(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

I'd like to share with you a story from my religion. It's about the goddess of childbirth, Ninmah, and the cunning god, Enki. They get drunk one night and have a competition: can Ninmah produce a disabled person for whom Enki can't find a place in society? She makes a blind man, and Enki gives him a job as a musician. She makes a lame man, and Enki gives him a job as a silversmith. She makes a woman who can't have children, and Enki gives her a job as a weaver. She makes an intellectually disabled man, and Enki gives him a job as a servant of the king.

I like this story for two reasons. Firstly, because of its light-hearted explanation of disability: it's not a curse or a judgement or a catastrophe, it's just that the gods had a bit too much to drink. And secondly, because of its compassion. No disabled person is worthless; each has a useful role in society. We need weavers and silversmiths and musicians, and where would the king be without his servants?

I thought of this story when reading the terrible news stories about two women with Down syndrome who were apparently used as human bombs in Iraq. Far from treating them as people created by God or the gods, they were treated as worthless and disposable.

And I thought of myself, too, crippled with physical and mental illness, and yet still able to keep a household running and do a little Web work and writing and look after my husband and cats.

Comments

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

And I thought of myself, too, crippled with physical and mental illness, and yet still able to keep a household running and do a little Web work and writing and look after my husband and cats.

And you do a great job of it, too. You will get better, Kate. We salute you.


And please pat the boys for me.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Tim's on the windowsill being a tiger! DO NOT PAT ME I AM WILDLIFE.

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

I should tell you about Trixie and the rat on Sunday Morning (5.30am). maybe I should blog that.

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

I need to expand a little on the above remark. Kate, I admire you. With all the physical and mental problems that could easily make you give up, you are still reading and thinking and writing and educating people like me. You haven't stopped being an intelligent, warm, friendly human being, and you are working on making the world a better place, a little bit at a time. You are doing more than many people I know. Please continue being marvellous.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

*blush*

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

Praise is given where praise is due.

I don't say things like that lightly.

[leoniedelt.livejournal.com]

IAWTC. totally.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

*toes turn red of blush*

[leoniedelt.livejournal.com]

*has been a card carrying member of the Kate Orman fan club since the late 90s at radw* :)

[mrteufel.livejournal.com]

That's a cool legend.

[bex77]

The bombing reports have been much on my mind. Just when I think they can't get any more barbaric, they find a way. *sigh*

[jblum.livejournal.com]

Footnote to the above:

You. Are. Not. Crippled.

You have more than your fair share of obstacles and hassles, but there are ways to overcome them, just like you've overcome so many of the things you felt "crippled" you in the past.

I love you.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

"Squished"?

off topic

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

Re: off topic

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

Those critters have had other appearances... but for the life of me I can't remember what the song was that they danced to. It was some big-band number.

Re: off topic

[jblum.livejournal.com]

The track from that sketch is called "Java", and it's best known to me as the closing theme to "Vision On"!

Re: off topic

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

Ahaaaa. Thanks. I knew the name was something to drink, but it wasn't 'Tequila'. ^^;;

Re: off topic

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

Re: off topic

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

Re: off topic

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-kDtgtF9qU

Re: off topic

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[stevencaldwell.livejournal.com]

Having been a teacher of a child with Downs syndrome I can categorically say that without such beautiful beings we are somehow lesser. When you are with such a child, sure it's frustrating, but everyone wins in the end.

As to you being 'crippled' well, back on the cushion grrrlll and a gimme twenty "may I be well and happy and at peace's' please!

[(Anonymous)]

'it's not a curse or a judgement or a catastrophe, it's just that the gods had a bit too much to drink' -- Um, I'm not sure how that's supposed to be comforting? If I were lame, I don't think it would help to be told that my disability was the product of a drunken bet; that the gods thought so little of me.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Well, the actual scientific explanation for a congenital condition is that it's just a mistake - a copying error in the DNA, a botched step in the process of pregnancy. My own illnesses fall into this category. It's nobody's fault that I'm ill; it's not the wages of sin, or the sign of God's anger; and crucially, there's no need to exclude me from society - in fact, I ought to be included. The gods have messed up, but they also care about the people who're affected by it.

[(Anonymous)]

And that seems like a rather more comforting explanation: you're not this way because the gods got drunk and played a game with your life -- God wants you to be perfect, but this is a fallen world in which tragic mistakes happen. This doesn't have God 'messing up' (which would be bad enough), and nor does it have what your explanation does, the gods effectively making people with disabilities deliberately on a whim, for a bit of a laugh (which it seems to me is a worse thing to tell the afflicted: you're just a god's drunken game).

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Since the "fallen world" is humanity's fault, we're back at the "curse or judgment" explanation there.

[(Anonymous)]

'Consequence' rather than 'curse' or 'judgment'.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

That still makes it our fault, though.

[(Anonymous)]

In a general sense, yes; is that a problem?

[(Anonymous)]

(Crucially, in your story, the gods don't care about the people they are creating: if they did they wouldn't be creating people with disabilities in the first place, would they? Enki isn't finding these people places in society because he cares, he's doing it to prove his own cleverness (as evidenced by the satirical places he finds them). They have their own bet, a silly drunken challenge, and it's the people down below who will have to live with the fallout long after the gods have moved on to their next bit of thoughtless fun.

Such gods.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Those aren't "satirical" places, but genuine roles in society for the disabled.

In Enki's defence, I should mention that he saved the human race from the Flood. But I think the story is really about the role of chance in our lives, and how we deal with it: "shit happens".

[(Anonymous)]

'Intellectually disabled' -> 'servant of the king' sounded satirical to me. If I got it wrong, whoops.

I still don't see any chance or compassion in the story. The gods get drunk and have a bet; they decide to cripple some humans as part of their game. The only chance is whether you happen to be one of the humans they pick on for their sport. Shit, in the story, doesn't just happen: the gods, in their caprice, are the ones who maim and strike down. And there's no compassion: Enki does what he does to win the bet.

It might have been different if the story had been, say, that Ninmah was having a bad day and making disabled people and being about to throw them aside when Enki turns up and says 'no you can't do that, look, I'll find them places.' And shows her that actually they can fit. Then there's chance (though it's still saying to disabled people 'you're the less-good creations, the ones that an incompetent god got wrong', which I would object to) and there's compassion.

But that's not the story.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

'Intellectually disabled' -> 'servant of the king' sounded satirical to me.

lulz

I still don't see any chance or compassion in the story.

Can you see how "the gods are drunk" is a metaphor for "shit happens"?

[(Anonymous)]

No, I can't, I'm afraid. Do you not see that getting drunk and then deliberately playing with people's lives is an entirely different kettle of fish to 'shit happening'?

If the claim were that, say, a rich feudal lord who gets drunk and has a similar bet with his rich feudal lord friend -- and then sends out his servant to maim one of his serfs, and hands the maimed serf over to the other lord who, to win the bet, finds a place for him in his retinue -- would that be about 'shit happens'? Or would it be a story about cruelty, callously inflicted simply because those above have the power to do so?

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

It's true - the gods are fickle, negligent, and goofy. Which is a good match for the general randomness of real life, and solves the theodicy problem to boot. I much prefer the idea of gods who simply fucked up to the idea that it's my own fault I'm sick because my ancestors didn't do as they were told.

[(Anonymous)]

the gods are fickle, negligent, and goofy

And yet you worship them?

I much prefer the idea of gods who simply fucked up

They didn't fuck up, though, as discussed above. They were fickle, negligent, and -- goofy hardly covers it. Mindlessly cruel.

to the idea that it's my own fault I'm sick because my ancestors didn't do as they were told

In what possible way would that then be 'your fault'?

If, rather than being born lame, a child is maimed by a drunken driver, they are more directly the victim of sin than the one who is a tragic mistake in a fallen world (who is a victim of sin, but indirectly); are you going to claim that the injury of the car-struck child is the child's 'own fault because [the driver] didn't do as they were told'?

Perhaps 'fault' is the wrong way to look at it; perhaps 'responsibility' is better. That people are born disabled because of the fallen nature of the world, because of the sin of all of us, that means that the fact there are those who are born disabled is our responsibility.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

And yet you worship them?

We probably mean different things by "worship". Not to mention "gods", actually.

Re the concept of Original Sin, you'd be better off discussing it with your fellow anonymous poster, since I reject this piece of ugly theology with all my might.

[(Anonymous)]

Why; what do you mean?

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

"Can you be more specific?" - Xoanon

[(Anonymous)]

What do you mean by 'worship'; what do you mean by 'gods'?

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

OK doke... you first! :-)

[(Anonymous)]

You brought it up. If you want to claim that you mean a different thing to (what you assume) I mean then the burden is on you to explain how, possibly including what you think I mean.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure it'd be easier for me to articulate where our meanings differ. But to be honest, I don't think you give a flying frog-monster what I believe, so I'll leave our discussion there.

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

I still don't see any chance or compassion in the story. The gods get drunk and have a bet; they decide to cripple some humans as part of their game.

Funny thing about monotheism -- it often assumes that God is perfect and isn't capable of making a mistake. Everything God does in that context is deliberate, and usually either a punishment or a reward for an individual or humanity at large.

Pantheistic parables that talk about the gods getting drunk, playing tricks on each other, and making mistakes are supposed to carry the implication that you never know what those crazy gods are going to do, and sometimes humanity just has to roll with the punches.

In either case, there is no chance on the gods' side of things -- they're portrayed as conscious beings making decisions (and perhaps lacking in compassion or forethought sometimes). But from the human side, the monotheistic version implies that humans can control the situation by being good (i.e. working to please the gods, get rewards, and avoid punishment).

To me, that's where the element of 'chance' comes in on the 'gods getting drunk' story. We can't control whether gods get drunk, but we still have to live in the world that they made. That seems like a pretty straightforward metaphor for living in a world where we ask questions like 'why was I made this way?' In the absence of gods, the answer is still the same as far as our own responsibility is concerned -- it just happened, and we can't help it.

[(Anonymous)]

But from the human side, the monotheistic version implies that humans can control the situation by being good (i.e. working to please the gods, get rewards, and avoid punishment)

Christianity certainly doesn't: thinking you can control God by being good is, well, gosh, there was a whole Reformation about that.

Judaism, or at least the Old Testament, has more of a tradition of calling on God -- but even then it's not so much of being able to control God by being Good, as God being a just judge who will find in the favour of the innocent. When the Psalmist calls on God, he's not trying to control or invoke God by being good, he's asking God to recognise his goodness. Important difference that: when two parties go to court, is the wronged one trying to control the judge by having been wronged? Or are they simply asking to court to recognise the justic eof the situation.

I know about Islam even less, but my impression is that a Muslim would laugh at the very idea of trying to control Allah, or change his mind in any way. Allah is sovereign and does whatever he wants, and we humans must simply accept that and obey -- very much like you describe the pantheistic response.