Which god will wash away the sin of America's attack on Iran
Modernity is a hot mess right now, so it's possible that after the hustle of Moon Day you're taking things easy on Tiw's Day and might only read this on Odin's Day, or perhaps Thor's Day, before you reach Frigg's Day and then relax on Saturn's Day and Sun Day.
But whenever you do read it, try to spare a thought for poor old Tiw and Frigg, once A-listers among the Germanic gods but now, without even a walk-on in a Marvel movie, relegated to being little more than the answers to pub quizzes.
They're not alone, of course: there's a whole pantheon of divine has-beens, gods who were revered and beseeched by our ancestors but who are now little more than historical footnotes.
Consider Baal, once the go-to god of the Canaanites on all matters climatic and agricultural, a being so powerful that his name meant 'Lord'.
But things change, and as soon as the early Israelites decided monotheism was more of a vibe and retired all their gods except Yahweh, the one in charge of war and weather, Baal was kicked to the heavenly curb.
It also didn't help that he was still being worshipped by the Philistines next door, and before you could say 'Holy rebranding!' the beloved deity formerly known as Lord had become Baal-zebub and then Beelzebub, one of the princes of hell.
Over the weekend as I watched the pagan US president take a moment away from worshipping Mammon and himself to ask Yahweh to bless the US, Israel and the Middle East (because apparently Israel isn't in the Middle East), I was reminded of how transient our gods really are, perhaps because so many of their followers are prone to changing their entire set of beliefs when it suits their earthly interests.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
2 days ago
- The Herald
Which god will wash away the sin of America's attack on Iran
Modernity is a hot mess right now, so it's possible that after the hustle of Moon Day you're taking things easy on Tiw's Day and might only read this on Odin's Day, or perhaps Thor's Day, before you reach Frigg's Day and then relax on Saturn's Day and Sun Day. But whenever you do read it, try to spare a thought for poor old Tiw and Frigg, once A-listers among the Germanic gods but now, without even a walk-on in a Marvel movie, relegated to being little more than the answers to pub quizzes. They're not alone, of course: there's a whole pantheon of divine has-beens, gods who were revered and beseeched by our ancestors but who are now little more than historical footnotes. Consider Baal, once the go-to god of the Canaanites on all matters climatic and agricultural, a being so powerful that his name meant 'Lord'. But things change, and as soon as the early Israelites decided monotheism was more of a vibe and retired all their gods except Yahweh, the one in charge of war and weather, Baal was kicked to the heavenly curb. It also didn't help that he was still being worshipped by the Philistines next door, and before you could say 'Holy rebranding!' the beloved deity formerly known as Lord had become Baal-zebub and then Beelzebub, one of the princes of hell. Over the weekend as I watched the pagan US president take a moment away from worshipping Mammon and himself to ask Yahweh to bless the US, Israel and the Middle East (because apparently Israel isn't in the Middle East), I was reminded of how transient our gods really are, perhaps because so many of their followers are prone to changing their entire set of beliefs when it suits their earthly interests.
Mail & Guardian
18-06-2025
- Mail & Guardian
Reflecting on relationships: Is it ‘just sex'?
People who choose abstinence, monogamy or sexual restraint are made to feel as though something is wrong with them. True sexual freedom should include the right not to participate. First, I must admit that I might be out of my depth here — these are simply personal musings about life as I currently understand it. I welcome responses and critiques, which I would take seriously. Now in my late twenties, conversations about sex and relationships have become more common among my friends. One recurring question we debate is — who has it easier when it comes to dating or finding a partner for sex? To be clear, I recognise that relationships exist in many diverse forms, far beyond the traditional, monogamous, heterosexual model. I don't claim to fully grasp the nuances of every type of relationship. For the sake of focus, however, this reflection concerns relationships between male- and female-presenting individuals. I used to believe that female-presenting individuals had it easier when it came to dating, largely because they typically aren't expected to initiate interactions or make the first move. In many cases, it seems they just need to dress up and show up and there will be no shortage of people vying for their attention. Of course, I now recognise that this perception is heavily shaped by 'pretty privilege', which disproportionately benefits conventionally attractive women. A friend once challenged my view by pointing out that this dynamic — being pursued rather than pursuing — can be disempowering. It places women in the passive position of waiting to be chosen which, upon reflection, doesn't sound empowering at all. Some of my female-presenting friends argue that men, particularly heterosexual men, have it easier. They are seen as the ones who do the choosing and, crucially, enjoy broader social backing for their behaviour. For example, a man who has multiple sexual partners is often celebrated or, at the very least, not judged harshly — whereas a woman who does the same is frequently shamed. This discrepancy reflects deeper patriarchal structures that centre men socially and culturally. These structures often allow men to navigate life with fewer social constraints and less moral scrutiny. While it's arguably true that men benefit from these systems, I don't believe that societal validation necessarily confers moral legitimacy. The fact that society might praise or excuse a man who sleeps with many women doesn't make the act inherently admirable or ethically sound. Building on arguments like the one above — which only begin to scratch the surface — I've come to believe that the more important question is not who gets sex more easily, but rather, what are people's orientations toward sex ? In today's world, either party in a heterosexual dynamic can theoretically have as much sex as they want, although it's true that society often treats one more favourably than the other for doing so. I support people exploring their sexualities freely but I believe two important considerations are often overlooked. The first is self-control. Does experiencing a sexual urge automatically justify acting on it — or even having multiple partners to satisfy it? A common retort is, 'It's just sex.' But, in reality, it isn't just sex. Like in physics, every action has a consequence — though these might be less visible in the moment. Every sexual act, I believe, involves an exchange — not only of physical presence, but of something deeper. For example, bodily fluids like saliva or semen contain DNA, which is foundational to our biological identity. While these exchanges might not have immediate or visible effects, I suspect they register somewhere in our being, perhaps even subtly shaping how we relate to ourselves and others. Moreover, sexual intimacy triggers powerful hormonal responses. Oxytocin, often called the 'bonding hormone', is released during and after orgasm, creating emotional and psychological ties between partners. These biological realities are often minimised in favour of momentary pleasure but they suggest that sex carries more significance — physically, emotionally and spiritually — than we often admit. The second point — and, in fact, my main motivation for writing this piece — is the subtle but growing pressure placed on those who choose not to 'explore' sexually, particularly those who, by personal conviction, do not wish to have multiple sexual partners. A striking irony is emerging in contemporary discourse — while many champion sexual liberty and personal choice, that freedom is often only respected when it aligns with dominant expectations. In other words, you're free to do what you want — as long as what you want is what everyone else considers liberating. Increasingly, people who choose abstinence, monogamy or sexual restraint are made to feel as though they're missing out, failing to live fully, or even that something might be wrong with them. The pressure to 'just have sex' or 'have more partners' can be subtle or overt but it undermines the very principle of autonomy that sexual liberation claims to uphold. This is deeply problematic. True freedom should include the right not to participate, the right to say no without shame and the right to define one's values and boundaries on one's own terms. People should be supported in expressing their sexuality — or their decision not to — regardless of whether it aligns with cultural trends or popular narratives. Authentic self-expression sometimes means going against what is expected. That, too, is a valid form of liberation. Sex, as a deeply pleasurable act with the profound potential to create life, deserves to be acknowledged for what it truly is — something far more significant than just another casual activity or physical exercise. While people are free to explore their sexuality and have multiple partners if they so choose, those who decide otherwise should be equally respected. Choosing restraint, monogamy or abstinence is no less valid than choosing openness or experimentation. Ultimately, sexuality is a deeply personal journey. Different people have different values, goals and paths toward fulfillment — and they should be free to navigate those paths without judgment or pressure. True sexual freedom lies not in doing what is popular or expected but in having the agency to choose what aligns with one's own convictions, however that may look. Emmanuel Anoghena Oboh is a PhD student of philosophy at the Center of Applied Ethics, Stellenbosch University.
Daily Maverick
18-06-2025
- Daily Maverick
From Middle East war-zone to Ukraine — Gqeberha man rescues animals caught in the crossfire
It takes a brave and committed person to try to organise the rescue of five lion cubs in the middle of the Israel-Iran bombardment and then return to Ukraine – some of the journey on foot – to feed the hungry pets left homeless by the conflict against Russia. Most people try to get as far away from conflict and war as possible. Not South African Lionel de Lange, who often finds himself in danger – driven by his compassion for vulnerable animals. De Lange, a Ggeberha native now living in Ukraine, was recently stranded in Israel as Iran's drone attacks forced the airports there to close – delaying his return to Ukraine, where he oversees the care of big cats and other rescued wildlife – and more recently hungry pets. The director of Warriors of Wildlife, said he had arrived in Israel to meet with the Israeli National Parks authority. He had previously successfully rescued a trafficked lion from Israel and was trying to arrange refuge for five lion cubs confiscated from smugglers. The plan was disrupted by the escalation of conflict. 'We had already taken in a rescued lion cub called Zion,' he said. Zion is now living at the Simbonga Sanctuary just outside Gqeberha, and De Lange had high hopes of doing the same for the five cubs that are currently in quarantine in a zoo in Israel. De Lange met with the park authorities on Thursday last week – and even managed to fit in a turtle release – before missiles started flying overhead. De Lange said: 'I was super fortunate to go to a marine unit and be part of the release of five turtles, three loggerhead turtles and two green turtles, which were all caught in fishing nets and caught in plastic bags and fishing lines and things like that, and had to be rehabilitated and released. 'So that's what I did on Thursday, and then the plan on Friday was to visit the lions, but then Thursday night, early Friday morning … both sides were firing missiles at each other. Israel at Iran, Iran at us, so we were stuck in bomb shelters for two nights. 'The government shut everything down. It was like Covid times. There was no one on the streets, only essential services were allowed to operate. The skies were closed so I couldn't fly out.' So what did De Lange do? On Sunday, he got a lift to the border of Jordan and walked across. He then drove to Oman, from there making his way back to Europe. At the time of speaking to Daily Maverick he was at the border of Romania and Ukraine, about to enter the country he moved to almost two decades ago. He added that he wanted to get back to the abandoned dogs and cats he has been feeding in Ukraine. 'War is war' Speaking about witnessing war on two different continents he said: 'War is war. The big thing that is the same is that in all of them, unnecessary people and animals die.' However, he said the war in Ukraine is more intense than the Iran-Israel conflict. 'We actually have a front line (in Ukraine) where there's physical fighting going on, where soldiers are shooting at each other. And small drone warfare. I work on the front line with the Russians just across the river from us, as close as 500m sometimes. I've been in shelling incidents. We've been sniped at twice. My ambulance has been shot at twice. And then we are hunted by drones. The Russians are actually hunting civilians and ourselves, aid workers on the front line.' He said in Israel, ballistic missiles and drone attacks were taking place and while that was devastating to civilians, 'they're not dealing with artillery and mortars and tanks and soldiers fighting hand to hand, and that is what's happening in Ukraine'. That said, his planned rescue of the five little lion cubs will be affected by the conflict. 'It's going to affect any rescues because what it will do is, as long as the skies are closed, that means we can't fly any wildlife out. We can't fly in. We'll have to overland by road. We can't get out via the south with any animals, even if we had to put them on trucks in crates, we couldn't go south because we'd have to go past the Gaza Strip and into Egypt,' he said, adding that that was too dangerous. 'We can't go east … that's going into Iran. And then north would be Syria, and so they're all dangerous countries for us. We could possibly go through Jordan, but then all the documentation and permitting required will definitely make it a lengthy and dangerous process. 'But you know, if the lions are there, we'll try and keep them safe and that's all we can do. We'll keep them safe and healthy as much as we can. But all we can do is hope and pray that this escalation, this war, this conflict ends soon.' De Lange and his team to date have rescued 41 lions, a tiger, 17 bears, a pack of wolves, and a monkey – nearly all from Ukraine, with the exception of a few lions from South Africa and Israel. Some were placed in sanctuaries, but many facilities fell short of their promises to care for the rescued creatures. So De Lange decided he needed a refuge he could control. After a two-year search, he secured a property near the Gamtoos River, just outside Gqeberha. Simbonga Sanctuary is now home to 14 lions, a tiger and a range of free-roaming species – a permanent refuge for wildlife in need. How you can help Consider donating directly to Warriors of Wildlife or spreading the word about its lifesaving work. Support legislation that protects big cats from abuse and that prohibits their private ownership. Raise awareness by sharing their stories. Warriors of Wildlife is a registered NPC with a Public Benefit Organisation number, which means you can claim a tax deduction on your donation. De Lange explained that the sanctuary predominantly runs on donations and income from day visitors and overnight guests – but tourism hasn't recovered to its full capacity, and the sanctuary is far from fully occupied. He stressed that many people are eager to contribute when there's a dramatic rescue, but few appreciate the ongoing financial commitment that comes afterwards. 'It's not just the rescue; it's the care for years afterwards. We took in little Zion from Israel two years ago – he's going to live until he's 22 or 23 – that's a lifelong commitment. That's far greater than the initial cost of the rescue. 'Zion was rushed into emergency surgery two weeks after he arrived due to a blockage in his intestine – which set us back nearly $1,000 (R18,000). We also do manicures and pedicures on them,' he laughed. DM
