Ignorance, Religion and Education

 

The relentless efforts of the Texas State Board of Education to intermix its religion of choice (a form of Protestant Christianity) with public education continue, and even accelerate. Not content with requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, it now seeks to make portions of the Bible (a Protestant version of it) required reading.  The extent to which such reading parrots the actual language of the Bible will, apparently, vary with the age of the students.

The Board is, of course, aware of the First Amendment.  It's also aware of the fact that a majority of the members of the Supreme Court are sympathetic to its quest to make our Great Republic a kind of theocracy, however, and so it feels it can actively pursue its goals and will ultimately be allowed to do so.

Because the first four of the Ten Commandments are devoted to the appropriate worship of the oddly jealous God it's claimed issued them, I find it hard to think the mandatory display of them in public schools doesn't promote the establishment of a particular religion or work to restrict others. 

But the selective, and shadowy, folk that make up the majority of the Supremist Court think otherwise.  So it's likely that they'll find a way to bless, as it were, any requirement that other portions of the Bible must be read by all public school students, Christian or otherwise.

It seems that some effort is being made to argue that the Bible contains stories which are part of the literary tradition of the West, and this justifies requiring them to be read.  This, it's maintained, removes any First Amendment concerns. But I think there's cause to wonder whether they'll be taught as fiction in the same way as other Western classics such as The Iliad.

 I doubt any teacher will risk the wrath of the Board by doing so.  I also doubt any will note the inconsistencies appearing in Genesis and other parts of the Bible or the plagues inflicted on Egypt or the slaughter of those living in the Promised land by the God of the Bible.  If reading the Bible as one would any literary work is to be mandated, though, how can one honestly  require that only portions of it be read and the rest of it censored?

Of course we also see the old canards that the Bible should be read in public schools because this is a Christian nation and founded on Judeo-Christian values.  Here we see the argument devolve drastically.  This is simply to make it obvious that the mandate is imposed because it is consistent with our established religion.  

The Board and its supporters also thereby demonstrate their ignorance regarding the fact that the Founding Fathers relied much more on the structure of the Roman Republic and the writings of pagan political philosophers in founding this nation than they did on the teachings of Jesus as reported in the Bible.  That follows from the fact that Jesus advocated the abandonment of the family and established order, and taught the arrival of the Kingdom of God was imminent.  Why look to such a person to form a government or nation intended to last many years?

Ignorance is characteristic of those who believe in a religion which claims that it alone is true. So for that matter is the demand that it be taught to all.

Not Beyond Thunderdome

 

We aren't beyond it, are we?  Not that the show put on at the White House was comparable to that in the film, and it certainly wasn't comparable to the shows on which all such contests are based--those of the ancient arena, much as we may imagine them to be.  Nor was the man presiding over the affair comparable to a Roman Emperor, much as he want may to be one. Perhaps he resembles Tiberius in his dotage, though, in some respects.

I've always been a fan of boxing. The violence seen in mixed martial arts cage fights doesn't necessarily disgust me.  Its lack of artistry annoys me, however, as does the preposterous display which accompanies it.  It's not quite as silly a display as we see in professional wrestling, but a cage?  Really?

Holding such a spectacle at the White House is offensive for a number of reasons, but it is most of all spectacularly vulger.  There's no other way to describe it.  It's crass and tasteless in the same sense as the Oval Office, now, stuffed as it is with golden gewgaws.  Vulgarity typifies this regime.  Even its versions of the American Eagle adorning the lecterns it uses seem bloated, and resembles in the tilt if its head a dodo.  The arch it plans as well as its much desired ballroom are gargantuan, in the manner of the monuments of Nero or Hitler's plans for Germania.  One can only hope that the visit to Versailles doesn't inspire more in the way of crass imitation.

Does vulgarity explain everything?  It requires ignorance, and someone who doesn't read or want to read is ignorant by choice and nature.  Sophistication is clearly lacking, which is unsurprising as sophistication requires knowledge of other people and cultures.  Simply put, such people don't want to know such things.  The narcissist is a solipsist.  A sophisticated person wouldn't be so blatantly vulgar.

The vulgar lack any concern for consequences.  Their goal is immediate gratification.  Planning isn't a strong point.  There seems to have been little long term planning involved in either the war with Iran or even the proposed, or perhaps supposed, peace.

There's once sense in which Aging Orange or whatever one is to call the strange creature inhabiting an increasingly tasteless White House plans ahead, however.  And that is in causing harm to those he believed wronged or slighted him. It may be more appropriate, though, to say that given an opportunity he will take advantage of it.

Which brings us back to Thunderdome.  It's no surprise that this White House played host to such an event.  We're in a dystopia of our own courtesy of the grotesque players of the grotesque game which is the government of our Great Republic.

Out of Touch, Out of Mind

 

It isn't quite a "Let them eat cake" moment, but it comes close.

Those infamous words were supposedly spoken by Marie Antoniette when she was told poor Parisian women were protesting as they and their families had no bread to eat.  There's no real evidence she said them, but they're considered characteristic of the wealthy and privileged who live lavish lives and rudely disregard the plight of those far less fortunate.

Princess Ivanka, if we may call her that, and her oddly sexless husband, or perhaps one of their corporations, have acquired an island off the coast of Albania called Sazan Island. They discovered it, if we may put it that way (I think they probably do) while cruising about the Mediterranian, aimlessly one would think.  They were swimming when it appeared before them like a promise if not the promised land.

They saw it and longed to develop it so it could achieve its full potential.  Yes, she said this.  It reaches its full potential when it's no longer protected land and so a haven for rare or endangered species, but has been turned into a luxury resort.  They realized this while walking about the island. They had a vision of luxury accomodations, condos and a resort, spread out as far as the eye could see.

Living in luxury, according to Ivanka, is how she wants to live.  And, she says, it is how more and more people want to live their lives.  She says this as though she found this to be a profound and new observation.  It's remarkable to her, it seems, that people have come to believe this about how to live their lives.  It's something she's come to believe, in any case

What's interesting about this is that her remarks suggest she believes everyone will or should come to think they must develop or live in luxury accomodations in new (to them) and still untouched parts of the world.  She's evidently oblivious to the fact that very few of us are able to spend the money needed to do what she wants to do to Sazan Island.  Those few who have the money to do so are those like the people she mentioned might visit her treasure island (like Jeff Bezos).

This conduct speaks to how isolated the very wealthy have become, and how ignorant they are of how the 99% live and what concerns them.  And, even more, it shows they don't care about such things if indeed they know of them.

Ain't We Got Fun?

 

I think some of the most poignant songs I've heard are those associated with what we call "The Roaring Twenties" and the "Great Depression."  Consider for example Brother Can You Spare a Dime? and We're in the Money and Ain't We Got Fun? and Pennies From Heaven.

All of those songs relate, of course, to money; the desire for it, the dream of it the possession of it and the lack of it.  Money inspires art, especially Pop Art.  It clearly inspires us as well.  It isn't clear anything else does.

Here, I mean, in our Glorious Union.  That may be because we make so much noise.  We live loudly if not well.  Perhaps our greed isn't unique and is merely noisy.  Avarice may be universal, and we're special only because we're exhibitionists.  We like to display our greed, our need.

 I don't mean to preach.  I simply note what is the case.

We live in a plutocracy so it's to be expected that those who have money are admired and those who don't are despised, or at best ignored.  But it's surprising that those who are truly plutocrats aren't just admired or envied but even defended or championed, as I've noted before. Defending the wealthy requiries a commitment to money that isn't merely personal.  Money becomes an ideal. It's inherently good.  It's to be prized as a good.

Those who have money may not be criticized because they have it, anymore than those who are virtuous should be criticized because they have virtue.  

Defending those who are wealthy merely because they're wealthy reflects a kind of depravity, and perhaps even a perversion.  It's not surprising, therefore, that we live in a society where the perversions of the wealthy are tolerated.

The Ease Of Corruption

 

There are figures in history renowned for their venality, dishonesty and depravity.  There have been great prodigies of corruption.  The names of Tallyrand and the Borgias come to mind readily enough. Our Great Republic (?) has had its share--Tammany Hall in the time of Bill Tweed was an impressive vehicle for graft.  The Teapot Dome scandal is a remarkable example of rot in politics.

But there's sonething about the current batch of degenerates running the country that makes them extraordinary.  It's certainly not their intelligence.  The squalid figure at their head is no "Napoleon of corruption."  He and his lackeys are mere brutes; pigs rooting for truffles or trifles.  Selfishness and avarice are a part of them. It's in their nature to be corrupt and to corrupt others.

And that's what makes them unique.  Acquiring money and resources through foul means is what they do.  Insider trading, the creation of slush funds, acceptance of gifts in return for favors, granting government contracts to friends or contractors in which they hold an equity interest, is as natural to them as belching or farting is to a hobo.

More than that, corruption is to them a matter of pride.  They don't try to dissimulate their depravity.  They flaunt it.  It's no surprise that their chief does so in the most tacky, florid way possible, plastering golden gimcrakery over every open space.  Grossness is the essence of the corrupt.

It's difficult to imagine how this will end.  Periods of excess are sometimes followed by periods of repression, but for that to take place there must be a recognition of what was excessive.  Do we still know what's excessive, now? What once was excessive corruption is now normal, even expected.  

This prevents what's taking place from taking on the wit and dignity of a parody.  It's so obvious it might be one in a reasonable world, but it has become our sad reality.