Monty Python and Philosophy Gary Hardcastle (mystery books to read txt) 📖

an old man is to be stoned by a crowd impatient to hurl their rocks. The condemned man cries out that he only meant to compliment his wife’s cooking when he said “that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.” As soon as the mob hears the name “Jehovah,” one of them strikes the old man with a stone. The official in charge (John Cleese) chastises the offender and commands the group to allow the charges to be heard. When he further instructs them not to react when hearing the name “Jehovah” until the proceedings are concluded, he too is struck. One of the offenders (Eric Idle) defends his action, saying to Cleese, “After all, you did say ‘Jehovah,’” and Idle is also assaulted. Each time the name “Jehovah” is spoken, however inadvertently, rocks fly.

The uncivilized may view the stoning of blasphemers as despicable violence, but it is actually a religious duty. After all, the condemned man’s statement that the halibut served was “good enough for Jehovah” clearly uses the Lord’s name for some purpose other than reverence or worship. “What’s a little blasphemy?” you may ask. The old man’s statement may seem like a minor infraction, but remarks like this are the marijuana of blasphemy: they lead to more serious usage. For example, people who say “Jesus H. Christ” know Goddamn well that “H” is not His middle initial. And even though God is peeping, it is not appropriate to call out “Oh, God!” during sexual intercourse.58 So, there is no such thing as a “little” blasphemy. Stoning, then, is an ancient form of intervention meant to save blasphemers from bringing down the wrath of God. The punishment may seem severe, but if stoning saved just one life, wouldn’t it be worth it?

All seriousness aside, the Python’s sketch encourages us to reflect upon how absurd the policy of punishing blasphemers becomes in practice, when an old man is to be stoned to death for complimenting his wife’s dinner and others are battered for accidentally saying “Jehovah.” Apparently God is highly offended by these slights. To accept this view the believer must suppose that God heard the old man’s compliment and said to himself, “Well, I’ll be damned. I provide the halibut, the seasoning, the fire, and the cook gets all the credit. All she did was shove the darn thing into the oven, which I also provide, by the way. I tell you, I don’t get no respect.” Believers eager to punish transgressors evidently judge the All-Mighty incapable of handling these insults Himself. According to this view, God sanctions stoning and perhaps enjoys the spectacle as much as the participants who treat them as amusements not to be missed.

Socrates would no doubt take a dim view of this treatment of blasphemy. Blasphemy is a form of impiety or sinfulness and includes any false representation of the gods. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates discredits the work of Homer which depicts the gods acting out of anger, jealousy or pettiness. Socrates contends that the gods, as perfect beings, do not so conduct themselves, and therefore any such portrayal must be false. According to Socrates’s usage, blasphemy involves words which reflect negatively on the gods, particularly if such language is offered in the name of the gods. The condemned man in Monty Python’s Life of Brian is not guilty of blasphemy properly defined, and the mob’s definition has been inappropriately stretched to include simply uttering His name. To say that God authorizes punishment for such usage of His name is to portray God as arrogant and nasty. On Socrates’s account, the stoning citizens are guiltier of blasphemy than those they punish since their actions, performed in God’s name, present an image unbecoming to God.

Heaven (Capitalize for Effect)

Toward the end of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life three freshly dead couples are led to Heaven. They are greeted with “Merry Christmas” as they check-in at the front desk. Is it Christmas? Well, you see, every day is Christmas in Heaven. This seems reasonable since one might expect that in Heaven believers eternally celebrate the birth of Christ, who made their salvation possible. The guests are seated and the master of ceremonies (Graham Chapman) is introduced to the soft strains of “Silent Night.” This is a “wonderful, warm and emotional moment,” he says, and begins the song “Christmas in Heaven.” The musical tempo increases and showgirls appear in red suits and caps. Chapman sings that in Heaven it snows above their heads but the weather is warm down below. There are great films on TV, toiletries and games, all that anyone could possibly desire. Surprised? As it happens, Christmas in Heaven is Santa Claus Christmas.

This scene presents Heaven as a place filled with earthly rewards, and is a comic depiction of the conflation of religious and commercial versions of Christmas. Some religious hymns describe Heaven as the land of milk and honey, with streets paved with gold. This conception of Heaven conveys that even Christians do not believe the religious life has sufficient intrinsic value to motivate moral behavior. The sketch suggests that believers do not actually renounce their sinful appetites for worldly pleasures, but hope that by restraining themselves on earth they will receive an unlimited supply of material goods and services in the afterlife. The scene implies that God, as the architect of Heaven, understands human nature and has material compensation waiting up there for His followers. If Heaven was not always this way, apparently even God could no longer bear to watch the disappointment of those who discover that their Heavenly reward amounts only to eternal communion with Him.

Bonus Material: The Origin of Monty Python’s Christmas in Heaven Is Revealed for the First Time

Once upon a time people died. Believers ascended to Heaven to dwell in the house of the Lord (animated version from Monty Python and the Holy Grail) forever, while unrepentant sinners were immediately escorted (by the Grim