Dr. Ben Carson is one of the candidates for what seems to me to be the increasingly undesirable office of President of our Glorious Republic. It is at least being sought by undesirables if it is not undesirable in itself. In any event, Dr. Carson is at the center of the most current tempest in the teapot of our politics, which is largely devoted to expressions of outrage against one thing or another.
He has given the various pundits, media types and politicians who infest our country yet another opportunity to pontificate while on their way to their respective troughs, this time with respect to his comment that a Muslim should not be President. The Presidency is a position which arguably should not be held by anyone who seeks to be President, their sanity or their motivations being prima facie suspect. But declaring that a believer in a particular religion should not be President is of course problematic, or would be were in not for the fact that the particular religion in question is unpopular.
The good doctor has stumbled about while enlarging upon his statements, to the extent that he begins to appear incoherent. However, one of the things he has said seems to make a great deal of sense, to me at least. And that is, to paraphrase him, that someone whose religion conflicts with the Constitution should not be President. He has also made (in explanation of his comment specifically against a Muslim President) some encouraging statements against theocracy; not only Islamic theocracy but Christian theocracy.
The position that one should not be President if one cannot be faithful to the Constitution due to religious conviction is I think very defensible, and one which should apply in the case of any official charged with enforcing and implementing the law. The fact a Muslim was referred to has given some the irresistible urge to make claims of prejudice, and others an equally irresistible urge to elaborate on their belief that Christianity, or perhaps the Judeo-Christian belief system, is superior to Islam. For me, the histrionics engaged in by such people in claiming bigotry or (their) superiority are characteristic of the lamentable state of our political discourse (and our intelligence), and distract from the very significant point at issue, which may even have been the point Dr. Carson intended to make.
Put simply, religious believers should not be allowed to hold office if their religious convictions render them incapable of complying with their duty to enforce and implement the law. This may not be a position religious believers of any kind will be willing to accept, including some purported Christians, as we have seen. No distinction should be made among the religious convictions involved. If a religious conviction is such that those holding it believe themselves to be bound to flout secular law, they should not hold a position which requires them to comply with secular law.
This would not violate the prohibition against a "religious test" being used as a qualification for public office. That is because the rule of law itself is in question. Whether one is willing to comply with the law is not a "religious test"; it addresses whether one is willing to accept the rule of law. The law is not, and should not be, religious law; should not be religious, in fact, though it may in some cases be consistent with religious beliefs. In some cases it may not.
One of the more interesting statements to be found in the Bible is that of Jesus regarding rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. It's possible he may have simply been having a bit of fun at the expense of his questioner; it's a clever riposte, certainly. But laws are essential to government. They are peculiarly Caesar's in other words. They may be draconian, but when reasonable they're our best hope of living free from the dictates of others. There are few who are more eager to dictate to others than those who believe they have God's sanction to do so.
Those making the claim "freedom of religion" mandates the flouting of the law will, unless they are entirely stupid, eventually have to accept that this claim can be made equally by those who have religious beliefs which are radically different, which they would be unwilling to accept. It will not do for them to claim that believers in certain religions must comply with the law while believers in the religion they believe need not do so.
This particular controversy should serve to make this clear even to those politicians and pundits of the meanest understanding. But it's doubtful they'll take the time to address the issue thoughtfully. Thought is not encouraged or rewarded in these dark times.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
"A Child of the Earth and the Starry Heavens"
The words of the title of this post are the words initiates of the Orphic mysteries were taught to say when asked to identify themselves in the afterlife. It's a rather wonderful statement, I believe; a characterization to be proud of, poetic in nature.
The Orphic mysteries were what some might call a watered-down version of those of Dionysus; others might call them a far more reasonable version. The worship of Dionysus could be rather excessive, best characterized by the maenads, the female followers or priestesses of the god who worked themselves into a frenzy while paying homage. It apparently involved (so it's said), in some cases at least, tearing a poor animal to pieces and feasting on its raw flesh. The unfortunate beast thus was treated as Dionysus was by the Titans. The Orphic mysteries were much more subdued.
During the Roman period, the worship of Dionysus along with others, such as Magna Mater and Attis, Isis and Osiris, was fundamentally the worship of a god who died and was reborn, whose death and regeneration was for the salvation of humanity. Initiates of these cults were spoken of as having been "born again." If that is a somewhat familiar phrase, it should be. The similarity between Christianity and the ancient pagan cults popular in the time Christianity was born and became popular itself is remarkable. The extent to which Christianity is based on the ancient pagan mysteries would probably be even more stunning if the initiates of the pagan cults had been less faithful to their vows of secrecy and the early Church less successful in stamping them out.
But the Orphic identification has an additional significance, I think. Not because it speaks of men and women as part earth and part heaven. This view is something familiar to us through the dualism which has been fundamental to Western culture through the centuries; the distinction between body and soul. Rather, because of the use of the word "and" in the formula, if it may be called such. No distinction is made in this case. We are, therefore, children of earth and the heavens, as we are children of a man and a woman.
This isn't dualism in the traditional sense, at least as I interpret the phrase. A child of earth and heaven doesn't necessarily have two aspects, one inferior or of less worth than another, e.g. a body which is unimportant and a soul which is all-important. That's how we're conceived of by the Church and Plato before it. It's a point of view which consigns the world and living in it to insignificance, if it doesn't result in a view of our lives as being fraught with evil or impurity. It's a life-hating and world-hating perspective.
In my interpretation, the statement is one which acknowledges that the earth and the starry heavens are parts of a single whole, as are we. There is no reference to or reliance on something or some being which transcends the universe (and is therefore unimaginable and inconceivable). At the same time, though, there is an acknowledgment that the universe includes not "merely" us and the world as we know it, but may include much more that we have yet to encounter and will encounter someday, perhaps even after death; something among the "starry heavens."
As science indicates more and more that life exists throughout the universe, and that life here may be the result of the transmission of the elements favorable to life to our planet from other places, the reference to being a child of the starry heavens may be even more appropriate than the followers of Orpheus knew. Regardless, the phrase speaks to a form of religion or spirituality which is naturalistic, and a divinity which is immanent, also a part of the universe.
This seems to be the Stoic view, if Stoicism is as some claim a kind of religion, or a religious philosophy. It seems to have been to such to Epictetus and even Seneca, though the "thoughts" of Marcus Aurelius are ambiguous in this respect. Nevertheless, Stoicism generally at least in ancient times accepted the idea of Providence and a Divine Reason, present in the universe as a kind of matter.
There is a basis for a spirituality, a religion perhaps, which involves reverence for the universe and its creatures and is not dependent on a belief in something apart from the universe, i.e. apart from all we know and can know. I think one religion, one God, may be considered more reasonable than another even if not subject to proof. One that doesn't require acceptance of what cannot be experienced is prima facie more reasonable than one which does.
The Orphic mysteries were what some might call a watered-down version of those of Dionysus; others might call them a far more reasonable version. The worship of Dionysus could be rather excessive, best characterized by the maenads, the female followers or priestesses of the god who worked themselves into a frenzy while paying homage. It apparently involved (so it's said), in some cases at least, tearing a poor animal to pieces and feasting on its raw flesh. The unfortunate beast thus was treated as Dionysus was by the Titans. The Orphic mysteries were much more subdued.
During the Roman period, the worship of Dionysus along with others, such as Magna Mater and Attis, Isis and Osiris, was fundamentally the worship of a god who died and was reborn, whose death and regeneration was for the salvation of humanity. Initiates of these cults were spoken of as having been "born again." If that is a somewhat familiar phrase, it should be. The similarity between Christianity and the ancient pagan cults popular in the time Christianity was born and became popular itself is remarkable. The extent to which Christianity is based on the ancient pagan mysteries would probably be even more stunning if the initiates of the pagan cults had been less faithful to their vows of secrecy and the early Church less successful in stamping them out.
But the Orphic identification has an additional significance, I think. Not because it speaks of men and women as part earth and part heaven. This view is something familiar to us through the dualism which has been fundamental to Western culture through the centuries; the distinction between body and soul. Rather, because of the use of the word "and" in the formula, if it may be called such. No distinction is made in this case. We are, therefore, children of earth and the heavens, as we are children of a man and a woman.
This isn't dualism in the traditional sense, at least as I interpret the phrase. A child of earth and heaven doesn't necessarily have two aspects, one inferior or of less worth than another, e.g. a body which is unimportant and a soul which is all-important. That's how we're conceived of by the Church and Plato before it. It's a point of view which consigns the world and living in it to insignificance, if it doesn't result in a view of our lives as being fraught with evil or impurity. It's a life-hating and world-hating perspective.
In my interpretation, the statement is one which acknowledges that the earth and the starry heavens are parts of a single whole, as are we. There is no reference to or reliance on something or some being which transcends the universe (and is therefore unimaginable and inconceivable). At the same time, though, there is an acknowledgment that the universe includes not "merely" us and the world as we know it, but may include much more that we have yet to encounter and will encounter someday, perhaps even after death; something among the "starry heavens."
As science indicates more and more that life exists throughout the universe, and that life here may be the result of the transmission of the elements favorable to life to our planet from other places, the reference to being a child of the starry heavens may be even more appropriate than the followers of Orpheus knew. Regardless, the phrase speaks to a form of religion or spirituality which is naturalistic, and a divinity which is immanent, also a part of the universe.
This seems to be the Stoic view, if Stoicism is as some claim a kind of religion, or a religious philosophy. It seems to have been to such to Epictetus and even Seneca, though the "thoughts" of Marcus Aurelius are ambiguous in this respect. Nevertheless, Stoicism generally at least in ancient times accepted the idea of Providence and a Divine Reason, present in the universe as a kind of matter.
There is a basis for a spirituality, a religion perhaps, which involves reverence for the universe and its creatures and is not dependent on a belief in something apart from the universe, i.e. apart from all we know and can know. I think one religion, one God, may be considered more reasonable than another even if not subject to proof. One that doesn't require acceptance of what cannot be experienced is prima facie more reasonable than one which does.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Thou Shalt Not Issue Certain Marriage Licenses
The recalcitrant Ms. Davis, arbiter of who may or may not be married in Rowan County, Kentucky, has this date been jailed, appropriately enough I think, for contempt of court.
As all know, she claims God Himself decrees that she refuse to follow the law. This is, presumably, the same God who decreed she should be divorced from three previous husbands, leaving one to wonder why God, who apparently takes marriage so seriously that He will suffer it to take place only in certain cases, has no problem with it being entered into and then dissolved so frequently. Serial marriage is it seems perfectly fine with the Deity, provided it is between a man or a woman. This particular county clerk evidently has no problem with it either.
Now as far as I am concerned, Ms. Davis may divorce her current husband and his successors, if any, and this won't necessarily mean she is a bad person or even a sinner. I don't mean to castigate her or others who claim that they may ignore or break the law whenever they think God wants them to as immoral. But I do mean to say that she and they are seriously misguided and thoughtless, and that such a belief is potentially dangerous.
It's difficult to know where to begin in addressing this kind of belief. It seems almost self-evident that if people are allowed to refuse to follow the law as it impacts others and the rights of others because of their religious beliefs, the rule of law doesn't exist. I don't address laws which apply only to the rights of believers. In that case, there may be some basis for asserting a First Amendment right. But I don't think the First Amendment contemplates the religious limiting the rights of other persons by virtue of claimed religious beliefs. Thus, I doubt any court will hold that someone whose religion mandates that, e.g., someone of a certain race, or disabled people, cannot marry need not issue marriage licenses. Happily, we haven't reached that point (yet?).
I think a religion the free exercise of which requires that legal rights be denied to others is a curious religion indeed. I suspect that if this woman was Muslim, and maintained that she could not comply with her legal duties because of some Islamic belief, neither Mr. Huckabee nor Mr. Cruz nor anyone else would be claiming her rights were being violated.
But at this time I wish to focus on what I think is an issue which must be addressed before others when such claims as those made by Ms. Davis are made. For such as me, an initial question is...why would God care who gets married according to the law? Assuming it's God's law that certain people shouldn't get married, and God's law is superior to that of the law of humans, why does it matter if the law of the United States or any other nation allows them to marry? The marriage would be valid only as far as the secular authority is concerned; it wouldn't be truly valid; what's valid is what God decides is valid. So, the marriage licenses issued by the state would be bogus in the eyes of God, and God's eyes are the only eyes that matter.
Why would God decree that clerks shall not issue licenses which are clearly bogus? None of those prohibited by God from being married would really be married in any case. Even if God is the highly officious being contemplated by the Abrahamic religions, God isn't likely to be concerned regarding anything which is not the case.
It would seem that God, or those who believe that they stand in the shoes of God, as it were, should be concerned with marriage licenses only if they result in marriages God has prohibited. If they don't, there should be no concern.
As there plainly is a concern, however, it would seem that God and those who claim to serve him in this respect believe that the marriage licenses in fact create a forbidden marriage. That is problematic for the religious though, as that is to impute some kind of validity to secular marriage even if it is contrary to God's will. In other words, the refusal to issue marriage licenses would arise from the belief that the licenses are valid regardless of the will of God. I doubt that's a position anyone who would claim that gay marriage is forbidden by God would want to take.
Ms. Davis and others in similar governmental positions don't cause people to be married, they don't bless the marriages of people. They merely issue licenses. They process certain paperwork when certain fees are paid and certain requirements set by the law (not by them) are met.
So is it God's directive is we cannot issue marriage licenses to gays, regardless of the fact those licenses are not valid...are in fact invalid? That would be to claim the processing of certain paperwork is in itself sinful, against one's religion. God becomes in that case a kind of Divine Bureaucrat.
It's astonishing the extent to which certain of those who claim to believe in God and follow his laws manage to demean God when they do so.
As all know, she claims God Himself decrees that she refuse to follow the law. This is, presumably, the same God who decreed she should be divorced from three previous husbands, leaving one to wonder why God, who apparently takes marriage so seriously that He will suffer it to take place only in certain cases, has no problem with it being entered into and then dissolved so frequently. Serial marriage is it seems perfectly fine with the Deity, provided it is between a man or a woman. This particular county clerk evidently has no problem with it either.
Now as far as I am concerned, Ms. Davis may divorce her current husband and his successors, if any, and this won't necessarily mean she is a bad person or even a sinner. I don't mean to castigate her or others who claim that they may ignore or break the law whenever they think God wants them to as immoral. But I do mean to say that she and they are seriously misguided and thoughtless, and that such a belief is potentially dangerous.
It's difficult to know where to begin in addressing this kind of belief. It seems almost self-evident that if people are allowed to refuse to follow the law as it impacts others and the rights of others because of their religious beliefs, the rule of law doesn't exist. I don't address laws which apply only to the rights of believers. In that case, there may be some basis for asserting a First Amendment right. But I don't think the First Amendment contemplates the religious limiting the rights of other persons by virtue of claimed religious beliefs. Thus, I doubt any court will hold that someone whose religion mandates that, e.g., someone of a certain race, or disabled people, cannot marry need not issue marriage licenses. Happily, we haven't reached that point (yet?).
I think a religion the free exercise of which requires that legal rights be denied to others is a curious religion indeed. I suspect that if this woman was Muslim, and maintained that she could not comply with her legal duties because of some Islamic belief, neither Mr. Huckabee nor Mr. Cruz nor anyone else would be claiming her rights were being violated.
But at this time I wish to focus on what I think is an issue which must be addressed before others when such claims as those made by Ms. Davis are made. For such as me, an initial question is...why would God care who gets married according to the law? Assuming it's God's law that certain people shouldn't get married, and God's law is superior to that of the law of humans, why does it matter if the law of the United States or any other nation allows them to marry? The marriage would be valid only as far as the secular authority is concerned; it wouldn't be truly valid; what's valid is what God decides is valid. So, the marriage licenses issued by the state would be bogus in the eyes of God, and God's eyes are the only eyes that matter.
Why would God decree that clerks shall not issue licenses which are clearly bogus? None of those prohibited by God from being married would really be married in any case. Even if God is the highly officious being contemplated by the Abrahamic religions, God isn't likely to be concerned regarding anything which is not the case.
It would seem that God, or those who believe that they stand in the shoes of God, as it were, should be concerned with marriage licenses only if they result in marriages God has prohibited. If they don't, there should be no concern.
As there plainly is a concern, however, it would seem that God and those who claim to serve him in this respect believe that the marriage licenses in fact create a forbidden marriage. That is problematic for the religious though, as that is to impute some kind of validity to secular marriage even if it is contrary to God's will. In other words, the refusal to issue marriage licenses would arise from the belief that the licenses are valid regardless of the will of God. I doubt that's a position anyone who would claim that gay marriage is forbidden by God would want to take.
Ms. Davis and others in similar governmental positions don't cause people to be married, they don't bless the marriages of people. They merely issue licenses. They process certain paperwork when certain fees are paid and certain requirements set by the law (not by them) are met.
So is it God's directive is we cannot issue marriage licenses to gays, regardless of the fact those licenses are not valid...are in fact invalid? That would be to claim the processing of certain paperwork is in itself sinful, against one's religion. God becomes in that case a kind of Divine Bureaucrat.
It's astonishing the extent to which certain of those who claim to believe in God and follow his laws manage to demean God when they do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)