







































In the second installment of Controversy, Vincent F. Hendricks talks to four men about religion and the state. They all embody states and non-states, thoughts and non-thoughts, and some clothes in between. I, for one, had a hard time focussing on the guests - a Lutheran priest, a catholic old man and former member of the Board of Ethics, a director of a Danish free school, and an atheist - as the camera kept cutting to pretty ladies in the front-row behind them, and who were flashing their checkered shirts, thus matching the one the host was wearing. “Ah, symmetries,” I thought to myself. The ones prone to observing them, will always see them all over the place. But, “no matter,” as Beckett used to say, we don't always have to be so attentive to goddamned everything, or disturbed by petty things.
The topic was the function of the Danish national religion, which is Lutheran, and which is still part of the state. Should Denmark keep its tradition and have religion and the state together - a tradition which, as was pointed out by the very sober and sound sounding catholic, has also been part of the constitution and is thus hard to change - or should religion and the state, each go their merry way?
Religion was thus discussed mainly from a political and economical point of view, insofar as what was stressed was the fact that prioritizing the state religion over the other some 116 religions in Denmark is not a sign of equality, as these other religions do not have access to the pockets of the individuals and their monthly tax as the Lutheran church does. For it is a fact in Denmark that everyone becomes automatically a member of the church at birth, and remains so, unless people later elect to either officially drop out or join other religions. In principle, however, it bothers the Lutheran church little if a person is a member of several orders. Money talks.
What makes people religious was not discussed, but the fact that it may be problematic to wear muslim or Jewish attire in official capacity while under Danish laws was discussed. So again, in anno domini 2010, it ain't anymore about the church and the state but about the church and fashion. So now that I think of it some more, the presence of fashionable women in the front row at a debate show about religion may not seem so far off the mark, after all. As I'm also sure that some would swear by the fashion God.
So, yes, what was the outcome? There wasn't any, unless we valorize incongruity. And we do, for as much as religion was discussed in its relation to tradition, culture and symbol, thus emphasizing a collective memory that we all share – basically we like to be Christians, Jews, or Muslims, because it makes us feel safe – references to the relation of the ineffable, and divine power to politics were absent all together. Ah, the poets knew it, of course, that such things are on retreat, when they formulated this type of incongruity, between man, memory, and God, ever so eloquently. A favorite of mine, Edmond Jabès once said: “God despises memory, he travels.” Unless one insists, like I do, on the mystery of the unspeakable, of “that which happened,” and which mediates between the courage to look inwards, at ourselves, and the flight through religious thought towards the outward realm of traces where language operates.
Thus an example: At 6.30 pm today I zipped at the office. I took the path by the lake and the field outside the university, as I like to see the swans and the goats floating and roaming. Two men with big guns passed me by, and I said to myself: oh, my, the big bad boys are out playing. One of them looked at me intently, but I was busy with my own imagination. Half an hour later I came home to find just about every neighbor hanging out of their balconies over the gelander. Oh, my, that was some vision, and I instantly saw myself as a catholic priest making the sign of the cross onto everyone. You don't get so many chances, so you can imagine what my head was going through. I started laughing, when I saw the police around. One of them asked me to let him in. I did, and then asked: “what's going on?” He said that someone saw people with guns around. Before I got to say, “me too,” he was up the stairs in a flight.
In thinking religious thoughts, there's only one question that is relevant: where does the limit go? This is what I had in mind while almost touching the Kalashnikovs on my walking tour. Now I can't help thinking about the closeness to limits that we all must experience. One minute you're here and the next you're gone, one minute you're almost there, and the next, ah well, there's is no 'next,' as you fall into oblivion faster than you can think. Meanwhile, we see what we want to see, and this is very much related to the perennial religious dilemma: is existence a question of being or one of vision? Why is the thought of seeing a judge wearing a priest's gown so disturbing? And why does it interfere with my thoughts of the promise of eternal life?
I'll take this question up with my mathematician friend tomorrow, for he was the one I was thinking of when this thought befell me: it's a good thing the wackos didn't start shooting, as I have a rendez-vous with a man who promised to demonstrate 3 theorems for me at 5.30 pm sharp, in front of the City Hall in Copenhagen. So how could I possibly die before that? Indeed, there must be angels up there, guardians of the baptism in numbers.

Vincent is back on TV, and so is the full arsenal of signs and sites: his height, his shirt, his interjections. At the end of the day, you tell yourself: you've got to love this man for his consistency. The new series of 8 installments, Controversy, takes issue with some existential concepts, ranging from greed to values, language, religion, identity, and so on. This time Vincent hosts 4 different people for every show, who all represent different layers and social class in Denmark. None are politicians. This is good, as we are tired of schmucks.
The first installment tackles the problem of greed, and the invited debaters range from singer and producer to directors of think tanks, and investment companies. Greed is approached from different angles, and as always, it is clear from he outset that there is a problem with definition. What is greed? No definitions are given other than through association. And the premise for greed is different for each of the speakers. Greed is seen both as a deadly sin but also as ambition, success, and excess. Greed is always bad, one of the speakers says and brings in the example of the film Wall Street. It is also bad when the Danish Royal House accepts money from sponsors even though they have enough money. Another suggests that greed is good. “Just look at Niels Bohr,” he goes, “he was driven by greed, and the desire to know more, and that's why he invented all that he did.”
While opinions were divided, and I went from ha, ha to OMG, I have to say that I liked the best the contribution given by the singer-song writer Remee. He used his own example of what happens when one has too much money and then loses it. Remee suggested that if greed is ever good, then it is when it teaches you to be humble and consequently to be generous. Knowing how to be generous is a gift, he claimed, and I couldn't agree more. At the end of the day, I said to myself that it goes to show that the poets, however good or bad they may be, are still the ones who can be more reflective, analytical, interesting, and genuine in their public statements than the 'professionals'. Remee complied with Democritus's injunction: “one should tell the truth not speak at length” which made me think of the way greed is defined in the Upanishad as a form of appropriating and as a form which estranges us from the thought of infinity. We read these lines in chapter 5 of The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: “Greed is ingrained in everyone's mind. It is not merely the trader, the miser, or the shopkeeper who is greedy. Greed can take a very subtle form. A desire to keep everything is a form of greed [...] Greed is another expression of our finitude.” Indeed, greed is to be kept in check by charity. One should hope, then, that more will start listening to the bards and perhaps follow their example.
At the closing banquet at the NAES conference, and in the middle of the tunes of Brazilian music played by the Swinging Arctic Band, I see the organizer, Anthony Johnson, and a most dear friend as well, walking into the circle with his violin. He plays a prelude, a Bach fantasia, and I'm the only one who notices the shift—the others present were busy socializing with food and drinks. I go to him instantly, throw myself at his large corpus, and kiss him loudly. “I played that for you, my dear, you see,” he said, and I nodded. A few weeks ago in Helsinki, someone asked me how many times I've been to Finland by now, and I said that I was happy to report that I had lost count. In Oulu this week, if there was something I also had lost count to, it was how many times I've hugged Anthony during the day. People were beginning to wonder. But I know what I know. Anthony is a rare genius who has a photographic memory, who read everything about paleontology between the age of 4 and 12, and went on to write a dissertation at Oxford about roundness. Anthony creates circles, and his love of some people and some things is boundless. I'm always invited at his home, and round things always happen. Between playing several instruments—Anthony can play them all—he showed me his latest academic productions. And he always hurries to open his books to dedications and epigraphs, as he knows I like those. One of his articles is dedicated to me, and another has this line in it as an epigraph: “This living hand—I hold it towards you”. It was the second time in two days that I'd experienced Keats's poem being mentioned, and in two contexts completely independent of each other. I tell myself that such a coincidence is due to the roundness of Oulu. Try saying Oulu. In Oulu the mouth is a living labyrinth, held open constantly towards the other. In Oulu you find things. Like the time when Anthony's good friend and neighbor, the musician and composer Markus Lampela, found his house for him one day. Anthony said to him: “a house next to you my friend, but of course, one has to say yes.” He moved in the same day with a few books, a few bottles of champagne, and a few musical instruments. The taxi driver said that that was the easiest move he had ever experienced. I would also like to live next to Markus, who once played Bach on uilleann pipes with the Finnish symphony orchestra. Markus turned to me and said: “do you want me to put a sauna for you?” It was one o'clock at night, and I was ready to lose my shadow, as one does in that special moment called the blue hour, when all the animals go quiet because they wonder where theirs have gone, and the smell of summer flowers is the strongest. I didn't need a sauna. There was enough heat emanating from special, round people around.









