Our One True God

 

Here, it is all powerful.  If you have a great deal of it, your sins will be forgiven; indeed, having it may mean you shall not be deemed to sin at all, or at least won't suffer for your sins. With it, you shall not want, and you will fear no evil.

For the wealthy, it is their refuge and strength.  No weapon fashioned against them shall succeed.  They  will refute any tongue raised against them.

This being the case, why not call money God?  Why not worship it as God? If love of God is our purpose, if God is what we should strive for, we all love money and strive to have it, strive mightily to have more of it, and more and more.  Indeed, we do nothing else.

We suffer without money.  Just as we do without God. We dread the absence of Money/God. We do all we can to remain in the presence of Money/God. We have a duty to express our faith in it, to worship it.  We do that by spending it or harboring it.

A fifth-century Christian zealot proclaimed "There is no crime for those who Christ."  As money is God now, there is no crime for those who have money.  Next to possessing, making and keeping money, all is is secondary.  That's why threats being made by the current government against money worshippers so often in these sad times--to withhold money from them, to prevent them from making money, or to cause them to spend money--are so successful. Considerations of justice, Constitutional rights and duties, morality generally, virtue, honesty, mean nothing here in the Kingdom of Fear.

A True Opposition

 

Once upon a time, a long time in fact, several members of a legislative body opposed the acts of tyrants who held near absolute power over a great empire.  They suffered death and exile as a result.

The tyrants were the Emperors Nero, Vespasian and Domitian (I'll dispense with their full names for purposes of this post).  The members of the legislative body were Roman Senators, and followers of the Stoic philosophy.  Most of them were students of the noted philosopher Musonius Rufus, who was also the teacher of Epictetus.  At the head of this post is a painting of a Quaestor reading his death sentence to one of the most prominent of those Senators, Thrasea Paetus.

Rufus himself was exiled, eventually.  It wasn't uncommon for Emperors to repress philosophers, particularly Stoics. They were notably independent, taught that virtue was the only good, and were critical of imperial conduct that wasn't virtuous.  They and their Senatorial students were generally accused of and condemned for conspiracy against the Emperor.  They were invited to commit suicide, or executed, or sent to some remote island or similarly isolated location.

Of course, most of the members of the Roman Senate after the establishment of the Principate by Augustus were obedient due to fear or because it was in their interest to be outstandingly servile .  There were periods of revolt when Senators favored potential claimants to the throne over established Emperors, but for the most part the Roman aristocracts were compliant with imperial rule so long as they maintained their privileged status and limited power.  Nor were Stoics the only ones who dared criticize an Emperor, but their opposition was notable.

But the fact remains that there were principled, moral Roman Senators who objected to the abuse of power by Emperors who possessed near absolute power, and were willing to give up their lives, status, and fortunes to protest that abuse.

It's good to recall their example in a time when far too many of our legislators are little more than wretched, sniveling, cowardly slaves of a wannabe-emperor who have nothing to lose but their position.  While the members of the Stoic opposition to autocrats in ancient Rome sought to emulate the ideal Stoic Sage by refusing to sanction injustice, our representatives are eager to do whatever is asked of them by an autocrat and his besotted followers.  Our representatives emulate Caspar Milquetoast, or perhaps Uriah Heep (the Dickens character, not the band).

Our representatives' timidity isn't admirable.  It merely encourages a continuing effort to defy rather than preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  If our representatives lack the desire or courage to be true to their oath to support the Constitution, you'd like to hope that they at least have self-respect enough to refrain from groveling so enthusiastically.

Hiding in the Shadow Docket

 

The increasingly pitiful Supreme Court of our nation has, since the installation of the current regime, been busy accepting an extraordinary number of "emergency applications" it's made and duly issuing the orders it's requested.  It's a most compliant court.

Because such applications are, supposedly, to be made and accepted only in emergency situations where briefing, oral argument and written opinions as in normal cases would take too long and so fail to timely address the emergency, orders granting or denying the applications need not be explained.  No written opinion or rationale need be provided.  The Justices, like gods, merely decree.  We're not entitled to know why or how they came to do so.

These Jovian orders comprise what is known as the shadow docket.  While there have in the past been very few matters decided in this abrupt, mysterious manner, the current Justices seem to delight in exercising judicial authority in this fashion. Yay or nay is all they need say.

No doubt it's much easier to decide cases when no reasons for a decision need be given.  And, certainly, it can be convenient in other ways as well.  For example, if a case raising similar issues in similar circumstances should come before the Court, but a majority of the Justices don't want to issue the same order issued during the "emergency", they can simply maintain that the rationale which applied but was not disclosed previously didn't apply in the new matter.  Who could contest such a claim?

Better yet for them, how may the Justices be successfully criticized for a decision they made when the reasons for the decision cannot be known? It may have been made for the worst of reasons, or no reason at all, for all we know.  It simply doesn't matter.

Do the Justices lurking in the shadow docket feel something of a thrill, being able to make unreviewable orders as they please, with no need to account for them?  If so, let's hope they don't find it addictive.

Of course these decisions made in the shadows of the shadow docket do little or worse for litigants, lawyers and judges, trying to ubderstand them. They benefit only the regime and the Justices who cater to it. Lower courts, lawyers and litigants are left in the dark because the Justices cannot be bothered to explain the orders they make.  Merely knowing that an application has been granted or denied provides little guidance.

This deliberate practice of issuing orders for no apparent reason is at the least irresponsible and selfish.  It's also cowardly, I think.  If your going to decide matters of great importance which are unreviewable, you should have the courage to explain and defend those decisions.  It's no wonder the reputation of the Supreme Court is in decline.

Stubbornly Persistent Intrusions

 

One hundred years ago, in July, 1925, the State of Tennessee, these United States, and the entire world within reach of the communication technology and media of the time were treated to the spectacle of what's known as the Scopes Trial.  From July 10th to July 21st a high school teacher was prosecuted for teaching the theory of evolution in violation of the law of the Volunteer State.

Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan and H.L. Mencken participated in the spectacle, among others. Their appearances in that courtroom made it the peculiar landmark of our history it became; seemingly a victory for the separation of church and state assured by the Constitution although Scopes was found guilty.  The victory was due to the spectacle created.  The law was shown to be an absurd consequence of ignorance and religious repression of a well-established scientific theory intruding on public education.

But if there was a victory it was short-lived.  When it comes to public education, those legislators who believe that God is responsible for the creation of the horrible human race still insist that this be taught in public schools. Those who think God gave us Ten Commandments (including one that mandates his worship) demand they be displayed in public schools. So, the intrusion of religious beliefs in public education continues. 

Many Americans seems to want the religion they personally prefer to be taught in public schools.  They're not content to merely practice their religion freely, without hindrance by goverment or others.  They want it, or at least aspects of it, to be required parts of public schooling.  Perhaps they assume all Americans have similar religious beliefs and so wouldn't object to the schools imparting them to their children; perhaps they don't care if they do or don't.  I suspect the latter is the case.

In fact, religious education is required, more or less, in many countries.  So, the urge to impose religious instruction on students isn't unique to America. Our Great Republic, though, is somewhat unique due to the clause in the First Amendment prohibiting government from making laws regarding the establishment of a religion.

There is debate over whether the intrusion of religious beliefs or symbols in schools constitutes the establishment of a religion.  That aside, my interest is in the question: Why does the desire that religion be taught in public schools persist?

You'd think that parents themselves could arrange for their children to learn of their religious beliefs. There are churches and other places of worship everywhere to assist in that task. Is it thought that people will only become or remain adherents of an approved religion if intelligent design and the Ten Commandments are taught in schools?  That's difficult to believe.  Is it thought that students will lose their faith if taught the theory of evolution, or if the Ten Commandments are not prominently displayed somewhere on school premises?

Again, this seems very unlikely.  The religious education I received in Catholic schools didn't serve to convince me of anything where religion was concerned, and served more than anything to result in a loss of faith.

I doubt the intrusion of religion in public schools accomplishes anything.  I know of no study or evidence establing that it does. My guess is that the efforts at religious intrusion into public education persist because true believers don't really expect anything will be accomplished.  They feel the intrusion is inherently good. There need not be any result.  No opportunity to express their beliefs can be missed.  There is a kind of compulsion involved.  A form of religious exhibitionism.

Eclipsing Liberty

 

I have a recollection of Conservatism in American politics and culture.  It may be outdated; it may be inaccurate, but it seems quite clear.  While it was characterized by a respect for tradition and authority, it also respected individual freedom.  Freedom from government interference in the thoughts and lives of individuals, specifically.

While its fetishization of the past and accepted customs made it-over suspicious of change and too willing to tolerate established injustices, it was possible to acknowledge its merits because, at least in theory, it abjured autocracy and totalitarianism.  That's no longer the case with respect to what passes for Conservatism today. 

Nor do those who pass for conservatives now have any concern for the freedom of individuals from the control of government. On the contrary, they apparently favor government control, provided they find the government favorable.  As long as that's the case they seem entirely willing to ignore the restrictions of the powers of government the Founding Fathers built into the foundations of our Great Republic.

This is an extremely selfish and short-sighted position for them to take.  They sanction the unrestricted imposition of control by a regime they disfavor which might replace the current regime.  Thomas More said something to the effect that he would give the devil protection of the law to protect himself from the depredations of government. It's difficult to believe that those who call themselves conservatives now lack this wisdom.

It's unclear whether this willingness to see the power of government used to restrict individual liberty is the result of self-indulgence on their part, or fear, or some other irrational motivation.  It may be, though, that H.L. Mencken was right and they value security far more than they value liberty.

That security likely is, for them, security from the freedom of others to do and think as they believe to be appropriate.  This would explain their toleration of if not support for government intrusion in education and regulation of lifestyles, heath, art and entertainment; even of history, Soviet-style.

It's a strange sort of Conservatism that seeks to radically increase the powers of a central government to regulate and curtail life and liberty in what has, traditionally, considered itself to be "the land of the free."