About Frank Moraes

Frank Moraes is a freelance writer and editor online and in print. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, throughout the computer industry, and as a college physics instructor. Find out more at About Frank Moraes.

The Hoi Polloi and the Distaste for the Masses

Thucydides - Hoi PolloiI know from experience that if I use an unusual word once, I will use it several other times. There is something about speaking and writing that is very mysterious. Indeed, as I’ve become a better writer, I’ve lost any sense that any of us know what we are doing. Control is something that only the very best poets exhibit, and in their cases, only because they write so very few words. Mostly, writing is a mess and the best we can hope for is clarity. But over the past few months, I’ve noticed the phrase “hoi polloi” used an excessive amount.

That in itself would not be worth commenting on. Words come and go. But in the past, when I heard people use the term, it was almost always used incorrectly. “Hoi polloi” means the common people. It comes from the Greek phrase “οἱ πολλοί,” which means quite literally “the many” although this is not that far from meaning “the mob” — if you want to go there. It’s been used in the English language for less than 200 years. I have my problems with it, and I don’t know of ever using the term — even in conversation. I mean that as no criticism of those who do use the term. On the plus side, it’s fun to say; on the minus side, its showy.

In History of the Peloponnesian War, a fifth century BCE manuscript by Athenian historian Thucydides, the phrase is used positively. In ancient Greek, it would seem that the ordinary people were not something to be sneered at.

But the big problem with the phrase is that it is traditionally used wrong to mean the rich or the “beautiful people.” And you can see why: it sounds like it. It’s easy enough for people to rationalize “hoi” as high and “polloi” to be anything you want. “High populace” perhaps? According to the Oxford Dictionary, this use of “hoi polloi” may have come about because of a confusion with the term “hoity-toity.” Regardless, what I find fascinating is that people are using it correctly, as though someone with a much bigger audience than I wrote an article pointing out that the phrase is commonly misused.

The Real Misuse of Hoi Polloi

Of course, the phrase is misused by pretty much everyone. In History of the Peloponnesian War, a fifth century BCE manuscript by Athenian historian Thucydides, the phrase is used positively. In ancient Greece, it would seem that the ordinary people were not something to be sneered at. But in English, “hoi polloi” is almost always used as a pejorative. Certainly my notion of the hoi polloi is people who watch Dancing With the Stars, or to be perfectly frank, just about every other “reality” television show I come upon, most definitely including the Academy Awards.

So “hoi polloi” is primarily a phrase that we use to look down on some group of people. If it weren’t for the phrase being so nailed down in Greek, I suspect that dictionaries would include “upper class” as a secondary definition — dictionaries being descriptive and not prescriptive. But in general, they don’t. Not that I care. I’d prefer to be done with the phrase except for its use in something like a Looney Tunes cartoon. Otherwise, bourgeois, middle class, workers, masses — they all work better. Imagine this great line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the hoi polloi, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” Doesn’t really work, does it?

INTERCAL Is the Most Awesome Programming Language Ever

Don Woods - INTERCALAh, graduate school! There is much that I miss about it. Most people think that graduate school is hard work, but that’s not really true. Looking back on it, it seems like it was a lot of fooling around. As a physics undergrad, I worked very hard — harder than I ever did in my life. But graduate school was different. At least it was for me. I’m a creative guy. I didn’t have a hard time coming up with things to do. And that left a lot of time to do other stuff. That included things like INTERCAL — a subject I will come back to soon.

It was in graduate school that I really developed my love of writing. I published an underground satirical newspaper called The Splinter Post, which made fun of the schools official weekly, The Center Post. It was hugely successful. I also published a straight news underground called Dysentery, which got a department head fired. (I feel kind of bad about that, because looking back, I think he was in the right.) But such is the nature of grad school. Unless you are someone who really doesn’t belong, graduate school gives you lots of time to play. And damn it: play is good!

In 1972, there were two similarly inclined graduate students at Princeton: Don Woods and James Lyon. This was a time when people were creating all kinds of programming languages. Computers were becoming a thing that wasn’t so outside the mainstream. I remember television commercials for Control Data Institute. Oh, it was an exciting time!

But Woods and Lyon noticed something: programming languages sucked! Understand, these are guys who understand computers. They are still programming with computer cards. They know what the stack is. And they are seeing these high level languages pile up and they are just ridiculous. So they wrote INTERCAL, which is short for “Compiler Language With No Pronounceable Acronym.” And as I write this, I am laughing hysterically. This is making fun of languages like APL (A Programming Langage) and the absurd COBOL (Common Business-Oriented Language). But Woods and Lyon had much more in mind than just making fun of the overuse of acronyms.

James Lyon - INTERCALINTERCAL is a real language. It is available on the computer that you are using right now. I guarantee it. And it is designed to annoy. For example, the compiler just ignores anything that it doesn’t understand. Normally, compilers complain. But not INTERCAL! It’s very easy going. As a result, a comment is any line of code that it doesn’t understand. But you have to be really careful, because if it does understand the code it will compile it. And then where will you be?

Well, that’s kind of the point. INTERCAL is a language that is made to drive you crazy. For example, if you make an error in your code, INERCAL will just ignore it and not tell you. It really is deliciously evil.

Introducing INTERCAL

I’m sure by now, you want to see some INTERCAL programming. Who wouldn’t?! I mean, this is the greatest programming language ever written. So let’s consider the standard “Hello, world!” program. In BASIC, this is a single line program:


10 print "Hello, world!"

Doing this is a tad more complicated with INTERCAL. Here is its “Hello, world!” program:

DO ,1 <- #13
PLEASE DO ,1 SUB #1 <- #238
DO ,1 SUB #2 <- #108
DO ,1 SUB #3 <- #112
DO ,1 SUB #4 <- #0
DO ,1 SUB #5 <- #64
DO ,1 SUB #6 <- #194
DO ,1 SUB #7 <- #48
PLEASE DO ,1 SUB #8 <- #22
DO ,1 SUB #9 <- #248
DO ,1 SUB #10 <- #168
DO ,1 SUB #11 <- #24
DO ,1 SUB #12 <- #16
DO ,1 SUB #13 <- #162
PLEASE READ OUT ,1
PLEASE GIVE UP

Did I forget to mention that there is a PLEASE operator? In some implementations of INTERCAL, the compiler will do nothing if you don't include enough PLEASE commands. And if you include too many, it will consider you obsequious and still won't do anything. Because what's the point? Let's face it: you suck.

I hope never to have to do anymore software development. But if I do, I think I'm going to demand that it all be done in INTERCAL. It's my kind of language.

Morning Music: Hello in There

John Price - Hello in ThereAfter all these years, John Prine’s song “Hello in There” still gives me chills. In fact, it can bring me to tears if I’m feeling a little bit down. It was off his first album, John Prine, which is still my favorite of his albums, although I’ll admit that maybe it isn’t his best album. It’s hard to say. Every song is great. He does have a tendency to break momentum between chorus and verse. But it is a smaller problem with “Hello in There.”

The issue of old people being forgotten in our society is an important one. It is the result of our economic problems — the devaluation of work and expertise. I’ve seen it a lot in high tech and I have to admit to being very pleased to be out of it. If you look at old coders — people who cut their teeth of COBOL and FORTRAN — they know everything. Unlike the 20-somethings who can code the most recent fad programming language for little money, the old ones understand the whole context. They understand that it still all comes down to putting bits on silicon and pushing them through a CPU.

But who cares?! I’m the youngest person I know whose coded assembly language. In the modern world, we create systems so we don’t need people who understand the big picture. We need people who are “human resources” so that one “human resource” can be plugged into where another “human resource” used to be. And in that world, we sure don’t care about old people. It isn’t that we are cruel. We don’t know there is anyone worthwhile to say “hello in there” to.

Of course, there is another side of this. I go out of my way to talk to old people. But sometimes, they are so starved for conversation, that they don’t know how to have a conversation — they just perform a repetitive monologue. I don’t blame them — it’s our fault. But it’s frustrating. Still, I think Prine is right:

So if you’re walking down the street sometime
And spot some hollow ancient eyes
Please don’t just pass them by and stare
As if you didn’t care, say, “Hello in there, hello.”

Anniversary Post: Articles of Confederation

Articles of Confederation - Slavery!On this day in 1781, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation. They were worthless. But you can see why conservatives love them. Basically, the combined government — the Confederation Congress — could ask for money from the states, but they had no power to enforce such a request. It reminds me of how modern conservatives think employment should operate: we all be nice to the rich and they will hire the rest of us and give us proper compensation.

I’m constantly amazed that conservatives think that liberals are naive. The whole conservative mentality is based on the idea that people will just do “what’s right” — as though that something that we all agree on. People have an amazing ability to justify why whatever helps them will be best. And what history has shown very clearly is that people will pay their taxes only when they are forced. And it does not matter how low those taxes are. That was one of Ayn Rand’s big claims was that if you just got the government small enough people would voluntarily pay their taxes. But she was a thoroughly modern intellectual — in the sense of never actually reading anything that disagreed with her except for the explicit purpose of attacking it.

But the main reason that conservatives hate the federal government and think that local government is always better is because you can be much more powerful on the local level. Look at Frankly Curious: it is tiny, but like Yertle the Turtle, I am ruler of all I see! And what is it that these conservatives really want? Is it low taxes and regulations? Not really! It’s having slaves. And I assure you that if every state in the United States became independent, there are states that would bring back slavery.

But imagine if the Articles of Confederation had not been replaced. What would have happened? I can’t say for sure, but I think history guides us to a fairly obvious conclusion. The states would begin to have wars. And eventually, the greatest warrior would have brought all the colonies together. So it would have been like what we got, with one exception: it would have been an autocracy. There would have been no Bill of Rights. And of course, the Articles of Confederation would have been a thing of the past. But conservatives don’t think that far ahead. That would have been King Andrew Jackson. Or perhaps just King George, because once the colonies were fighting, it wouldn’t have been hard to defeat them.

The Articles of Confederation were a joke. But they are what conservatives want. Because local governance is always better. I mean, the federal government does terrible things like make people pay their taxes. And the local government only does things like enslave people.

You Can’t Politicize Religion Because Religion Is Politics

Religion and PoliticsI came upon this article from over four years ago, The Good Christian. It’s basically about how I don’t dislike Christians. I just dislike Christianity as I normally find it in America. Since then, I’ve written a number of articles about different aspects of this. I think, for example, that the Sermon on the Mount is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing ever. And it makes clear that religion and politics are really the same thing.

Any time someone claims that you are “politicizing” religion, what they really mean is that they don’t like your religion. Unless you are going to stick to theoretical discussions of ontology, religion is politics. And the sort of people who claim that it isn’t are exactly the kind of people who don’t even think of ontology as part of religion. For them, religion is dogma at best, and tribalism at worst. “I’ve been told that the soul enters the fetus at conception, and that’s that.” They really ought to change those bumper stickers that read, “God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It.” It would be more accurate to say, “My pastor told me, I believe it, that settles it.” Because there ain’t nothing in the “literal word of God” that says the zygote has a soul.

In looking for images for another article, I entered “Liberal Christianity is” into Google and it offered the suggestion, “Liberal Christianity is not Christianity.” There are almost 33 million pages for that search. If you enter “Conservative Christianity is” into Google, it offers the suggestion, “conservative Christianity is dying.” There are a half million pages for that search. “Conservative Christianity is not Christianity” provides only 19 million pages. But it does indicate that in the English language, conservative Christians really think that the basis of their religion is control of women and hatred of fags. (Is it any wonder conservative Christians hate fundamentalist Muslims so much? They are almost the same.)

My Religion Isn’t Political!

There is a constant problem of my religion being obviously what God believes and your religion being obviously just what you want to believe. But the truth is that I value religion and I really am interested in the religious beliefs of others. I’ll be honest though, I’m pretty bored with the the whole “personal relationship with Jesus,” which is so common in this country. For one thing, it is a very recent invention. I don’t know the history, but I don’t think it is more than a few centuries old, and didn’t really catch on until the last fifty years.

But what it does is allow people to imagine that religion is easy — that they have a direct pipeline to God. So any notion that comes into their minds must be true. And this is how we get the vulgar displays of professional football players claiming that God was on their side. It’s vulgar because it belittles religion. It makes it all about the believer and not about God. The sports hero who wins the game had God’s backing, but starving Ethiopian children do not. (Note: Ethiopia is a majority Christian country.)

So you see: even the simple act of proclaiming that God is on your side is a political statement. It is a claim that the status quo is right. God wants the poor to starve. God wants the rich to flourish. We all know that God works in mysterious ways, but those ways lead us to where we are now — to the world as it actually exists. Now I have my own conception of God: a linguistic trick allowing us to talk about the nature of existence. That kind of religion isn’t political, because God isn’t something that has any interest in the world. How could it?! It’s a word! But for the vast majority of religious people here in the United States, religion is little but politics.

Donald Trump’s Heterodoxies Are No Problem With GOP Base

Donald TrumpI listened to a little bit of the most recent Republican debate. And Ted Cruz used the same attack on Donald Trump again and again: that he sounded like Hillary Clinton. But I thought the attacks fell flat. It seems to me that Republicans hate Hillary Clinton because she’s Hillary Clinton; but they don’t think that every idea she has is a bad one. And that’s especially true on foreign policy because she’s well known as a hawk. People like Cruz (and honestly, Marco Rubio too), the Republican catechism is so well known, that they don’t realize it is more or less meaningless to most actual Republicans.

The one bit that stands out is Trump’s claim that he will work a deal that will make everyone in the Middle East happy. To Ted Cruz, this is ridiculous. The United States will stand behind Israel no matter what. If they start dropping atomic bombs on Iran and Saudi Arabia, we will stand with them. This is just Christian Nationalism nonsense. And although there is a good percentage of the Republican Party that believes this stuff, most Republicans (like most Americans) would just like to see the Israel-Palestine conflict worked out. There really are very few people who think, “Israel, right or wrong!”

It makes me think back to being a kid and forced to go to catechism. The Catholic Church doesn’t want its members to be coming to mass out of habit. They want the congregation to understand what it is that the church actually stands for. This whole Republican nominating contest has show that the Republicans really do need the same thing. Because it appears that Republicans don’t much believe in anything other than that “those people” are bad. It’s not surprising, given that for the last 50 years, Republicans have by and large used racist demagoguery to get elected. And it has been so successful that they haven’t even had to justify their ever more exclusive economic policies. But still, you would have thought they would have paid more attention.

Hillary ClintonBut it does lead us to the point where the Republican Party establishment can’t counter someone like Donald Trump by comparing hims policies to Hillary Clinton’s policies. Because the base doesn’t care. They hate Hillary Clinton. They don’t hate Hillary Clinton policies. It’s just like they hate Obamacare, but not Obamacare policies. I’ve noted this many times before. It’s amazing how popular universal healthcare is with Republican voters. It is only when they told that it is not something their side believes in that they have a problem with it. As it is, Obamacare is as conservative a law as you could have that would actually improve the healthcare situation. So why do conservatives hate it? Because they were told to.

During the debate, Ted Cruz attacked Donald Trump for being for the individual mandate. But I think it was just eight years ago that the Republican candidate for president was in favor of the individual mandate. The policies mean nothing to the Republican voters. What matters is that Hillary Clinton is not on their team. And Donald Trump is. Otherwise, who cares? The Republican Party has gone off the rails when it comes to economic matters. Hillary Clinton’s economic policies are far more popular among Republicans than those of Cruz and Rubio.

These candidates — and the whole Republican Party establishment — are fooling themselves if they think Trump’s heterodoxies will hurt him in the Republican primary. Most Republicans don’t even know they are heterodoxies. And the Republican Party establishment ought to be glad that they don’t. Otherwise, they might start voting Democratic.

Morning Music: Life on Mars

Hunky DoryToday, we listen to “Life on Mars.” My favorite David Bowie album by far is Hunky Dory. I’m not even sure why. It’s probably just that there seems to be too much going on in his other albums. And despite the fact that he spent much of his early career dressing like a clown, he seemed always to be taking himself far too seriously. That’s not the ultimate killer, though. I like Aladdin Sane. But there’s something to it. If you want to be taken seriously, don’t be a pop star. And don’t dress up like a clown.

I would have more to say if I weren’t having all kinds of computer problems. So I better get this out. Today, we are listening to “Life on Mars.” I don’t really know what it’s about. I always thought vaguely that it was about those wonderful science fiction films from the 1950s. But I guess it is just a love song. Or something. It doesn’t make a lot of sense. And that’s fine. It’s pleasant to listen to.

Afterword

This was supposed to go up yesterday, but I screwed up the time. So here it is.

Anniversary Post: Leap Day and Hattie McDaniel

Leap Day and Hattie McDanielWell, it’s Leap Day my friends. The only person I’ve ever known who was born on this day was my grandfather. It’s always seemed a curious way to deal with a calendar. But there is a lot about our calendars that I don’t care much for. I don’t like months being different lengths. And then February really screws things up not being static. And why February? Wouldn’t it make more sense to put it in December? You could start with January at 31 days, and then alternate 30, 31, 30, and so on. That would give December 30 days on a Leap year. At least it would make sense and everyone would be straight on the number of days in each month.

Given that we just had the Academy Awards, it’s interesting to note that Hattie McDaniel won her award for Best Supporting Actress on Leap Day in 1940 for Gone With the Wind. Such awards generally make a career in Hollywood, and Hattie McDaniel was no different. She went on to play maids in several films before moving into radio and television. She died at the age of 57 of breast cancer.

The one good thing about Leap Day, however, is that it does provide another day of work this month to get paid. I didn’t get much work done this weekend, because the very idea of it seems just too much. Not that there is much of an alternative. We have, as usual, the Schopenhauerian paradox of working to work some more. The one place that’s not true is working on the book. Soon, it will be done and I will never be stupid enough to get involved in such a ridiculous waste of time again. That’s a cheerful thought.

But we have to salute Hattie McDaniel. She was good, even if Gone With the Wind is really a far more troublesome film than Birth of a Nation. I mean, only film students watch Birth of a Nation, and I’m convinced a fair section of Americans get their ideas about slavery from Gone With the Wind.

Sanders’ South Carolina Collapse May Mean Nothing for Pundits

Sanders - South CarolinaBefore the South Carolina primary, Real Clear Politics had him pegged at losing by 27.5 percentage points. Then the election took place and he lost by a staggering 47.5 percentage points. It doesn’t mean that his campaign is finished — there are other states where he stands to do better. But it looks very, very bad for him.

This should not come as a surprise. Early this month, I wrote, Could Sanders Win? Why Is Clinton Whining?! That article was the result of my research after New Hampshire. What I found was that Nevada was the only state Sanders had any chance at all and then Clinton totally dominated. So I wondered why people were freaking out.

Even granting that campaigns can get out of hand, Sanders never saw any movement in South Carolina. So the hysteria of Paul Krugman and Jonathan Chait seemed more like a reflection of the kind of people that they hang out with. What did they know of the voters of South Carolina? All they knew was that there they had upper class liberal friends who were very keen on Sanders. So the pundits freaked out because they feared it was the leading edge. These educated and affluent liberals were the tastemakers who all us poor nobodies would follow.

But in the name of protecting Clinton (who never needed his protection), he’s made the whole idea of universal healthcare seem like a pipe dream that could never happen here in America.

But I saw something in a recent Krugman post that made me think something else has been going on, How to Read Primary Results. He said, “Oh, and hold the Hillary-hatred and all that, OK?” He wanted to talk about something more general and didn’t want the Hillary-Sanders war to get in the middle of it. But it is telling that it is the Hillary-haters who were called out by name.

Is this really what this has been all about? I’ll admit, I know a lot of people who just don’t like Hillary Clinton. And by and large, it isn’t for real reasons. It’s more visceral than that. But you know how it goes: pretty much everything starts visceral and then gets lots of intellectual justifications to drop on top of it. But isn’t that the case with Bernie Sanders too?

And let’s face it: there might have been a whole lot more anti-Hillary nitwits on Twitter and Facebook. But if you turned on the cable news shows, you were much more likely to hear an anti-Bernie nitwit. I’m not suggesting that the people who so hated Sanders did so for the same reason. I think the hatred of Sanders was mostly like the early hatred of Trump by the Republican establishment: they just didn’t think that Sanders could win.

South Carolina Is Only the Beginning

The whole thing now strikes me as an exercise in nonsense. What Krugman did to Sanders’ universal healthcare proposal, he could have done to Obama’s plan. You will note that Obama, in the end, didn’t get the plan he campaigned on. But in the name of protecting Clinton (who never needed his protection), he’s made the whole idea of universal healthcare seem like a pipe dream that could never happen here in America.

After New Hampshire, I predicted what would happen — based on nothing but the polls. South Carolina went big for Clinton. On Super Tuesday, Sanders will win Vermont. He might squeak out a victory in Massachusetts, but I suspect that he will lose there too. But maybe we will still need more anti-Sanders articles, because you know: there will still be a lot of people on Facebook saying mean things about Clinton.

Anniversary Post: MASH and Pope Benedict End

MASHWhat do you want to hear? The last episode of MASH aired on this day in 1983. In general, I think that MASH got worse over time. The show never really recovered from the loss of McLean Stevenson. Potter just annoyed the hell out of me. And no offense to Mike Farrell, but the writers never managed to make “happily married man” thing work. Burns was always a bad character. In real life, that kind of chauvinism was very true of early 1950s America. But in the context of the series, he was impotent — he could never get the advantage over the leads. So in that way, the replacement of him with David Ogden Stiers was brilliant. And it was done in a way that was believable. But I’ll admit, the final episode did have its moments. But I think that was the last time I watched the final episode of anything. Because I just don’t care enough.

Pope Benedict XVIBut also, just three years ago, Pope Benedict XVI stepped down. You would have thought that by now he would have had the good taste to die. But I suspect that he didn’t step down because he was physically unable to do the job. I think he simply understood that he couldn’t manage the child rape situation. So they figured, “Let’s get a Jesuit — they’re known for not being quite so horrible as the other orders.” Anyway, he turns 89 in April. I don’t know what to think of the Catholic Church at this time. But then, I don’t know what to think of most institutions. And child rape seems to be something that is very common in all the major religions that have big taboos about sex.

So there you go: pick your poison. There’s the end of MASH and there’s the end of Pope Benedict XVI. I don’t think anyone was that upset at seeing them go.

Morning Music: California Über Alles

California Über AllesI think I’ve been pretty open about my belief that Jello Biafra’s singing kind of ruins the otherwise great Dead Kennedys. But he was also the soul of the band. And his writing was great. And don’t get me wrong: I understand that Biafra’s voice was meant to be annoying. But that doesn’t change much. Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables is a great album despite his vocals. But if those vocals work anywhere, it is on “California Über Alles.”

It’s funny to listen to California Über Alles now. It is an attack on Jerry Brown from the left — extreme left. It calls him a fascist. And based upon its content, you would well imagine Biafra growing into some kind of libertarian freak later in life. But that didn’t happen. Biafra has only become more serious and thoughtful throughout his life. The song was meant more to be a joke anyway. The point, more than anything, was that Jerry Brown was power hungry and that everything he did was in the service of becoming President of the United States. And there is something to be said for that interpretation of the Jerry Brown of the 1970s, just as it is of Gavin Newsom today.

Not California Über Alles, but America…

But what’s really amazing is that we now live in a nation in which we have actual big name politicians who are the modern day equivalent of fascists. California Über Alles? Well, there are a whole lot of Americans who would proudly sing, “United States Über Alles.” I’ve gotten to be tired of people claiming that politicians like Cruz and Rubio and Trump are not fascists. I don’t think you can base modern politicians by the details of old politicians. All the Republican candidates are in favor of the same kind of government supported business system — a kind of modern feudalism. And does anyone question that if Pakistan went to war with us that all of these men would be eager to round up all Muslims and put them in camps? (Cheered on by Sam Harris, no doubt.)

Today, Jerry Brown is the ultimate technocrat. He’s been a great governor for the state. And there is no doubt that he is liberal. But he’s never been a radical. But our country’s politics is so out of balance that he is seen as an extremist today. All liberals are. When the old and unhealthy Antonin Scalia died, millions of them spent days talking about how he must have been murdered. This is projection, pure and simple. Even as conservatives have been highly successful over the last 40 years accomplishing their stated goals, they are unhappy. Because what they really want — what they always wanted, was fascism in America. They want a nation where it is just accepted that patriotism means cheering every act of state belligerence.

In that context, “California Über Alles” is not as funny a song as it ought to be. But it’s still pretty great.

Anniversary Post: Edict of Thessalonica

St Ambrose and Emperor Theodosius (van Dyck) - Edict of ThessalonicaOn this day in 380 CE, the Edict of Thessalonica was released in the Roman Empire. It was issued by emperors Theodosius I, Gratian, and Valentinian II. And it basically said that all Roman citizens should convert to Christianity. It was the result of Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 312. As I discussed before, this was when Christianity died, “No religion ever survives this kind of power.” And the Edict of Thessalonica shows that ultimately, religion is about power. If religion is about God, you don’t need governments stepping in and telling people what they must believe.

What the people were told they must believe was specifically Nicene Christianity. And anyone who was ever forced to go to Sunday school or catechism can tell you what that is. “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.” Given that God made all things, you would think he could just tell the people himself. This is why it is so funny in Small Gods that the Great God Om comes down to Discworld and only manages to be a tortoise. He has a grand total of one believer. Most people don’t think through their religious beliefs very well. That’s why we are so blessed to have minds as brilliant as Terry Pratchett to do it for us. Unfortunately, people insist upon reading things like the Bible rather than Small Gods.

Edict of Thessalonica: Not Just Any Christianity

Of course, it couldn’t be just any old Christianity either. The Edict of Thessalonica chose a side in an ongoing religious war. People have this odd idea that Christians mostly got along except for big events. We know the Orthodox split from the Catholics. We know the Protestant split from the Catholics. And we know the Spanish Inquisition. But the truth is that the religion has been fighting within itself from the beginning. Things are actually more placid now than they ever have been. There are zillions of different kinds of Christianity (including Mormonism). But they don’t seem to care enough (or believe strongly enough) to do much fighting. Still, it could all fly apart again. After all, no one expected the Spanish Inquisition.

So what was the effect of the Edict of Thessalonica? Well, just what you would expect. According to Wikpedia, “After the edict, Theodosius spent a great deal of energy suppressing all non-Nicene forms of Christianity, especially Arianism, and in establishing Nicene orthodoxy throughout his realm.” This was because he believed in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible — who was nonetheless dependent on petty dictators to make sure that the people worshiped the right god in the right way. Otherwise, without the Edict of Thessalonica, people might have worshiped a god that didn’t need so much care and upkeep. And then imagine what would have happened: people would have been oppressed in the name of the wrong god!

Afterword

Stewart Lee on problems in the creation myth: