Everything Evil comes from the North.

neonlyte

Bailing Out
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Posts
8,009
The Stave Church at Fantoft, just outside Bergen, Norway’s second largest city, is a replica of the original built in 1150. The church was moved to its present location in 1883 having been purchased by a private individual with the foresight to preserve a piece of history that the Norwegian Church had declared outdated. The church ordered the destruction of hundreds of these wonderful buildings in the 1800’s. The Fantoft church is a replica because the original was burned-down by a drug crazed Hell’s Angel in 1992.

Replication seemed to be the theme of the few hours I spent contemplating the building, it was there in the intricate woodcarving. It was copied by the flow of tourists who took the same positions, for the same pictures. It continued with the coach parties endlessly traipsing down through the wood to the clearing holding the church, passing through the entrance to be seated in the pews for their allotted potted history and out through the side door, coach bound.

I sneaked in to hear a couple of ‘sermons’ from the female tour guides and crept away, slightly bemused, to a rocky outcrop above the church to think through their words.

Nothing was said about the recent history of the building, how a man with a conscience saved the building from church destruction. Even less was said to explain how the church came to be recently burned, though burned it was ‘and isn’t this just a wonderful testimony to the Norwegian cultural spirit to restore the building exactly as it was’; it wouldn’t do to admit ‘new age Vikings’ in the form of drug crazed motor cyclists, not to tourists.

Much was said about the women and men who used Stave Churches and the role and power of the Lutheran Church after Norway converted from Catholicism in the 1530’s, and this explained something that puzzled me from pictures of the interiors of surviving Stave Churches. The Lutheran church service spanned several hours; men and women seated on opposite sides of the aisle, women along the north wall, men to the south. The sidewalls of the churches were generally painted in reds, ochre’s and greens, the decoration worn away along the south walls where men slumped in sleep, shoulders removing the decoration, while the women sat upright listening to the mumbling of a priest delivering a sermon in latin, an alien tongue to a Norsk-maiden. Still, they maintained their posture, careful not to rub against the wall painting. Another repetition conducted over centuries.

Then, the foulest of repetitions spoken about women, by female tour-guides. An innocent in the congregation asked why the women and men were separated. “We have a saying in Norway that everything evil comes from the North, so that is where the women are seated in God’s house.” I was mildly surprised not to see a lynching but this group of tourists were mostly North American and in their seventies, probably not up to staging a good lynching.

Other female tour guides explained to other groups of tourists how a woman who had just given birth was denied access to the church and until she was ‘deemed to be clean’; if she birthed a male child the cleansing time was ten days, for a female birth the cleansing time was sixty days. Menstruating women were not allowed into church, they had to stand outside the church where a small window allowed them to hear but not see, of course the window was on the north side, where evil comes from.

I still haven’t grasped what all this means, still less can I fathom why visitors found the repetition of these tales amusing. It left me with a chill down my spine only surpassed by my visit to the Lepers Hospital in Bergen, but I’ll leave that for another time.
 
Why do I get the feeling some Lutheran priest was cut off and took it out on all women?
 
neonlyte said:
I still haven’t grasped what all this means, still less can I fathom why visitors found the repetition of these tales amusing. It left me with a chill down my spine only surpassed by my visit to the Lepers Hospital in Bergen, but I’ll leave that for another time.

I don't know that I'd say I found the history of Stave Churches or the earlyLutherans "amusing" but I did find it interesting.

But then, I'm intersted in History and how attitudes like those depicted in the tour shaped the way our more enlightened society came to be what it is.

If I don't know things like how the early Lutherans maintained the Catholic Church's suppression/degradation of women, then I can't begin to understand how the protestant movement "refined" those prejudices to produce the Puritans who had such a lasting effect on American morals, nor can I effctively fight against the lingering traces of Purtanism that still exist.
 
Re: Re: Everything Evil comes from the North.

Weird Harold said:

If I don't know things like how the early Lutherans maintained the Catholic Church's suppression/degradation of women, then I can't begin to understand how the protestant movement "refined" those prejudices to produce the Puritans who had such a lasting effect on American morals, nor can I effctively fight against the lingering traces of Purtanism that still exist.

Full agreement here. What 'suprised' me was the painting over of recent history - too close for comfort for a modern Norsk? And the repitition of an almost paganistic treatment of women told in a folk tale spirit, by the same modern Norsk.

My immediate impression was that I had stumbled into a 'boys club', though decades removed, possibly.
 
The 'Churching of Women' after childbirth is still in the Church of England's Common Prayer Book but is rarely used.

It was supposed to be a purifying rite but has changed to celebrate the birth.

However the full 17th century Prayer Book includes many obsolete prayers including abuse against Catholics and others.

The reality of modern Church of England services is very different.

I think, someone may have better information, that the ritual after childbirth and the difficulty of menstruating women attending church is a relic of pagan rites adopted by the church in medieval times.

Og
 
The ol' Red Tent.

What's amazing is not that Eve was blamed for oringal sin or that so many religions have bought into blaming her for tempting poor Adam, but that women allowed these traditions to become so powerful. Didn't they have cranky Church Ladies with large hats and a mean left?
 
shereads said:
The ol' Red Tent.

What's amazing is not that Eve was blamed for oringal sin or that so many religions have bought into blaming her for tempting poor Adam, but that women allowed these traditions to become so powerful. Didn't they have cranky Church Ladies with large hats and a mean left?

Yep. That is the puzzle for me. But then history has largely been written by men, mainly so they didn't have to wash the dishes. Has anything changed?
 
The whole world is a boys' club, and the women are the servants, the slaves, the breeding animals, and the hookers.
 
You should try reading Lear's version of what it is to be a woman I'm sure Perdita can provide the passage and page.

"sulphur and the burning pit."


I seem to recall that Viking women would actually refuse men admittance to a birthing house, so it wasn't all one sided.

Gauche
 
????

I know the vikings had a tradition that if a birth didn't go as it should, the husband would be asked to take his wife in his lap and let her sit there and give birth to their child.

Sometimes, women died in the arms of their husbands.

I think it's a romantic costume.
 
Svenskaflicka said:
????

I know the vikings had a tradition that if a birth didn't go as it should, the husband would be asked to take his wife in his lap and let her sit there and give birth to their child.

Sometimes, women died in the arms of their husbands.

I think it's a romantic costume.

I agree.

I somtimes wonder why sensible Pagans allowed themselves to be converted to Christianity with all of it's mysoginistic and restrictive superstitions.
 
Episcopalians in the US when they revised the 1928 prayer book removed the right of "Churching of Women" and replaced it with "Celebration of the Birth of a Child". I have a very personal love for this rite as it allowed my father to have a service for his Roman Catholic Grandson that he otherwise would not have enjoyed.

There may have been an adaptation of pagan rites involved, Og, but I don't think so. The 'unclean' aspect of women goes back to strictures from Genesis and the turning out from the Garden of Eden. I believe that the Jewish tradition of naming of a child on the seventh day, including circumcision for male children, also includes a purification aspect for the mother, but I'm a little rusty on that aspect of my liturgy history.

The Roman Catholic church has changed the name of the Feast of the Circumcision to the Feast of the Holy Family and modified the prayer cycle to include adulations to Jesus' mother and father, with distinct emphasis on Mary.

One of the things that I was surprised left out of the comments were the importance of the statement "Norway converted from Catholicism in the 1530's". I think it is too easy to forget how recently religion was an integral part of the government. It is but one more reminder as to how unique the American experiment to unite a group of colonies and not have an established religion.

As to the subjugation of women, Noway's Lutheran Church was hardly unique in that arena. Fortunately a lot of progress has been made throughout the world. The Lutheran church, in particular has made quite a few changes in that regard and has been one of the leaders in improving women's roles within the organization.

And for those that want to bash the Puritans, remember the descendants of that group are what we call around here, The Church of Christ, or Congregationalists. They have women ordained ministers and if you know anything about their organization to think that it is still a 'boy's club' is a bit naive. NOTHING gets done in that organization unless the women support it. They have most of the money now ;)
 
OldnotDead said:

One of the things that I was surprised left out of the comments were the importance of the statement "Norway converted from Catholicism in the 1530's". I think it is too easy to forget how recently religion was an integral part of the government. It is but one more reminder as to how unique the American experiment to unite a group of colonies and not have an established religion.

And for those that want to bash the Puritans, remember the descendants of that group are what we call around here, The Church of Christ, or Congregationalists. They have women ordained ministers and if you know anything about their organization to think that it is still a 'boy's club' is a bit naive. NOTHING gets done in that organization unless the women support it. They have most of the money now ;)

Thanks for those insights. I confess to being pretty much out of the loop on religious hierachy's so the breadth and depth of the knowledge of others is rewarding.

One aspect of the switch from Catholicism, as explained by one of several tour guides, was to control the 'Church'. The Norwegian King forced the switch to Lutheran as that made him defacto head of the Church and gave him access to church funds needed for the war against Sweden. An imposed switch of religious practice for a political purpose, much as Henry VIII in England.

The 'boys club' image I was applying to 'that time' as opposed to current religious practice, I certainly would not wish to cross the women who serve in my local Cathedral!
 
OldnotDead said:
And for those that want to bash the Puritans, remember the descendants of that group are what we call around here, The Church of Christ, or Congregationalists. They have women ordained ministers and if you know anything about their organization to think that it is still a 'boy's club' is a bit naive. NOTHING gets done in that organization unless the women support it. They have most of the money now ;)

That's an interesting tidbit.

It's odd that the Puritans grew out of their "puritanism" while those only influenced by their colony's legal code still try to legislate morality.

Many of the religions that practiced or inspired intolerance in the past have grown with the times and abandoned those aspects of their Creeds. Now if we could just get governments to do the same. :(
 
neonlyte said:
Yep. That is the puzzle for me. But then history has largely been written by men, mainly so they didn't have to wash the dishes. Has anything changed?

I hate to say it, but yes: the weapons have improved. If small handguns could be carved out of tree branches, the difference in physical strength wouldn't have meant that much and the Old Testament would have been divided into His and Hers versions.

And lo, it was just as Eve said: he had left the toilet seat up. And the Lord said to the man, "Adam, six times have I chastised thee about the toilet seat, and seven times hast thou left it up. Did I not warn thee?"

Adam saith, "Yea, six times hast thou warned me, oh Lord." And he fell upon the ground and rent his clothing. For the wrath of God is like unto the wrath of Eve!


:D
 
OldnotDead said:
And for those that want to bash the Puritans, remember the descendants of that group are what we call around here, The Church of Christ, or Congregationalists.

OldNot, I am proudly nauseated to claim as an ancestor the Puritan gents who virtually invented eternal damnation and hellfire, American-style, Increase Mather and his slightly less fun-loving son, the Reverend Cotton Mather.

(No, no, please. You may stay seated. I don't want to be treated any differently just because my ancestor rescued yours from a plague of witches.)

:eek:

I remember reading Cotton's sermons in an American lit class and hoping that sicko's family tree had died out from root-rot before it could further contaminate the western hemisphere.

Imagine my glee when I accompanied my mom to a family reunion in the farthest boondox of the Fla. panhandle a year ago, and learned that a distant cousin had had the poor taste to trace our ancestry even farther back than the great-great-grandfather who was a bigamist.

The cousin stood at the podium in the adorable, non-air-conditoned country church where the reunion always begins with prayers, and as he dished out tidbits of our shared history, it became clear that he was saving something big for the finale. I was hoping for nothing worse than a swindler or an army deserter; I was in for a stunning disappointment. The mostly elderly crowd of Methodists and trouble-making Baptists were tickled pink when they learned that we were spawned by a famous minister.

I debated whether to tell them that Rev. Mather was a player in the Salem Witch Trials, but I was afraid the reaction might be positive. They're sweet old people, but you just never know.

:(

He was a hell of a writer, though. If there's anything scarier than the threat of eternal torment, it's a powerfully written threat of eternal torment.

You should see the Rev's advice on bringing your children to the Lord. For the stubborn child, he recommends a week or so of fasting and kneeling in prayer, while Dad explains in vivid terms what awaits Junior's doomed little soul if he fails to repudiate sin.

Imagine the parties that family must have had in the basement rec room!
 
Weird Harold said:
That's an interesting tidbit.

It's odd that the Puritans grew out of their "puritanism" while those only influenced by their colony's legal code still try to legislate morality.

Many of the religions that practiced or inspired intolerance in the past have grown with the times and abandoned those aspects of their Creeds. Now if we could just get governments to do the same. :(

Can you legislate morality? That is the path most 'western' governments took some 100 odd years ago. Once you 'create' a legal moral framework don't you erode individual responsibility?

NL
 
neonlyte said:
Can you legislate morality?

No you can't. That doesn't stop people from passing laws that try to -- or in the case of Missouri ammending yourstate constittuion to enshrine homophobia or in the case of Tennesee(?) banning the sale of such threats to morality as the dreaded dildo and vibrator.
 
Weird Harold said:
No you can't. That doesn't stop people from passing laws that try to -- or in the case of Missouri ammending yourstate constittuion to enshrine homophobia or in the case of Tennesee(?) banning the sale of such threats to morality as the dreaded dildo and vibrator.

I think they've only banned the sale of gasoline-powered vibrators. I could be wrong.

Until a few years ago, didn't Georgia still have a law on the books that prohibited oral sex and "sodomy"?
 
shereads said:
I think they've only banned the sale of gasoline-powered vibrators. I could be wrong.

Until a few years ago, didn't Georgia still have a law on the books that prohibited oral sex and "sodomy"?

Nope, there's a rather long thread somewhere from the last week or so about how tennessee has passed a ban on the sale of "sex toys"

Georgia did have an anti-sodomy law that included Oral Sex as part of the definition of "Sodomy" -- but then so do several other states. Most of thm are in abeyance because of a supreme court ruling that such laws violate the right to privacy. (I think the ruling was based on a challenge of the Georgia law, but it might have been a Texas case that prompted the ruling.)
 
You're referring to the Lawrence v Texas ruling from last summer, I think, Harold.

"The 6-3 decision by the court reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex....

"As recently as 1960, every state had an anti-sodomy law, according to The Associated Press. In 37 states, the statutes have been repealed by lawmakers or blocked by state courts, the AP reported.

"Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

"Thursday's ruling apparently invalidates those laws, as well.... the decision appeared to strike down most laws governing private sexual conduct.

"(The) ruling stemmed from the 1998 arrest of two Houston men, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, under a 28-year-old Texas law making same-sex intercourse a crime."

Basically, a couple of Texas cracker deputies busted into a house (as the result of a 'false' drug tip) and found two men going at it. They arrested the poi-pe-tray-terz (eschewing the traditional lynching) and the case ended up in the Supreme Court.

From the ACLU site

Yet another reason not to live in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah or Virginia.
 
oggbashan said:
... However the full 17th century Prayer Book includes many obsolete prayers including abuse against Catholics and others.
The reality of modern Church of England services is very different. ...
I am not an Anglican, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the ordination service for Anglican clergy still requires them to swear to uphold/obey the 39 Articles?

If so, please consider your statement quoted above in the light of Article concerning Anabaptists, I think it is no.37.
 
Seattle Zack said:
"Of the 13 states with sodomy laws, four -- Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri -- prohibit oral and anal sex between same-sex couples. The other nine ban consensual sodomy for everyone: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.

Why pick on the nine states whose anti-sodomy laws are fair and impartial?

:rolleyes:





Hunter S. Thompson will hear about this.
 
Back
Top