> Even for someone who was star-struck with Jackson and acted
> like an uncritical groupie, the description of "religious"
> for such a posture points up the reductionism in your
> characterization of religion. For criticism of religion
> to be illuminating, it must grapple with the true item in
> all its profundity, and you've missed it by a country mile.
I want to bite off (and if possible eliminate from the thread) one small part of this, the implied proposition that in the realm of religions there exists an entity which can be labelled "the true item in all its profundity."
This cannot possibly be a true statement *unless* the statement "god exists" is a true statement; otherwise it is the equivalent of claiming that one cannot speak of nazism or extra-sensory perception or racism until you have grappled with the true item in all its profundity. Since god does not exist, the proposition is literal non-sense from the beginning.
This is also clear on an empirical basis, that is the utter refusal of most of the world's religions (and particularly those who are the most bitterly opposed to the left and therefore, it goes without saying, the most dear to the heart of the self-hating left) to acknowledge even the possible truth of other versions of the belief in god.
(Incidentally, I regularly scoff at god in the presence of any of the several hundred christians I have worked with in various coalitions over the last 33 years, and none of them has ever been particularly offended. This includes one "coalition" grounded not in politics but in shared mental illness, the local Depression and Manic Depression Support Group, many members of which suffer from a rather worse mental illness than depression or manic depression, namely christianity and/or various "new age nonsense." I intend to, I already have, established the grounds with some of the people in the group for future shared political activity. My concern in this post, however, is Max's *theological proposition*, which involves "ideas," ideology, and historical-social analysis, not the practicalities of political work.)
When Max speaks of "profound," he must mean (and since he hasn't explained, I have no recourse but provisionally to put words in his mouth) whatever feelings and/or social opinions Christians have attached to the idea of god as they hold it -- that is, the various traditions of Christian theology.
Now it happens that I know more about that than for its own sake I would want to know. But one cannot spend half a lifetime studying English poets, all too many of them (including the ones that particularly interested me) either Christian or what one might call serious nominal Christians, as well as (worse) Christian critics of christian poets, without beginning almost feeling that one has achieved a doctorate in religion rather than literature. Now all that theological study paid off for me in one sense. I got published and therefore for the last 10 years of my career taught 9 hours of lit a semester instead of 12 hours of composition. If you want to get deep into profundity, Max, while giving yourself an introduction to christianity that also serves the more useful purpose of introducing you to a very great poem, I suggest you read some or many of the following (I stopped when I reached Ev" in the alphabet):
John Arthos, "Milton, Andreini, and Galileo: Some Considerations on the Manner and Form of *Paradise Lost*," in Patrides (ed), *Approaches to Paradise Lost: The York Centenary Lectures*, Toronto, 1968.
Herschel Baker, *The Dignity of Man: Studies in the Persistence of an Idea*, Harvard, 1947.
Arthur Barker, *Milton and the Puritan Dilemma*, Toronto, 1942.
____________, "Paradise Lost*: The Relevance of Regeneration* in B. Rajan (ed), *Paradise Lost: A Tercentenary Tribute...Univ. of Western Ontario... Toronto, 1969.
____________, "Structural and Doctrinal Pattern in Milton's Later Poems* in Maclure et al (eds) *Essays in Literature from the Renaissance to the Victorian Age Presented to A.S.P. Woodhouse*, Toronto, 1964.
Bedford, R.D., "Time, Freedom, and Foreknowledge in *Paradise Lost*," *Milton Studies* 16, 1982.
Millicent Bell, "The Fallacy of the Fall in *Paradise Lost*," *PMLA*, 1953, 863-883. (For 20 or more years Christian critics of PL devoted themselves to refuting this fine essay.)
Diana Benet, "Abdiel and the Son in the Separation Scene," *Milton Studies*, 1983.
Joan Bennett, "'Go': Milton's Antinomianism and the Separation Scene in *Paradise Lost*," *PMLA* 1983, 388-404.
Boyd Berry, *Process of Speech: Puritan Religous Writing and Paradise Lost*, Baltimore, 1976
Dennis Berthold, "The Concept of Merit in *Paradise Lost*," *Studies in English Literature* 1975, p. 153-67.
Georgia Christopher, *Milton and the Science of the Saints*, Princeton, 1982. [After you read this you will never even want to hear the names of Luther or Calvin again.]
Albert R. Cirillo, "Noon-Midnight and the Temporal Structure of *Paradise Lost*," ELH (English Lit. History), 1962, 372-93.
Rosalie Colie, "Time and Eternity: Paradox and Structure in *Paradise Lost*," Reprinted in *Modern Judgements* (ed. Rudrum), London, 1968. (She will tell you just exactly what you must believe if you want to be a Christian.)
Jackson Cope, *The Metaphoric Structure of Paradise Lost*, Baltimore, 1962.
Patrick Cullen, *Infernal Triad: The Flesh, the World and the Devil in Spencer and Milton*, Princeton, 1974.
Dennis Danielson, *Milton's Good God: A Study in Literary Theodicy*, Cambridge, Eng., 1982.
John Diekhoff, *Milton's Paradise Lost: A Commentary on the Argument, Columbia UP, 1946.
Joseph Duncan, *Milton's Earthly Paradise: A Historical Study of Eden*, Minneapolis, 1972.
Robert Entzminger, *Divine Word: Milton and the Redemption of Language*, Pittsburgh, 1985.
John Evans, *Paradise Lost and the Genesis Tradition*, Oxford UP, 1968.