In the Month of Augustus

A little bit different today. On my other blog I sometimes point out that religions can be viewed as redundant political systems. Once upon a time, in an age before the separation of church and state, religions were the state. And religious law was the law. There was no clear separation. Our failure to recognise this often leads us to misunderstand the past.

Anyway, the case in point that struck me today comes in regard the calendar. Many of our months and days are named after gods and historical figures. Thursday and Friday named after Thor and Freya. The month we're in now, August, supposedly named for the Roman emperor Augustus. The previous month, July, likewise said to be named for Julius Caesar.

We often look back at our forebears with condescension when we see how they named such things after gods, or viewed mere men as gods - or possibly allowed themselves to be ruled by men who portrayed themselves as gods ..but perhaps we're misunderstanding the past. After all we have similar things now.

Lincoln's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Guy Fawkes Day, Columbus Day, and so forth.

All named for real world political figures or for important cultural/political events. Over time these events and figures have become somewhat larger than life, and the further back in time they occurred the more so they begin to blur into myth and legend. Perhaps one day, on seeing the "Lincoln Day" in the calendar, along with the various Lincoln statues we leave to posterity, future people may deem that we worshipped Abraham Lincoln in a similar way to the way the Romans were said to worship Caesar.

Of course, if they did this they'd be completely misunderstanding our culture and why we have these things.

(A very able looking statue of Abe Lincoln, flanked by Augustus

 - and you wonder how the rumours started)

On understanding this the logical thing to do is to reappraise our Roman forebears, give them a bit more credit, and recognise that such relics in our calendar perhaps arrived there because of similar social and political reasons. Rather than due to some vague religious fervour. Perhaps it was also at one time the same with the various "gods" representing the days of the week.

Over time the calendar has become more complex and precisely measured. So it would make sense that we first starting naming the months and the recurring week days. Only to then get more precise later as we developed the technology to more easily remember specific dates. Maybe Lincoln would've got a whole month had he arrived on the scene a few millennia earlier. (Jesus, the major figure in western historic tradition got the whole calendar started on his birthday (!) )

Today we tend to see ourselves as being much more advanced than these earlier cultures, and we believe that we've left a lot of their bad habits behind ..but are we really so different?

Take the inquisition and various other religious persecutions. Where people were persecuted as heretics for simply not believing. For not believing in Jesus Christ, or for not believing the correct version of Christianity. For not believing that a man died for our sins. Surely we wouldn't persecute people today for not believing that someone died? Or that a popular event in our culture wasn't quite as reported. Thank God we're past that, hmm..

It seems that by not believing you become a heretic. Again, we tend to think of these things in purely religious terms now, but like Lincoln's birthday or perhaps the month of July, they're very much political in nature. Heresy is not about belief, but about unbelief. If you stray from the "official" line then you become heterodox. It makes perfect sense. If you question those with power and refuse to fall in line then obviously they're not going to like that very much. It makes much more sense than priests and kings persecuting people for no other reason than religious pedantry.

Once again, we think we've left all this behind. That we're beyond all that backwards superstition and persecution, but the more savvy will see the parallels with the modern world only too well.

It could be said that in many ways the modern heretic is the conspiracy theorist. Again that unbelief thing. "What, you don't believe we went to the Moon? Are you saying all the governments and institutions are lying !! ?"

The conversation must have been similar in earlier times.

"What, you don't believe in the Trinity! Are you saying all the priests and kings are part of some vast conspiracy?"

I'm overdramatising a little, but you get the point. It's not that hard for "conspiracies" or untruths to take root in any society, including today's. Most people will believe anything, or at least pretend to believe anything, if it pays the rent or mortgage. As Winston Zeddemore says in Ghostbusters "..if there's a steady paycheck in it I'll believe anything you say." However, for those that refuse, or for those that reach a point where they simply can't believe nor pretend to believe no more, then they become heretics.