I believe in the suspension of belief

[Gordon Moore]

No problem for me.

[Chris Walsh]

Agreed - nobodies gonna be disenfranchised of their religious beliefs or non-beliefs here... so I wonder if we can say that there's been a general consensus on the original point?

My own view was made clear... I think it's bad for the entire industry (and for the enjoyment of punters) as well as for the welfare of the 'genre's' artists that we openly affiliate religion with world music... it's clearly not the point of Ramadan Nights (as evidenced by Con), so why bother? It sends out such a misguided message.

Thoughts?...

[kas]

I am explicitely not trying to step on anybody's religious or secularist feelings, but this is just a thought that just occurred to me...

How do you, as punters, feel about the Festival des musiques sacrées (Festival of Sacred music) held in Fez, Morocco?
The setting and much of the programme comes from Islamic culture(s), but not exclusively, and the purpose of the festival is to celebrate all genres of music created in a religious (in broad terms) context.
Can you enjoy the music while maintaining a strictly secularist approach to it?
Much of medieval music is explicitely religious and meant to forward the ideals of Christianity - would it be harmful to present it as a representative of Christian cultures in, say, the Barbican? Would you attend that concert?
What if you were a moslem?

(Please consider that these are largely just half-formed babies of ideas thought about while having my first cup of coffee of the morning. All fuzzy and hazy logic therein derives from that.)

[howard male]

Norman wrote -

Neither you nor Howard are now discussing the original points raised by Chris.

And since when has this been an issue with any other subject discussed on this forum? Nearly every topic ends up shooting off in all sorts of directions. And I still don't quite see why those that object to the debate can't just switch channels, so to speak.

But anyway, I'm bloody exhuasted, and vaguely depressed by the discussion anyway, so you won't be hearing another word out of me.

[CantSleepClownsWillGetMe]

Just catching up with this, and feeling much the same way that Howard does.

So, if this thread is to be 'moved' to some shadowy corner of the forum, from which point in the discussion does this censorship start? Is it the entire thread that is deemed to be so offensive? Or just from the point where posters start to discuss the existence or non-existence of God? But where exactly is that? Could it be on page 1 where Jonathan says:-

Monotheism, in whatever forms it takes, is the problem. Islam, Christian, Jew — all come from the same poisonous well (aka hallucinations in the desert). All "chosen people," "one true faith," etc. etc. etc. that don't allow the rest of us to live free of their constrictions . . . you know where I'm going. Fuck 'em all. Why don't they leave us alone? I don't want to play their game. Even more than that, I don't want them to run my life.

or where Chris (the original poster - whose thread has allegedly been 'hijacked' by Howard and Gordon M) says:-

Gordon Moore wrote:
Chris Walsh wrote:

(Note - I'm an equal opportunity unbeliever!)


Hi Chris, you raise an interesting question, the premise of which might also be applied to faith schools?

However, I was trying to work out what the bit quoted above might mean, as on the face of it it seems a little odd?


I guess I was trying to be too clever. What I meant was, it's not especially Islam that I think is nonsense, it's any organisation whose existence relies on its underpinning being a rejection of reality... however much they may bend themselves into pretzels in trying to obscure that fact.

On the question of faith schools - I think their existence is an absolute outrage. It's a slap in the face to Newton, Einstein, Darwin etc. It's essentially giving permission to parents to institutionally raise their children with the belief that whatever clashes with the account of reality proffered by some bronze age myths is to be rejected. Which is why, even in the 21st Century, evolution is critised as a theory with a small 't'.
The more kids 'graduate' from schools like this - the more uneducated people we'll have looking for work and being almost entirely unqualified for many of the major sectors of employment - law, medicine, politics, teaching (in general) - even further education. If you've been raised to literally believe the scripture of any religion, you'll end up (hopefully) being barred from all these fields.

Anyone involved in schools like that should feel welcome to accept my invitation to test the 'theory' of gravity on top of the tallest building nearest to them.

Have you also heard that we're allowing sharia courts in civil cases now in this country?I'd laugh if it didn't make me want to cry.!"

... after which the discussion moved on to Darwinism, creationism, and the existence / non-existence of God? Were the points raised in their posts meant to go unanswered, or to pass without comment? It certainly looks that way to me.

Oh well. Anally retentive and censorious liberalism has won the day yet again. And that sucks.

June

[Con Murphy]

Some emotive terms there, June, so for clarification can I just say that my suggestion that the broader religious discussion be moved was not intended to be censorious or anal (although I can't help myself with the latter - I'm afraid I was born that way). Quite the opposite: it's standard practice for Charlie to edit and reshuffle in this manner, so I thought it would help keep both interesting strands going for those that are interested in them. It was only an editorial suggestion, not an attempt to suppress debate.

As to where I would suggest it branched? For what it's worth, Jonathan E's generalised 'attack' on religion (if you want to see it that way - I'm sure Gordon did) would be where I would make the first cut 'n' paste.

[Charlie]

I wonder if I could suggest a half-way house, ie that Charlie or one of his moderation team move the broader religious discussion to a separate thread*, as he does when musical discussion goes off on a tangent? I'm sure I'm not alone in mistakenly returning to this thread when new posts appear, in the hope that they might be about the original topic. No offence intended to Howard or Gordon, who are obviously very passionate about this subject.

*maybe even tag it onto The God Delusion thread.

Sorry I didn't react sooner to this suggestion.

I hope I have caught the right posts and left behind those that properly belonged in Chris' original thread.

One anomaly is that the count of viewers goes back to zero.

Another is that a thread cannot be attached onto another existing discussion as Con suggested.

I'll leave it here in the main forum for a while although in some ways it belongs in the 'Other' category below, which is where I will put it when it goes quiet.

Compared to the intensity of anger that can surface here sometimes, the tone of this debate has been admirably calm and respectful almost all the time.

[Chris Walsh]

Compared to the intensity of anger that can surface here sometimes, the tone of this debate has been admirably calm and respectful almost all the time.

I think that's quite an achievement when you consider that we more often tend to lose our cool over the comparitively frivilous subject of music.

[Jonathan E.]

. . . the comparitively frivilous subject of music.

Oh! I'm getting really steamed now! Not only about the spelling, which is one of my secondary religions, but the BLASPHEMY of calling music "comparatively frivolous" — I'm sorry I couldn't help myself from making that spelling religiously orthodox.

Music is one of my primary religions. I truly believe that whatever creative powers are, or may be, embedded in the universe are expressed through music. I've tried suspending that belief but it just doesn't work for me. A world without God or a god or whatever is imaginable to me, but one without music isn't. That would be hell, a concept that I otherwise disagree with having had a gutload of it when sent to various Catholic schools.

[Jonathan E.]

PS to

of my early

Monotheism, in whatever forms it takes, is the problem. Islam, Christian, Jew — all come from the same poisonous well (aka hallucinations in the desert). All "chosen people," "one true faith," etc. etc. etc. that don't allow the rest of us to live free of their constrictions . . . you know where I'm going. Fuck 'em all. Why don't they leave us alone? I don't want to play their game. Even more than that, I don't want them to run my life.

While I do indeed feel that way about conventionally organized monotheistic religions, especially when they enter the political field, I also enjoy much of the musical culture that goes along with them. Both Islamic and Jewish music have a great power that I find difficult to explain, and I even like a small amount of Christian music, especially when live in a suitable acoustic space like a cathedral.

Part of the problem with discussions such as we have engaged in is that we tend to portray these religions as monolithic in their actions, when, in fact, they have a wide range of opinions within each one. However, I am of the opinion that monotheism generally directs human affairs into an unhealthy spiritual orientation — and eventually has deleterious political and social results, which was the real point of my original comment.

Peace and love, baby — and worship as much music and nature as you can find seems to me to be preferable. And keep trying to find more!

[Charlie]

A world without God or a god or whatever is imaginable to me, but one without music isn't.

Yes, I suppose I agree. Although religion is so unimportant in my life, it never crossed my mind to contrast its insignificance with the primary place of music in my life.

I've always seen religion as a trick by which some men claim to have the inside knowledge, which they'll pass on to you only if you surrender to the idea that they know more than you. Well of course they know more, they and their kind made all this nonsense up in the first place.

Whereas music is tangible, undeniable. You may not like mine, and vice versa. But there it is: a collection of sounds with mysterious, inexplicable powers to touch, fascinate and entertain us.

The curious thing is that quite a few musicians do get the idea about themselves that they are somehow more important than everybody else in their world, just like religious leaders do. There are lots of instrumentalists and singers who treat their musicians derisively, not understanding or appreciating how much they depend on them to help deliver their 'message' (ie, the songs). Yes, I'm talking about Miles, Van, Kevin R, Ray C, James B, fill in the names as you like, the story is almost always the same. But whereas it may be uncomfortable being close to such men, it's painless pleasure to listen to their music.

I always treasure the handful of musicians I've met and worked with who don't fit this mould, who did and still do appreciate the value of others around them. So yes, there are such people, and it's even possible to make it a principle to work only with them, not with those others who think they are touched by the hand of ... oh oh, we're back where we started.

[Des]

'Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on Sundays'. Woody Allen.

[Gordon Moore]

Is that the voice of an angel I hear?

[Des]

The Angel Peter Gabriel!

[howard male]

Charlie wrote -

The curious thing is that quite a few musicians do get the idea about themselves that they are somehow more important than everybody else in their world, just like religious leaders do.

Which reminds me - I'm just getting some copies of my novel 'Etc Etc Amen' printed for promotional purposes, so if any of you religion and music nutters fancy reading a novel in which religion and music feature heavily, now is your chance - just send me a private message, and then send me a donation of a tenner!

It's a proper paperback with a really pretty cover, and it has some thrillingly complementary quotes from Charlie, Jamie Renton, and David Quantick on the back, which I'm hoping will entice agents and publishers to read it.

I hasten to add that this is a no-profit price as each book costs £7.50 to produce, plus delivery to me, and then postage to you. But anyway, I'm not concerned about making a profit at this stage, I just want readers: readers who can tell me what they did and didn't like about the book, and readers who might - hopefully - spread the word. For example, if you know someone in publishing who will help me circumvent what is called the slushpile (the hundreds of manuscripts awaiting attention), which puts a knot in my stomach every time I think about it. Obviously, if you can guarantee you'll get a copy under such an individual's nose, you can have it for free.

I've ended up putting nearly three years work into this novel, and after half a dozen revisions/rewrites I've finally arrived at something which feels right and feels complete. It was bloody hard work, but now comes the really hard part, actually getting the right person to read it, and the book into the bookshops.

Oh yes - as for what all this has to do with CG's quote above. One of my main protagonists is such a character. My in-a-nutshell summing-up of 'Etc Etc Amen' reads:

'Etc Etc Amen' is a love story, a hate story, a murder mystery, a conspiracy thriller, and a satire on organised religion.

'Etc Etc Amen' explores the connections between the anoraked music obsessive and the blinkered religious extremist.

'Etc Etc Amen' has two related narrative strands, one of which takes place in 1970's London, and the other in present-day Marrakech.

Although the novel features a turquoise tripod, some three legged greyhounds, and Jesus's foreskin, 'Etc Etc Amen' is not a sci-fi or fantasy novel.

Any questions?