large numbers of Jews would convert to Christianity. They didn't, and he began to write and preach hatred against them. Luther has been condemned in recent years for being extremely antisemitic. The charge has some merit; however he was probably typical of most Christians during his era.

*1539: *A passion play was forbidden in Rome because it prompted violent attacks against the city's Jewish residents.

*1540: *Jews were exiled from Naples.

*1543: *In his 20's, Martin Luther, had expected Jews to convert to Christianity in large numbers. Distressed by their reluctance, he developed a hatred for Jews, as expressed in his letters to Rev. Spalatin in 1514, when he was 31 years of age. He wrote:

"I have come to the conclusion that the Jews will always curse and blaspheme God and his King Christ, as all the prophets have predicted....For they are thus given over by the wrath of God to reprobation, that they may become incorrigible, as Ecclesiastes says, for every one who is incorrigible is rendered worse rather than better by correction." 6

In 1543, he wrote "On the Jews and their lies, On Shem Hamphoras" :

"...eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!...What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?
First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire,...
Second, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed... They ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like Gypsies.
Third, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught.
Fourth, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach.
Fifth, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews.
Sixth, they ought to be stopped from usury. All their cash and valuables of silver and gold ought to be taken from them and put aside for safe keeping.

Seventh, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the axe, the ***, the spade, the distaff, and spindle and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses as in enjoined upon Adam's children...

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden -- the Jews."

*1550:* Jews were exiled from Genoa and Venice.

*1555-JUL-12: *A Roman Catholic Papal bull, "Cum nimis absurdum," required Jews to wear badges, and live in ghettos. They were not allowed to own property outside the ghetto. Living conditions were dreadful: over 3,000 people were forced to live in about 8 acres of land. Women had to wear a yellow veil or scarf; men had to wear a piece of yellow cloth on their hat.

*1582: *Jews were expelled from Holland.

*1648-9: *Chmielnicki Bogdan led an uprising against Polish rule in the Ukraine. The secondary goal of Bogdan and his followers was to exterminate all Jews in the country. The massacre began with the slaughter of about 6,000 Jews in Nemirov. Other major mass murders occurred in Tulchin, Polonnoye, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, etc. Jewish records estimate that a total of 100,000 Jews were murdered and 300 communities destroyed.

TO BE CONTINUED IN NEXT POST


----------



## Woodduck

*Persecution of Jewish Physicians by the Church:*

Medicine in Europe during the Middle Ages found itself restricted by the Christian Church. The church taught that it was irreligious to seek a natural cure from a physician when one could obtain supernatural help from a priest. Some church leaders criticized medical schools because they taught that diseases and disorders came from natural means and not from the evil efforts of Satan.

With medicine in such ill repute among Christians, much of the leadership by the 10th century was provided by Jews and Muslim scholars. Jews were largely responsible for founding the medical Schools at Salerno and Montpellier in the 10th century.

Pope Eugene IV, Nicholas V and Calixtus III forbade Christians from using the services of a Jewish physician. The Trullanean Council in the 8th century; B©ziers Council & Alby Council in the 13th century; Avignon council & Salamanca Council in the 14th century, the Synod of Bamberg in the 15th century; the Council of Avignon in the 16th century, etc. also ordered Christians to not seek healing from Jewish physicians and surgeons. This continued even into the 17th century when the city of Hall in Wortemberg (in what is now Germany) granted some privileges to a Jewish physician "on account of his admirable experience and skill." The clergy of Hall complained that "it were better to die with Christ than to be cured by a Jew doctor aided by the devil."


----------



## Woodduck

*The conversion from religiously-based to racially-based persecution:*

Prior to 1800 CE: Persecution was directed at followers of Judaism because of their religious beliefs; it has been referred to as anti-Judaism. CE, Jews could escape oppression by converting to Christianity, and being baptized. The Christian church taught in past centuries that all Jews (past, present and future) were responsible for Jesus' death. The Church also believed that some Jews must be allowed to live, because the biblical book of Revelation indicated that they had a role to play in the "end times." They concluded that it was acceptable to make Jews' lives quite miserable.

Since about 1800: "...Nationalism became a dominant value in the Western and Arab worlds...antisemitism increasingly focused on the Jews' peoplehood and nationhood." Persecution became a form of racism, and has generally been called "anti-Semitism" -- a word "created by an antisemite, Wilhelm Marr [in 1879]. Marr's intention was to replace the German word Judenhass (Jew-hatred) with a term that would make Jew-haters sound less vulgar and even somewhat scientific." The word is variously spelled antisemite, anti-Semite and anti-semite. It is not a particularly good choice, because the root word "Semitic" refers to a group of languages, not to a single language or to a race, people or nation. However, it is in near-universal usage.

...................................................................................................................................

iNFORMATION IN THE PRECEDING FOUR POSTS IS FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCE: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers.htm


----------



## KenOC

Some years later, the "doctors' plot" in the USSR. "Khrushchev also told the session that Stalin called the judge in the case and, regarding the methods to be used, stated 'beat, beat and, beat again.' Stalin supposedly told his Minister of State Security, 'If you do not obtain confessions from the doctors we will shorten you by a head.' "


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I had hoped that *affirming your observation that cultural context was an important factor in evaluating charges of antisemitism* might induce a more respectful attitude toward those whose perspective on the matter of Christian maltreatment of Jews is more severe than yours. I see that there was no warrant for that hope. You're being as condescending as ever. The above post is filled with insults. What, if I may ask, is your problem?
> 
> Never mind. Don't answer. But please peruse the following chronology:
> 
> ...


Have you examined the "cultural context" of all the events you list, which you accept is a necessary procedure in order to form a proper assessment of any of these events that you list?

Don't bother answering as the answer is obviously not. I see absolutely no evidence at all that you've done that, so therefore you have failed your own test of credibility, and your list of events is therefore a waste of time.

In regard to them, however, I would say:


Many of these events you list were taken by non-Church authorities. There may have been good reason for many of them, as acts to protect the security of the jurisdiction in general, or to protect the interests of indigenous people who might otherwise have faced some kind of threat. Those were times when there were obviously no telephone lines one could use to phone the local police to deal with riots and whatever else. There were most likely no "police" at all.

Some of the measures you so glibly trot out were nothing like as sinister or harsh as you assume as they were measures taken in order to offset evasion of the payment of taxes by immigrants of various types, including Jews. The restriction on marriages was also part of the legislative structure in some areas aimed at dealing with tax evasion by inter-marriage.

In other cases, of course there may have been some restrictions on inter-marriage but with the primary aim of the Church being to spread the gospel, not to dilute it or reverse it. Again you are applying modern standards to social situations that are vastly removed from the present day.
I short, I don't think you have much idea about any of this, and you are simply spouting a list of unrelated facts as a desperate attempt to regain any sort of credibility. Clearly, you have merely dug out a list of whatever you think may be of relevance, without giving any of it a moment's thought or reflection of the relevant social background, or of any possible rational explanation.

You are clearly out to do no more than discredit the Roman Church as much as you can. There is absolutely no structure to your comments, and no balance at all in taking account of the "good". It is completely one-side account of Church history, with the emphasis on the negative. It's about time somebody in authority put paid to your shameful shenanigans before you bring this place into total disrepute as being a sanctuary for anti-Christian commentary.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> True believer that you are, your posts tend to be peppered with "of course," as if all your propositions were self-evident and common knowledge. It's amusing. Another amusing expression you like is "the problem with people like you." Well, Clyde, there is no "problem," and "people like me" are outside your frame of reference.
> 
> The Biblical canon has never been entirely agreed upon. I'm not interested in quibbling over disputed dates.
> 
> Maybe the gospels "do not read like myths" to you. But hey, that's easy to achieve if you define myth in such a way as to exclude the gospels. If virgin births, walking on water, and resurrections accompanied by seismic activity are not mythological, what are they? Fairy tales? Hallucinations? Cons? Fine. I'm not choosy.


True unbeliever that you are, your posts tend to be peppered with assertions which are absolutely wrong do not bear scrutiny. Like the Bible canon has never been entirely agreed upon. Well as far as the new Testament is concerned it has always been agreed upon. Can I ask you as you always appear to be an expert in the field in which you are talking and this field too, just what formal theological qualifications you have? You see your comment on the gospels and myths betrays the fact that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Your problem is you assume things can't happen because you assume things can't happen because they can't happen outside of your head. you might be into fairytales with your Wagnerian legends but I'm not. And as far as being conned, you might be into being conned but I like to investigate the facts and I am far from being conned. The problem is you trot out the typical anti religious stuff which I have heard so many times before and it gets tiresome. If you want to believe that all the creativity we see on earth and experience in the arts is due to unguarded forces and that and guided forces can create creativity then you are welcome. I just remember a part of Sir George Solti's biography when he said that although he was not religious when he heard Mozart he knew there was a God somewhere. 
You can't prove anything of what you've said about the origins of Christianity yet you trot it out as though it were factual. Please give it a rest, especially as it has no bearing on the subject of the thread of Why Wagner had such an impact on the world. As I have said if you go to the jungles of Africa or to the streets of India or the slums ofManila like I have you will find very few people heard about Wagner. Maybe you should go to a few of these places to have your eyes opened that there is another world.


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes, I've read the entire Old and New Testaments twice. Also went to countless Bible studies, etc. As a bit of background. I was a hardcore Christian for most of my life, and was happy to accept every explanation in favour of validating the whole Bible, in light of scientific evidence and discrepancies. But in the end what I read for myself and felt the messages were from the *words themselves* was essentially different than the picture painted by commentaries, Bible studies, sermons, etc. The picture from present day Christian ministers and authors, I felt put Christianity in a more appealing light than what I read myself.
> 
> Do you think the world created in 7 days was literal 24 hour days or figurative? Many Christians in light of scientific evidence of the Earth being older than the dating of 11,000 years from the geneologies in the Bible, started interpreting it as not 24 hour days literally, but as I said before, the audience and readers would have understood it as 24 hour days. It did say in Genesis there was evening and and there was morning, so to say it was figurative is a stretch. It basically shot itself in the foot with that additional detail. No room for interpretation (well anyone can always find a way, and I've read some). The audiences of the time were much less informed scientifically than us of the modern age. The whole Bible could well be figurative in every aspect, including the miracles and resurrection of Jesus. Where do you draw the line? The miracles were all hearsay, written over 40 years after the death of Jesus (or when he ascended into Heaven). No independent source ever wrote anything validating what Jesus performed. I don't read Hebrew, but the Jews also interpret it not as a voice in the wilderness or desert here:
> 
> https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15971/jewish/Chapter-40.htm
> 
> All I can say is I found the Jewish case against Christianity more compelling than the Christian case for. Are the Jews reading from a skewed perspective, or Christians? I would say both, but as I said there is reasonable doubt against Jesus as the Messiah. And yes, Jesus did condemn them as blind guides, and "seeing but not never perceiving" (quoting from Isaiah again, and using it a different context). I can relate to everything you're saying David. I'm aware of the accepted interpretations and views of mainstream Christianity. I just saying I don't agree with them as a free thinker, while I used to conform to their mould and views.


Having read the Bible countless times in my somewhat long life I have come to a somewhat different conclusion. I can't see what you mean by the messages from the 'words themselves' as I have always got the message of the New testament from the words themselves and only gone to commentaries for illumination on other factors. As to Genesis 1 I am pretty agnostic about it. The main point is that it is a theological document in that it stated that God created the universe by the word of God and not by some of the means the legends of the gods of the time created it by. Interestingly, as John Calvin remarks, if the 'days' are literal, the first few are extraordinary as there was no sun, moon or stars. I respect people on both sides of the debate. To me the main point is that it is a creation story written in non-scientific language of the sort we still use. I think even the most handed scientific atheist might still say, "The sun rises in the East and sets in the West" as I've said before! It's that sort of language which was meaningful then and is meaningful now. A loving creator creating a good earth and heavens. Of course, we now know through fine tuning how finely balanced it is. To say the audiences were less informed scientifically is right but they weren't stupid as people like to make out.
The gospels of course are completed different as they are written as histories and were written or told by eyewitnesses within a generation of Jesus. They are the best validated textually of any ancient document - that is just a fact. Dismiss them and you can dismiss other ancient historical documents we take for granted which are far less well attested. Miracles were hearsay? Who says? Something extraordinary happened to promote the cause of an unknown Jewish carpenter who was crucified. Maybe the fact he rose from the dead had something to do with it? These objections don't make sense when faced with the rise of Christianity by a few persecuted people. 
Frankly I would not base my case against Christianity on the Jewish reading of Isaiah 40 as Hebrew can be read in different ways. The orthodox jewish Bible reads:
'The voice of him that preacheth in the midbar [ie wilderness], Prepare ye the Derech Hashem [ie the way of God], make straight in the Aravah [a geographic area south of the Dead Sea basin - ie desert] a highway for Eloheinu. [ie our God]'
As this is pretty much the same as the KJV I cannot see your problem.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Recent Pew numbers show 18% of Americans neither ''religious" nor "spiritual".
> 
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...s-now-say-theyre-spiritual-but-not-religious/
> 
> For me, the real interest would lie in the discrepancy between the figures quoted for those you have chosen to label "scientists" (as opposed to scientists) and the general public. Scientists (with or without quotation marks) subscribe to a particular, shared methodology for reaching shared conclusions--temporary/tentative to be sure--about the reality around them. So far, that methodology has held up well over the years, decades, centuries as a template yielding results increasingly congruent with both experiment and with ordinary experience. Perhaps that explains the discrepancy.


It always amuses me how people bang on about scientists and their religious views as if they had some particular insight. Having worked among such guys let me assure you that although they might work among magnetrons and deal with superconductivity very clever stuff, which is their field, outside of that they are just ordinary guys who eat, sleep, drink and make love to their partners. They have no more particular insight into religious matters than the milkman or the guy who owns the corner shop, unless they happen to be interested. So don't set them as a race apart.


----------



## DavidA

I just can't understand what on earth these tiresome long lists we are being given have to do with the subject of this thread. Anyone can reel off a list from the internet. Please stop!


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Well if you think killing unborn children is OK then you support abortion. I never have as I believe the taking of life is wrong. *Funny that people like you who make these sort of statements have had a right to be born!* Btw I have heard some things in my time but 'inspired by male white dominance' is a new one on me. Do you make these things up yourself? :lol:


Let's return to the here and now, because it makes things much more clear. In the above appalling words you copy the utter empty headed fundamentalist ideas about abortion. But as you are a self proclaimed scientist (electrician?), you are responsible for using these words, as any proper scientist must have thought things over before copying them.

Your thoughts about abortion are male dominant, because you clearly have never bothered to talk to a woman about these things or even to think about it from a woman's perspective. Why bother, if your church delivers an instant moral righteousness in denying the right of a woman to decide about having a baby (if it wasn't forbidden by religiously inspired laws) or even the use of a condom. Because you simply make it God's will to decide about these things. Did you ever talk to a woman who had a miscarriage (happens quite a lot and is very emotional to go through for a woman)? So, is a miscarriage in your world a decision of God or a biological result from the woman's body? Have you ever thought why religions would favour unlimited birth of kids in their congregation? Because if you want to be the nr 1 religion, bodies count. And as I take it from your writings, you are a catholic, we all know by now that innocent catholic children are also useful for other purposes.

In your simple world, all difficult decisions are supposedly made for you by someone who is non-existent (better said, by someone in the Vatican who represents someone who is non existent). And, surprise, these decisions turn out to ignore the rights of half the world's population (women), are in favour of the economics of the Vatican. 
Have you ever wondered that only one religion could be 'right'.....There is a big eternal competition going on, how do you know that yours is right and the others are wrong? We will never be able to proof. The fairytale provides that you only know if you or at least your religion has won/lost if it is already too late.

If you don't realize by now that each religion that allows for 'moral' judgment of others is based on (science) fiction and is only used by a few people to manipulate many other people, you might reconsider calling yourself a scientist.

In all your simplicity you even accuse me of being a baby killer (again, you must be some scientist). Well, you fundamentalist male chauvinist:devil:, if you are not wildly ashamed of what your church has done to thousands of weak children and their mothers, stop talking 'funny' about my right to live.



> You obviously haven't read about the French Revolution from what you have put let alone write about it. You really need to get clued up before you accuse others of not having a clue!


A bit second rate, after the above, but your 'scientific' approach of clueless anger needs an answer. Please go back to the French revolution and find out who was in power before and who was in power thereafter and what constitutions have to do with it. The ideas of enlightment also might be worth a read. And you may ignore the UK situation, as things move 'a little slower' there with church, monarchy and nobility. But even in these interesting days, it must be possible for a conservative Brit to look over the border and learn how other countries have solved important issues. Beware however, that if you start to see the benefits of collaboration over splendid isolation, it already is too late. Not for you, but for your grandchildren.



> As you have given no explicit idea of how science will undermine faith and I have been trained as a scientist, then you are really pushing a lost cause! I just cannot see how my faith undermines the experiments I did on superconductive electron tunnelling. But perhaps you would be good enough to enlighten me with your immense knowledge on the subject?


I am no electrician as you obviously are, but it is not difficult to understand that electricity has little interference with religion. Maybe the fact that thunder and lightning does not come from someone in the cloud who is angry, but that is an older concept. And I guess it was not you who proved that assumption wrong.



> Perhaps before I start may I ask you where is the proof of the outrageously empty accusations you yourself make to anyone who doesn't agree with you. You are the one who started this conversation. Now prove to me that your propositions are correct. You really need to put your own house in order before you start accusing others.


Funny how you keep producing fallacies all the time. Please, we are no 4 year olds here. I guess by now you get it that the bible in essence is based on fiction, just like mythology. The difference between mythology and religions is that religions are appropriated myths, abused by people to take power over others. It is a smart concept, religion, and to this day, it is very effective and very deadly too. But also, it has given us beautiful music. I think religious music is perhaps the only innocent and positive side effect of religion, even if you consider it as a distraction.

To come back to the topic of this thread, Wagner is one of the few composers that actually went into the essence of myths and religion and started to play with the concepts, instead of only illustrating them with music. I still think that the influence of Wagner on the world is limited. But Wagner at least attempted to give you something to think about. In the end, I still prefer the Hohe Messe over Parsifal


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Let's return to the here and now, because it makes things much more clear. In the above appalling words you copy the utter empty headed fundamentalist ideas about abortion. But as you are a self proclaimed scientist (electrician?), you are responsible for using these words, as any proper scientist must have thought things over before copying them.
> 
> Your thoughts about abortion are *male dominant*, because you clearly have never bothered to talk to a woman about these things or even to think about it from a woman's perspective. Why bother, if your church delivers an instant moral righteousness in denying the right of a woman to decide about having a baby (if it wasn't forbidden by religiously inspired laws) or even the use of a condom. Because you simply make it God's will to decide about these things. Did you ever talk to a woman who had a miscarriage (happens quite a lot and is very emotional to go through for a woman)? So, is a miscarriage in your world a decision of God or a biological result from the woman's body? Have you ever thought why religions would favour unlimited birth of kids in their congregation? Because if you want to be the nr 1 religion, bodies count. And as I take it from your writings, you are a catholic, we all know by now that innocent catholic children are also useful for other purposes.
> 
> In your simple world, all difficult decisions are supposedly made for you by someone who is non-existent (better said, by someone in the Vatican who represents someone who is non existent). And, surprise, these decisions turn out to ignore the rights of half the world's population (women), are in favour of the economics of the Vatican.
> Have you ever wondered that only one religion could be 'right'.....There is a big eternal competition going on, how do you know that yours is right and the others are wrong? We will never be able to proof. The fairytale provides that you only know if you or at least your religion has won/lost if it is already too late.
> 
> If you don't realize by now that each religion that allows for 'moral' judgment of others is based on (science) fiction and is only used by a few people to manipulate many other people, you might reconsider calling yourself a scientist.
> 
> In all your simplicity you even accuse me of being a baby killer (again, you must be some scientist). Well, you fundamentalist male chauvinist:devil:, if you are not wildly ashamed of what your church has done to thousands of weak children and their mothers, stop talking 'funny' about my right to live.
> 
> A bit second rate, after the above, but your 'scientific' approach of clueless anger needs an answer. Please go back to the French revolution and find out who was in power before and who was in power thereafter and what constitutions have to do with it. The ideas of enlightment also might be worth a read. And you may ignore the UK situation, as things move 'a little slower' there with church, monarchy and nobility. But even in these interesting days, it must be possible for a conservative Brit to look over the border and learn how other countries have solved important issues. Beware however, that if you start to see the benefits of collaboration over splendid isolation, it already is too late. Not for you, but for your grandchildren.
> 
> I am no electrician as you obviously are, but it is not difficult to understand that electricity has little interference with religion. Maybe the fact that thunder and lightning does not come from someone in the cloud who is angry, but that is an older concept. And I guess it was not you who proved that assumption wrong.
> 
> Funny how you keep producing fallacies all the time. Please, we are no 4 year olds here. I guess by now you get it that the bible in essence is based on fiction, just like mythology. The difference between mythology and religions is that religions are appropriated myths, abused by people to take power over others. It is a smart concept, religion, and to this day, it is very effective and very deadly too. But also, it has given us beautiful music. I think religious music is perhaps the only innocent and positive side effect of religion, even if you consider it as a distraction.
> 
> To come back to the topic of this thread, Wagner is one of the few composers that actually went into the essence of myths and religion and started to play with the concepts, instead of only illustrating them with music. I still think that the influence of Wagner on the world is limited. But Wagner at least attempted to give you something to think about. In the end, I still prefer the Hohe Messe over Parsifal


No I am not writing from a male dominant position. I am writing from a child dominant position as someone who believes a child - even an unborn one - has a right to live. I am also writing from a point of view of a father who has lost unborn children and wishes they had been born. Your use of 'fundamentalist' is both farcical and insulting at the same time. I could use the same of you as your posts appear to be totally unthought out as if the propaganda you read from these sites is swallowed whole without thought. If you have actually held a dead baby which has been lost (as I have) you might realise these things are human and not disposable waste. But as an atheist, maybe you consider all humans disposable as we are just a certain amount of chemicals? But in any case, what on earth have these rantings about abortion got to do with Wagner and his effect on the world?
Your rantings about religion do not apply to me as I do not believe what apparently you think I do. So I am a catholic? Where did I say that? Or is that just another example of you wilfully reading something in that suits your non-argument? Amazing what assumptions you guys make. My views on abortion are those of the sanctity of human life and are nothing to do with me being a male, so please don't just swallow all the guff you read on some of these sites. Apply brain occasionally!
You act as if you are the only one who has read about the French Revolution. Some of us have read the rather less wholesome part of the 'Enlightenment' and have a more rounded view of history than that which happens just to suit our prejudices! As for anger, your whole post seems dripping with it. It always amuses me the way you guys try and project on to someone else! :lol:
Where did you read I was an 'electrician'? Another of your fantasies? You really are stuck in a mediaeval time frame of thunder and lightening which most of us are not, apparently. You say you are not 4 years old yet cannot produce one cohesive argument to back your theories. Sorry but I am a good deal older than 4 and have argued with people who can at least produce a sensible argument. Of course religion can be deadly when misused. But the greatest mass murderers of the last century were all atheists so if atheism brings such enlightenment how is that the case? 
Yes the influence of Wagner was limited but you still produce no argument for that.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Recent Pew numbers show 18% of Americans neither ''religious" nor "spiritual".
> 
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...s-now-say-theyre-spiritual-but-not-religious/
> 
> For me, the real interest would lie in the discrepancy between the figures quoted for those you have chosen to label "scientists" (as opposed to scientists) and the general public. Scientists (with or without quotation marks) subscribe to a particular, shared methodology for reaching shared conclusions--temporary/tentative to be sure--about the reality around them. So far, that methodology has held up well over the years, decades, centuries as a template yielding results increasingly congruent with both experiment and with ordinary experience. Perhaps that explains the discrepancy.


Your opinion is that scientists have a "shared methodology" for reaching "shared conclusions" about "the reality around them", and you appear to be suggesting that this makes their opinions better than those of the general public.

Incidentally, on the narrow definition of scientists you have referred to, it doesn't seem that any of the social scientists and possible others like students of philosophy get a look-in, as these people would seem to be lumped in with the general public.

I can accept that scientists probably have a common methodology based on something like testing a null hypothesis and accepting the chance of it being proven false (Popper's "Falsification Principle"). Surely, however, this procedure is only relevant to each scientist's particular spheres of professional interest.

In any event, I don't see how it can be assumed that all scientists, and only scientists, have applied the same approach to the study of God, assuming this to be the way they have reached their conclusions in this area. Members of the general public may have used a similar mental procedure, albeit one possibly less formally expressed than those typically used in scientific inquiry proper. They may also have other ways that, to them, are superior, or possibly supplement the more scientific based approach.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> It always amuses me how people bang on about scientists and their religious views as if they had some particular insight. Having worked among such guys let me assure you that although they might work among magnetrons and deal with superconductivity very clever stuff, which is their field, outside of that they are just ordinary guys who eat, sleep, drink and make love to their partners. They have no more particular insight into religious matters than the milkman or the guy who owns the corner shop, unless they happen to be interested. So don't set them as a race apart.


How are we to account, then, for the discrepancy--how are you to account for the discrepancy--then, between the views of many scientists and the general public on religious matters? A simple question. As myself trained as a scientist, the answer is that a quite comparatively large group of scientists--many eminent and dominant in their fields--examine religion and find there...nothing. There is no predicate for belief in that which cannot be examined and for which there is no a priori requirement. Religion is like a giant inverted pyramid resting entirely on an imaginary grain of sand. It is belief in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny elaborated and swollen to a monstrous scale and inculcated in the young by their parents and by the dominant culture. Later, the atrocities committed in its name, for many, become impossible to be excused, and such atrocities then are found to be alike in form and substance to those engendered by every other sort of human malignancy. As we post, Shia and Sunni are locked in pitiless combat throughout much of the Middle East, as were Catholics and Protestants in Germany during the Thirty Years War, wiping out a third of the region's population. The recent exposure of the Roman Catholic Church as a vast engine for the sexual predation upon the young and weak has reached global proportions. There is certainly enough evil in the world without adding the veneer of religious hypocrisy to the sum total.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> How are we to account, then, for the discrepancy--how are you to account for the discrepancy--then, between the views of many scientists and the general public on religious matters? A simple question. As myself trained as a scientist, the answer is that a quite comparatively large group of scientists--many eminent and dominant in their fields--examine religion and find there...nothing. There is no predicate for belief in that which cannot be examined and for which there is no a priori requirement. Religion is like a giant inverted pyramid resting entirely on an imaginary grain of sand. It is belief in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny elaborated and swollen to a monstrous scale and inculcated in the young by their parents and by the dominant culture. Later, the atrocities committed in its name, for many, become impossible to be excused, and such atrocities then are found to be alike in form and substance to those engendered by every other sort of human malignancy. As we post, Shia and Sunni are locked in pitiless combat throughout much of the Middle East, as were Catholics and Protestants in Germany during the Thirty Years War, wiping out a third of the region's population. The recent exposure of the Roman Catholic Church as a vast engine for the sexual predation upon the young and weak has reached global proportions. There is certainly enough evil in the world without adding the veneer of religious hypocrisy to the sum total.


Well you answer the question yourself. If you view religion as a 'giant inverted pyramid resting entirely on an imaginary grain of sand. It is belief in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny' you certainly won't find anything because you are looking in the wrong place. It always amuses me when you hear certain worthies holding forth their expertise like this and you know they haven't a clue what they are talking about when they talk like this. Similarly when we talk about atrocities in the name of religion they tend to forget out was scientists in the Manhattan project who invented a bomb which killed 100,000 people in one go and have since invented bombs that can overkill the world many times over. Yet these same people have the audacity to lecture us on religious atrocities! Frankly it is ludicrous to talk like this when scientism is responsible for so much suffering in the world. There is certainly enough evil in the world without adding the veneer of 'scientific hypocrisy' to the sum total as if the scientific establishment itself was guiltless. I mean, who has made the nerve gas and the terrible missiles that can carry weapons to destroy whole continents? The Vatican? It's laughable to hear such hypocrisy.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Partita: "In any event, I don't see how it can be assumed that all scientists, and only scientists, have applied the same approach to the study of God, assuming this to be the way they have reached their conclusions in this area. Members of the general public may have used a similar mental procedure, albeit one possibly less formally expressed than those typically used in scientific inquiry proper. They may also have other ways that, to them, are superior, or possibly supplement the more scientific based approach."


Did I post ''all scientists, and only scientists"? Please strive for accuracy. What might those other, superior ways of ascertaining religious truth be? And have those methods revealed one universal religious "truth", or instead, millions? The fact is that most religious people contract religion from their immediate family and culture and--whatever the religion--are raised in and continue to adhere to that early-acquired faith, though Pew shows what many suspect--that the early flame flickers down to a lip-service religiosity for vast numbers, leaping up again only if someone has the audacity to declare the Emperor naked.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Well you answer the question yourself. If you view religion as a 'giant inverted pyramid resting entirely on an imaginary grain of sand. It is belief in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny' you certainly won't find anything because you are looking in the wrong place. It always amuses me when you hear certain worthies holding forth their expertise like this and you know they haven't a clue what they are talking about when they talk like this. Similarly when we talk about atrocities in the name of religion they tend to forget out was scientists in the Manhattan project who invented a bomb which killed 100,000 people in one go and have since invented bombs that can overkill the world many times over. Yet these same people have the audacity to lecture us on religious atrocities! Frankly it is ludicrous to talk like this when scientism is responsible for so much suffering in the world. There is certainly enough evil in the world without adding the veneer of 'scientific hypocrisy' to the sum total as if the scientific establishment itself was guiltless. I mean, who has made the nerve gas and the terrible missiles that can carry weapons to destroy whole continents? The Vatican? It's laughable to hear such hypocrisy.


Please read my post before you copy it and reply to your version of what I posted. But I am happy to provide amusement to one so easily amused. Scientists, like everyone else, are responsible for much evil--reality doesn't discriminate. And a pope declared that "The Church is the Mother of Science." He really did, as I recall, after exonerating the Church from any complicity in the persecution of Galileo.

Edit: In fact, the more I examine your reply, the less substance I find. I clearly attributed atrocity to general human malignancy, whether the atrocity specifically has its origins among scientists or religious zealots, yet you swoop to seize the shiny thing before you when it's already been dealt with. You essentially ignore the other points in my post as inconvenient or too demoralizing to cope with. A failing grade.


----------



## DeepR

Evidently, some of our dear members have not succeeded in going back on topic as requested by the moderator. 
Let me just state the obvious that arguing over politics and religion on the internet is usually a complete waste of time and very often leads to a toxic atmosphere and conflict, as is happening right now... 
Please, this is such a nice and relatively civil forum, don't let it turn into a cesspool like some other places I have seen.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Did I post ''all scientists, and only scientists"? Please strive for accuracy. What might those other, superior ways of ascertaining religious truth be? And have those methods revealed one universal religious "truth", or instead, millions? *The fact is that most religious people contract religion from their immediate family and culture *and--whatever the religion--are raised in and continue to adhere to that early-acquired faith, though Pew shows what many suspect--that the early flame flickers down to a lip-service religiosity for vast numbers, leaping up again only if someone has the audacity to declare the Emperor naked.


This is actually one of these pretty useless generalisations which will be seen not to apply in real life to real faith. Funny many have the opposite to what you say. I know plenty of people who were brought up irreligious but who came to faith when they actually investigated the the facts (rather than the fiction that is put about) of Christianity.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Please read my post before you copy it and reply to your version of what I posted. But I am happy to provide amusement to one so easily amused. Scientists, like everyone else, are responsible for much evil--reality doesn't discriminate. And a pope declared that "The Church is the Mother of Science." He really did, as I recall, after exonerating the Church from any complicity in the persecution of Galileo.


Actually if you read history rather than fiction you will find that it was Galileo's fellow scientists (who followed Aristotle) rather than the church, who were the first to persecute Galileo. The church joined in later but scientists led the way. :lol:

Galileo himself was a lifelong theist btw. "I give infinite thanks to God, who has been pleased to make me the first observer of marvelous things."


----------



## NLAdriaan

To all others: I rest my case:wave:

But, fair is fair, the UK also brought us fantastic and appropriate satire to compensate for all of this:








Which we can't say from the Germans


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> To all others: I rest my case:wave:
> 
> But, fair is fair, the UK also brought us fantastic and appropriate satire to compensate for all of this:
> View attachment 122019
> 
> 
> Which we can't say from the Germans
> 
> And of course the fantastic


Not a lot of reason involved with that either! :lol:


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> How are we to account, then, for the discrepancy--how are you to account for the discrepancy--then, between the views of many scientists and the general public on religious matters? A simple question. As myself trained as a scientist, the answer is that a quite comparatively large group of scientists--many eminent and dominant in their fields--examine religion and find there...nothing. There is no predicate for belief in that which cannot be examined and for which there is no a priori requirement. Religion is like a giant inverted pyramid resting entirely on an imaginary grain of sand. It is belief in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny elaborated and swollen to a monstrous scale and inculcated in the young by their parents and by the dominant culture. Later, the atrocities committed in its name, for many, become impossible to be excused, and such atrocities then are found to be alike in form and substance to those engendered by every other sort of human malignancy. As we post, Shia and Sunni are locked in pitiless combat throughout much of the Middle East, as were Catholics and Protestants in Germany during the Thirty Years War, wiping out a third of the region's population. The recent exposure of the Roman Catholic Church as a vast engine for the sexual predation upon the young and weak has reached global proportions. There is certainly enough evil in the world without adding the veneer of religious hypocrisy to the sum total.


*Wars*

Many of the most horrific wars in history have had nothing to do with religion. The ones that have may have occurred anyway but for other reasons, e.g. disputed territory. Of the purely religious wars, it's regrettable that they occurred but that's life. Unless religion is banned altogether they're not going to disappear in future. We either have freedom to choose religion and take the risk of occasional conflict, or ban religion? And who is going to ban religion? It can't be done so there's little point bleating about it.

*Proof of God's Existence*

The following articles may convince some, like me, but not all. Take your choice, but the disbelievers ought not attempt to rubbish the people, or their views, who select to believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

*Catholic Church predation of young children*

Obviously a highly sensitive subject and one to be taken most seriously, but it's estimated that 4% approx of RC priests were involved in some way or other. I don't have any special knowledge on the extent of this problem, and this figure may be slightly out of date, but that's what I recall seeing. The Church has taken steps to resolve the problem.

On this matter, I spent 14 years of my schooling at various RC schools and never encountered even the slightest hint of such problems. My sister, 3 years younger, attended some other RC schools, with no problem. Her daughter (my niece) went through a similar process a few years ago when she finished, and ditto no problems at all. I have never come across the problem in my working or social contacts. I know and have met in the past many RC clergy and they've all been beyond reproach in this regard.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> This is actually one of these pretty useless generalisations which will be seen not to apply in real life to real faith. Funny many have the opposite to what you say. I know plenty of people who were brought up irreligious but who came to faith when they actually investigated the the facts (rather than the fiction that is put about) of Christianity.


Does this hold for people converting to Islam, Judaism, or other faiths--did they examine the facts there also? What explains in your mind the multiplicity of religions--often at war with one another with every atrocity? Universal Truth? Also, the percentage of people converting from faith A to faith B is only a fraction of those content to stick with the house brand they were reared in. And what, other than early rearing, explains that adherence to one's natal religion? Rather than chuckling over my poor arguments, why not actually address them?


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Does this hold for people converting to Islam, Judaism, or other faiths--did they examine the facts there also? What explains in your mind the multiplicity of religions--often at war with one another with every atrocity? Universal Truth? Also, the percentage of people converting from faith A to faith B is only a fraction of those content to stick with the house brand they were reared in. And what, other than early rearing, explains that adherence to one's natal religion? Rather than chuckling over my poor arguments, why not actually address them?


I can only answer for the faith I hold. I'm afraid I do not appear to be an expert as you claim to be on every faith. I can tell you who design and make the weapons for the atrocities committed both by religious people and atheists and those peopke are scientists. So instead of a self-righteous li condemning people the scientists might like to put their own house in order. Interesting the way when we point the finger at someone else there are four fingers pointing back towards us


----------



## Strange Magic

*Wars*: Dealt with; human malignancy at work. I am not aware of any other species that so wars against itself.

*Proof of God's Existence*: Examined many times over a lifetime. Can one thus prove the existence of multiple gods? Can it be disproved that I am a god?

*Catholic Church predation of young children*: No Comment other than the Free Press and emboldened victims will continue to throw light upon this issue.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> *Wars*: Dealt with; human malignancy at work. I am not aware of any other species that so wars against itself.
> 
> *Proof of God's Existence*: *Examined many times over a lifetime. * Can one thus prove the existence of multiple gods? Can it be disproved that I am a god?
> 
> *Catholic Church predation of young children*: No Comment other than the Free Press and emboldened victims will continue to throw light upon this issue.


I have examined God's existence over a lifetime personally and experimentally and I can tell you that a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. You unfortunately are barking up the wrong tree. In fact, I don't think you are even at the tree!


----------



## janxharris

I make that 16,572 paedophile priests.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> I can only answer for the faith I hold. I'm afraid I do not appear to be an expert as you claim to be on every faith. I can tell you who design and make the weapons for the atrocities committed both by religious people and atheists and those peopke are scientists. So instead of a self-righteous li condemning people the scientists might like to put their own house in order. Interesting the way when we point the finger at someone else there are four fingers pointing back towards us


Again, please read my posts before replying to your version of them. I have now several times affirmed the obvious to you--that scientists are as guilty of Sin as anyone else. The issue was--and is--whether scientists have different and more fruitful methods for understanding and describing reality than the general public. Scientists design the bombs, engineers and craftspeople build them, voters and taxpayers fund them, foreign policy "experts" target them, the military delivers them. And the priests and chaplains bless them.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> I have examined God's existence over a lifetime personally and experimentally and I can tell you that a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. You unfortunately are barking up the wrong tree. In fact, I don't think you are even at the tree!


It has never been in my mind that you can or will change your views. I ask only that you engage in substance and not merely in repeating that you believe (in this or that). I note only that those countries in the world today with "liberal" and humane governments and mostly content, free, and prosperous populations--and also have the most equal and respected female populations--have been marked over decades by a measurable loss of religious fervor. Think Spain and Ireland in particular; the two trends are strongly correlated--populations live better lives when not obsessed by religion.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Again, please read my posts before replying to your version of them. I have now several times affirmed the obvious to you--that scientists are as guilty of Sin as anyone else. The issue was--and is--whether scientists have different and more fruitful methods for *understanding and describing reality *than the general public. Scientists design the bombs, engineers and craftspeople build them, voters and taxpayers fund them, foreign policy "experts" target them, the military delivers them. And the priests and chaplains bless them.


Depends what you mean by understanding reality. In my experience scientists don't have any more means of understanding what lies beyond the material realm than anyone else as science deals only with the material realm.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> It has never been in my mind that you can or will change your views. I ask only that you engage in substance and not merely in repeating that you believe (in this or that). I note only that those countries in the world today with "liberal" and humane governments and mostly content, free, and prosperous populations--and also have the most equal and respected female populations--have been marked over decades by a measurable loss of religious fervor. Think Spain and Ireland in particular; the two trends are strongly correlated--*populations live better lives when not obsessed by religion*.


Yes so why don't you live in North Korea? No religion there. It's official! :lol:

And of course, Stalinist Russia was a Uptopia!


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Yes so why don't you live in North Korea? No religion there. It's official! :lol:


Again, please engage. North Korea is yet another bright shiny thing that attracts your eye. I was perfectly clear what countries I was referring to. You trivialize this discussion. Why?


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Again, please read my posts before replying to your version of them. I have now several times affirmed the obvious to you--that scientists are as guilty of Sin as anyone else. The issue was--and is--whether scientists have different and more fruitful methods for understanding and describing reality than the general public. Scientists design the bombs, engineers and craftspeople build them, voters and taxpayers fund them, foreign policy "experts" target them, the military delivers them. And the priests and chaplains bless them.


I've given you my response to your argument: it's as good as far as it goes but it doesn't go far enough. I don't intend to elaborate any further on that issue.

Given your obvious sneering attitude towards religion, if the discussions in the "groups" area on religion are anything like this has been of late I'm even more inclined to accept DrMike's opinion that it's a waste of time going there.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Depends what you mean by understanding reality. In my experience scientists don't have any more means of understanding what lies beyond the material realm than anyone else as science deals only with the material realm.


You are correct. It is impossible to demonstrate what lies beyond the material realm. It could be anything, and usually is whatever we want it to be. Let the imagination run riot!


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Again, please engage. North Korea is yet another bright shiny thing that attracts your eye. I was perfectly clear what countries I was referring to. You trivialize this discussion. Why?


Sorry but I did exactly what you did just to show you how trivial your examples are. The problem with people like you is you cannot take it when the same argument is put back at you.


----------



## Strange Magic

Partita said:


> I've given you my response to your argument: it's as good as far as it goes but it doesn't go far enough. I don't intend to elaborate any further on that issue.
> 
> Given your obvious sneering attitude towards religion, if the discussions in the "groups" area on religion are anything like this has been of late I'm even more inclined to accept DrMike's opinion that it's a waste of time going there.


Now you're pouting.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> You are correct. It is impossible to demonstrate what lies beyond the material realm. It could be anything, and usually is whatever we want it to be. Let the imagination run riot!


Not the imagination but actually researched facts. You really have no idea, have you?


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I did exactly what you did just to show you how trivial your examples are. The problem with people like you is you cannot take it when the same argument is put back at you.


Please engage. You can do it.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Not the imagination but actually researched facts. You really have no idea, have you?


Now we're getting somewhere. What are the researched facts about what lies beyond the material realm? Do all agree?


----------



## Guest

DeepR said:


> Evidently, some of our dear members have not succeeded in going back on topic as requested by the moderator.
> Let me just state the obvious that arguing over politics and religion on the internet is usually a complete waste of time and very often leads to a toxic atmosphere and conflict, as is happening right now...
> Please, this is such a nice and relatively civil forum, don't let it turn into a cesspool like some other places I have seen.


There was bound to be some tetchiness in this discussion, which has been about from where Wagner acquired his anti-semitic opinions. It was suggested that it might be the result of the more general anti-semitism that is alleged to have been a key feature of Christianity since the early Church.

Speaking for myself, I have taken exception to the allegation that this has been such an important feature. I don't doubt that it has existed in various parts of Christendom but I do not believe that the Church has deliberately pursued a policy of persecution of Jews or Muslims purely for religious reasons. They may have "rubber-stamped" policies on occasion that were introduced initially in order to protect its membership from unfair practices like excessive interest on loans, tax evasion, or generally to counter any perceived security risks.

By modern standards it may seem that some were anti-semitic in character, but I have questioned that on the premise that most were no different in principle from a range of measures that, say, the USA government has adopted at various times to protect its citizens from potentially harmful influences, for general security purposes, and to ensure fairness in the tax system. If there are any specific cases in the Medieval church or later where this may not be correct, my view is that they were probably aberrant and not pursued vigorously.

Whereas the USA government has huge resources and very long tentacles, with separate departments stretching into many areas of social and business life, this wasn't the case in Medieval Europe. On the contrary there was often little regulation outside the Church's sphere of control, apart from local taxation. Little wonder that some of its measures adopted by the Church may have the outward impression of being unfair to some sections of the community who chose to live outside the conventional norms, like the Jews, but it was a choice of either having the measures or risk partial collapse of the entire system of control. Remember we are only talking about relatively small numbers of affected people, compared with the overall populations.

Some folk here, however, want to believe the worse of the Church and have dug up all manner of lists of regulations that they consider prove that the Church was a terrible organisation in respect of being anti-semitic. I have answered these points the best I can, and have now stated all I that intend to on this subject, and will only chip in on other aspects that may come up. Time for me to move on.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Woodduck's posts #545-548 offer all the material necessary to demonstrate the active and centuries-long anti-semitism practiced by the Church


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

And now aoc and her stupid squad are anti-semitisc, do you denounce their antisemitismil?


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> And now aoc and her stupid squad are anti-semitisc, do you denounce their antisemitismil?


Are you talking to me? Is it about Ann Coulter?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

No the stupid former bartender now represting a stupid district of new york crap city in congress.


----------



## Strange Magic

From Tragedy to Farce.


----------



## millionrainbows

From a whisper to a scream.


----------



## mmsbls

The past few days have included almost purely religious posts and more importantly a large number of negative personal comments. Thread closed.


----------

