MDMD(6): Uncomfortable religious questions arising.

[Terrance]

Just some thoughts and a few notes: 

First, I'm not a theologian, not an expert in or on Religion. If I
offend anyone with my comments please let me know. Where I am in error,
feel free to set me straight. 

Calvinism: Broadly influential Protestant theology emanating from the
French theologian John Calvin, who fled to  Switzerland, where he
reordered life in the community of Geneva according to his conception of
the Bible. Calvinism emphasized the power and omnipotence of God and the
importance of seeking to earn saving grace and salvation, even though
God had already determined (the concept of predestination) who would be
eternally saved or damned.

We know that P read Weber and that Weber's influence in GR is
substantial. 

This is a critique of Weber. 

http://gypsy.cad.gatech.edu/support/sandra/paper.html

In the Cape here, I suspect that P depicts the formation of a
distinctive, though fictionalized colonial society. Calvinism here is
Colonial Africa Calvinism and we have other Christians as well. 

By the 1660s pressure on the Khoikhoi and the San increased as more of
their land was taken by European farmers. The Dutch East India Company
encouraged Dutch, German, and French Huguenot immigration between 1680
and 1707 to what later became known as the Cape Colony.
The colonists, mostly farmers and cattle herders, became known as Boers
(Dutch for "farmers") or Afrikaners. They developed their own
distinctive culture and language (Afrikaans) and practiced their own
form of Calvinism, a Protestant religion. During the second half of the
17th
century slaves were imported from Asia and other parts of Africa. 

I think I posted this already, maybe not, it's a chronological
introduction with a map of the Dutch Colonies. 


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/6497/SouthAfrica.html






Anyone suspect that P may be commenting on the legacy (Apartheid) of
these political/religious systems? 

Interesting stuff: 

APARTHEID THEOLOGY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www2.uzulu.ac.za/the/bibs/udine-01.htm

CHRISTIANITY AND APARTHEID:  An Introductory Bibliography
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/irving/apart.html





Anyway, religion here has rules. Rules about marriage, business, just
about everything you can think of. 


For example, religions provide rules for marriage. If a Roman Catholic
marries a Baptist and so on, if a Jewish woman marries a gentile the
children are considered....or marriages outside the religion or sect are
prohibited...conversion must....mixing of races, free persons and slave
persons....

To complicate matters P introduces theological issues, like
transubstantiation. 

Transubstantiation is one of those big and complicated theological
issues. I say more about this later. For now, we might want to consider
that Dixon wouldn't believe in it any of its complexity;  rejecting the
sacrament, the sacrifice, the priest, the alter, the bread and wine,
body and blood, presence real or otherwise and the terms
.while Mason,
as an Anglican would hold a very different view, not quite the Roman
Catholic position, but close to it, but he may not hold the same
position as his parents (his Father). Moreover, he may not be sure where
he stands on this. 


Note the sheep, lambs, bread, dogs, and
cannibalism...transubstantiation. 

To complicate this we have members of a particular Christian sect, say
Dixon (Quakers),  who do not  hold to some of the practices of their
Religion, even though they may adopt a central theological principle (as
Dixon does Fox's teachings). So Dixon, says, he may get violent
(especially when sober) and even kill. He could be joking or
exaggerating, of course, but he does  make it known that he has been
formally tossed out of the Society of Friends for drinking. The lesser
of two evils, I guess. 

Another irony is also evident in Dixon's comments about other families
being kicked out of the Society of Friends for being married by a
priest. There is no  priest to make Quaker marriages. This caused them
all
sorts of political and legal problems. So the fact that the Quakers
would toss folks out for being married by a priest is an ironic
reversal.    



BTW, Quakers do not have priests, alters (RC Alters for Anglicans
became Tables, and all this sitting down to feast (Anglican
transubstantiation) and talk (Quaker's, when they go to the Quaker
house, not church or mass, sit in silence) is exploited for all its
ironic possibilities  as well. And, that the food seems to have magic
powers and may even induce insanity (religious insanity, Hindu,
Christian, etc. is an important theme I suspect) is also at play here.  

To complicate this we have the facts of history. A German sect (starts
with an H, but I can't remember it) led the movement against slavery.
Quakers had slaves and  they traded slaves. Even after Quakers or The
Society of Friends condemned slavery and moved against it with great
force, many Quakers continued the horrible practice. 

Complicating this we have generation differences, most involve the
younger
generation moving to a more secular position while elders move in the
opposite direction. We can even have a father and son disagree about a
central dogma.