Individual Conscience and Social Values
There are a number of interesting issues to consider when thinking about martyrs, and the stories about them. In the contemporary popular vernacular, martyrs are not viewed positively. Calling someone a "martyr" is insulting them. Martyrs are equated with victims, or with people who choose to be long-suffering and then complain, or whine, about it. At the same time, specific historical martyrs are venerated or admired. People like Martin Luther King, Jr. are honored. What then is society's real view of martyrs and martyrdom?
As a corollary to that, what is the real role of martyrs in the development and maintenance of culture? Religion is often discussed as filling contradictory roles: As both countercultural and bolstering the status quo. If martyrs are truly countercultural figures, how is it that they fill such important roles in mainstream cultural mythology?
All of these are interesting questions. What seems most interesting, however, is to think about how the martyrs described in these books have come to be part of the American cultural mainstream, rather than examples of the foolishness of opposing the constituted authorities. In other words, how can these countercultural figures be understood as supporting an American status quo?
The Exception: What is Worth Dying For?
What stands out in this selection of books is that Galileo is the only person who chose to recant, rather than die for his beliefs. Leaving out the historicity of Brecht's portrayal, the fact remains that Galileo did bow to the authority of the Pope and deny his intellectual beliefs. Yet, even he does so grudgingly, as is evident from the anecdote reported about him in which he leaves the pope, stamps the ground, and asserts that "still it moves" (Bentley 15). It is that for which he is valued, not his submission.
But he did submit, and live, unlike the other personages described in the se...