Hello all, a few months ago I made a post here about Donald Livingston, a former professor of Emory university and founder of the Abbeville institute, a ‘think tank’ dedicated to “critical study of what is true and valuable in the Southern tradition” (About us). Basically they just run a bunch of articles and podcasts about how the south is oppressed and the usual lost cause gambit. My post was well received and a few people asked me to make a new one. I started making this paper but I got a really bad bout of depression and couldn't stand to read any more of their garbage (it really makes you lose your faith in humanity). But I’m feeling much better now and the release of the 1776 commission (which contains many of the fallacies and errors in this article) inspired me to finish it.
I figured I’d pick out this article because it’s a bonkers. It was written by a man named John Marquardt. Unlike Livingston, who is a very public figure with a number of lectures and podcasts, Marquardt seems to be a quiet writer. His information on the website says he attended the University of Georgia and studies trade. I did a little digging and found that he has a biography on ‘prabook’, a website I had never heard of before, saying he majored in journalism and was a New York state senator from 1962-70. A quick search of Wikipedia’s list of assembly people from those times found no records of him.
Marquardt’s paper basically boils down to three arguments:

1. Slavery was practiced in both the north and the south so it’s unfair to characterize slavery as a Southern institution.
2. Abolitionism occurred in both the north and the south, so it’s unfair to blame the south for slavery
3. Both white and Black people owned slaves, so it’s not fair to characterize slavery as a white institution.

Argument one: Slavery in the north
Of the three arguments, I think this one comes the closest to being accurate, although the conclusions that are drawn are objectionable.

During America’s colonial period there were as many as five thousand slaves in Connecticut alone and a few still remained in bondage there as late as 1840.

To be fair, Marquardt does point out that 5,000 is a small proportion of the overall number of slaves in America but he just kind of pretends that it doesn't matter, stating that the existence of any slaves in the north is a sort of moral equivalency. Northerners were clearly bothered by the existence of slavery and tried to abolish it. That’s why the number of slaves in the north was declining while the number of slaves in the south was stable or increasing. (O’Neil, 2019)

In New York, over seven percent of the population in the late Eighteenth Century were black slaves, with the last slave being freed there in 1827. In Rhode Island, over six percent of the population were enslaved and the practice there lasted until 1842, New Jersey, however, had the highest number, almost eight percent, and the latest date for total emancipation, 1865.

Although its true that slavery had existed in many northern states this was not the case everywhere. Northern states under the northwest ordinance never had slavery of any kind and, by 1850 the lines had clearly been drawn, with most northern states either abolishing slavery outright or implementing a form of gradual emancipation while slavery remained legal in all southern states. Although it is true that northern states had an economic interest and participated in slavery, it is clear that the political force of abolitionism was concentrated in the north.
Argument two: good people on both sides
Marquardt gives a long list of early southern abolitionists and argues that the existence of southern abolitionists means the credit for abolishing slavery should be divided between the north and the south.

The roots of the myth that slavery was primarily a white Southern institution were planted three decades prior to the War Between the States by the abolitionists in New York and New England. This myth also included the idea that those same abolitionists of the 1830s had introduced the freeing of slaves in America. Actually, however, the first seeds of emancipation were sown in 1688 when the Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania, issued a “Petition Against Slavery” which urged the abolishment of slavery in all Quaker communities.

(It seems a little strange to argue against abolitionism being a northern institution and your first point of evidence is northern Quakers abolishing slavery.)

As early as 1792, a Kentucky minister, David Rice, gave a speech at Kentucky’s Constitutional Convention in which he called slavery an ‘injustice’ and described slaveholders as ‘licensed robbers.’...Other voices in the South, like those of clergymen David Barrows and John Paxton in Virginia, [also] echoed such sentiments.

Marquardt drags 1830’s northern abolitionists through the coals here, but the reason they were so hostile to southerners was because abolitionism as a political movement had ceased to exist there. Any progress the southern abolitionist movements were making was abruptly shattered in 1831 after the Nat turner slave revolt. After the revolt, southern states began limiting the rights of newspapers to publish abolitionist materials and tightening restrictions on free blacks. Preaching abolitionism in the south could reasonably be met with mob violence. Southern abolitionists might have opposed these actions, but the vast majority of southerners supported them and that is why northern abolitionists (essentially the only ones left after 1840) were so hostile to the south. It's quite telling that all the examples he brings up were from before the Nat turner revolt

The North Carolina group also worked closely with the American Colonization Society that had been founded in 1817 in Washington, D. C., by Dr. Robert Finley just prior to his becoming president of the University of Georgia. The Society advocated the relocation of freed slaves to Liberia, a colony the Society had established in West Africa in 1822. Most anti-slavery groups in the South, as well as a number of slaveholders, supported the idea and cooperated with the Society. After the start of the Northern abolitionist movement in the 1830s, many of its members, as well as others like Abraham Lincoln, strongly urged the shipping of all blacks back to Africa and by 1860 about twelve thousand had been sent there.

I frequently see Marquardt and others bringing up the American colonization society like they were saints, but they were as important for killing southern abolitionist movements as the slave rebellions were. According to Gordon E. Finnie, the majority of southern abolitionists also believed that free blacks should be deported back to Africa. As the southern abolition movement began to lose steam throughout the early 1800’s, the colonial society began to absorb their membership. In Maryland, the Maryland anti-slavery society dissolved and most members joined of it’s members joined the American colonial society. The Colonization society received money from the Maryland state legislature to deport free blacks to Liberia, meaning that the abolitionist movement was co-opted to inflict suffering on the small minority of blacks who managed to be free. (Finnie, 1969)
I should also note, the colony was a huge failure and a significant portion of the freed slaves sent there died within a few years. Moreover, It was fiercely opposed by free blacks and abolitionists. (Morgan, 2020)
Argument three: They did it to themselves
This argument is by and far the most absurd of the claims made by Marquardt.

The matter of black slaveholders is also one that has generally been disregarded in the effort to place the onus of slavery exclusively on white Southern slave owners. In fact, one of the first actual slaveholders in America was a free black named Anthony Johnson. In the 1650s, Johnson was a tobacco farmer in Virginia who owned two hundred and fifty acres of land and had five indentured servants, four white and one black.

I might sound like I’m splitting hairs here, but I don’t think that the situation that existed in the 1650’s should be compared to slavery in the antebellum south. Anthony Johnson had a black indentured servant named John Casor who was sentenced by a court to be an indentured servant for life, (Virginia recognizes slavery, 1999) not at all like the 1800’s where slavery was a racialized system, codified into law. The John Casor situation was the beginning of a transition away from indentured servitude and towards racialized slavery that Johnson and his descendants would not be a controlling part of.

In the next century, the Pendarvis family of free blacks in Colleton County, South Carolina, owned one of the largest rice plantations in the State that was worked by over a hundred twenty black slaves.

The Pendarvis family were the illegitimate children of a white slave owner and is black mistress. On his death, he took the unusual and unprecedented step in legitimizing his children and giving them property including slaves. The decision was very controversial in South Carolina and the white branch of the family broke off and changed their names to Bedon and ceased all contact. The uproar that was caused is proof that the situation was unusual and vilified across the state. I should also note the Pendarvises were mixed race rather than black, a fact that probably made it easier for white southerners to accept. (de Valdes y Cocom, 1995)

Statistics show that by 1860, while both whites and free blacks in the South owned an average of one to five slaves, the number for black slaveholders in New Orleans was much higher. There, a third of the free blacks owned at least six slaves each, with some having more than sixty.

This argument relies on taking the square peg of American race relations and attempting to ram it into the round hole of Louisiana race relations. Although according to American tradition the slaveholders of Louisiana were considered black, Louisiana was originally a French colony. French law drew a distinction between black people and mixed race ‘colored’ people. The slaveholders Marquardt mentions did not consider themselves to be black and would have disagreed with his conclusions.
(Edit: Prior to the 1830's it was, in rare cases, possible for a slave to buy their freedom. After a slave bought their freedom, it was common for them to also buy the freedom of their friends/ family. After the Nat turner rebellion, restrictions were placed on freeing slaves. The numbers of black slaveholders outside of Louisiana can be explained by free black people buying their friends and family but being unable to legally free them, causing them to be counted as slaveowners during the census)
But all of these details obscure a critical flaw in Marquardt’s argument, Even if all of these cases were true (they aren’t) it still doesn't explain why slavery should be considered multi racial, there might be a few black slave owners but all of the slaves were black. If all of the people suffering are from one race, does the racial composition of the people who benefit really matter?
Reflections: Throughout my time reading this and other blogposts on the Abbeville institute, I increasingly find myself unable to understand the arguments made by the authors. It is not a matter of literacy, it is a matter of coherence; authors start their posts by making outrageous claims and then fail to back them up. The insane but coherent lectures of the past have been replaced with pages upon pages of authors simply making claims and assuming the reader will support them. The authors no longer even bother to cite their sources, all of their claims I had to research on my own. I do not know how large the readership of the institute is but I find it deeply troubling that so many articles could be pumped out and consumed with no questions asked. I can only come to the depressing conclusion that the Abbeville institute and other neo-confederate revisionists are getting worse as they trap themselves in their own media bubbles.
If you like (or dislike) what you see be sure to tell me about it! I’d like to write another one of these but I think that I should try a different topic. Any suggestions?
​
Abbeville institute information:
Author Biography
Original article
About Page
Bibliography:
de Valdes y Cocom, Mario. “The Blurred Lines of Famous Families”, PBS Frontline, 1995
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/pendarvis.html
Finnie, Gordon E. "The Antislavery Movement in the Upper South Before 1840." The Journal of Southern History 35, no. 3 (1969): 319-42. doi:10.2307/2205761.
O’Neil, Aaron. “Black and slave population in the United States 1790-1880”, statista, 2019 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-population-us-1790-1880/#:~:text=By%201860%2C%20the%20final%20census,in%20all%20of%20the%20US.
Robinston, Morgan. “The American Colonization Society”, The White House Historical Society, 2020 https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-american-colonization-society
“Virginia recognises slavery”, PBS, 1999 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p262.html

“Domestic divisions are the greatest threat to our national security.” -Susan Rice.
Note: My apologies if I at times engage in “both-sides-ism” in this post, it was meant for a more general audience than NeoLiberal and often times that is the best way to make a point about tribalism to mixed (and tribal) audience. Additionally, I am not highly familiar with Reddit formatting and as such some things might look peculiar. Thank you for reading.
Identity with a political tribe has taken supreme precedence over matters such as ideology. Blind allegiance is rewarded, not independence, thoughtful consideration, or compromise. Dissent has lost much of its political prestige, the respect, if begrudging, for those “profiles in courage” has largely evaporated. Courageous senators of a time not long past were once applauded for their courage, if not their action (Wayne Morse on the Gulf of Tonkin, James Buckley on Watergate, Charles Goodell on Vietnam, or Howard Baker on the Panama Canal)a When we do see courageous political dissent (e.g from John McCain on the Affordable Care Act or Joe Manchin on the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh), its emissaries are greeted with only contempt. The descent of politics into a conflict between groups held in near religious reverence by their followers is antithetical to democracy itself and seems to absolve its participants from the basic rigors of civility. Civil disagreement is trumped by a hatred reminiscent of that between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. From Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, or the “Tea Party” on the right to Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and the “Justice Democrats” of the left, polarization has grown steadily worse.
These partisan tribes develop norms that are then used as the standards for partisan to be conforming group members. As people identify with a group more strongly, they conform to these tribal norms to appear as “good” members of their tribe, and those who do not conform to the tribal norms are targeted by the extremists within the tribe through systems such as primaries. For instance, Republican Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina lost a 2010 primary to Trey Gowdy by 40 points despite having a 93% rating from the American Conservative Union due to Inglis’s support of climate legislation, a post recession bailout, and his opposition to the 2007 troop surge in Iraq. Even dissent as minor as Representative Inglis’s can trigger a tribal reaction from the group. Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler campaigns extensively on her voting record of siding with President Trump on 100% of votes, in my view it is a sad reflection on the state of our political process if an absolute lack of dissent is applauded by one’s supporters.
In 2016 researchers assembled 1,178 Washingtonians for a study on how partisanship affected their perception of a ballot measure that would institute a carbon tax. The group was divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats; those groups were further divided into a groups viewing Republican endorsements of the policy and Democratic opposition, and a group viewing Republican opposers to the policy and Democratic endorsers. While Republicans continually opposed the policy, they were much more prone to supporting it when told that famous Republicans such as George Shultz (An advisor to the Eisenhower Administration, Nixon’s Secretary of Labor and the Treasury, and finally Reagan’s Secretary of State) had endorsed the policy. This gap was only more pronounced among the well educated in these groups. Global warming is an existential threat to humanity itself, yet our views on it are largely informed due to partisan biases as opposed to scientific fact.
The Media’s Role:
The Soviet Union’s propaganda newspaper was entitled Pravda, Russian for truth, so too does Fox News’ motto of “Fair and Balanced” disguise propaganda and an impartiality taken seriously by few. Politics is not a sport, to create policy and build a united nation compromise is second only to the understanding of other’s beliefs. Media-be it from the right or left-portrays political happenings as a conflict between two teams, with a “win” being valued over the nation’s wellbeing, and, as the saying goes, perception often becomes reality. The facile portrayal of politics as a sport in news has led political discourse to increasingly adopt these characteristics. Media gains views through sensationalism and the portrayal of politics as a horse race, but in doing so it preys on our divisions and often provides a platform to those such as climate change deniers or other conspiracy theorists who normally would be shut from the arena of mainstream political belief. As Carlton University professor Jim Davies explains, “everything about the news—from the dramatic headlines to the riveting background music to the colors on the screen (lots of red, which experts agree is one of, if not the most, emotionally charged color)—is engineered to prey on our hardwired impulses to pay attention to what seems exciting and important. The manner in which the news is presented—be it on television or the social feeds on our phone—often triggers the release of dopamine, a powerful neurochemical that tags experiences as meaningful and makes us want to seek them over and over again.”
The national motto of the United States is “E Pluribus Unum” or “Out of Many, One”. Humans are naturally tribal creatures, but our founders understood that democracy requires us to embrace pluralism and unite our many tribes into one united nation. Social media is in diametric opposition to these principles, sorting us into tribal echo chambers by way of clandestine algorithms that dehumanize our opposition and do no more than confirm our biases. Social media has also opened the door to foreign interference in our elections and the inflammation of our tribal instincts by way of Russian, Chinese, or Iranian propaganda. Foreign disinformation now colors our view of our fellow Americans and of our democratic processes themselves. Anti-democratic actors such as Father Coughlinb harnessed the new technology of radio to fan the flames of fascism, but today we are faced with thousands of Fathers Coughlin spreading disinformation not in weekly radio broadcasts, but in a never-ending firehose of social media extremism that pushes our society deeper into division. Tom Wheeler of the Brooking’s Institution put it well; “digital technology is gnawing at the core of democracy by dividing us into tribes and devaluing truth.”
The Importance of Interaction:
I would argue that the best way to stymie hateful tribalism in the media is not to legislation, but often very minor actions taken by us. I would argue two primary actions should be taken; firstly, one should view media from across the political spectrum; secondly, one should engage in discussion with those you disagree with. As Zachary Wood explained in a “Ted Talk”, “tuning out opposing viewpoints doesn't make them go away, because millions of people agree with them. In order to understand the potential of society to progress forward, we need to understand the counterforces.” People increasingly do not interact with ideas they oppose, and in doing so they lose an understanding of those ideas and come to regard their opponents as what is known as “strawmen”, as Krysta Scripter explains “Especially when we hold a strong opinion, it's increasingly less likely that we're talking [..] with anyone who disagrees.” Interaction with those we disagree with also fosters intellectual humility, defined by the Journal of Positive Psychology as “the ability to have an accurate view of one’s intellectual strengths and limitations and the ability to negotiate ideas in a fair and inoffensive manner. “ It has been shown that this intellectual humility can not only improve one’s learning abilities, but their social skills as well.
The engagement with other’s ideas also reinforces the ideal of pluralism, which is often considering an underpinning of democracy. Pluralism, defined by Oxford as “a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist.”, allows for a democracy in which diverse ideas are expected to compete, if we cannot coexist with others, we cannot properly function as a democracy. For instance, Marwan Muasher, a Middle Eastern policy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that a lack of pluralism has been a defining factor in the destabilization of many areas in the Middle East. By interacting with others, we are learning for ourselves while helping support the foundations of democracy.
System of the Fringes:
The factors contributing to partisanship can be traced to the very roots of our electoral systems themselves. Closed partisan primaries, gerrymandering, and our first past the post voting system collaborate to enable a vocal minority of extremists to hold final sway over our electoral process. Only a small percentage of eligible voters even bother to vote in primaries, and these are commonly the most extreme of the electorate. As former U.S Representative Mickey Edwards(R-OK) notes, only 8% of the total Alabama electorate voted for far-right Judge Roy Moore over incumbent Senator Luther Stranged in the 2017 Republican special election primary, and Strange was by all means more popular among the general electorate than Moore, yet it was Moore who advanced to the general election. In Nebraska’s Second Congressional District progressive Democrat Kara Eastman lost to Republican Don Bacon by 4.8% even as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden carried the district by nearly 6 points; Eastman’s moderate Democratic primary opponent Ann Ashford would have been very likely to win the seat. Candidates such as Moore or Eastman are able to win primaries, and thus advance to be one of two, or even the only, competitive candidate in a general election by appealing to small yet vocal aspects of the electorate. This issue goes all the way to the top; the mostly closed, low turnout 2016 Republican primary led to the rise of the unpopular Donald Trump. The Republican Party was moved into the position to facilitate the rise of Trump by its fringes controlling primaries for years beforehand. The bottom line is clear: primaries do not represent the electorate.
The second issue I would cite is gerrymandering, which is closely connected to the first. Gerrymandering, named for Vice President Elbridge Gerrye, is a practice in which legislatures draw legislative districts in such a way as to maximize the benefits of one political party; Gerrymandering has been a persistent issue throughout American history, but it has become more significant than ever as of late. Competitive elections are a cornerstone of democracy yet Gerrymandering reduces the value of elections while removing competition, allowing politicians to become increasingly radical without facing serious electoral hurdles. A study by Antoine Yoshinaka and Chad Murphy found that “members of the out-of-power party tended to have more drastic changes made to their districts as a way for the in-power party to insulate its members”. For instance, as the Brenna Center for Justices notes that gerrymandering in Maryland removed Republican Roscoe Bartlett in 2012. Maryland’s gerrymandering also means that (relatively) far left Representatives such as Kweisi Mfume and (relatively) far right Representative Andy Harris are both consistently re-elected by large margins; ideally both districts would overlap with more significant support for the other party and ensure competitive elections. Furthermore, if congressional districts were drawn to ensure and encourage competition, the congressional balance would be taken out of the hands of a small number of voters in swing districts. Some would argue that this would allow parties to seize supermajorities, I would disagree as in a congressional map drawn to be as competitive as possible it is unlikely that any party would be able to win all of the competitive seats, and if this were to happen the party would have to have moved to the center enough that it would represent the majority will.
Thirdly, our “first past the post” voting system is flawed. The system allows for phenomena such as “vote splitting” and allows candidates to win with small shares of the vote, as low as under 30% in some primaries or 35% in general elections. This system allows candidates to succeed with wedges of the public and disempowers third parties. For instance, in 1974 former U.S Representative Ray Blanton won the Democratic primary with 22.7% of the vote, Blanton would defeat Republican Lamar Alexander in the general election but his single term as Governor would be marred by scandal and RealClearPolitics would name him one of the “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians” in American history, in the final days of his governorship, he would infamously pardon two dozen convicted murderers and 28 others in exchange for money. More recently, Donald Trump won the 2016 Republican Primary while regularly winning under 40% of the vote due to his divided opposition.
Great political leaders of the past-LBJ, Sam Rayburn, Howard Baker, Bob Dolef-understood the importance of compromise, and only through that understanding were they able to achieve the legislative reforms they did, yet legislative leaders today stifle the legislative process and focus instead on their own interests, putting party above democracy. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY) has long been known as a master of legislative obstruction not seen since the days of James Allen, while Representative Justin Amash has said of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (and every Speaker he has experienced-this is not unique to her) tactics “We have not been allowed to offer amendments on the House floor in more than four years. In effect, every bill we vote on is take it or leave it.”. That being said, there are still those who value compromise, such as Senator Diane Feinstein(D-CA) or retiring Senator Lamar Alexander(R-TN), but our legislative leaders, enabled by primaries and our voting system, largely stymie attempts at compromise.
A Framework for Unity:
The majority of Americans are exhausted with partisan tribalism. Most Americans are not far right or far left, yet both sides maintain caricatures of one another, and an increasing number of Americans confine themselves to partisan-not necessarily ideological-echo chambers that fail to provide them with the support for pluralism and understanding of opposing views that is critical to democracy. I argue that three crucial electoral reforms should be instituted, a commission to end gerrymandering, a blanket primary, and ranked choice voting. States have consistently altered their primary systems since Robert La Follette popularized the idea in the early 1900s, one, Indiana, went farther. Indiana was a hotbed of the Klux Klan during the organization’s second wave and officials as influential as the state’s Governor were members of the terrorist group. Members of the Klan were significantly more likely to vote in primaries than any other group and could seize control of the political system due to their high turnout rates in these primaries, this led Indiana to largely do away with the primary system for local elections in 1928; they would not be restored until the mid 1970s. That being noted, I would not advocate for the abolition of primaries, instead I would argue for abolishing the partisan requirements tied to primaries. States such as Vermont allow one to choose whether to vote in the Republican or Democratic primaries in the state regardless of party affiliation, allowing independents and others into the fold and enabling the primary to be more representative.
That being said, some have gone farther and instituted the now largely forgotten “blanket primary”, which I would argue would be the best alternative. A blanket primary system allows voters to vote in any party’s primary for different offices, with the candidate with the best showing from each party advancing to the general election, : this system commonly produced consensus candidates. Washington and Alaska long maintained a “blanket primary” system, which contributed to both states being quite competitive, as liberal Republicans such as Daniel Evans won in the generally Democratic state of Washington. A blanket primary was adopted by California in the 1996, but the Supreme Court overruled decades of precedent in the 2001 decision California Democratic Party v. Jones and deemed the blanket primary unconstitutional. The reasoning in this decision, put forth by Justice Scalia in a 7-2 decisionh, was that parties can govern their own affairs; I would disagree and argue that this falls out of the scope of a “party affair” and would posit that it is an affair of the people and furthermore argue the decision was a violation of states’ rights. As Justice Stevens puts it in his dissent “A State's power to determine how its officials are to be elected is a quintessential attribute of sovereignty.”
Secondly how can gerrymandering be stymied, and how should we redraw the maps? I would suggest one of two solutions, either an algorithm or a nonpartisan committee to redistrict. I would argue congressional maps are best drawn in a manner that would ensure the highest number of competitive districts. FiveThirtyEight, a polling and analysis website ran by Nate Silver, recently released a series of 8 congressional maps gerrymandered in various ways, one of these is drawn to maximize competition. The maximized competition map includes 242 highly competitive districts, this ensures that one’s vote is likely to have a significant impact while ensuring that elections are not confined to several dozen congressional districts, practically disenfranchising large portions of the electorate. As David Daley of the electoral reform organization FairVote notes “If your goal is to reduce polarization, this system would reduce the oversized influence of partisan voters in low-turnout primaries, give moderate and independent voters more choices, and empower the broader electorate that turns out in November general elections”.
Finally, how we can reform our voting system itself. Several ideas have gained popularity, including approval voting (utilized in Bismarck, North Dakota), but by and large the most popular is ranked choice voting, Maine uses ranked choice voting in its elections, and Alaska recently approved a referendum to do so as well. Ranked choice voting would allow people to rank every candidate for an office in order of preference, candidates are eliminated in each round and their votes redistributed to their second choice until a candidate possesses a majority vote. The majority requirement ensures that candidates possess a true mandate for their policies: other effects of ranked choice voting include more moderate candidates as candidates are required to appeal to a larger segment of the electorate, less tribalism and a more civil political culture as candidates are competing for the second or third choice votes of those who may support another candidate as their first-choice vote, and the negation of the “spoiler effect”.
Opponents of ranked-choice voting make several arguments, well summarized in the Heritage Foundation piece “Ranked Choice Voting Is A Bad Choice” but the primary argument is the claim that in a ranked-choice system, one could vote for a candidate they greatly dislike, whom they ranked quite low. I would object vehemently to this argument. Firstly, one would never vote for the candidate they ranked last, and if one were not comfortable voting for multiple candidates they could leave them out of their rankings. Secondly, one will only vote for a candidate ranked low on their ballot if the election is down to that candidate and the candidate or candidates one has ranked lower. For example, if one were to have ranked every third-party presidential candidate above Joe Biden and Donald Trump in this election but still ranked Biden above Trump, their vote would have gone to their second least favored candidate, but only because the alternative was a candidate they favored even less. Our political system is in chaos, and technologies such as social media exacerbate these issues. Electoral reform and reforms to our manner of politics are, frankly, the only way we can escape this political quagmire for brighter pastures.
Footnotes:
a.. The four acts of “political courage” I reference here are as follows; Wayne Morse(D-OR) being one of two Senators to oppose the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; James Buckley(C-NY) being the first conservative Senator to call for the resignation of President Nixon; Appointed Senator Charles Goodell(R-NY) opposing the Vietnam War, an action which led to his defeat in the 1970 election, losing the support even of the Nixon White House; and Republican Senate Leader Howard Baker(R-TN) aiding President Carter with negotiations surrounding the Panama Canal, which may have cost him the 1980 Republican presidential nomination.
b. Father Charles Coughlin was a radio priest from the late 1930s and early 1940s infamous for his advocacy for, arguably, fascist policies and for sympathizing with the enemy during WWII, his weekly broadcasts attracted millions of listeners until he was removed from air early in WWII, although he continued to preside over his church until his death in the late 1970s.
c. The strawman fallacy is defined by Wikipedia as “a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.”
d. I would note that Senator Strange was an appointed incumbent, but an incumbent nonetheless, and one who had demonstrated relative popularity with the general electorate in the past in other races.
e. Gerry was Governor of Massachusetts at the time of the redistricting, and in fairness to him, he was reluctant to support the redistricting bill. The term “gerrymander” comes from a political cartoon soon after the bill was passed.
f. LBJ refers to Lyndon Baines Johnson, I refer more so to his work as Senate Majority Leader from 1953-1960 than to his work in the Presidency. Sam Rayburn, the longest serving Speaker of the House in American history, was LBJ’s counterpart from 1953-1960 and served as Speaker until his death in 1961, both Texans, Rayburn was a significant influence on LBJ and in some ways served as a father figure. Howard Baker served as Republican Senate Leader from 1977-`985, the last four of those years at Majority Leader. Bob Dole served as Baker’s successor, both were influential legislators who valued bipartisanship. Dole himself would cite his work for progressive 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee George McGovern to end hunger as the work he is most proud of.
g. James “Jim” Allen served as a Senator from Alabama from 1969-1977 and was an infamous master of senate rules. Allen’s behavior almost single handedly led to the lowering of the filibuster threshold from 67 votes to 60, I would recommend Walter Mondales’s account of the matter, which may be found in his memoir, “The Good Fight”.
h. Justices Ginsburg and Stevens dissented.
Bibliography:
Daley, David. “This Is How We End Gerryamandering.” FairVote, 26 Jan. 2018, www.fairvote.org/this_is_how_we_end_gerrymandering.
Ehret, Phillip J., et al. “Partisan Barriers to Bipartisanship.” Social Psychological and Personality Science, vol. 9, no. 3, 2018, pp. 308–318., doi:10.1177/1948550618758709.
ACU Ratings of Congress: 111th Congress, Second Session (40th Edition). American Conservative Union, 2010. p. 32
Cillizza, Chris. “Analysis: This Republican Senator Is Taking Being pro-Trump to a Whole Other Level.” CNN, Cable News Network, 29 Oct. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/politics/kelly-loeffler-donald-trump-georgia-senate-race/index.html.
Packer, George, et al. “A New Report Offers Insights Into Tribalism in the Age of Trump.” The New Yorker, www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-new-report-offers-insights-into-tribalism-in-the-age-of-trump.
Farrell, William E. “2 In Indiana Face Stiff Primary Tests.” New York Times, 4 May 1976.
Kraushaar, Josh (April 7, 2009). "Inglis faces fight from the right". Politico.com.
Edwards, Mickey, and Jason Davis. GovLove - A Podcast About Local Government - #187 The Parties vs. the People with Mickey Edwards, Former Congressman.
“Nebraska Election Results: Second Congressional District.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 3 Nov. 2020, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-nebraska-house-district-2.html.
“ NE District 02 - D Primary Race - May 12, 2020.” Our Campaigns , www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=873307.
“2018 United States House of Representatives Elections in Maryland.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 June 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Maryland
Heaton, Andrew, et al. “America Had a Coup in 2010.” The Political Orphanage, 2020, politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/steroids-for-gerrymandering.
Wheeler, Tom. “Technology, Tribalism, and Truth.”
Brookings, Brookings, 7 Feb. 2020, www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2020/02/07/technology-tribalism-and-truth/.
Glynn, Anisha Singh and Nathaniel. “Mitch McConnell: A Legacy of Obstruction.” Center for American Progress, 15 July 2016, www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/news/2016/07/14/141210/mitch-mcconnell-a-legacy-of-obstruction/.
Amash, Justin. “We Have Not Been Allowed to Offer Amendments on the House Floor in More than Four Years. In Effect, Every Bill We Vote on Is Take It or Leave It.This Is Not Legislating.” Twitter, Twitter, 14 Oct. 2020, twitter.com/justinamash/status/1316417188836839424.
Stulberg, Brad. “Step Away from the 24-Hour News Cycle.”
Outside Online, Outside Magazine, 1 Dec. 2018, www.outsideonline.com/2371546/break-your-digital-addiction.
Fish, Greg. “How The Media Fuels Hyper-Partisanship By Treating Politics Like A Sport.” Rantt Media, Rantt Media, 29 June 2018, rantt.com/how-the-media-fuels-hyper-partisanship-by-treating-politics-like-a-sport.
Wood, Zachary R. “Why It's Worth Listening to People You Disagree With.” Why It's Worth Listening to People You Disagree With, by Unknown Yet, www.dailygood.org/story/2180/why-it-s-worth-listening-to-people-you-disagree-with/.
Muasher, Marwan. “Pluralism Is Necessary for Democracy.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, carnegieendowment.org/2014/02/20/pluralism-is-necessary-for-democracy-pub-54609.
“History of the Blanket Primary in Washington.” Elections & Voting - WA Secretary of State, www.sos.wa.gov/elections/bp_history.aspx.
“California Democratic Party v. Jones.” Casebriefs, www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-cohen/protection-of-penumbral-first-amendment-rights/california-democratic-party-v-jones/.
Miller, Peter. “Maryland's Extreme Gerrymander.” Brennan Center for Justice, 7 Mar. 2019, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/marylands-extreme-gerrymander.
Borger, Julian. “Susan Rice: 'Domestic Divisions Are the Greatest Threat to Our National Security'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 23 Nov. 2019, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/23/susan-rice-interview-trump-family-son.
Phillip Langsdon, Tennessee: A Political History (Franklin, Tenn.: Hillsboro Press, 2000), pp. 375-387.
Ten Most Corrupt Politicians, RealClearPolitics, 22 May 2012
“The Atlas Of Redistricting.” FiveThirtyEight, 25 Jan. 2018, projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/.
Livni, Ephrat “Ranked choice voting and the quest to save democracy in the U.S’, Quartz, 31 July 2019
“Benefits of Ranked Choice Voting.” FairVote, www.fairvote.org/rcvbenefits.
von Spakovsky, Hans. “Ranked Choice Voting Is a Bad Choice.” The Heritage Foundation, 23 Aug. 2019, www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice.

Introduction: This post attempts to show that Paul could not have conceived of a resurrection body where the deceased earthly body is left behind in the grave. As John Granger Cook hypothesizes:

There is no fundamental difference between Paul’s conception of the resurrection body and that of the Gospels.

(John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, pp. 1)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Resurrection of the Dead, According to Paul

The most frequently used verb for resurrection in the New Testament is ἐγείρω/egeirō. Throughout the chapter, Paul uses the verb "egeirō" for the resurrection of the dead (cf. 1 Cor 15:15-16, 29, 32, 35, 42-43, 44, 52). Surprisingly, however, despite it's importance in the NT and it's central place as language for the resurrection, this verb has received little detailed study. This verb was not a slippery term as often assumed. Until the reaction of the Gnostics in the 2nd century and later, this word was used to denote bodily resurrection by both Jews and pagans, and both groups continued to use "egeiro" to denote bodily resurrection into late antiquity (cf. John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, pp. 574). James P. Ware writes:

The Greek verb ἐγείρω has a more restricted semantic range, and cannot mean raise or rise in this wider sense of elevation or ascension. Rather, ἐγείρω means to get up or stand up, that is, to rise from a supine to a standing position. Thus the verb is regularly used to denote the raising or rising up of one who has fallen (LXX Exod 23.5; LXX1 Kings 5.3; LXX Eccles 4.10; Jdt 10.23; Philo, Agr. 122; Mut. 56; Migr. 122; Matt 12.11; Mark 9.27; Acts 9.8; 1 Clem 59.4). It is also used of one kneeling or prostrate being raised back to a standing position (LXX 1 Kings 2.8; LXX 2 Kings 12.17; LXX Ps 112.7; LXX Dan 10.10; Philo, Ebr. 156; Post. 149; Matt 17.7; Luke 11.8; Acts 10.26; Hermas, Vis. 2.1.3; 3.2.4). The verb is used of one lying down, very frequently of one lying sick,who is restored to a standing posture (Matt 8.15; 9.5, 6, 7; Mark 1.31; 2.9, 11, 12; Luke 5.23–4; John 5.8 ; Acts3.6-7; James 5.15). The verb is also frequently used of one sitting who rises to stand (LXX Ps 126.2; LXX Isa 14.9; Matt 26.46; Mark 3.3; 10.49; 14.42; Luke 6.8; John 11.29; 13.4; 14.31; Hermas, Vis. 1.4.1). In no instance within ancient Greek literature does ἐγείρω denote the concept of ascension, elevation or assumption. Rather, it denotes the action whereby one who is prone, sitting, prostrate or lying down is restored to a standing position.

(James P. Ware, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5, New Testament Studies, 2014, p. 494)
The 2018 Brill Encyclopedia entry affirms Ware's work. Cook in his 2018 monologue (Mohr Siebeck) conjured up a gallery of examples in ancient literature where "egeiro" simply entailed standing up from a supine position (and not ascension). This following short gallery derives from Cook's book Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis, Mohr Siebeck, 2018 (pp. 13-15, 19-20):
(1) In a passage in the Iliad, Nestor wakes Diomedes:

Wake up, son of Tydeus, why do you sleep the whole night through? ... So he spoke, and he leapt up very quickly. (Homer Il. 10.159, 162)

"Wake up" includes the sense of “getting up,” or at least implies it.
-
(2) The chorus (that is, the Furies) in the Eumenides of Aeschylus cry to each other to wake/get up after Orestes has escaped:

Wake/get up, you get her up, and I [will get] you up. Do you still sleep? Stand up, shaking off sleep. (Aeschylus Eum. 140–1)

The command to stand clarifies the action (motion upward) implicit in the command to “wake” or “get up.
-
(3) Cytherea, in Bion’s Epitaph for Adonis, uses the verb to coax her dying lover upward, even if for one last kiss:

Rouse yourself a little, Adonis, and kiss me for a final time; kiss me as much as your kiss has life, until you breathe your last into my mouth, and your spirit flows into my heart ... (Bion [Epitaph. Adon.] 1.45–8)

-
(4) An idyll attributed to Theocritus about two fishermen illustrates the motion of standing up straight from a supine position:

And their customary labor roused up the fishermen, and chasing the sleep from their eyelids, provoked speech in their minds. (Theocritus Id. 21.20–1)

-
(5) In a much later example from Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic emperor contemplates the occasional difficulty of waking/getting up from sleep:

Whenever you wake/get up from sleep with difficulty, remember that according to your condition and human nature you perform social activities, and that sleeping is something also shared with irrational animals. (Marcus Aurelius Med. 8.12)

The active component of the verb (i.e., getting up) is readily apparent in the emperor’s text.
-
(6) In Aristophanes’ Clouds, a father attempts to get his sleeping son up:

(Strepsiades) But first I wish to wake him/rouse him up. How then could I rouse him up in the gentlest way? How? Phidippides, my little Phidippides. (Phidippides) What, father? (Str.) Kiss me, and give me your right hand. (Aristophanes Nub. 78–81)

Presumably, Strepsiades sits or stands up after his father takes his hand. But the verb probably contains, even here, the sense of rising up from his supine position, since the father clearly intends to get his son into an upright position, as the reference to his “hand” makes clear.
-
(7) In his Frogs, Aristophanes includes a character who roused himself up (or “woke up”), after Dionysus recounts his exploits to Heracles: "and then I roused myself up" (Aristophanes Ran. 51).
-
(8) An ancient scholiast also believed the verb indicates “getting up,” since it implies that Dionysus dreamed of his alleged naval victory:

And then I woke up: it is a joke about Dionysus. And then, he said, I got up from a dream; making it clear that a dream accomplished these things. (Scholia in Aristophanem Ran. 51)

Clearly the scholiast believes that a seme of “upward motion” belongs to the verb.
-
(9) In the Rhesus the king’s charioteer awakes from sleep when he dreams that the king’s horses are being ridden by wolves:

And I roused up from sleep warding off the beasts [wolves] from the horses. For the night terror urged me. And raising my head, I hear the moaning of the dying. A warm stream of new blood from the wound of my master falls on me, as he died hard. I rise upright, my hand empty of any spear ... ([Euripides] Rhesus 787–92).

This is a clear example of the spatial motion upward contained in the verb.
-
(10) An ordinary inscription from Rome also provides striking additional evidence. The last line from this burial inscription says ("ἐντεῦθεν οὐθὶς ἀποθανὼν ἐγ[ε]ίρετ[αι]") (‘no one who has died arises from here’). In this inscription, the use of ἐντεῦθεν (‘from here’) together with ἐγείρω unambiguously indicates the concept of getting up or arising from the tomb (IGUR III.1406).
​
There are further arguments in favor of the notion that Paul is arguing for a resurrected body that is continuities to the body that is laid in the tomb, and against the Martin, Engberg-Pedersen, and Borg view of the resurrected body being some sort of ethereal body (see Ware's article here):

1. Within 15:36–49, which is structured by twelve antithetically paired verbs (that is, six pairs of verbs) denoting death (or the mortal state) and resurrection (or the risen state), the subject of these antithetical verbal pairs is one and the same both for verbs denoting death, and those denoting resurrection. The subject throughout is the perishable body, which “dies” but “is made alive” again by God (15:36), which is “sown” (speiretai) in mortality and death, but “raised” (egeiretai) to imperishable life (15:42–44). This basic observation, which is nonetheless commonly ignored by interpreters, has profound exegetical implications. Paul does not describe resurrection as an event in which x (the present body) is sown, but y (a body distinct from the present body) is raised, but in which a single x (the present body) is sown a perishable x, but raised an imperishable x.
2. "Throughout 15:50–54 [SEE DIAGRAM BELOW], the subject of the verbs Paul uses to describe the resurrection event is the corruptible body of flesh, whether laid in the tomb or still living at the parousia. It is this present body that is raised and transformed. Indeed, the fourfold repetition of “this” (τοῦτο) emphasizes that it is this mortal, perishable body that is the subject of the transformation. “The subject persists throughout the radical change." Mortal flesh, far from being excluded from this divine, saving event, is the subject of that event. (Ware, "Paul's Understanding of the Resurrection," pp. 825). The fact that Paul envisions the bodies of the living to be transformed rather than annihilated is one more clear indicator of the physical and bodily character of the resurrection of the dead in his thought, since he envisions the same "change" for all (1 Cor 15:51).
3. In addition to the verb egeiro, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 employs a variety of additional verbs to denote the resurrection event: zoopoieo (“make alive”; 15:36, 45; cf. 15:22), phoreo (“be clothed”; 15:49), alasso (“change”; 15:51, 52), and enduo (“clothe”; 15:53, 54). These additional verbs are significant, for they each express, in different ways, not the annihilation or replacement of the fleshly body, but its revival (zoopoieo), investiture (phoreo, enduo), and transformation (alasso).
4. The series of contrasts within 15:36–54 bet ween the ante-mortem and risen body do not occur in the subject of these periods, but in their predicates (verbs and verbal complements). And these predicate complements invariably describe a change of quality rather than of substance, in which what was once perishable, dishonored, weak, and mortal is endowed with imperishability, glory, power, and immortality (15:42–43; 15:52–54). Paul’s series of oppositions does not describe two bodies distinct in substance, but two contrasting modes of existence of the same body, one prior to and the other subsequent to the resurrection.

For #2 (from Ware's article):

Subject	Verb	Predicate
	will be clothed with	image of the Man from heaven
V. 51 we all	will be changed	______________________
V. 52 the dead	will be raised	imperishable
we	will be changed	______________________
V. 53 this perishable	must be clothed with	imperishability
this mortal body	must be clothed with
V. 54 this perishable body	is clothed with	imperishability
this mortal body	is clothed with	immortality

Moreover, Paul explicitly teaches a resurrection where the earthly body itself is transformed instead of discarded in his other epistles. See, for example, Philippians 3:21:

[Jesus Christ] will transform our lowly body to be conformed to his glorious body, in accordance with the outworking of his power whereby he is able to subject the entire universe to himself.

When one reads the context of Phil 3:1-4:1, it becomes clear that, just like, 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul's thought embraces the whole eschatological event, involving both the living and the dead. On Philippians 3:21 for instance, the exclusion of the resurrection from this passage will not work exegetically. This verse needs to be read within the larger passage, Philippians 3:1-4:1. 3:21 picks up, and brings to a climax, the thought in 3:10-11, where Paul expresses his personal hope that he "may by any means possible arrive at the resurrection from the dead." The "we" of Philippians 3:20-21 picks up the "I" of Philippians 3:10-11. In light of 3:10-11, it is impossible that the thought of 3:21 excludes the resurrection. Than there is Rom 8:11:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.

Lastly, in ancient Judaism there were a number of options for the afterlife: eternal soul, resurrection of the body, awakening of the spirit, or nothing. It seems, however, that whenever Jewish texts affirmed of resurrection (i.e. upward movement), they affirmed of bodily resurrection. In other words, while there were many different beliefs in the afterlife, there were not various types of "resurrection" beliefs. As John Granger Cook says in his recent book, "The current fashion among some scholars of asserting that there were various concepts of “resurrection” in Second Temple Judaism seems fundamentally wrong [...] Spirits or souls do not rise from the dead in ancient Judaism, people do. (2018, 569).
Many Jewish texts spoke of bodily resurrection. This gallery here is also derived mostly from Cook's 2018 monologue (chapter 6):
(1) Daniel 12:2-3 (II B.C.E.)

“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.

"Daniel is almost certainly referring to the resurrection of the dead. [...] The decisive confirmation of the bodily nature of resurrection in Daniel is the conclusion of the book where the seer is told that he will himself rise from the dead" (Cook, 465, 467):

12:13 But you, go your way to the end and rest; you shall rise [“stand”] for your reward at the end of days (NRSV mod.)

-
(2) 2 Maccabees 7:7, 9-11, 23 (II B.C.E.)

7 After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, “Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?” 8 He replied in the language of his ancestors and said to them, “No.” Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. [...] After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands, 11 and said nobly, “I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again.”
-
23 The creator of the cosmos, the one who shaped the origin of the human and invented the origin of all things, shall restore breath and life to you again with mercy, since now you disdain your very selves for the sake of his laws.

"2 Maccabees represents one of the most intensely physical understandings that can be found in early Jewish literature. The martyrs profess their hope in a resurrection in which the very same members of the body will be restored to them in a new and everlasting life (7:7, 9–11)." (C.D Elledge, Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism, 200 BCE-CE 200, Oxford Press, 2017, p. 26-27)
-
(3) 1 Enoch 92:3:

The righteous one will arise from sleep; he will arise and walk in the paths of righteousness, and all his path and his journey (will be) in piety and eternal mercy.

"There seems to be no fundamental reason for rejecting the conclusion that the text refers to the resurrection of the righteous and their subsequent behavior. The image of walking apparently envisions a “physical resurrection from the dead.” The emphasis on physically rising from sleep, and not just waking from sleep, also supports the contention that the reference is to resurrection." (Cook: 490-491)
-
(4) Syrian Baruch (Late I C.E.)
"2 Bar 30:1 describes the fate of those who hope in the Messiah:

And it shall come to pass after these things, when the time of the advent of the Messiah is fulfilled, that He shall return in glory. Then all who have fallen asleep in hope of Him shall rise again.

The author then describes the appearance of the souls of the righteous and the wicked (2 Bar 30:3–5). The Lord announces the resurrection to Baruch (2 Bar 42:8):

And the dust shall be called, and there shall be said to it: “Give back that which is not yours, and raise up all that you have kept until its time.”

The prophet queries the Almighty (2 Bar 49:2):

In what shape will those live who live in Your day? Or how will the splendor of those who (are) after that time continue?

He wonders if their form will be changed (2 Bar 49:3):

Will they then resume this form of the present, and put on these members that chains clothe, which are now involved in evils, and in which evils are consummated, or will you perchance change these things which have been in the world as also the world?

The question is about the nature of the resurrection body. The same image appears in this text (2 Bar 50:2–3):

For the earth shall then assuredly restore the dead, which it now receives, in order to preserve them. It shall make no change in their form, but as it has received, so shall it restore them, and as I delivered them unto it, so also shall it raise them. 3 For then it will be necessary to show the living that the dead have come to life again

This is undoubtedly resurrection of the body. The shape of the wicked will then become more evil, and the shape of the righteous will “become progressively more glorious” (2 Bar 51:2–5)." (Cook, pp. 496-497)
-
(5) The Fourth Sibylline Oracle (Late I C.E.)

God himself will again give shape to the bones and ashes of people, and will raise mortals again, as they were before. (Sib. Or. 4.181-2)

"The Fourth Sibylline Oracle affirms that resurrection bodies will have the same form as they did in life." (Cook: 500)
-
(6) The Testament of Judah 25:1 (II B.C.E -II C.E.)

And after these things shall Abraham and Isaac and Jacob arise unto life (25:1)

"The verb’s use [arise] indicates bodily resurrection" (Cook: 456)
-
(7) T. Ab. 7:17 (I-II C.E.)
Bodily resurrection occurs in T. Ab.:

“At that time all flesh shall rise” (T. Ab. 7.17; the short recension)

-
(8) SEG 15, 811 (II-III C.E.)
"A funerary inscription for a Jewish woman named Regina from the Monteverde catacombs [says]:

She will live again, return to the light again. For she can hope that she will rise to the life promised as a real assurance to the worthy and the pious in that she has deserved to possess an abode in the hallowed land.

Joseph S. Park writes that surgat “seems to evoke an image of the deceased literally rising from the grave” (Park, Conceptions, p. 167)." (Cook: 474)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

An Ethereal Resurrection?

According to many, what Paul thinks of is an ethereal resurrection - a heavenly body discontinuities with the body that decomposes in the ground. Thus Paul states that we are raised in a "spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44), which he contrasts with the earthly body ("it is sown a physical body"), and that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:50). Paul also seems to believe that the earthly body is like a seed husk - discarded, while we are transformed into a new ethereal body (cf. 1 Cor 15:36-37). 2 Corinthians seems to be even clearer when Paul says in 2 Cor 5:1 that “the earthly tent we live in is destroyed (kataluthē)” and in 2 Cor 5:3, where Paul says that the earthly body “will be taken off (ekdysamenoi).” Thus, the source of the resurrected body is not the present earthly body, but it will be brought from heaven (2 Cor 5:2).

(1) On 1 Corinthians 15:44, what Paul has in mind when he says "it is raised a spiritual body" is a physical body that is empowered by pneuma, not made by it. The first indication of this is the use of the verb "egeiro." While egeiro appears in some contexts in which the soul is stimulated or roused, "nowhere in classical Greek or in the Greek of Jewish texts does a soul (or spirit) “rise” in a text that describes a resurrection" (John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, pp. 36). This was true until gnostic interpreters of the second century (ibid, 36). Furthermore, in 1 Cor 2:14-15, Paul makes a similar distinction between psychikos and pneumatikos. 1 Cor 2:14-15 says:

Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

It makes no sense imagining Paul speaking about a person composed of soul verses those composed of pneuma. The adjective pneumatikos is used to refer to people or things empowered by the Spirit of God, such as: palpable manna and water (10:3–4), a tangible rock (10:4), and flesh and blood human beings (3:1; 14:37). Used with soma in 15:44, pneumatikos indicates that the risen body will be a physical body empowered by pneuma. James P. Ware writes:

The adjective that Paul here contrasts with πνευματικός is not σάρκινος (cognate with σάρξ), referring to the flesh, but ψυχικός (cognate with ψυχή), referring to the soul. This adjective is used in texts outside the NT, without exception, with reference to the properties or activities of the soul (e.g., 4 Macc 1:32; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 3.10.2; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.7.5–7; Plutarch, Plac. philos. 1.8). Modifying σῶμα as here, with reference to the present body, the adjective describes this body as given life or activity by the soul. The adjective has nothing to do with the body’s composition but denotes the source of the mortal body’s life and activity.

(Ware, "Paul's Understanding of the Resurrection," pp. 832).
Thus, “if σῶμα πνευματικόν in this context describes the composition of the future body, as a body composed only of spirit, its correlate σῶμα ψυχικόν would perforce describe the composition of the present body, as a body composed only of soul. Paul would assert the absence of flesh and bones not only from the risen body but from the present mortal body as well!” (Ware, "Paul's Understanding of the Resurrection," pp. 832-833).
Lastly, "the notion of a risen body composed of corporeal pneuma perforce entails (as Engberg-Pedersen has demonstrated) a specifically Stoic and pantheistic understanding of the relation of the divine to the cosmos, with the corollary that Paul conceived of the Spirit of God as a corporeal entity, composed of the same substance as the sun, moon, and stars (see Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self, 8–38; idem, “Material Spirit,” 184–87). [...] Such a reconstruction of Paul’s thought [is] without historical plausibility (cf. Rom 1:20–25; 4:17; 11:33–36; 1 Cor 8:4–6; 10:7; 10:14; 1 Thess 1:9–10)." (Ware, "Paul's Understanding of the Resurrection," pp. 833-834).
​
(2) On 1 Corinthians 15:36-37. Paul is comparing the naked seed (A) placed in the ground with the human dead body (B) that is placed in the ground; so as the (future) plant body (A') will be, so will the resurrection body (B') be. So as A is to B, A' is to B' - if one were to commit the analogy to symbolic form. The analogy points to both the material continuity of the mortal and risen body and the transformation of the mortal body that takes place in the resurrection event. As James P. Ware points out:

What is often missed is the critical significance of verse 39 for our understanding of resurrection in Paul. For the juxtaposition of 15:39 with 15:37 and 15:40–41 shows that here, reflecting the normal usage of Paul’s Greek-speaking audience, “flesh” (sarx) and “body” (sōma) function as synonymous terms for the human body. Paul’s analogy in 15:36–41 assumes both that the risen body will be a body (15:37–38, 40–41) and that it will be composed of flesh (15:39). Paul’s reminder of the various kinds of flesh (15:39), bodies (15:40), and bodily splendor (15:41) functions to prepare the reader for the depiction of transformed embodiment to follow in 15:42–54, in which the risen body of flesh is differentiated from its mortal counterpart not by change of substance, but by its freedom from weakness, mortality, and decay.

(James P. Ware, Paul's Theology in Context, Eerdmans, 2019, pp. 213-214)
Furthermore, Paul’s saying in 1 Cor 15:37, γυμνὸς κόκκος, has nothing to do with a Platonist naked soul or Stoic imagery of sowing and seeds. The context itself indicates that stoicism or Platonism is not in the mind of Paul when he says "γυμνὸς κόκκος." Instead, as John Granger Cook says, texts from Greek biology and agriculture are far more revealing. See John Granger Cook, A Naked Seed: Platonism, Stoicism, or Agriculture in 1Cor 15,37?, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft | Volume 111: Issue 2, 2020. 1 Clement and 3 Corinthians, for example, could be instructive for how we interpret 1 Cor 15:37, for the authors also refer to the resurrection using the image of naked seeds, and they are early interpretations to the preferred biological/agricultural reading of 1 Cor 15:37. 1 Clement says:

The sower went out and cast into the ground each of the seeds, which falling on the ground dry and naked decay. Then out of decay, the magnificence of the master’s providence raises them up, and from one seed more grow and produce fruit. (1 Clem 24:2)

"Clement’s imagery is physical, and the seeds are not naked souls, nor does he include any Stoic metaphors" (ibid, 308). 3 Corinthians says:

For they do not know, Corinthians, that the seed of wheat or other varieties, which are cast into the ground naked and which decay below, are raised by the will of God in body and clothed; so that not only is the body raised that was cast (into the ground), but it is abounding, upright, and blessed. (3Cor = AcPlCor 2:26–27)

3 Corinthian's imagery is clearly a flesh and bones resurrection.
​
(3) On 1 Corinthians 15:50, "flesh and blood" is not a synonym for "physical" or "that which is opposed to the physical." It is a semitism (or a figure of speech) for mortality. Thus, Paul is saying that mortality does not inherit the kingdom of God. John Granger Cook writes:

“flesh and blood” – in particular its use as a rabbinic expression which simply refers to human nature in its fragility and not simply to “physical flesh.” An early rabbinic example is from the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael where Exod 12:12 “I am the Lord” is explained as “What flesh and blood cannot say” (Mek. Pesach 1:7). Another occurrence is a discussion of Exod 15:1 “I will sing unto the Lord for he is really exalted,” which is explained by an example that begins “when a king of flesh and blood enters a province … (Mek. Shirata 3:1)

(John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, pp. 585)
​
(4) On 2 Corinthians 5:1-5, there is nothing in this passage that conflicts with Paul's robust doctrine of a "flesh and bones" resurrection. First off, in verse 3, what Paul wrote was endysamenoi (I put on, clothe), instead of ekdusamenoi (having put off). The manuscript evidence that supports this is overwhelming (p46 א B C D2 Ψ 0243. 33. 1739. 1881. Byz, lat, sy, co; Cl.). The evidence for ekdusamenoi is far less (see: Kevin Daugherty, Naked Bodies and Heavenly Clothing, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 8 [2011–12], pp. 214). 2 Cor 5:4 is instructive on this regard when Paul says: "not that we wish to be unclothed (ekdusasthai) but more fully clothed (ependusasthai)." This expresses both the continuity of the risen body with the mortal body, and its discontinuity, in its transformation to imperishability through the work of the Spirit.
"Destroyed" in 2 Cor 5:1a is referring to death. 2 Cor 5:1 than stresses upon the transformation of the resurrection body when it says that we will receive an eternal heavenly body. It does not, however, indicate that the earthly body is left behind (cf. 2 Cor 5:3-4). That Paul in v. 2 is thinking of the heavens as a place where some kind of ethereal body that is now literally existent is probably false. Just like in 1 Cor 15:47, when Paul speaks in v. 2 of "the heavens" he is referring to God in the fullness of his presence and glory. Paul thus describes the risen body as "from heaven" in v. 2 in that it is the direct work of the Spirit of God (cf. 1 Cor 15:47-49).
​
(5) On Josephus, "at no point in any of these texts does Josephus adopt the clear verbs for resurrection used by the Hellenistic translators of Dan 12:2. His language resembles reincarnation far closer than the texts of resurrection surveyed in this chapter." (John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis, Mohr Siebeck, 2018, pp. 513). Paul in 1 Cor 15 is expressing a flesh and bones resurrection as evidence by his use of the language that Josephus here starkly avoids: the Jewish language of resurrection (egeiro and anastasis).
Plus, as D. Boyarin writes: “Josephus’s allusion ... to the idea of metempsychosis is presumably an attempt to present resurrection in a form more familiar to his audience.” (Border Lines. The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, 2004, pp. 13–22).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

• Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010.
• Cook, John Granger. “A Naked Seed: Platonism, Stoicism, or Agriculture in 1Cor 15,37?” Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. 111, no. 2, 2020, pp. 289–309. doi:10.1515/znw-2020-0012.
• Cook, John Granger. Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis. Mohr Siebeck, (Tübingen), 2018.
• Cook, John Granger. “Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15.” New Testament Studies, vol. 63, no. 1, 2017, pp. 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002868851600028X
• Daugherty, Kevin. Naked Bodies and Heavenly Clothing: gumnos in 2 Corinthians 5.3. Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 8, (2011-2012).
• Elledge, C. D. Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism, 200 BCE-CE 2000. Oxford Univ. Press, 2016.
• University, Houston Baptist. “Jesus's Resurrection and Ours According to Paul the Apostle.” Houston Baptist University, 15 July 2016. https://hbu.edu/news-and-events/2016/07/15/jesuss-resurrection-according-paul-apostle/
• Ware, James P., Paul's Theology in Context: Creation, Incarnation, Covenant, and Kingdom. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2019.
• Ware, James P. " Paul's Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36–54." Journal of Biblical Literature , Vol. 133, No. 4 (Winter 2014), pp. 809-835 https://doi.org/10.15699/jbibllite.133.4.809
• Ware, James P. “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5.” New Testament Studies, vol. 60, no. 4, 2014, pp. 475–498. doi:10.1017/s0028688514000150

Below is the result of too much free time thanks to the pandemic. It's the true story of Alan Moore's rise to super-stardom, his own record on his precious Creator's Rights and answers to all the questions that have never been answered (Why does he hate Marvel and why did he ban them from reprinting Captain Britain, Just how devious was his Watchmen Contract, Why did he fall out with his Closest Co Creator(s) etc. etc.) elsewhere. Everything is based on extensive research, interviews, rare documents and actual quotes by Moore. If you think something needs verifying, let me know and I'll respond in the replies.
Alan Moore is the most famous and respected comic writer in the world today. But despite the endearing success, wealth and critical acclaim they brought him, he has recently disowned his own work and spent the last few years condemning the medium, its publishers, employees and audience. And Moore gives a very good reason for this; he's repeatedly stated that he was 'cheated' and 'robbed' of his creations and his creator rights by unscrupulous 'gangster corporations' who never 'valued or respected' the creators producing the work. Unsurprisingly a lot of people support his stance; Moore is seen as a deeply principled figurehead for creator’s rights, but the truth is it’s utterly contrived to garner sympathy and support for what is in fact a very personal vendetta, his claims have no basis in fact and his accusations reflect better how Moore himself has always behaved and mistreated his fellow creators.
Moore's self-written history is a fictional re-imagining of reality, emboldened by all the interviews, articles and biographies that echo it across the world. Like most of his more celebrated works it involves intricately described imagined chronology and events, evocative and emotive language and metaphors and twists; invisible at the start but delicately planted and nurtured and apparent at the end, rewarding subsequent rereads. In this particular Moore tale, the victim is revealed to be the villain; all his imagined abuses overtly visited deliberately by him on others; stealing from closest collaborators, erasing author's contributions to his own work, damaging innocent co-creator's careers and livelihoods as mere collateral and in a typical Moore tribute to a simpler golden age of vaudevillian chicanery; cheating a sick children's hospital. Moore's issues with the comic’s industry are borne of very personal grudges and he’s willing to use anyone in his orbit as fodder to damage those that dared to disrespect him.
In a recent interview, with ‘Deadline’ Magazine, Moore again eviscerated the industry that made him a star, using metaphor's that would make the medium's most infamous critics blush. He suggests comics are responsible for infantalising their readers as well as the election of Donald Trump (who recently retweeted one of Moore's 'V for Vendetta' quotes, albeit in entirely the wrong context). Supporters suggest this is a joke, if it is it's an old one; in previous interviews he suggested the Klu Klux Klan were the inspiration behind superheroes and that the Mafia created the comics industry. He is now working in the more genteel and nobler Film industry, having cut his teeth a few years ago working on a since abandoned project with Hewlett Packard whose dalliances with fraud, bribery and Human Rights violations don't seem to have deterred him. In the ‘Deadline’ interview Moore says of the comic industry; “All of these characters have been stolen from their original creators, all of them. They have a long line of ghosts standing behind them“. The reality however is that in his entire career only Moore, not the companies that employed him, was involved in stealing from a fellow creator, damaging colleague's careers and livelihoods and ensuring that other's contribution to his critically acclaimed work was removed.
HBO’s 2019 ‘Watchmen’ series; a sequel to the acclaimed 1985 comic series, was lauded by critics and audiences alike; sweeping the Emmy awards and even featuring on Barrack Obama's 'Best of 2019' list. This was even more impressive given the orchestrated campaign, by family, friends and fans of Moores, to boycott the series. These supporters parroted his declaration that his creations were “stolen” and “swindled” from him. The HBO series creator Damon Lindelof even spoke about how the guilt and angst he felt, as a result of Moore's claims, almost killed the project and has announced he will not work on the series in the future. In November 2019 Moore’s daughter and fellow writer, Leah Moore, tweeted a long missive regarding the morality of the HBO series, writing of her father: “His problem was that the medium he adored was ruled by corrupt despots, that the people who made that magic were abused, that their contribution was not valued, that it was stolen from them. He already hated that before Watchmen....So when it happened to him, and then again, and then again, it wasn't just a business deal gone awry, or a bit of bad luck, it broke him.”. Even Moore’s most famous protégé; the respected author Neil Gaiman (Stardust, Coraline, American Gods, Sandman) chimed in, tweeting to his millions of followers: “I’m not watching it. It might be brilliant but the taste in my mouth over Watchmen and how Alan was treated is too unpleasant, I’m afraid.“ (Gaiman is currently working for ‘Watchmen’ publishers and owners DC/Warner Bros on a Netflix project). Ironically Moore’s supporters’ tweets, while in no way reflective of the facts concerning DC’s treatment of him over ‘Watchmen’, are perfect when it comes to how he personally treated its precursor ‘Marvelman’s’ co-creator; artist Alan Davis. ‘Marvelman’ (later renamed ‘Miracleman’ for the US) was created before ‘Watchmen’ and similarly was a modern re-imagining and realistic take on a classic superheroes from vintage comics. A trope that would make Moore a star.
Moore’s self-proclaimed victimisation is relatively recent given the 1985 genesis of the ‘Watchmen’ comics and only actually went mainstream in 2006, in the wake of the ‘V for Vendetta’ film. In an interview with the NY Times where he publicly launched his new rebooted history: “they were stolen from me, knowingly stolen from me." In Mr. Moore's account of his career, the villains are clearly defined: they are the mainstream comics industry, particularly DC Comics..... But by 1989, Mr. Moore had severed his ties with DC......Mr. Moore says he was objecting to language in his contracts that would give him back the rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" when they went out of print, language that he says turned out to be meaningless, because DC never intended to stop reprinting either book. "I said, 'Fair enough,' " he recalls. "You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.”. This false narrative regarding his 'Watchmen' contract and it's standard 'rights reversion' clause is the one Moore and his supporters have stuck to ever since and reiterated dozens of times across media. Observers have questioned how someone who casually demonstrates a genius level of retention, recollection and understanding of the intricacies of everything from prehistoric practices to cutting edge quantum theory would be so ignorant of the standard reversion clauses in the most important contract he ever signed. Moore has an explanation for that; saying in numerous interviews that he'd never seen a contract before his ‘Watchmen’ contract, never properly read it or even got a solicitor to look at it for 25 years, telling Kurt Amacker in 2012: “Now, I've since seen the Watchmen contract, which obviously we didn't read very closely at the time. It was the first contract that I'd ever seen, and I believe that it was a relatively rare event for a contract to actually exist in the comics business.”.
Moore's supposed naive ignorance concerning contacts doesn't even stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. For his repeated defamatory description of DC's contracts to have any basis it depends on his co-creators, who also signed these contracts, being equally ignorant or gullible. His 'Watchmen' co-creator, artist Dave Gibbons, however has never publicly accused DC of “swindling” or “stealing” from him, while his 'V For Vendetta' co-creator artist David Lloyd (whom Moore says he actually persuaded to sell the creator owned title for the exact same 'Watchmen' deal years later) has stated that he is “very happy with the results of what DC have done with it, and I have no complaints.”. In a public audience, in 1986, Moore actually pointed out the basics of the standard reversion clause in his contract; “if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them and we can do what we want with them, which I’m perfectly happy with.”; no mention of a ‘time period’ or the ‘books going out of print’ as Moore now suggests. The following year in 1987, in between working on 'Watchmen' games and taking meetings with Hollywood producers who had optioned it, to ensure it's 'life span' to DC for years (In the late 90's he contacted Dave Gibbon's about ideas for a video game), Moore sold his V for Vendetta series for the same specific deal. At the time of signing his 'Watchmen' contract in 1985, Moore had already been a member of the British ‘Society of Strip Illustrators' for several years. The S.S.I. was an organisation for professionals in the comics industry that met regularly in London both socially for networking and formally for lectures, discussions and newsletter articles on Copyright, Syndication and Contracts. 'V For Vendetta' artist David Lloyd was even Chairman of the Society whilst Moore worked with him. Despite all the interviews he's given as the victim of a duplicitous contract that he ‘never looked at’, by 1985 Moore was already expert in contracts, copyright and creator's rights. He even showcased his comprehensive knowledge of the industry's contracts in a letter he sent in September 1984 to Marvel UK's Managing Director and Publisher Robert Sutherland. Moore sent the letter on both his and co-creator Alan Davis's behalf (though without consulting or informing Davis) regarding their contracts for Marvel UK clarifying specifically their creator's rights regarding copyright and the irrelevance of any “verbal agreement” under British copyright law regarding reprints. In the same letter Moore generously also offered to provide any additional information Sutherland might require to clarify any confusion he may have over contractual rights and copyright laws. This was a year before he now claims the 'Watchmen' contract was the first he'd ever seen.
Despite Moore's current reference to assurances being given and “broken promises” regarding his 'Watchmen' contract, it's clear that he knew well that verbal agreements were worth the paper they were written on. Moore now also retroactively claims that he quit working for DC over the ‘Watchmen’ contract rights and this is the version of history bolstered by all his supporters, biographers and interviewers; this is a lie. He very publicly and famously at the time, quit working for DC in 1988 over a proposed labelling/rating issue that subsequently wasn't even introduced. In a 1991 interview he even conceded that his ‘Watchmen’ contract facilitated his being able to quit DC: “I don't own 'Watchmen', I don't own 'V for Vendetta', I don't own 'Marvel Man', I don't own 'Swamp Thing'. I get royalties from it, but that's a pretty recent innovation. 'Watchmen' has made me hundreds of thousands of pounds, but that's not a fraction of what DC made out of it. I'm one of the lucky ones, I'm somebody who became famous and have got enough financial clout to have some say in what they did with their lives”. In 2000, twelve years after he currently claims to have quit DC over ‘Watchmen’ rights, Moore was still working directly for them to promote new editions of the ‘Watchmen’ collection, ensuring an even greater extended 'life span', and spin-off merchandise and toys, with his blessing and improved profit participation. In an interview with Newsarama he clarified this: “Legally, DC doesn’t need my approval to bring out the toys or anything like that. They own the book, and they have exercised that option in the past 15 years”. But shortly before this ‘Watchmen’ 15th Anniversary marketing campaign could happen, DC angered him by refusing to publish (as was their right according to the new contracts Moore agreed to) a story inspired and illustrated by his then girlfriend (now wife) Melinda Gebbie. It was only after this perceived very personal snub (and personal grudges have always trumped creator's rights throughout his career) that he adopted the deliberately emotive narrative that 'DC had stolen ‘Watchmen’ and ‘V for Vendetta’ from him' (Moore knows well the power of words). Since then he’s used the media publicity around any high profile DC/Warner release of his work (that he happily signed contracts repeatedly for) to attack, insult and defame his employers, peers, audience and even friends regardless of the financial or reputational damage for his co-creators who don’t share his personal grudges or his considerable income. Moore realised that ‘creator’s rights’ was a far more noble whip to wield to justify his public flaying of fellow creators, than revenge over the refusal to print his and his then girlfriend’s work, as per the contract they both signed.
As for the ‘Cheating, swindling and stealing’ Moore and his supporters regularly point to, in the only verifiable instance involving Moore; he was the instigator and his then closest co-creator was the victim. Prior to ‘Watchmen’, in 1984 Moore and artist Alan Davis had worked together for three years on four critically acclaimed series in the UK; ‘Captain Britain’, ‘Marvelman’, ‘DR & Quinch’ and ‘Night Raven’ when Moore secured much more lucrative US comics work from DC with the monthly ‘Swamp Thing’ comic and several other DC projects including one featuring their recently acquired Charlton Comics company characters, which would become the ‘Watchmen’. As his US workload increased Moore began quitting his much poorer paid UK work. Even though his artwork was on most of the stories that got Moore hired by the US, Alan Davis wasn't hired by DC and he had just quit his full time factory job to focus on his comics career. In 1985 Davis heard through the grapevine that Marvel US wanted to reprint the ‘Captain Britain’ strips which would have afforded him both his first exposure in the US Comics market as well as some financial stability, but Moore who had learnt of reprints months earlier, had secretly killed the deal, without discussing it with him or even subsequently informing him. To make matters worse, Davis learnt from a mutual friend that the only reason he did this was Moore felt Marvel Editor in Chief; Jim Shooter had 'disrespected' him when he visited the US Marvel offices in August 1984. Shooter told Moore he wasn't a fan of his DC 'Swamp Thing' as it was too 'Stephen Kingish' and much preferred his 'Captain Britain' work, which he planned to reprint. Once Moore returned to the U.K and confirmed he had more DC work commissioned, he set about killing the 'Captain Britain' reprints purely to spite Shooter, regardless of the serious collateral damage to his friend and co-creator's livelihood and career (an attribute Moore would later use again and again against other co-creators).
Moore has offered two very different implausible explanations in multiple interviews and biographies; where he is always either a victim or a hero. One excuse is that he refused the reprint and quit working for Marvel in solidarity with a colleague who was fired (knowing how that would reflect poorly on Davis, who didn't quit). It's a commendable excuse; telling Lance Parkin in 2013: “As I remember it, when Bernie Jaye was fired, we were both of us filled with young man’s testosterone, you know, we both really liked Bernie, and as I remember it, we were both saying ‘well, that’s it for us and Marvel.'. The colleague referred to is Bernie Jaye; his and Davis' Editor on ‘Captain Britain’ and she wasn't fired. Jaye chose to leave the role for other pursuits in November 1983, and this was even acknowledged at that time by Moore who wrote (and Davis illustrated) a humorous ‘good luck’ strip, printed by her employers Marvel UK, bemoaning her decision to leave them. Moore did not even leave ‘Captain Britain’ for another 7 months until June 1984 when he quit all his UK work including 'Marvelman' and his 2000AD comic work. Moore's visit Marvel in New York where he met with Jim Shooter was in August 1984; almost a year after he now claims to have cut all ties with them. Moore's other commendable excuse for screwing over his colleague is equally false. In other interviews he claims he refused US Marvel permission to reprint ‘Captain Britain’ over their insistence (which he saw as “bullying”, a phrase he likes to use repeatedly against others) that 'Marvelman', be renamed over Marvel's copyright of the word “Marvel”. Except Marvel never said the character had to be renamed; in September 1984 Marvel UK's solicitors sent a letter to Dez Skinn; editor and owner of the UK publishers of ‘Marvelman’, Quality Publications. The letter stated that the word “Marvel” couldn’t appear on the title of a UK comic in the UK, where there was already several Marvel UK titles (weeklies and monthlies) featuring the word “Marvel” in their title, confusing the Newsagents who were ordering the comics. At this time Moore had already quit working for Quality Publications months earlier and despite neither creating or owning the 1950's 'Marvelman' character, nor being mentioned or even referenced in the letter (and despising Quality's Skinn to the extent of never talking to him again) says this letter led to him severing all ties with Marvel including the ‘Captain Britain’ reprints: telling biographer George Khoury “it was over the Marvelman thing that I decided wouldn't work with any kind of version of Marvel in the future.”.
In fact Dez Skinn, the publisher of ‘Marvelman’, had already decided a year earlier to change the name for the US, having realised on a trip there in 1983 to sell or syndicate the strip, that no publisher (including Marvel) was interested in publishing a comic with 'Marvel' in the title and ironically the name change to “Miracleman” was in fact Moore's own idea. In his original pitch for ‘Marvelman’ in 1981 to Skinn, Moore suggested changing the title to 'Miracleman' should any copyright issues arise or if they were unable to secure permission to revamp the character from his original creator Mick Anglo. Even his noble vow never to work for Marvel in anyway shape or form wasn't true either. Moore went on to do exactly what he states he never did and worked (albeit outside of Jim Shooter's purview) for Marvel's 'Epic' magazine a year later in November 1985. His clandestine actions, which could have destroyed his closest co-creator's career and damaged Davis' and his families livelihood, were personal, and against a single individual; Jim Shooter (whom Moore later referred to as a “fuhrer” despite never working for him), but worse was to come. In early 1985, the same time as he was signing the 'Watchmen' Contract, Moore facilitated the actual theft from and swindling of his 'Marvelman/Miracleman' co-creator. At that time Davis still considered Moore a friend; they had spoken several times since Moore had quit his UK Titles and in all that time he never mentioned cancelling the 'Captain Britain' reprints months earlier.
As soon as Davis found out he phoned Moore asking him to reconsider or at the very least explain himself. Davis recalls that Moore tried to justify his actions with “rambling nonsense” he knew wasn’t true; he'd already heard that it was over a perceived snub. Davis told Moore to undo the damage he'd done. That was the last time Moore ever spoke to him (another common experience with Moore’s co-creators) and carried on launching the series ‘Miracleman’ that they were partners on and held equal rights and ownership to. Davis felt he only had one recourse, to show Moore the effect refusing permission to reprint had on a co-creator. In July 1985, just before 'Miracleman' was due to be published in the US, Davis sent Moore two letters to his home, by both standard and registered post (which had to be signed for by the recipient) stating that he was refusing any and all permission for any of his 'Marvelman' artwork to be reprinted as well as any of the characters he had designed to be used in future issues. Davis made clear he had not signed any contract with Eclipse allowing them to reprint his work and he still genuinely believed at this stage, with one series reprint in limbo and another about to join it because of Moore’s actions, that “Alan would back down. At that time I still thought he was a friend who was acting like a temperamental child. I never thought he was capable of what he subsequently did”. Davis’ letters, by way of an olive branch and solution to the impasse, pointed specifically to Moore's own refusal of the 'Captain Britain' reprints as the sole cause for his own reciprocation, unequivocally making it clear that he could resolve the impasse.
For his part Moore was desperate to get his acclaimed 'Marvelman'/'Miracleman' work to an American audience to solidify his reputation alongside 'Watchmen' and despite knowing that Davis had refused permission and hadn't signed any contract so wasn't being paid a cent, he proceeded to work on, write new material for and promote all the 'Miracleman' issues featuring Davis’ 'stolen artwork' and then wrote new stories featuring the characters Davis designed. Six years later when Moore had wrapped up his 'Miracleman' story having been paid and received royalties for all the issues, he gave the series to his friend Neil Gaiman to continue. Gaiman, who like Moore is another avowed champion of creator’s rights, later produced a ‘Miracleman’ statue based on Alan Davis’ design without contacting, licensing or paying him. When Moore addressed this issue in the book 'Poisoned Chalice' by Padraig O' Mealoid on Marvelman/Miracleman's history, he blamed others for it; the Editor and Publisher of 'Miracleman' stating they somehow tricked him into thinking Davis had signed a contract, committing to the exact opposite of what he had personally informed Moore he was doing and why. While the publishers Eclipse dubiously claimed they had a contract from Dez Skinn allowing them to reprint the series, the truth remains that Moore was the only person in the process who knew no such contract had been signed by Davis, exactly why he refused any reprint or use of his 'Marvelman' work, how to redress him and was the only person on earth who could do so. Speaking to O'Mealoid in 2010 Moore states: “I asked - I wanted something on paper that said that Alan Davis was OK with everything.....and promised me faithfully that they had got this paperwork, or they were getting it, and if I could just start writing, then they would be getting it to me. They never got it to me, because it didn't exist, and I felt that Alan Davis had probably felt that I was party to screwing him, which was not the case, and was regrettable.”. In a later interview, this time with Lance Parkin in 2013, Moore decided to insult Davis, making his own failed attempts to avoid “screwing” him all the more admirable; “By the time I was enmired with Eclipse I wasn’t in contact with Alan Davis, and I was totally at the mercy of what I was being told by [Eclipse editors] Cat Yronwode and Dean Mullaney . . . genuinely the reason I was stickling over delivering new work to Eclipse was because, while I didn’t much like Alan Davis at that point, and I thought he was a bit of a grumpy person who I hadn’t got any interest in talking to again, I didn’t want him to be cheated. I didn’t want anyone to be cheated. “. Even though Moore doesn't elaborate on why he felt the need to demean his co-creator (other than to make himself all the more admirable in his fruitless efforts to stop Davis being cheated, whilst knowingly cheating him), Moore’s supporters can now at least understand why Alan Davis might have been a bit 'grumpy'.
Every single book or interview has accepted and promoted Moore’s implausible and factually impossible accounts on previously reported events. I asked Padraig O'Mealoid, who interviewed both Moore and Davis for his “comprehensive” Book on 'Miracleman'; ‘A Poisoned Chalice’ why he didn't focus on any of the facts, revealed to him by Davis (or Eclipse Editor Cat Yronwode), that reflected negatively on Moore. O' Mealoid responded that the reason he didn't confront or even correct Moore was he didn't want to disagree with him and wouldn't report any damaging facts about people who “are friends of mine”. O’Mealoid also dutifully echoed Moore’s claim that Yronwode was to blame for all of Davis’s mistreatment despite never meeting her, not interviewing her and ignoring all her evidence to contradict Moore’s account because ‘he didn’t like her’. Moore has now cut off all contact with his “friend” over something he wrote, though O' Mealoid admits he doesn't know what. This is a common experience with Moore's assosciates, co-creators, peers and friends; disagree with him, or more commonly if he thinks you have, he'll attack and defame you to his much wider audience. For someone who has repeatedly hailed his own (false) travails against bullying, Moore has an extremely long history of employing it, especially against those who don't have his means or stock with the media to defend themselves. Davis' treatment was the most egregious but his 'Swamp Thing' and ‘John Constantine’ co-creator and former friend Steve Bissette can't reprint a creator-owned series ‘1963’, he and almost a dozen others worked on and would benefit from; because Moore refuses permission purely to spite him. Without Bissette, two of Moore’s most lucrative creator owned works might not exist, he commissioned and funded Moore and artists Eddie Campbell 'From Hell' and Moore’s and his future wife Melinda Gebbie's 'Lost Girls' for his own anthology magazine ‘Taboo’. 'From Hell' one of Moore's most popular works owes its existence to the fact Bissette turned down an initial submission by Moore, telling him it wasn't scary enough. Not only did Bissette suggest and approach Eddie Campbell as the artist for the project, but years later after Moore, busy on more lucrative work for hire projects, allowed the ownership of 'From Hell' to fall into the hands of third party, it was Bissette who encouraged Campbell to regain control to reprint the work.
Despite his midwifery he never received nor ever sought any of the millions of dollars those works generated, Bissette took pains to ensure the creators of the work he commissioned had full ownership and rights. When it came to re-printing the creator owned ‘1963’ they both worked on however, Moore refused permission. Apparently (Moore has never clarified) he objected to something Bissette said in an interview, (an interview he courteously sent to Moore in advance for approval before publishing). By punishing Bissette for an unknown transgression, all the dozen other artists and contributors involved are collateral in Moore’s revenge; denied any reprint exposure, fees and royalties. Worse still Bissette doesn't even have to be involved in a project for a co-creator to feel Moore’s wrath.
'In Pictopia' is considered by many to be Moore's finest work, even though most of his audience have never seen it. Written by Moore and illustrated by artist Don Simpson (with assistance from Mike Kazaleh, Pete Poplaski and Eric Vincent) it was a clever, poignant and terrifying tale of the familiar archetypal denizens of a comic book city; a premise Moore would revisit, without co-creator Simpson, years later with his 'Top 10' comic for DC. Neither Moore nor Simpson were paid for 'In Pictopia', as the project was for charity, but while Moore reaps the royalties from the multiple reprints of books with his name on the cover, Simpson has the misfortune of being amongst the collateral casualties of Moore's revenge against Steve Bissette, on the only other Moore work he co-created; ‘1963’. 'In Pictopia' was reprinted in 2 tribute collections of Moores’s short stories dedicated to and approved by Moore; with his name writ large in the titles. Currently a victim of Covid’s harsh economy, Simpson was approached to reprint 'In Pictopia' in its own dedicated book and in a format that would better reflect the artwork, but Moore won't allow his co-creator use his name to promote or sell the book; aware of the sales effect this will have. Despite polite enquiries, Simpson still doesn’t know why but suspects Moore’s vendetta against Bissette may be the reason. Even though he isn’t in any way involved in the project (he had been suggested but recused himself from writing an introduction to the reprint) Moore repeatedly refers to Bissette as a “pathological liar” in correspondence to Simpson denying use of his name on the story he wrote; which would be ironic if it weren’t so sad. Don Simpson is currently working through the pandemic on the night shift at a plastics factory while Moore still collects royalties from the work for hire 'Top 10' DC series their work together inspired.
Still referred to as a champion for creators rights across the media, the only one’s that matter and have ever mattered to Moore are his own, his bibliography illuminates as much. He started his career using characters created by others, even his ‘Watchmen’ pitch was intended to feature obscure characters created by others (but DC baulked at the tone and insisted on new original pastiches). Post ‘Watchmen’ for over 30 years he has signed lucrative Work-For-Hire contract after contract featuring other creator’s characters and even his most recent self-owned work has featured a myriad of historical fictional characters created by other authors. Meanwhile he incandescently rages, demeans and defames, through any outlet, anyone and those in their orbit who works on characters he co-created and sold. The Comics Industry he loathes made Moore a millionaire, he was the highest paid writer in the industry, he made a small fortune just from selling his own film options and receives more in royalties in retirement than most of his co-creators put together. Enjoying a frugal modest lifestyle Moore, unlike like many of his co-creators never needs to work or worry about money again. He can easily afford to use his own creator’s rights to stop reprints and their income to punish co-creators he deems have transgressed against him regardless of who else is affected. The “Gangster” and “Corrupt” corporations that Moore rails against for “Stealing”, “Swindling” and “driving creators to an early grave” demonstrably treat creators far better than Moore does; it was Marvel Comics who recognised and addressed all the legal costs and remunerated 'Marvelman'’s co-creator Alan Davis and all the other talents involved. In response to Marvel finally clearing up the copyrights mess and ensuring all parties were properly financially compensated, Moore insists his name be removed from all reprints and collections of his work, because y'know; Marvel. DC comics pays the ‘1963’ talent better royalties on their DC work for hire than the work they actually own and co-created with Moore. Both media giants Marvel and DC acknowledge and credit the original creators of their characters, while Moore who owns and has complete creative control over his more recent works ‘League Of Extraordinary Gentleman’ and ‘Lost Girls’ doesn’t even acknowledge the creators of the central characters he uses.
In every single instance where Moore himself can dictate it, he is the only author credited in his works centred on other author's characters. There isn't even 'thanks to' the original creators of Jekyll and Hyde, Captain Nemo, Professor Moriarty, Alice, Wendy, Dorothy and many others. Despite the premise of these books, the history, characterisation, promotion and even some of the sales appeal of these new works being dependant on their creations. They are deliberately forgotten and any contribution to Moore’s own work erased. Even with the printed evidence, Moore and his supporters truly subscribe to his daughter Leah’s 2019 explanation for his hatred of the comic's industry: “His problem was that the medium he adored was ruled by corrupt despots, that the people who made that magic were abused, that their contribution was not valued, that it was stolen from them. He already hated that before Watchmen.”. Amongst those he’s disowned are ‘V For Vendetta' artist David Lloyd who has been described by Moore as “wretched” and an ungrateful, insulting hypocrite while 'Watchmen' artist Dave Gibbons has been painted by Moore as unscrupulous, disloyal and greedy. Moore's last public comments on his most prominent co-creator and friend for over 3 decades come from a 2016 interview with Dominic Wells; “Moore [Northampton accent suddenly stronger in anger]: “Dave Gibbons. Oi hope Oi never see that fucker for as long as Oi live.” (said to a fan on the street who congratulated him for 'Watchmen').
Moore's disregard for other creator's doesn't just extend to whitewashing them and their work. In 2006 Moore released a graphic novel through publisher Top Shelf, illustrated by his now wife Melinda Gebbie; 'Lost Girls'. The book featured famous characters from children's literature; Alice from 'Alice in Wonderland', Dorothy from 'The Wizard Of Oz' and Wendy from 'Peter Pan'. The character's established origins and fictional histories, created by others were crucial in the promotion, marketing and even narrative of the book and as with the other works owned by Moore where he controls the acknowledgements, the three creators of the central characters are forgotten. Annoyingly for Moore though, one of those authors created a problem with selling the $75 book in Great Britain, which had sold out of approximately 35,000 copies in the US alone. In his will, J.M. Barrie bequeathed all his copyrights to 'Peter Pan' to Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital; so that sick children would benefit from his creations, and under EU law this copyright which granted the Hospital control over the use of the characters as well as a royalty entitlement didn't expire until 2008. Moore and his publisher had never consulted or sought permission from the hospital to publish the book and couldn't do so in the UK without their permission until January 1st 2008. Their solution was simple; ignore Pan's creator's bequest and simply delay publishing in the UK until after the hospital's copyright expired. As he did the media rounds for the books release in the US, Moore used the sick children's hospital to create publicity and promote the book in the UK.
First he did an interview with the BBC (and although it was decided to delay UK publication till the hospital's copyright expired) where he suggested that the hospital was trying ban his book, as nothing generates better publicity in the book market than the notion of a banned book. After devising the notion of the banning, he then went on in the interview to argue against his own invention: "I don't really see that you can ban anything in this day and age. It wasn't our intention to try to provoke a ban,". But at this time, when Moore was referring to his actions in the past tense, neither he nor 'Lost Girls' publisher had been in contact with the hospital, who had no idea of the book's existence. Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital didn't even learn of the book’s use of Barrie's creations until a journalist phoned them, after the interview was broadcast, to ask why they were banning it. Moore's 'banning' generated publicity that couldn't be bought across the world, leading to retailers in the UK and elsewhere buying in copies from the Publisher’s US stock to sell at a premium. Moore carried on exploiting his non-existent ban, expressing bemusement on it in subsequent interviews, telling the AV Club he couldn't see any reason why a sick children's hospital would want safeguard a valuable source of revenue: “I tend to think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup.....I think they seem to be making a bit more of it than I'd expected from people who've been gifted by a fantasy writer. It seemed a bit odd that they should take on so vociferously.”. 'Lost Girl's' was published in the UK in January 2008 for £50 and subsequently published Europe wide. There has been three different updated versions published in the UK alone, not including a recent digital release, but despite all the references to 'promises', 'verbal agreements' and 'moral agreements' cited by Moore and his supporters of his own history with publishers of his work, Moore and his publishers ‘forgot’ something.
While EU law ensured that Great Ormond Streets Hospital's copyright and control of Peter Pan; it's character's and adaptations thereof ceased in 2007, a bill recognising the Hospital's work was passed in 1988 in the UK (the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988) which specifically granted Great Ormond Street an extension, in perpetuity. This extension does not allow the Hospital to retain copyright but does ensure that they are legally entitled to a royalty for all UK published works (in print and digital) that feature adaptations of Barrie's characters. As Moore said in an interview in 2006 regarding the hospital's 'banning' of his work: “Not to condescend or overlook Great Ormond Street Hospital, and I mean, me and Melinda and [Top Shelf publisher] Chris Staros have got no problems with giving them a royalty or something. It's a children's hospital, you know? Who's going to say no?”. Which is very noble, but also an actual obligation as per the 1988 extension. So how much did Moore and or his publishers contribute to the sick children's hospital over the last 12 years? When contacted in late 2020 regarding royalties generated in the UK by 'Lost Girls', from either Moore or Gebbie or publisher Top Shelf or even UK publisher Knockabout a spokesperson for Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital confirmed they hadn't received any contributions or donations from the named parties or others relating to 'Lost Girls' to date.
Although his supporters all point to Moore's cherishing of creator's rights in spite of his repeated victimhood as the reason for his constant attacks on the medium, industry, friends and fans that made him, the only thing that Moore has actually held dearly throughout his career is personal grudges. For all his claims of being the victim of liars, thieves, bullies and blacklists, the only actual examples that facts support, are where he's a pathological liar, the defamatory bully or the perpetrator or instigator of fraud and theft. As a writer Moore is a genius, but as a person he's a paranoid, vindictive individual, with a magical ability to charm and manipulate interviewers. Most pertinently as an advocate or figurehead for principled ethical and moral creator's rights he's the epitome of hypocrisy.

The claim
In 2019, a video circulated widely on social media, making the claim “A ban prohibiting the practice of the ancient Sri Lankan martial art Angampora has been lifted. Fighters will now be able to openly practise their art for the first time since 1817”.
The video’s claim appears to be supported by Wikipedia’s article on Angampora, which says “The British, who occupied the whole island by 1815 (and who had full control of it by 1818) issued a gazette banning the practice in 1817 with harsh punishments for flouters, paving the way to its decline. This was because the British forces found it difficult to face the Sri Lankan revolutionaries who were practitioners of this art”.
However, the only reference provided in support of this claim is a link to a non-scholarly newspaper article which does not cite any sources. Although the source cited in the Wikipedia article refers to a British “gazette” banning Angampora in 1817, this news article dates the ban to 1818. The discrepancy is minor, but the lack of detail encourages further investigation. Meanwhile, an Sri Lankan blog article on a different site says Angampora was used successfully in an uprising in 1818, and was then banned by a British gazette in 1827.
According to one Sri Lankan news source, Air Marshall Kapila Jayampathy (Commander of Sri Lanka Air Force), recently requested the president of Sri Lanka to lift the ban on angampora, to which the president agreed. The Sri Lankan government website has made note of this, also making the claim of a ban on angampora in 1818. This would seem to give credence to the claim that the martial art was banned, and that it was banned in 1818.
There is clearly a long standing belief that the British banned angampora in the nineteenth century, but exact date and circumstances under which this took place are obviously inconsistently reported. The years 1817, 1818, and 1827 have all been cited, with the Sri Lankan government itself regarding 1818 as the correct date.
This post is eight pages long. If you'd rather watch a video of this content, go here.
Commentary in scholarly literature
Detailed references to this ban are not easy to find in academic literature. However, in 2017, an article by Edvard Šefer in the journal of Physical Culture and Sport, Studies and Research, made the claim in a more scholarly context. Šefer is a self-described engineer with a masters degree in engineering, who also wrote a PhD thesis on bunkai, the analysis and practical application of kata, the training exercises used in karate and other Japanese martial arts. Sefer’s article makes this claim.

After the British occupied the whole island of Sri Lanka in 1815, they banned the practice of Angampora in 1817. They burned down all of the practice huts they found and shot anybody found practicing this art in the knee.", Edvard Šefer, “The Purpose of Kata: When, Why, and for Whom Kata Forms Have Occurred in Okinawa,” Physical Culture and Sport, Studies and Research 76.1 (2017): 60

However, Šefer does not cite any sources for this claim, and his article’s bibliography does not reference any works at all on Angampora.
Commentary in historical sources
The Sri Lankan blog Tales of Ceylon dates the ban a year later, to 1818, and provides additional information, claiming it was enacted by British Governor Robert Brownrigg.

British Governor Robert Brownrigg realized the threat posed by Angam combat techniques, and issued a decree to ban Angampora. Those who defied the ban were punished, with some practitioners being shot in the knees to prevent them from passing on Angampora to younger generations.

This provides a useful historical lead to follow. Brownrigg oversaw the suppression of various rebellions in Sri Lanka (called Ceylon at the time), and his tenure as governor of Ceylon is well documented. Additionally, he is known specifically for a proclamation he made in the Ceylon Government Gazette number 851 on the first of January 1818, in which he declared nineteen Sri Lankans as criminals for their involvement in the Uva Wellassa Great Rebellion of 1817–1818.
Brownrigg’s suppression of the rebellion was brutal, and in the province of Uva all males over the age of 18 were murdered. Several British historical sources document the rebellion and its suppression, and Brownrigg’s proclamation in the Ceylon Government Gazette of 1818 is cited and quoted.

• John Davy, An Account of the Interior of Ceylon and of Its Inhabitants: With Travels In That Island From 1816 To 1820. With Notes On Geography, Castes, Religion, Government, Crafts, Music And History (Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1821)
• Charles Pridham, An Historical, Political, and Statistical Account of Ceylon and Its Dependencies (T. and W. Boone, 1849)
• Herbert White, Manual of the Province of Uva (H. C. Cottle, 1893)

However, none of these sources say anything about Brownrigg banning angampora.
The historical website “A Peoples’ History 1793 – 1844 from the newspapers”, contains a wealth of historical newspaper articles from all over the world. Of particular use in this case, is its extensive quotation from the Ceylon Government Gazette. Although the Gazette issues for 1816 and 1817 are missing, the website quotes the Gazette’s commentary on the rebellion in 1818.
This source is particularly useful since it quotes from the Gazette issues of several months in 1818. Since the record is incomplete, it is not possible to check every issue for every month in 1818, to see if there was a proclamation banning angampora. Consequently, the fact that angampora is not mentioned in any of the Gazette records quoted for 1818 is not conclusive evidence against the idea that Brownrigg issued a Gazette proclamation banning it. Nevertheless, the information it does provide, certainly makes it unlikely that the British banned angampora because they felt threatened by this martial art.
The proclamation for the 14th of February describes the difficulties the British army has in fighting against the provincial leader of the rebellion. However, it makes no mention of any danger from martial arts, saying instead “Our army is acting against him but the terrain is unsuitable for artillery and he moves more quickly than we can”. [1]
The proclamation for the 18th of April is even more significant. This time it notes “The difficulty is that the rebels have the support of the people”, and indicates that the British forces are heavily outnumbered, before going on to say “Fortunately they are not skilled in war and use spears and arrows to fight against us. Only a few of our chaps have been hurt”. [2]
This is important for three reasons. Firstly, if angampora was so dangerous to the British army that they felt the need to ban it after the rebellion, it is highly surprising that it is never cited as a threat even when they specifically describe difficulties encountered when fighting the Sri Lankans.
Secondly, the fact that the proclamation says explicitly that the Sri Lankan forces “use spears and arrows to fight against us” suggests that angampora was used, but that the British simply didn’t even take notice of it specifically. Strictly speaking, the term angampora refers specifically to a form of unarmed combat, with other terms used to describe the Sri Lankan forms of combat with weapons, but angampora is also used as an umbrella term for both the traditional Sri Lankan unarmed martial art, and for the forms of martial art which incorporated various weapons, such as staves, daggers, swords, spears and a special kind of metal whip. It is certainly clear that if the Sri Lankans were using angampora the British either didn’t realise they were being confronted by a deadly martial art, or didn’t consider it sufficiently significant to even mention. This certainly contradicts the idea that they saw it as particularly dangerous.
Thirdly, the fact that the record indicates the British considered the Sri Lankans weapons to be an insignificant threat, resulting in few casualties, makes it unlikely that the British felt in any way threatened by Sri Lankan soldiers using angampora, either with or without weapons. In fact the record is particularly dismissive of the Sri Lankan soldiers, saying “they are not skilled in war”. This is quite the opposite of the language we would expect if the British felt threatened by angampora.
On the 21st of November 1818, Brownrigg issued a lengthy proclamation of 12 pages, containing 56 detailed clauses describing various laws to be enacted in response to the rebellion. However, there is no mention of angampora at all. [3]
Other sources
Curiously, it’s extremely difficult to find any detailed and well referenced information on this ban in published books, or scholarly articles. Additionally, it seems there are very few independent sources, with most copying the same phrasing found in numerous online articles.
The earliest online reference to the ban seems to be an electronic reproduction of an article from the Sri Lankan Daily Mirror’s ‘Sports Weekly’ magazine. The original article was published on the 17th of September 2004, and was posted on the website livingheritage.org on the 4th of November 2004.
The article contains the basic information found in numerous sources which date after 2004, claiming the British banned angampora in 1817 after a rebellion, and anyone breaking the ban was shot below the knee. Not only does this seem to be the earliest online reference to the ban, it also seems to be the earliest reference to the penalty of being shot below the knee, which is found in subsequent sources.
Additional historical information
Thus far, the meme seems to be historically unsubstantiated, if not actually debunked. However, it does seem strange that it is so widely disseminated, and even though the details differ in various aspects from source to source, there does seem to be a reasonably consistent agreement that angampora was banned by the British during 1817 or 1818, under the governorship of Robert Brownrigg. Consequently, although historical evidence for the ban is lacking, it still has the appearance of being based on some kind of historical event.
On the 10th of March 2019, an article in the Sri Lankan Sunday Observer presented a typical summary of the account of the angampora ban, dating it to 1818 as a response to the Uva-Wellessa rebellion, attributing it to Governor Robert Brownrigg, claiming it was because “angampora managed to inflict pain and death on the invading British”, and repeating the assertion that practitioners were shot in the knee.
Interestingly, this article drew a response from another writer casting doubt on angampora's supposed "5,000 years of combat tradition", arguing angampora could not possibly be this old, and presenting evidence that angampora was not an indigenous Sri Lankan martial art, but an imported skill from South India. As might be expected, this article was accompanied by lengthy heated discussion in the comments section. While this article did not comment on the supposed British ban of angampora, it did demonstrate that some of angampora's historical claims were vulnerable to historical scrutiny.
However, the original article being criticized provided some additional information which isn’t part of the usual story, claiming that instead of being eradicated, angampora continued to be taught secretly, “by two main clans Sudaliya and Maruwalliya”. This provided another lead to follow.
Alleged evidence for the ban in a historical document
Following up this reference to the two clans leads to an article published on the 19th of June 2008, by photographer and film producer Reza Akram, on the website behance.net. Akram repeats the claim that angampora “was outlawed and systematically driven to decline after 1818 (exactly 200 years ago) by the British”.
Most importantly Akram’s article includes a photograph of a historical document which he describes as containing the actual text of the ban. Under this photo he attributes the ban to Governor Robert Brownrigg, and states explicitly that it was directed against “the Sudaliya and Maruwaliya Angam lineages who were responsible for training the King’s armies”.

"The British decree (pictured) to ban Angampora came in the wake of the Uva-Wellassa freedom fight in 1818. The freedom fight was headed by noblemen such as Monaravila Keppetipola and other noblemen who were distinguished Angampora warriors. The order by Governor Robert Brownrigg was executed by John D’Oyly, effectively cracking down on the Sudaliya and Maruwaliya Angam lineages who were responsible for training the King's armies. This decree signalled the rapid decline of Angampora over the following decades. This document is presently held at the National Archives in Kew, London.", Reza Akram, “ANGAMPORA: The Deadly Ancient Legacy of Sri Lanka,” Behance, 19 June 2018

Finally we have a historical document relevant to the claim of the ban on Angampora. However, a close reading of the document reveals that it does not match Akram’s claim directly. The document is a nineteenth century text, handwritten in a cursive style, but the size of the image makes it quite readable. The relevant section of the text is here.

That the office of Sudalyua Mohandiram and Mawrwaleya Mohandiram * are unnecessary and may be abolished, the People of those Departments being assigned to the Naha Wasame –
* Chiefs of Gladiators

In the text there is an asterisk beside the names of the offices, and a marginal note clarifies that these are “Chiefs of Gladiators”. This is a remarkably short statement for a supposedly influential ban on angampora. Additionally, it doesn’t even mention angampora, nor does it say angampora is banned, nor does it mention any penalty for teaching angampora.
Akram’s description of this text is at least partially correct. He says “The order by Governor Robert Brownrigg was executed by John D'Oyly, effectively cracking down on the Sudaliya and Maruwaliya Angam lineages who were responsible for training the King’s armies”.
However, what does this actually mean? How does Akram derive a ban on angampora from this text? The answer lies in the meaning of the marginal note, which clarifies that the two offices which are to be abolished are the “Chiefs of Gladiators”. Akram notes that these are also references to two different clans which taught angampora. He has concluded from this text that the Governor Brownrigg’s abolition of the officers of these two clan leaders, who were Chiefs of Gladiators, constitutes a ban on angampora. But to what extent is this a valid conclusion?
The position of Mohandiram, typically written today in English as Muhandiram, was actually introduced by the Portuguese, during their colonization of Ceylon in the seventeenth century. These positions were granted to the leaders of tribes and clans, making them responsible for certain administrative functions. By the time of the British occupation of Ceylon in the nineteenth century, this system was very well established, and was consequently adopted by the British colonial government.
So what does the document mean when it says the Sudaliya Muhandiram and Maruwaliya Muhandiram were Chiefs of Gladiators, and that their positions would now be abolished? The term Chiefs of Gladiators indicates that the men in these two positions, from two different clans, were responsible for training Sri Lankan soldiers. Akram rightly says that they would have been responsible for training them specifically in the art of angampora. From this, Akram derives the conclusion that the British abolition of these two positions was a complete ban on anyone being taught angampora. We might object that the text doesn’t actually talk about such an absolute ban, but it does seem Akram is on reasonably firm ground to infer that this was the intention of the abolition of these two positions.
This seems like a reasonable conclusion, but it is contradicted by two lines of historical evidence. Ironically, one of them is in the very document Akram cites. Let’s look at it again.

That the office of Sudalyua Mohandiram and Mawrwaleya Mohandiram * are unnecessary and may be abolished, the People of those Departments being assigned to the Naha Wasame –
* Chiefs of Gladiators

It clearly says that the positions of the Chiefs of Gladiators would be abolished, but it also says “the People of those Departments being assigned to the Naha Wasame”. So these Chiefs of Gladiators were indeed administrative officials, equivalent to heads of departments, and although their positions are being abolished, the people under them are simply being re-assigned to a different department. There is no hint that the people assisting these two officials are also being disbanded or their work abolished.
Still, we could infer that the transfer of the staff under these officials was intended to stamp out the teaching of angampora. However, in the very next paragraph of the document, we find evidence against this. The next paragraph contains almost identical wording, saying “That the office of Kottalbade Nilame is unnecessary and may be abolished, the People of that Department remaining under the orders of their Headman only and of the Revenue Agent”.

That the office of Kottalbade Nilame * is unnecessary and may be abolished, the People of that Department remaining under the orders of their Headman only and of the Revenue Agent -
* Chief of Artificers

In this case there is an asterisk beside the title Kottalbade Nilame, and a marginal note explains that this position is “Chief of Artificers”. This was the officer in charge of the palace craftsmen. Again, it is noteworthy that although this administrative position is being abolished, the text states explicitly that the department of craftsmen itself, and all the people working under it, will continue to work under the leadership of their clan headmen and the Revenue Agent, who was possibly British.
This is significant, because although the palace craftsmen were mainly carpenters, painters, stone masons, and jewelers, a number of them were blacksmiths and other metal workers who were specifically responsible for making traditional Sri Lankan weapons, as well as modern British firearms. Clearly the British saw no danger in allowing the palace craftsmen to continue their work of making weapons, and the only change made was the abolition of an administrative appointment resulting in a slight change of leadership. For the palace craftsmen, only the head of their department was changed, while their regular work continued.
From this it is clear that the document cited by Reza Akram is not speaking of any ban on angampora, but of mundane governmental and administrative changes which typically involved streamlining departments by abolishing unnecessary leaders, and shuffling staff.
Another historical source
There is additional historical information indicating that Akram’s interpretation of this document is inaccurate. In a book published in 1821, entitled “An Account of the Interior of Ceylon and of Its Inhabitants”, English chemist John Davy, brother of the much more famous chemist Sir Humphrey Davy, wrote a historical account of the history of Ceylon, as it was then called, while he was stationed there as a member of the army’s medical staff, from 1816 to 1820. Consequently, he was both an eyewitness and historian of the events of the Uva-Wallessa uprising, its brutal suppression by the British, and the various government proclamations and rulings which were enacted subsequently.
Very importantly, Davy identifies the role of these Chiefs of Gladiators, explains their historical function, and describes the actual reason for their abolition. The relevant information is found in a chapter entitled Old Form of Government, in which he describes the changes of government enforced by the British after the suppression of the Uva-Wallessa uprising.
On page 138 he starts a list of “Officers of the Palace”. Within this long list, on page 139, he lists the Sudaliya Muhandiram and Maruwaliya Muhandiram as positions which existed as Officers of the Palace under the old form of government.

OLD FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
Koonam -madoowe lekam mahatmeya.
Soodalia mohandiram nilami.
Mawroowaliye mohandiram nilami. [4]

This is extremely significant. It reveals that these two Chiefs of Gladiators were in fact only responsible for training the soldiers at the royal palace. They were not the only teachers of angampora, and they actually only taught a small number of soldiers. Very usefully, Davy’s historical account explains why they were called the Chiefs of Gladiators. On pages 155 and 156, he explains that the terms Sudaliya and Maruwaliya refer to ethnic or clan divisions within the Sri Lankan people themselves, adding that these two Chiefs of Gladiators both “commanded a class of fencers; one called Sudaliya and the other Mawruwalia”.

"The Soodalia mohandiram nilami, and Mawroowalia mohan diram nilami, each commanded a class of fencers; one called Soodalia, and the other Mawroowalia , terms, the meaning of which I could not ascertain, and which were also applied to the people generally, the whole country having been formerly divided between the two parties." [5]

This confirms that these Chiefs of Gladiators were only responsible for training angampora warriors in the palace. Additionally, Davy provides an explanation for the use of the term “gladiators”. The actual role of the Chiefs of Gladiators was to train soldiers in the art of angampora, in order to fight with each other in single combat, for the entertainment of the king and his court.
Davy says “their engagements were single combats, either with the fist, or with sword and shield, or with clubs”, adding “Formerly they exhibited before the court like gladiators, endeavouring to draw blood and inflict wounds”. [6] So these Chiefs of Gladiators were only training Sri Lankan soldiers in angampora for the benefit of the king and his court. They were not training men for the army, nor were they training the average civilian. Consequently, the abolition of their position only affected the king and his court.
Most importantly, Davy provides the reason why the Chiefs of Gladiators were abolished. It was because the British government decided to end the custom of angampora warriors fighting for the entertainment of the royalty and social elites at the palace, since it led to fights between the two clans led by the two opposing Chiefs of Gladiators. Davy writes “The bloody combat was discontinued, as it gave rise to serious quarrels and feuds amongst the people”. [7]
It is now clear why the Chiefs of Gladiators were abolished. It was not because the British feared the danger of angampora as a martial art; in fact there is no evidence that they even identified it as a specific martial tradition. Nor was it because the British feared the danger of a Sri Lankan army well trained in angampora; in fact their casual dismissal of the weapons of the Sri Lankan warriors makes it clear they considered them an insignificant threat. It was explicitly because the gladiatorial style combat between two warriors of opposing clans, repeatedly caused civil unrest and fighting between those clans.
So Reza Akram’s interpretation of the historical document he cites, is inaccurate. The document does not contain any reference to a ban on angampora, and the abolition of administrative positions it does describe, was intended to affect, very specifically, the gladiatorial combat which took place at the palace. There is no evidence that it was ever intended to constitute or encourage a general ban on angampora, which is not even mentioned in the text. Significantly, there is no mention of any penalty for anyone teaching angampora, and certainly no mention of a threat of being shot in the knee for attempting to learn it.
One additional item of information provided by Davy’s historical record, is completely incompatible with the claim that angampora was banned in 1818. After explaining the reason for the abolition of the gladiatorial combat at the palace, Davy makes it clear that on both the Sudaliya and Maruwaliya sides, other teachers of angampora existed all through the country. He writes “Of each set of fencers {that is, on both the Sudaliya and Maruwaliya sides} there were ten maitres d’armes in different parts of the country to give lessons to all who wished to learn their art”. [8]
So even after the positions of the Chiefs of Gladiators were abolished, there were still plenty of angampora masters all through the country, continuing to teach the art to anyone interested. Davy never mentions any kind of restriction on this teaching, nor any penalties inflicted for people seeking to learn it.
Conclusion
It appears there is no historical support for the claim that angampora was ever banned by the British. Perhaps there is some evidence, somewhere, but it is remarkable that virtually no source making the claim ever provides any evidence for it, and it is even more remarkable that the only historical document which is cited as evidence, does not support this interpretation.
The claims of a vicious crackdown involving the deliberate laming of practitioners by shooting them in the knee, and British fears of angampora as a lethal martial art which inflicted serious casualties on their soldiers, are definitely unsubstantiated. Given that the British are on record as having murdered all males over the age of 18 in their suppression of the Uva-Wallessa uprising, a fact attested to by multiple historical sources, including British records, it is curious that there seems to be no historical evidence for the far milder punishment of a bullet in the knee.
So how did this story even get started? Well, the case of the mysterious ban on angampora is not unique. Historically, nationalist groups seeking to revive interest in ethnic heritage and raise patriotic fervor, have made false claims of colonial era bans or restrictions on cultural practices. As an example, the claim that the British banned, persecuted, and even executed Indian practitioners of yoga, is not historically accurate but has had the effect of raising awareness of yoga and encouraging more people to participate in it, while also firing up national pride.
The sudden appearance of references to this ban in 2004, followed by its ceremonial removal by the government in 2019, suggests strongly (if not conclusively), that this entire story was based on a misunderstanding of a historical source, which was later amplified by nationalistic fervor and an over-enthusiastic attempt to reconstruct and revive and ancient cultural practice.
In many ways this is a typical chapter in the history of post-colonial nations. It is also a very typical event in the process of de-colonization, which often involves reconstructing or simply re-inventing, national and cultural history to serve the new needs and goals of contemporary people.

Sorry this post is about 5000 words. There is a TLDR at the end, but I recommend reading the whole thing if you are seriously considering combining witchcraft/Wicca/paganism with Christianity in any way shape or form.

First and foremost...

I'll admit that I don’t identify myself as a Christian witch or a Christian pagan, but as I grew up in a Christian household and I began my interest in witchcraft, being a Christian witch or a Christian Wiccan was something I considered for a long time, so I feel confident enough to discuss this topic and give out advice about it.
I’m not making this post to bash Christianity or calling it out as a ‘bad’ religion. I have my own personal reasons for no longer identifying as a Christian that actually has very little to do with witchcraft. Also, I didn’t grow up in the Catholic scene, so I cannot give specific or overly accurate advice about Catholic Witchcraft, only what I have read from others on the internet.
I know this is a controversial topic, but I’m going to speak my own truth and what you choose to believe is totally up to you. If this doesn’t resonate with you, that’s okay, and if it does and you find it helpful, that’s great. Ultimately I want this post to provide understanding & insight rather than breeding more fear & ignorance.
This topic is important to me because I know that a lot of witches are in the broom closet because they live among Christians, so having the option to combine witchcraft & paganism with Christianity can make for a good compromise, or allow friends and family to be more accepting.
I’m going to cover 3 main topics; Christian witchcraft, Christo-Paganism, and Christian Wicca. These terms have a lot of overlap and defining them is a personal matter, but in this post I am going to treat them as distinct terms from each other, so I can cover different topics in manageable chunks. The things I discuss in the Christo-Paganism and Christian Witch sections will also be useful to a Christian Wiccan, and vice versa, so I recommend that you read the whole thing if you are considering blending witchcraft, paganism and Christianity.
Let’s take a step back for a second so we can be on the same page; I define the following terms as:

• witch: anyone who practices witchcraft
• witchcraft: the art and science of working with magick
• magick: it's subjective, but I like to define it as using your will and intention to purposefully create influences on the universe

I know those are rather broad definitions, but that is how I like to define them. So now you understand where I’m coming from when I’m talking about witches, witchcraft, and magick.

Witchcraft & Christianity

Being a Christian witch means that you are first and foremost a Christian, and you also practice witchcraft. Since witchcraft is a skill or a practice, it is not in of itself religious. Therefore, theoretically, witchcraft can be practised in conjunction with any religion.
I define a Christian Witch to be someone who practices witchcraft but does not necessarily subscribe to any of the Wiccan or Pagan beliefs & practices. For example, during a spell, a Christian Witch would call upon solely God or Jesus to aid in their work, whereas someone like a Christian Wiccan may call upon both the God & Goddess.
Of course, the reason why Christian witchcraft is such a controversial topic is because the Bible literally says that sorcerers will go to Hell. I’m not exactly qualified to discuss the specifics of Bible verses and how they should be interpreted, but I have a bit of food-for-thought for you. I’ve done some research into the etymology of the word “sorcerer” in Hebrew and Greek, particularly how it is used in the book of Revelation chapters 21 and 22.
Long story short, Hebrew and Greek has many different words for sorcerers and witches. English basically has two; sorcerer and witch, and both words have rather negative connotations. But Hebrew and Greek has many words for those who work with magick (sorcery), and the definition of what exactly is considered to be sorcery has changed a lot over the last couple millennia. There are numerous pieces of evidence alluding to the fact that the Hebrew words for ‘sorcerer’ and ‘witch’ only referred to those who practised black magick, in essence, to harm others or use magick with malevolent intent. So if the Bible only condemns those who use magick to harm, then you can infer that it is perfectly fine to use magick as long as you don’t use it to cause harm. Sources: source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4
In my heart, how I feel, is that witches who use magick to heal and connect to the world God created, who come from a place of love, are welcome in God’s Kingdom. I think that as long as you have strict rules and morals for your craft like you never use magick to harm, you don’t do necromancy, you don’t do sex magick, you don’t work with demons, things like that, you can be a witch and still be a Christian.
In fact, depending on how on you define magick, you’re already using it without even realising.

• Praying. You're telling your will and intention to the universe; that's magick.
• There's an altar in your church. Witches have altars too.
• Your vicar consecrates bread and wine. Witches also consecrate their tools. Both processes require workings with what I would call magick.

And if we look at rituals in Catholicism in particular, some of them cannot be described in any way other than purely magickal. Some Catholic practices (or so I’ve been told by witches who are former Catholics) are just downright witchy. I’ve seen a lot of Catholics drawn to witchcraft because they love the ritualistic aspect of Catholicism, but they no longer find the belief system appealing. In other words, they’re looking for the intense spiritual experience without the misogyny and homophobia, among other reasons. Catholics and Christians use magick, they just don’t call it witchcraft, but for all in intents and purposes there is no difference.
The Bible condemns the use of divination, but have you ever seen an omen that influenced a decision or how you felt about something? A black cat crossing your path is an omen of bad luck, a sparrow in the house is an omen of death, flicking to a random page in the Bible for insight. Spotting omens is the most basic of divination practices. Are you going to Hell for believing in old wives’ tales?
Jesus performed "miracles" all the time. Turning water to wine, healing the sick, feeding hundreds of people, rising from the dead. Some of the stories may be exaggerated, but the essence remains the same; he used magick.

How to be a Christian Witch

Okay so now I have explained why I personally think it is fine to be a Christian witch, now let’s discuss exactly how to be a Christian witch.
First, if you want to label yourself as a witch, go ahead. But I think some Christian witches would be more comfortable with the term ‘light worker’. A light worker is basically someone who feels an enormous pull towards helping others. They are spiritually inclined beings who volunteer to act as a beacon for the Earth, and commit to serving humanity. I think this term is a much better fit for a Christian witch, since if you are a Christian then you are already committed to serving humanity and helping others. There is a lot of overlap in the practices of a light worker and a witch; for example, reading tarot, meditation & visualisation, reiki, crystals, candles, evoking benevolent entities & spirits, and more. Lightwork is not tied to any particular religion and it can be a secular practice, much like witchcraft.
I think before you start down the path of a Christian witch, you’ve got to have a strict list of your personal dos and don’ts when it comes to your craft. One of the most important rules for being a witch is to know thyself, after all.
You are first and foremost a Christian, so your craft should conform to your Christian beliefs and morals. Curses and hexes are probably going to be a “don’t”, but what about binding spells? Binding spells have many purposes that most would consider ‘good’. How do you feel about working with entities or spirits? Demons is a definite no, and angels are probably yes, but what about nature spirits? So compile your own personal list of the boundaries of your craft and how they conform to your values as a Christian.
You can still celebrate most or all of the sabbats that Wiccans and Pagans have. This is actually surprisingly easy because the majority of them have Christian counterparts. This is mostly because the traditional Pagan holidays were Christianised to make it easier for pagans to convert to Christianity. For example, Imbolc is Candlemas, Ostara is Easter, Lughnasadh is Lammas, and Yule is Christmas.
For casting spells and conducting rituals, you can call upon God or Jesus to assist you. Spells are just prayers with extra steps, so this makes sense. If you want to call upon the quarters like Wiccans do in casting a circle, you can call upon the archangels. Each one is associated with a different element.

• Raphael = East, air
• Michael = South, fire
• Gabriel = West, water
• Uriel = North, earth

For different practices, I suggest taking up some of the ones I mentioned earlier like tarot, crystal work, and meditation. Tarot, while it is no different to gathering insight from a random page in the Bible, can set off alarm bells for Christians so a good alternative is oracle cards, or even angel cards. Oracle and angel cards don’t have the same perceived negativity attached to them that tarot cards do. Another alternative is cartomancy; just using a regular playing card deck to divinate.

Further reading

I really recommend checking out The Mindful Mage on YouTube. She is a Christian witch who makes lots of videos about Christian witchcraft.
For even more information, I recommend reading The Christian Witch's Handbook by H. Fuller Hutchison. This book I would say is the definition of a Christian Witch. It’s literally Christianity but with witchy vibes, and with none of the Wiccan vibes either, despite the author having studied under a Wiccan priestess. While the author does recognise a feminine aspect of the Christian God in the Holy Spirit, this is not emphasised in any prayers or rituals and the author explicitly states that she doesn’t believe in a Goddess. Unfortunately this book is only sold second-hand at ridiculous prices, but I managed to snatch it up at a cheap price so if you want to read this book please get in contact with me and I will be able to show you its contents.

Christo-Paganism

I am going to define a Christo-Pagan as someone who is a Christian and also chooses to work with other gods from Pagan pantheons like Celtic paganism and Norse paganism. A Christo-Pagan may also practice concepts that are considered to be typically pagan, like earth-worship and working with nature spirits.
Christo-Paganism, like most forms of paganism, is a very individual path with many different flavours. Some are Christians with pagan leanings, others are pagans with Christian leanings, and some are kind of a 50/50 split combining both systems equally.
Most Christian Pagans have conflict when they think about The Ten Commandments, particularly the first one "You shall have no other Gods before me." Sounds pretty straight forward, right? You're not allowed to worship other Gods. But it makes an important distinction; it recognises the existence of other gods. This basically implies that you could worship other gods, but you must revere the nameless Christian God the most.
In the creed, you normally say "We believe in one God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." We have a contradiction, one God and many gods; how can both be true? Well, a while ago, I discovered this belief called "Omnitheism". 'Omni' meaning 'all', and 'theism' meaning 'God'. It is the belief that there is one single Divinity, which I like to call The Source, or Spirit (other names include The All, Akasha, the High God, the True Divinity, or the Unknown Deity), and everything in the universe is a counterpart of The Source, or Spirit. It can also be the belief that every living being is a god within itself.
There are several ways of interpreting this. One is how the Hermetic Kabbalah describes the Tree Of Life: Spirit is an infinite source of energy, with no bounds. Spirit's energy pours through the different planes of existence before reaching the physical world. In the physical world, The Source's energy creates all physical things, objects, and living beings. Every plant, every animal, every person is a part of The Source, and our end goal is to seek unity with the Divinity, thus, you can argue that we are all God, since each of us possesses part of the vastness of Spirit, or The Source.
I like to think that it's like we are all individual branches on a tree, and as a whole we make one tree. At the same time, you can take a branch off the tree and plant it and it will make its own tree. So we're basically all gods in various stages; leaves, branches, and trees.
Another theory you may prefer is the Egg Universe. This is a theory that the whole universe is an egg, and this egg contains a juvenile god in a sense. In order to learn as much about life as possible, the god in this egg has split its consciousness into billions of separate consciences. And parts of this consciousness has manifested as you and me. We are all god. So yeah, there is one god, but we, and other levels of consciousness are part of it too, like the gods that Pagans worship, or even a plant growing in a forest. Every living thing is a counterpart of the greater consciousness. That was a really brief explanation so if you want to understand it better I suggest watching this YouTube video.
Look at different belief systems and make up your own mind. Religion is a highly subjective thing and only you can truly know God for yourself.
I haven’t even began to cover the fact that early Christianity was split into many different sects with wildly diverging beliefs. It’s only by chance that we have the type of Christianity we have today. One of these sects that faded into obscurity is Gnostic Christianity, which holds the belief that the God described in the Old Testament is not the true Christian God, but instead a mistaken creation by the female aspect of the True Divinity. They also believe that Jesus was created in order to fix the spiritual mistakes of the Old Testament God.

Psychological Perspective

All that I’ve covered so far is purely religious or spiritual belief. There are a lot of witches and pagans who are not strictly polytheistic but instead they choose to view other gods as psychological archetypes. For example, say if I wanted to love myself more and be more confident in my physical appearance, I might turn to Aphrodite. I might not actually believe she exists as a literal goddess, but I may subscribe to a psychological archetype of Aphrodite, basically invoking the idea of her and aiming to be more like her. This way, I’m technically working with Aphrodite for self-improvement, but I don’t necessarily believe that other gods exist other than the Christian God, and I’m certainly not worshipping Aphrodite over the Christian God, I’m simply studying what she stands for and how she might handle issues with self-esteem if she were a real person.

A lot of Saints are Ex-Pagan Gods

A lot of Christians are required to choose a "patron saint" to work with when they are confirmed. For Christo-Pagans, many choose St Brighid. She was a Pagan goddess so beloved by her people that they made her into a Christian saint. She is also a triple goddess (maiden, mother, crone), so you can work with her in unison with the moon phases and the wheel of the year.
Other pagan deities converted to saints include Kernunnos; the Catholic Church replaced Him with Saint Hubert and Saint Tatheus. And Sainte Ann was replacement for the Pagan Goddess Ana or Dana.

To sum up Christo-Paganism...

Taking all this into account, there isn’t really a reason why you can’t choose to work with other gods in your practices if you choose to believe that they are merely counterparts of Spirit or The Source, or psychological archetypes, or Saints, or some sort of belief similar to that. As long as you are praising the Christian God most, whatever you define that be, you’re not really violating any Christian values as stated in the Bible. Whether you think the Christian God is The Source, or you think ‘He’ is a counterpart of The Source, it still works.
And if you are drawn to Paganism because you feel that Christianity lacks the female aspect of God, this works for you too. Whether you believe the Gnostic concept of the female principle of the True Divinity, or if you prefer the energy of other female pagan goddesses like Gaia, Diana, or Artemis, for example. You can work with female Saints, or study goddesses as psychological archetypes.

Further reading

For more information and different viewpoints on Christo-Paganism, I recommend Christo-Paganism: An Inclusive Path by Joyce & River Higginbotham. It has a bibliography and a list of sources for the claims made in the book, so it makes for a really good resource.

Christian Wicca

I define a Christian Wiccan as someone who is a Christian and they also follow traditions set out by Wicca, this can be Gardnerian Wicca, Alexandrian Wicca, Dianic Wicca, or some other sect. A Christian Wiccan is someone who conforms to Christian values laid out in the Bible, whilst following fundamental Wiccan beliefs like the threefold law, the Wiccan Rede, and recognition of both the God and Goddess.
Things that separate a Christian Wiccan from a Christo-Pagan (in my opinion):

• A Christo-pagan may choose to worship other gods from other pantheons, but may not subscribe to the dual aspect of the deity that Wiccans work with.
• A Wiccan will revere both the God and Goddess, whereas a Pagan might not.
• A Wiccan believes in the threefold law and observes the full moon as a sacred event, whereas a pagan might choose not to.
• It is possible to be an atheistic pagan (if you follow pyshcologcal archetypes for example) but in my opinion, it is impossible to be an atheistic Wiccan. Wicca is a polytheistic religion by definition; that means you can't be a Wiccan without believing in the existence of a God and Goddess.

Obviously there is a lot of wiggle-room and intersection between a Christian Pagan and a Christian Wiccan, and your personal beliefs and practices are highly subjective, but this is how I am distinguishing these terms so I am able to explain these concepts in a way that can be digested easily.

The God & Goddess according to Christian Wiccans

Every Christian Wiccan has a slightly different view on their own religious practices, but from what I can gather, a lot of Christian Wiccans like to replace the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit with the Wiccan Goddess. Some believe that the Holy Spirit is the lost female aspect that Christianity is severely lacking in.
Other Christian Wiccans choose to work with Jesus to represent the God in their work, and The Virgin Mary as the Goddess. This makes a lot of sense because the Wiccan sabbats observe the Goddess giving birth to the God, and obviously Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Which belief you choose, or maybe a mixture of both, is completely up to you.
The sabbats are much the same as previously discussed, since most Christian holidays are Christianised versions of the pagan festivals that the Wiccan sabbats are based on.

Criticisms of Christian Wicca

It is vitally important to note that Christian Wicca is not without controversy. And I’m not just talking about the whole ‘Bible condemns witches’ thing, I’m saying that there is a significant portion of the witchcraft community that criticises Christian Wicca specifically. Honestly from my research I haven’t really found any witches criticising Christian Witchcraft or Christo-Paganism (with informed opinions), it is Christian Wicca specifically that raises problems, and this is why:
The Bible is rooted in the belief of a single deity, known as God. There are no other acceptable deities. Wicca, in contrast, involves the reverence of two deities minimally, a god and a goddess. If you worship God alongside a goddess in equal reverence, then you are breaking the Christian commandment to worship only God, and you are denying his existence as the only God. If you attempt to be a monotheistic Wiccan, you lose the polarity and unity of separate halves that is fundamental to Wicca. To clarify; Wicca is not a monotheistic religion; there is a God and a Goddess, with equal importance.
There are four general reasons why people attempt to be both Christian and Wiccan:

• They believe in God and Jesus but want to practice magic and think you need Wicca to do that.
• They want to be Wiccan because they find it appealing, but they’re afraid of going to hell if they change religion.
• They believe in God and Jesus but are also attracted to certain things embraced by Wiccans without realising that these are by no means fundamental to Wicca. You don’t need to be Wiccan in order to respect nature and experience the glory of God through it, for example.
• They believe in God and Jesus but object to certain things within their church, such as misogyny or homophobia. Again, you don’t need Wicca to do this. You can find a different church or denomination, or you can adopt some of the ideas I discussed previously in the other portions of this post.

And I totally get it, all four of these reasons were the reasons for my inner conflict with Christianity, Wicca, and witchcraft as a whole some years ago. A lot of these reasons just come from simply not knowing enough about Wicca and witchcraft yet. The main things you need to realise if any of the aforementioned reasons apply to you is that:

1. You don’t have to be Wiccan to use magick or practise witchcraft, and
2. The practices you see commonly associated with Wicca are not exclusive to Wicca. Wiccans do not have monopoly over nature worship, burning incense, using altars, crystals, tarot cards, or meditation. You don’t have to be a Wiccan to do these things. For example as previously mentioned, you can be a light worker, you can be a secular witch, you can be an eclectic Christian, or something else. There are so many options.

For me personally, I eventually abandoned both Christianity and Wicca, but I kept some of their basic ideas in my practices. I still follow Jesus’ teachings and I have a great deal of respect for Him, and I have also adopted Wiccan practices like honouring the esbats and calling upon the God & Goddess to assist me in my spells. I don’t call myself a Christian Wiccan for these reasons though.
There are a number of reasons why some witches reject Christian Wicca, but the main reason is that there are just too many fundamental differences between the religions which means that you can’t combine them harmoniously. For example, Christians believe that God is wholly good, and Satan is the embodiment of evil. Whereas Wiccans embrace their deities’ shadow side as well as the light, as they exist in nature. Nature is not wholly good or wholly bad. Christians believe that humans need salvation from sin, but Wiccans believe that humans make their own choices, not because The Devil is tempting them. So those are fundamental beliefs in the religions that directly oppose one other.
With all of this said, the witches who have these criticisms are not gatekeeping. There is nothing wrong with combining Christian and Wiccan beliefs into something new. The problem is, they say, is when you insist on labelling yourself as something you no longer are. There’s certainly nothing wrong with bringing certain Christian concepts into your Wiccan practice or certain Wiccan concepts into Christian practice. But the choices should make sense just like any other belief system. Can a Wiccan follow Jesus’ ethical teachings? Absolutely. Can a Christian worship outdoors, creating their own sacred space? Of course. But neither of these situations results in a Christian Wiccan.
So those are some of the criticisms of Christian Wicca, just so you are aware of them. I’ll reiterate that I do not necessarily believe all the criticisms, but I do believe that they are valid. I still think that you can call yourself a Christian Wiccan if you want to, but just be aware of the reasons why some witches are opposed to the idea. Again, to my knowledge, the only source of controversy for Christian Witchcraft and Paganism comes from Christians themselves, but for Christian Wiccans, some of the backlash comes from the witchcraft & Wiccan community too.

Further reading

If you want some specific rituals and practices, I suggest reading Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition by Nancy Chandler Pittman. The book isn’t perfect I’ll admit, it can get a bit ranty and there are zero sources for any claims made, but it is pretty good and quite thought-provoking.
There are some resources online like trinitarianwicca.org, and Trinity Wicca on Twitter.
I also suggest having a look at The Path of a Christian Witch by Edelina St Clair. I know it says Christian Witch, but since her practices are largely influenced by Wicca I think this book is more useful to Christian Wiccans as well as Christian Witches. It is an overall well-received book, but it may be less helpful as it is written in the style of an autobiography rather than an informative text.
Finally, there is coven on www.spellsofmagic.com called Christian Wiccans. Their resources are private to outsiders, but if you think Christian Wicca may be the path for you then I'm sure you could join the coven. One of the council members, Trinitarian3, used to be a member of my former coven; she's very friendly and will gladly tell you about her beliefs and practices if you mail her.
This is what she told me when I asked about her beliefs: "I'm a Trinitarian Wiccan, also called a Christian Wiccan, and I worship God, the Goddess, and Jesus. Basically, the Holy Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. So, I was thinking since the Spirit was the Spirit of God, and spirit is the quintessence of magic, I kinda melted it in with God the Mother, the Goddess."
If you want to read more about the criticisms of Christian Wicca, check out this article from Spells of Magic.

Final Message

I just want to say that even after reading this post, the answers aren’t going to come easy. The pursuit of your spiritual path takes years, a lifetime, even several lifetimes according to some. So don’t get worked up about finalising your beliefs and your path, because there’s no deadline. There’s no standardised test asking what you believe in and what your practices are. Your beliefs and your path will change as you grow.
So whether you choose to be a Christian witch, a Christian Wiccan, a light worker, an omnitheist, or whatever, please remember that you are valid, you are enough, and you are accepted. Even if you can’t find a single place where you belong, you are accepted here at BroomClosetWitch, okay?
And for other witches and pagans out there reading this, please be kind and give Christians exploring witchcraft & paganism a place where they can feel welcome. It is so tough, knowing that there are some parts of your church that you don’t fully agree with, or you feel are missing, and then being told that if you even question these things, you will suffer eternal damnation. It is so heart-breaking being manipulated into worshipping a deity you fear, because apparently they love you unconditionally.
And then, coming from a place of toxicity and hoping to find yourself in the witchcraft & pagan community, only to be marginalised and told that your path isn’t valid. That is truly terrible. So please give these folks a place to call home. You don’t have to agree with them, you just have to give them a place to be accepted and validated. Paganism & witchcraft is an all-inclusive community.

TLDR;

• You can be a Christian and practice witchcraft (because the Bible was mistranslated)
• You can be a Christian witch as long as you don't use magick to harm
• You can be a Christian and work with pagan gods, as long as you revere the Christian God above all
• You can call yourself a Christian Wiccan, but there are some criticisms you should know about (because Wicca & Christianity are so fundamentally different from each other that a lot of people say they're incompatible).
• Look at different belief systems and make up your own mind; religion is a highly subjective thing and only you can truly know God for yourself
• Be kind and give Christians exploring witchcraft & paganism a place where they can feel welcome